On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 12:08 PM, John J Barton <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks to everyone for the encouragement. It's really too bad there is > nothing we can do but try to remain calm while we get bad press. The > startup improvements are very difficult and they must wait for more > pressing work to be completed.
While it's indeed frustrating, I wouldn't worry about it. FB is a critical web development debugging tool. Anyone concerned about a < 1 second increase in FF startup time added by it is unlikely to be doing that sort of development. And people who *are* doing that sort of development are unlikely to be using FF in a manner where they would even *notice* the slightly slower startup. You only notice if you hop in and out of the browser all day like you used to with IE, and if you do that, you're arguably doing it wrong. I start FF 4 when I sit down at the computer, and simply leave it running. If Mozilla wants to make me happy, they'll find and squash more of the memory leaks that still exist. As a test, I started an instance of FF 4 with *no* extensions installed on a blank profile without even bookmarks defined, and left it up overnight. It wasn't *doing* anything at all save residing in memory, but in the morning, the FF process was using twice as much memory (as reported by Process Explorer) as it was when I first ran it. Er, why? Something is leaking somewhere... FB brings enough to the table that I'd happily accept a much longer startup delay to get what it offers. > jjb _____ Dennis -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Firebug" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en.
