Firewhybother

[CityK]

Tbird 1.5 seems to have issues with asking for passwords when it shouldn't

I found it mighty percular that I would provide my password, have it accepted, and then (say 10 minutes later) be asked for the password on the account again...Anyways, as I said above, something seems to have corrected that, as I no longer seem to have that issue...Bloodly annoying it was though.

 

[CityK]

Hello Mr.Kurns. I bad want money now. Me sick.

Ooh he card reads good.

 

[Tannin]

One thing I forgot to mention - back on the other CPU utilisation problem now, having been utterly confused by CityK and not having Tea around to translate it for me - is that one reasonably sure-fire way to trigger the CPU hogging is .... you guessed it ... Adobe Acrobat.

Now you don't always get it when you load up Abrocat from inside Firefox/Mozilla/Seamonkey, and you can still get the problem even when you haven't touched Acrocrap this session, but it seems to be substantially more likely where Atrocrud is involved. But also, other high RAM-usage things: e.g., lots of tabs with lots of images in each one.

So, I surmise that the issue has to do with the way that the Moz-based browsers handle RAM allocation. Something triggers a "we need to manage this RAM" routine, and, once triggered, it chews up lots of CPU doing its job, but then goes on chewing up cycles even after the task is completed.

OK, that's pure speculation, but the problem certainy seems to crop up more often with embedded Acrobat and/or lots of graphics, and (I think) with excessive scripting junk too.

As I said earlier, Opera seems to be immune to the problem, so I could just use Opera for everything - I like Opera better than Firefox anyway, and about equally with Mozilla/Seamonkey. (Either one is fine.) But - scratch an old OS/2 user who doesn't think it's multi-tasking unless you have completely lost count of the number of windows you have open - I habitually have a heap of wndows open with a heap of tabs, and it's much easier to keep track of things if you have different browsers for different tasks. For example, I use Moz for the offroadsubarus.com and DPR, Firefox for Bird Forum, Opera for SF and BIRD. Plus Opera and Moz about equally for general-purpose surfing. If I'm in the middle of something else (which is normal) and I want to flick over to check the SF threads I'm following, I only have to look for the appropriate Opera window - I don't have to bother checking the FF or Moz windows, as I know that SF is always Opera, Bird Forum is always Firfox, and so on.

 

[timwhit]

Hello Mr.Kurns. I bad want money now. Me sick.

Ooh he card reads good.

That brightened my morning. Thanks CityK.

 

[CougTek]

Glad someone like that comment, because I simply don't get it. For a moment, I thought they had developped a stronger variety of weed in Toronto.

 

[timwhit]

It's from the Simpsons Episode where Bart is Burn's heir. You can read it here: http://www.snpp.com/episodes/1F16.html

 

[mubs]

CPU hogging: Try this page. On my 2xP3-900 1GB RAM, my CPU utilization is consistently betwwen 37 and 48%, not doing anything at all. CPU is hogged even if that tab is not the active one. Task Mangler says it's FF that's doing the hogging. Mem usage for FF is 90MB, peak 109MB, VM 76MB. Peak system-wide RAM usage was 330MB, currently it's 308MB. In this instance, it's not RAM or paging that's the problem, it's the monster eating my pore CPUs. The link is a pretty simple page except for the ads. I think that's what the problem is.

 

[mubs]

Glad someone like that comment, because I simply don't get it. For a moment, I thought they had developped a stronger variety of weed in Toronto.

You have company, Coug. I had no idea what that was all about either. Thanks Tim.

 

[LiamC]

You named IE, validating my statement.

I excluded IE 6, partly because it's about to be replaced.

Your point about Opera? This is a FF discussion. What has Opera got to do with it? Opera works? Great. But if you are going to introduce other browsers, what happens with K-Meleon, Safari, Avanti, Maxthon, IE 7, and a host of others. I don't know, so that is why I did not mention specific browser functionality.

I was clearly responding to your statement: "In other browsers you might not be so lucky."

Did you not see "might" in my statement? I think you have taken my statement out of context. IE 6 is the dominant browser now, and in the foreseeable future. And as I clearly explained, above, I was unsure of how others behave, so I used the word "might" How is this unclear?

Are you miffed (still) because I disagreed with your comments on CVT?

Your rapid raising of the stakes in these discussions is explicitly why I did not respond to you about CVT. Some of your claims in that thread were in fact wrong, but it became impossible to point this out without you taking personal offence.

Now this is where it gets interesting. Can you define/state how I am "raising the stakes"—and I'm inferring from your wording that you mean in a derogatory or threatening manner?

The above is just an ad-hominem.

