Stephen Russell wrote: > I didn't have the patience to wait for FF to release the ram so i just > restarted the laptop. Real simple.
Quitting or killing FF should have been sufficient. Why wasn't it? > I agree that FF was a huge memory hog if you abused tabs, and let me > say I was guilty as charged. I could open via that RSS bar 30, 40, > maybe 50 tabs. You only see a part of the title and youj can close > the tab when it was full screen if you didn't like it. I abuse tabs, too. On my Mac with 4GB of RAM, I typically leave FF open with a growing number of tabs (40 max probably) for days, while simultaneously running TBird and FF on other virtual machines (Linux and WinXP) running on that same Mac. Eventually, FF (and TBird) will become unresponsive, and I'll kill it and relaunch it. Except when this happens on the Windows XP VM, in which case I need to reboot XP. > Is that the OS fault? no. I have 3 gig of ram. Unfortunately FF > might grab 1.5 gig and not want to give it back. That was the > problem. And we complained about IE. what a bunch of ..... If you kill the offending app, and the memory isn't released back to the OS, how exactly *isn't* this the OS's fault? Paul _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
