<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Judah</div><div><br></div><div>Is this something that has started for you after the release of 32.0a nightly?</div><div><br></div><div>Sid<br><br>Sent from my iPhone<div><br></div><div><a href="http://brownianmotionofthoughts.wordpress.com">http://brownianmotionofthoughts.wordpress.com</a></div></div><div><br>On 13-May-2014, at 22:46, Judah Richardson <<a href="mailto:judahrichardson@gmail.com">judahrichardson@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Siddharth Kumar Singh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sks3286@gmail.com" target="_blank">sks3286@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div>Been having lot of stability issues with the x86 build ever since the release of the 32.0a nightly. Significantly I have seen a rise in the memory usage for the same number of tabs. What previously (upto 31.0a) took 1.3GB of RAM now frequently occupies 1.8GB and I have seen it climb upto 2.3GB. Also, once the process surpasses 1.8GB, the browser becomes very unstable frequently getting stuck on sites that use flash, JS (gmail, fb, twitter) or when i try to download a file and the browser has to open the file browser for me to put in the save location. In the first two cases the browser becomes unresponsive and i am forced to end the process using the Windows Task Manager. In the third use case, the browser window disappears completely and a few seconds later the plugin container process crashes.</div>
</div></blockquote><div>This describes what I've seen with 32-bit Firefox <i>exactly</i>. It is, as I said in my previous email, completely unusable for heavy browsing sessions. This is especially the case nowadays when almost any website you load is practically a self-contained Javascript/HTML5 webapp. <br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div><br></div><div>As a test case, I ran the same tabs in 32.0a x64 nightly on my linux 14.04 build on the same computer. The RAM usage was marginally less (probably due to Linux resource management) but the browser's stability was markedly higher. IIRC the browser crashed only once in all my testing. </div>
</div></blockquote><div>Again: exactly. Thanks for the input :) <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div><br></div><div>Cheers!</div>
<div>Sid<br><br>Sent from my iPhone<div><br></div><div><a href="http://brownianmotionofthoughts.wordpress.com" target="_blank">http://brownianmotionofthoughts.wordpress.com</a></div></div><div><div class="h5"><div><br>On 13-May-2014, at 21:25, Judah Richardson <<a href="mailto:judahrichardson@gmail.com" target="_blank">judahrichardson@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Bryan Price <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bytehead@gmail.com" target="_blank">bytehead@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Łukasz Tomczak <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tomczak.luk@gmail.com" target="_blank">tomczak.luk@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>"[1]: x64 binaries are larger, slower, and IIRC provide no security
benefits. And data shows that basically no one has enough tabs and
windows to actually hit the x86 memory limit."<br><br></div></div>Badly written multi-threaded applications are too slower, so it means that we should stay with one-core only? Oh come on. I'm not saying that Mozilla should drop support for x86, I just think that they should get some more hands to work on x64, nothing more.<br>
<br></div>Anyway, we have got an update today.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Woohoo! I didn't even bother to check like I usually do when I start in the morning.<br><br></div><div>Also, I've seen my 64-bit Firefox use 6+ GB of memory on a regular basis, especially when I was using Google Reader and using that for a few hours. Yeah, it's going to take quite the number of static open web pages to hit the 4GB limit, but today we rarely see a static web page.<br>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div>Same here. 32-bit Firefox crashes, becomes unresponsive, or just disappears entirely in my browsing sessions for the same reason, rendering it unusable. <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div dir="ltr"></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">2014-05-13 3:19 GMT+02:00 Alex Jordan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alexander3223098@gmail.com" target="_blank">alexander3223098@gmail.com</a>></span>:<div>
<div><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">On May 12, 2014 2:46 PM, "Łukasz Tomczak" <<a href="mailto:tomczak.luk@gmail.com" target="_blank">tomczak.luk@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> I don't know why Mozilla keeps forgetting about x64 build of Fx. Time, when x86 was ruling passed. x64 is the future of IT, soon we won't have x86 systems and I don't know why x86 is a priority for them.<br>
Because, shocking as it may be, Mozilla is a very resource-constrained organization. Which would you rather do: keep going with x86, which is well-established in the marketplace and in mozilla-central, well-tested, and future-compatible, or spend a huge amount of effort on x64 for a very questionable[1] benefit?</p>
</blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote><div>If that's the case, then why do supported 64-bit builds exist for Linux? This existence shoots your argument full of holes.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr"> And remember that because x64 isn't backwards-compatible, Mozilla would have to maintain both (or drop x86, and lose the large portion of users who don't have x64 yet</p>
</blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote><div>Again, both 32- and 64-bit builds exist for Linux, while "the large portion" - to use your own words - of Firefox users are on Windows. Your argument is inconsistent at best.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr"> - cutting into Firefox's already relatively small market share).<br>
Think about all that for a minute. That's why Mozilla doesn't focus on, as you label it, "the future of IT".</p></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote><div>
Oh really? Then what was the whole "Kill IE6" thing <a href="http://www.tomsguide.com/us/mozilla-firefox-ie6-ie9,news-10381.html" target="_blank">http://www.tomsguide.com/us/mozilla-firefox-ie6-ie9,news-10381.html</a> about then? If "Mozilla doesn't focus on ... the future" - using your own words - shouldn't the organization found a way to work with IE6's continued existence? IIRC, one of the reasons official Win64 build support doesn't exist is Mozilla still uses an outdated build process in an effort to support XP, a *13 year old OS.* Clearly there's a lot of inconsistency if not outright hypocrisy to be found in Mozilla's stance on this matter.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<p dir="ltr"> [1]: x64 binaries are larger, slower, and IIRC provide no security benefits.</p></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote><div>Again, 64-bit builds are officially supported for Linux, so there's no reason not to support them on Windows, which has a much higher install base.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr"> And data shows that basically no one has enough tabs and windows to actually hit the x86 memory limit.</p>
</blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote><div>Which data? Could you provide a link to this? Obviously you have users - such as Brian and myself - whose experience contradicts that.<br>
<br></div><div>Oh yeah, and because Firefox is the only major browser lacking per-tab processes - what happened to Electrolysis, guys? - 64-bit builds are the only way to circumvent the 32-bit RAM limit using it. There's quite literally no other way.<br>
<br></div><div>IMO, Mozilla is exhibiting the same contempt for Windows users that I experienced at a software dev company I once worked for that was ostensibly multiplatform but in reality was "Mac first, screw everybody else." The decision to kill official Win64 support was made in the same manner: by fiat with no consultation with or concern for end users. Based on this, I do perceive an outright antipathy towards myself and other Windows users from Mozilla. As someone who's contributed to the testing and troubleshooting process and fiercely defended and advocated Firefox in the face of "just use Chrome" that everyone else says, I can't help but feel betrayed, snubbed, and slapped in the face by this. Go big or go home. Do something well or don't do it at all. Please stop half-***ing Windows development.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote></div></div></div><br></div>
<br></div>_______________________________________________<br>
Nightly-testers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Nightly-testers@mozilla.org" target="_blank">Nightly-testers@mozilla.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/nightly-testers" target="_blank">https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/nightly-testers</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><span><font color="#888888"><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>"I never said half the things the Internet says I said." -- Mark Twain
</font></span></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Nightly-testers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Nightly-testers@mozilla.org" target="_blank">Nightly-testers@mozilla.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/nightly-testers" target="_blank">https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/nightly-testers</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Nightly-testers mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Nightly-testers@mozilla.org" target="_blank">Nightly-testers@mozilla.org</a></span><br>
<span><a href="https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/nightly-testers" target="_blank">https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/nightly-testers</a></span><br></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</div></blockquote></body></html>