Thats nothing! I have the worlds lamest Emachine that our family got maybe 5-6 years ago. I have upgraded the RAM a couple years back and it now has one whole gig!I must be living right or something, because I'm not having any memory issues with FF. I've trimmed down XP to the bare essentials when it comes to apps running in the background. That, and 4GB of RAM, keep my humble computer running just fine-dandy
I'm going to build a new machine this month for Windows 7 once I decide on what I want under the hood.
The stupid thing won't die so I can't get the go ahead on a building one. When I do I'm thinking Qaudcore, 8GB of RAM and 2 SLI or Crossfire graphics cards. I would like 3 widescreen monitors. Yes I dream.........to much.BTW I don't use the Emachine much I took over the laptop(dual core, 4GB of Ram).
Chrome for the win! Just don't run it longer than 4 hours!
Thanks for the insight, glad to have you on the forum!That's EXACTLY the problem.
FF is written in C++ and there are a lot of programmers out there that believed Microsoft when they said that closing a process will cause all memory that that process requested to be returned to the free memory pool and/or that garbage collection will find that orphaned memory and return it to the pool.
That is not the case at all. Every time the programmer requests an object instance be created a memory allocation request goes out and is serviced. If the programmer doesn't explicitly return that object instance to the system that memory is lost to the system and even garbage collection will not find it.
The objects that I'm talking about are windows, tabs, fonts, brushes for graphics, and all sorts of high level processes.
When I was programming in C++ for Windows NT we had a inviolate rule that if you created an instance of an object in a process you were required to immediately add a line in the process shutdown routine to return that object's memory. I spent a lot of time tracking down and killing memory leaks. I know of what I speak.