Whether you meant to or not, I feel you made a thinly veiled attack on Timwhit without substance. I understand and empathize all too well with your current frustration, but "rabid" is a word that springs to mind. Chill, my friend, you're looking in the wrong place for dragons to slay.

Attack? What was the nature of this attack if I may ask? Did I call timwhit names? Did I disparage his character? Did I use expletives? No I did not. I noticed you used "rabid". Have I used any such descriptors replying to you? Did I use any describing timwhit? Was it the emphasis (bolding) I placed on certain words that made you feel I was attacking timwhit? If your answer to this is yes, I will be happy to quote the original passage and elaborate on the usage of bolding. Did you think I was being derisive? If so, how or in what manner? The point of the passage was to highlight the fact that it the default settings in question did not suit timwhit (and as you pointed out), and others. But, (and this is/was the thrust of my argument) it is a guaranteed impossibility that such global settings will suit everybody. If they were changed to suit timwhit (and others) then they will be happy, but others may not be. There is no "winner" for this. It will suit some, it won't suit others. But at least the FF design team recognised this and provided for it. I stated that it was the default setting which was probably at issue—this is at worst pedantic, but I would hope that people saw it as identifying the actual problem. So if it is my use of bolding that is (and I'm not saying it is, I'm asking for clarification) the cause of your complaint, then I'd suggest you read my sig—I think you have read too much into what I posted.

As for your comments on CVT, can you explain to me what I took as a personal attack? I see a bunch of arguments put forward and refutations on both sides. Defending my stance. You bet. Aggressive, rude, derogatory? No! If you believe so, feel free to quote and explain why. What I do see in this post is you saying (again) that I was wrong and cannot accept it. In my replies to you in the CVT thread I quoted your arguments and explained why I disagreed with them and where appropriate, provided links to back the arguments I put forward. That is not being wrong and non-acceptance. You on the other hand, just say I'm wrong. No links, no explanation no supporting anything. Just "you're wrong". Sorry, if I'm not convinced. You may have in depth knowledge on this subject, but you have (so far) provided nothing to convince me that you do. I am always open to changing my stance though. Perhaps you took the word "assertion" as being derogatory? Any unsupported statement is an assertion. Mine, yours, anyones. All I have asked is that you provide something to back what you said, but (and this is important) only if you want to. No where have I demanded that you do so. Nor I have said flatly that you are wrong. I think it is you that is taking things too personally, not I. I did post counter arguments to the ones you put forward, but I never attacked you personally, or anyone else for that matter.

Myself, when I do not agree with someone and do not wish to contribute further I just say, "I don't agree with you" and leave it at that, which effectively ends my involvement in a discussion.

 

[LiamC]

CPU hogging: Try this page. On my 2xP3-900 1GB RAM, my CPU utilization is consistently betwwen 37 and 48%, not doing anything at all. CPU is hogged even if that tab is not the active one. Task Mangler says it's FF that's doing the hogging. Mem usage for FF is 90MB, peak 109MB, VM 76MB. Peak system-wide RAM usage was 330MB, currently it's 308MB. In this instance, it's not RAM or paging that's the problem, it's the monster eating my pore CPUs. The link is a pretty simple page except for the ads. I think that's what the problem is.

Shut down FF and restart. 3 tabs open, your link above, this thread on SF and http://www.abc.net.au/news/ CPU 0~2% and 26 836KB of mem.

I seem to recall having seen strange CPU usage with PC-Cillan and some web pages which required me to disable some feature, so I will include that
my AV is Symantec (work system) and system is a P4 Willamette 1.6GHz with 2GB of memory. I will post results from my home systems when I get there.

 

[mubs]

I use AVG. Obviously, I have a slow CPU and a slow system bus. That will change in a few weeks, though

 

[LiamC]

3 tabs open, your link above, this thread on SF and http://www.abc.net.au/news/ CPU 0~2% and 26 836KB of mem.

CPU 0~2%, 29 232KB

X2 3800+ 1GB RAM AVG

 

[LiamC]

Possible solution. I remember reading about how AMD processors seem to have an issue with Flash/Shockwave.

I use Flashblock.

I uninstalled Flashblock and restarted Firefox.

Now with the same three windows open, FF usage is switches between 8~21% of an X2 with memory usage of 32 564KB.

If you have many Flash heavy windows open, AMD processor and something slower than an X2 then you will experience high CPU usage and larger than normal memory usage. The implication is that this is primarily a Flash/AMD issue and not Firefox, or at least not only FF.

If anybody is experiencing this issue and not using Flashblock, can I ask that you download Flashblock, install it and restart FF with the above test or some other test of multiple Flash heavy sites.

