mvocom at gmail.com
Mon Jun 29 00:11:32 UTC 2015
Hello JS4Lf, Eric, Daniel and David,
Thank you for replying and for the useful information.
1) Each component in itself may indeed not be a primary source of memory
consumption. All of them combined might be significant.
In the last few years, each new version has added about 6 MB to memory
consumption on start-up.
I'm sure that many of the various improvements are relevant to all
users. Yet, many other features are important to a relatively small
Please don't get me wrong: all the features I have mentioned are great,
but why impose them on those who never use them?
2) IMO, the binary size matters as well.
3) I mentioned ABP because of its popularity and high memory consumption.
But even if (or rather when; thank you all who are working
on it) this issue is resolved, the basic question remains: why not
adapt Firefox to the vast majority of users?
2015-06-29 1:00 GMT+03:00 Daniel Holbert <dholbert at mozilla.com>:
> Someone posted basically the same request last year, here:
> Please see the responses in that thread. Basically, the features you
> mention are (or should be) designed to be "lazily loaded", so they don't
> consume any memory at all until they're used. So, removing them wouldn't
> actually help.
> We do have people working on finding & fixing memory leaks and reducing
> memory usage, for what it's worth. (And in many cases, add-ons like ABP
> are partly to blame; see for example this post from last year:
> On 06/27/2015 05:38 PM, M V wrote:
> > Hello,
> > FF 39 consumes approximately 240 MB on start-up (with ABP installed).
> > The average user doesn't use any of the Dev Tools.
> > Also, many users never use WebRTC, Pocket, Reader etc..
> > How about offering users Firefox Lite?
> > - Either a separate FF version, or providing the option to choose the
> > components to install.
> > I'm quite sure it would enlarge Firefox market share.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the firefox-dev