I personally can't see much advantage of putting the browser executables on a ramdisk - they're small enough to load fast even on a mechanical HDD, and (for most people's usage patterns) once the browser is loaded, it stays loaded most of the day.
make sense is storing the browser cache on a ramdisk (I wouldn't disable it even if I had a 100mbit connection - latency and throughput to a local disk is a lot faster than any network connection) and, even more so, the firefox profile. Firefox does a fair amount of small reads and writes all the time while you're browsing to various SQLite databases (cookies, browsing history, website offline storage, et cetera).
I would recommend SoftPerfect RAM disk
- it's fast(*), free, stable and no-nonsense. It supports persisting the contents to disk, and doing so at regular intervals, making it optimal both for %TEMP%(**) and for keeping data around.
(*): yes, there's noticable speed differences between ramdisk products.
(**): some installers expect %TEMP% to be persistant across reboots...
Hopefully applications know enough to check available disk space before trying to park giant temp files, like for m2ts muxing.
They generally don't
- if you want %TEMP% on a ramdisk, you should dedicate a sizable chunk, and be prepared to do one-off reverts especially for installers. 1gig works pretty OK for me, additionally storing firefox profile and WebSiteWatcher bookmarks.
The problem is it handles a huge amount of memory just to display the pages. The engine is inefficient and it leaks like there's no tomorrow. To be fair, it was even worse.
"Leaks like no tomorrow" hasn't been true for quite a while, leaks are mostly caused by poorly written addons. The engine isn't inefficient either, but there's tradeoffs... Firefox can get unresponsive if you're trying to load a zillion tabs at once, since it happens in one process, whereas Chrome launches a new process for each tab. So yeah, Chrome is more responsive in that scenario, but also ends up using a heavy chunk of memory.
Anyway, as the working space used by Firefox approaches to 10 figures (in bytes), just occupying that large a space becomes a burden on the CPU. Hence we have the unresponsive Firefox problem.
That sentence makes no sense