 

[LiamC]

Re-installed Flashblock, same three windows open as above

CPU 0%, 28 504KB

It would be useful to devise a list of Flash heavy sites so a test could be formulated and the FF developers alerted for comment

 

[LiamC]

For the Opera lovers, it looks like Opera had a similar problem at one stage, but solved it.

http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=119047

 

[mubs]

Thanks for the testing, Bill. I'm unable to install Flashblock; the "server timed out". Will keep trying and will report back.

 

[mubs]

You're right, Bill, looks like Flash is the problem. I installed Flashblock, closed FF, cleared cache, came to this page, opened my link in a new tab; CPU util was 0-1%.

Uninstalled Flashblock, did same thing (two tabs only), and CPU util varies between 2% and 22%.

Obviously if I have multiple tabs open, each with some Flash stuff on it, my CPU'll get killed. I'm on a P3, not AMD. So what's common between P3s and AMD XPs? Lack of the newer SSE / Screaming Cindy stuff?

 

[CityK]

It would be useful to devise a list of Flash heavy sites so a test could be formulated and the FF developers alerted for comment

Try Anandtech without Flashblock and Adblock ... warning, may cause blindness

 

[LiamC]

Found this just now on the relative performance of Flash

http://www.philsteinmeyer.com/xoops/modules/news/article.php?storyid=18

Results (milliseconds to complete benchmarks, lower is better)
Visual C: 16
Java: 352
Flash: 10,753

That's right - Java is ~ 20 times slower than C, and Flash is ~30 times slower than Java (and more than 600 times slower than C). Ouch.

Note: later on someone else benchs Java and acheives 38 & 24 milli's, so only 50 to 100% slower than optimised C, and on par with other HLL's. But Flash! Ughh! Shoot all Flash developers.

 

[LiamC]

You're right, Bill, looks like Flash is the problem. I installed Flashblock, closed FF, cleared cache, came to this page, opened my link in a new tab; CPU util was 0-1%.

Uninstalled Flashblock, did same thing (two tabs only), and CPU util varies between 2% and 22%.

Obviously if I have multiple tabs open, each with some Flash stuff on it, my CPU'll get killed. I'm on a P3, not AMD. So what's common between P3s and AMD XPs? Lack of the newer SSE / Screaming Cindy stuff?

Hmmm.Just tried this on my P!!!-600 320MB RAM FF & no extensions on Win98SE

CPU is 1% according to Process Explorer, so the Flash bug isn't getting to this machine—which re-inforces my thought about this issue being AMD specific. But that raises the interesting question of why you are seeing it on an Intel machine. What extensions do you have loaded?

Do you know if you are using an ACPI HAL/BIOS?

What OS?

Do you have the latest BIOS for your machine? I'm wondering if SSE is recognised on your machine. If Flash is optmised for P4 and defaults to x386 & x87 for all other machines (i.e any Pentium 1 class machine or better), that would explain Flash chewing cycles like there is no tomorrow

 

[LiamC]

Gaaack! Don't mind me mubs. Ignore the above. It would help if I had Flash & Shockwave installed! With the two nefarious plug-ins, FF CPU is between 4 and 48% :eekers:

 

[Bozo]

I would think everyones CPU usage would be at 100%. Aren't you Folding???

Bozo :mrgrn:

 

[LiamC]

Yep, but had to turn off folding temporarily.

/. -5 for dedication to the cause

 

[LiamC]

Something I didn't consider when running the P4 tests is that my work P4 is behind firewall and the Flash does not display. If anyone with a P4 can check, it would be most helpful.

 

[LiamC]

Nailed it.

Apparently Flash uses some timers to drive the display rate. Firefox/Mozilla did not implement these timer functions in order to avoid high CPU usage, and with 1 or 2 flash ads per page, this wouldn't be a problem. But web designers
are morons, and they want absurd frame rates. A way to code around this is to place code in Flash's ActionScript. Blame idiot coders.

http://www.kaourantin.net/2006/05/frame-rates-in-flash-player.html

 

[timwhit]

I just have to say that the search suggestions in Firefox 2 are great. I don't know that any other browser has this feature.

 

[LiamC]

Silliest extension I've seen. It might be funny for all of five seconds, but , hey! kudos for even thinking of it.

https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/974/

Go on, click on it!

 

[Handruin]

I installed it.

 

[Mercutio]

I think the silliest Firefox extension was the "Abe Vigoda Status" extension that would, when clicked, tell you if Abe Vigoda is alive or dead.

Sadly it does not appear to work with Firefox 2.

 

[Handruin]

I uninstalled it. Grew old pretty quick.

 

[timwhit]

I uninstalled it. Grew old pretty quick.

Who woulda thought?