# Microsoft to Set IE8 Apart From Chrome by Giving It Twice the Bloat



## Pat (Sep 4, 2008)

Here's something you don't want to hear describing your latest browser: "epically porcine." Yes, that's exactly how software research firm Devil Mountain CEO Craig Barth described it. Just how bad is the bloat on the latest beta? Well, on a 10-site scenario test, Firefox 3.0.1 consumed 159MB of memory. IE7 consumed a heartier 250MB. IE 8? A whopping 380MB of memory. Yikes.

Read More: *gizmodo.com/5044967/microsoft-to-set-ie8-apart-from-chrome-by-giving-it-twice-the-bloat


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 4, 2008)

How dare a beta Software from a company called Microsoft give Memory Leak error????


----------



## iMav (Sep 4, 2008)

Firefox 150MB? A bit of googling on how much of a memory hog Firefox 3 is will put thing sin perspective.  I am a full time Firefox 3 user on OS X; Ubuntu & Vista and it has even clocked 250MB + for 2 tabs.

And consumes around 1GB virtual memory on OS X.


----------



## CadCrazy (Sep 4, 2008)

Its Internet Exploder yaar


----------



## axxo (Sep 4, 2008)

wasn't 640K enough for IE??


----------



## Gigacore (Sep 4, 2008)

Opera FTW!!


----------



## iMav (Sep 4, 2008)

Gigacore said:


> Opera FTW!!


shoo tommy


----------



## CadCrazy (Sep 4, 2008)

iMav said:


> shoo tommy



 One More. Kutte main teri ek core kha jaunga


----------



## narangz (Sep 4, 2008)

^^ Hum nahi sudhrenge.


----------



## CadCrazy (Sep 4, 2008)

narangz said:


> ^^ Hum nahi sudhrenge.



To mat sudharo. Jis din Police pichwade pe dande maregi apne aap sudhar jaoge


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Sep 4, 2008)

WTH ? I am using Chrome comfortably without any issues on my Pentium 4 2.66 GHz Machine with 256MB DDR 400MHz RAM.

Infact, its due to chrome that I am resuming use of windows. Till chrome comes to linux, I wouldn't be booting to arch . All current browsers on Arch, namely Firefox (uber hanger), Midori (uber alpha state), Kazehakase (uber crashing), Konqueror (uber memory usage), Epiphany (uber bloated gnome libs), Opera (uber unusable) are bad.


----------



## krazzy (Sep 4, 2008)

MetalheadGautham said:


> WTH ? I am using Chrome comfortably without any issues on my Pentium 4 2.66 GHz Machine with 256MB DDR 400MHz RAM.
> 
> Infact, its due to chrome that I am resuming use of windows. Till chrome comes to linux, I wouldn't be booting to arch . All current browsers on Arch, namely Firefox (uber hanger), Midori (uber alpha state), Kazehakase (uber crashing), Konqueror (uber memory usage), Epiphany (uber bloated gnome libs), Opera (uber unusable) are bad.



Arey Metaaaaaaaal. The thread is about IE8 being bloated, not Chrome.


----------



## RCuber (Sep 5, 2008)

MetalheadGautham said:


> WTH ? I am using Chrome comfortably without any issues on my Pentium 4 2.66 GHz Machine with 256MB DDR 400MHz RAM.
> 
> Infact, its due to chrome that I am resuming use of windows. Till chrome comes to linux, I wouldn't be booting to arch . All current browsers on Arch, namely Firefox (uber hanger), Midori (uber alpha state), Kazehakase (uber crashing), Konqueror (uber memory usage), Epiphany (uber bloated gnome libs), *Opera (uber unusable)* are bad.


WTH!!! ??? are you trying to use opera to watch 1080p Videos?


----------



## goobimama (Sep 5, 2008)

Could it be that our Mr. Metal needs an upgrade in RAM? 256MB is waaaaaay back in time.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Sep 5, 2008)

kraazy said:
			
		

> Arey Metaaaaaaaal. The thread is about IE8 being bloated, not Chrome.


Well, I was replying to people claiming that Chrome uses over 100MB of RAM.



			
				Charan said:
			
		

> WTH!!! ??? are you trying to use opera to watch 1080p Videos?


Nope. Opera has a rather LARGE interface, occupying most of my screen, and its toolbar and widgets look plane and there are no mouse over items effects (I use the QT4 compile). Along with this, it HANGS. When I open 5 tabs or so.



			
				goobimama said:
			
		

> Could it be that our Mr. Metal needs an upgrade in RAM? 256MB is waaaaaay back in time.


Well, anybody can ditch their ram for a new one, or throw their old system for a new one. There is nothing great in doing so, except for the fact that you need to save some cash. BUT, its a skill in itself to KEEP the old system and pull on with it.


----------



## axxo (Sep 5, 2008)

my video ram itself is 256MB, I hope many would even have more than this..and my physical ram=4GB(256x16) 
btw chrome is near perfect except for no addons.


----------



## ray|raven (Sep 5, 2008)

MetalheadGautham said:


> Midori (uber alpha state),Opera (uber unusable) are bad.



Wtf? Dude , seriously , how about you lay down the issues and not blames?
Midori's waay better than chrome , it is alpha but it still got regular features that the ingenious devs @ google managed to miss.

Like RSS feeds or Managing bookmarks for example.
And whats your issue with Opera? IIRC , i solved almost all your problems with Opera in the browser war thread?

Dont just throw crap on stuff without actually having any solid evidence.


----------



## narangz (Sep 5, 2008)

^^ Shanti bacha shanti, I see a fan of Opera in you. 

Me too loves Opera. 

Ontopic- Well IE8 Beta 2 is pretty good. I actually liked it. Will do some shootouts when the final version is out.


----------



## ray|raven (Sep 5, 2008)

^I aint angry , not even close 

And about IE8 Beta2, i installed it on my office machine , but i dont see a 'Open in New Tab' on right-clicking links. Is it an issue with my system or did MS really miss it?


----------



## narangz (Sep 5, 2008)

There is 'Open in New Tab' option in IE 8 Beta 2. Here's a screenie:

*img177.imageshack.us/img177/9510/ie8ointrq1.th.jpg


----------



## ray|raven (Sep 5, 2008)

^Thanx , i knew smthin went wrong when the install was stuck and i killed it


----------



## narangz (Sep 5, 2008)

Oh. The setup couldn't update the registry properly, I guess.


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Sep 5, 2008)

Isnt unfair to compare a released version vs beta version?

Anyway opera is very light compared to firefox or ie8 beta...

And i thing its time we appreciate the work of ms for giving something good rather than more bloated version...,

Opera ftw


----------



## Krazy_About_Technology (Sep 5, 2008)

I donno should i post it here or not, but did anybody noticed that in IE8B2, if you right click the toolbar (any one) and select customize, you get an option to move the stop and reload button to the left of address bar?


----------



## RCuber (Sep 5, 2008)

^^ Already there in Opera


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Sep 5, 2008)

@ray|raven: Well, atleast on MY system, midori is not at all as nice in performance as expected. It hangs when opening multiple tabs, it has a horrible interface, and its only as fast as firefox.

As for opera, try installing the Opera QT4 version from the KDEmod-extragear repository in Arch linux and tell me how it feels. And yeah, use a rig with 256MB DDR RAM and a 2.66GHz Pentium 4


----------



## comp@ddict (Sep 5, 2008)

iMav said:


> shoo tommy



looooooooooooooollllllllllllzzzzzzzzz


----------



## hellknight (Sep 5, 2008)

To hell with these all GUI browsers.. Lynx and W3M, here I come


----------



## chesss (Sep 5, 2008)

> I donno should i post it here or not, but did anybody noticed that in IE8B2, if you right click the toolbar (any one) and select customize, you get an option to move the stop and reload button to the left of address bar?


WOW WHAT AN AMAZING FEATURE!!!
THIS IS PROOF THAT INTERNET EXPLORER IS THE BEST BROSAR EVAR!! SOO CUSTOMIZABLE AND FULL OF INNOVATIVE FEATURES. 
NOW I JUST HOPE THEY REINTRODUCE IE5 FEATURES LIKE AUTOINSTALLING TOOLBARS AND FREE PORN POP-UPS



> Opera has a rather LARGE interface,


Use This  Slim skin
If you want more try these steps:
disable status bar && enable progressbar to popup at bottom.
U can disable the menu bar & Grab a menu button 
Heck its possible to use a single toolbar config in Opera.


----------



## krates (Sep 5, 2008)

^^^ lol


----------



## chandru.in (Sep 5, 2008)

gx_saurav said:


> How dare a beta Software from a company called Microsoft give Memory Leak error????


Isn't chrome in beta too?

How dare they make a beta browser without leaking memory when Microsoft can't?


----------



## hellknight (Sep 5, 2008)

@chandru.. arey to to bada chandraa nikla re 

+10^100 

and btw.. Mozilla Firefox came out in its first full version Firefox 1.0 after quite a few months.. it didn't had any leaking memory !!


----------



## iMav (Sep 5, 2008)

Question: How did Mozilla plug Firefox 2 memory leak issues in Firefox 3?
Answer: By making sure Firefox 3 consumes outrageous amounts of memory from the beginning itself!


----------



## chandru.in (Sep 5, 2008)

iMav said:


> Firefox 150MB? A bit of googling on how much of a memory hog Firefox 3 is will put thing sin perspective.  I am a full time Firefox 3 user on OS X; Ubuntu & Vista and it has even clocked 250MB + for 2 tabs.
> 
> And consumes around 1GB virtual memory on OS X.


Whoa!  Please please please tell me how you achieved this.

With 14 tabs (including GMail, Google Reader, few Digit Forum pages and few Orkut forum pages) open, mine is not exceeding 82 MB.  I have Ubuntu's default add-on enabled.  Firebug is installed byut disabled during normal browsing.  I enable it only when debugging my own pages.


----------



## Hitboxx (Sep 5, 2008)

/me thinks Either iMav is just blatantly lying or making conversation just for the sake of it. Show us the proof please. 

And one theory I might have for the consumption of memory(on any browser) is it also depends for how long the browser is running. Say its 24hours uptime for the browser with all types of pages/media going into the cache, then it is quite possible for just two tabs to consume that amount of RAM.


----------



## iMav (Sep 5, 2008)

CHeck out the web dude! It is a well accepted fact that Firefox 3 is a resource hog and trust me don't give me that crap of it consumes so and so amount of RAM on your system. I am a full time user of Firefox on Ubuntu; OS X & Vista. On all 3 platforms the amount of resources the browser consumes is outrageous and search google you will find a lot of people face the same.

PS: On OS X Firefox consumes 900MB to 1GB virtual memory with 3 tabs. 

Here are some links on the web:

*www.pcmech.com/article/firefox-3-hogs-memory-like-crazy/

Here's your beloved Ubuntu:

*neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/

Here was another discussion on a forum where many have reported their insane RAM usages and some have normal usage:

*forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archive.cfm/1003816.html

There are many links these, I went through a lot of blogs/sites/forums to find a solution to this problem, but in vain, that is the only reason why I will switch to Chrome once it get's a stable release on all platforms and will have extensions, till then I am bearing Firefox's antics.


----------



## chandru.in (Sep 6, 2008)

And did you bother to read the comments in second URL?

A couple of blog posts claiming high memory usage vs several more comments claiming it is not so.  Sounds like a weird proof to me.


----------



## Pat (Sep 6, 2008)

iMav said:


> PS: On OS X Firefox consumes 900MB to 1GB virtual memory with 3 tabs.



An illegal, community-hacked, unsupported OS is a right way to compare


----------



## iMav (Sep 6, 2008)

Pat said:


> An illegal, community-hacked, unsupported OS is a right way to compare


When you know of things and are certain, it is advised then one should try to be sarcastic, until then one should sit by the sidelines and let others do the talking.


----------



## Hitboxx (Sep 6, 2008)

Anyways here is my current usage, system and Firefox, both have been up for almost 10 hours and it has just touched 200mb _now_, see for yourself. This is 64bit FF3.1 on my 64bit Fedora 9.

*www.imgx.org/pthumbs/large/10964/ffx.png

And I think we should stop this discussion right here as we are getting off topic now. Probably continue in that Browser war thread :=)


----------



## axxo (Sep 6, 2008)

iMav said:


> CHeck out the web dude! It is a well accepted fact that Firefox 3 is a resource hog and trust me don't give me that crap of it consumes so and so amount of RAM on your system. I am a full time user of Firefox on Ubuntu; OS X & Vista. On all 3 platforms the amount of resources the browser consumes is outrageous and search google you will find a lot of people face the same.
> 
> PS: On OS X Firefox consumes 900MB to 1GB virtual memory with 3 tabs.
> 
> ...



did u ever try running the latest updated version with/without addons. on my system even after opening 10 tabs it consumes around 125MB including heavy pages like wincustomize, blogimages, gmail, etc...
problem with some people is they install lot of addons which does consumes some memory and later crawl about to complain fx consumes this and that. I use around 10 addons which i regularly use and I cant complaint fx as a memory hogger.


----------



## iMav (Sep 6, 2008)

chandru.in said:


> And did you bother to read the comments in second URL?
> 
> A couple of blog posts claiming high memory usage vs several more comments claiming it is not so.  Sounds like a weird proof to me.


LOL! proof! You need proof? Here you go:

*img92.imageshack.us/img92/8079/73150969is3.th.jpg

Fresh from the oven. Anything else? Dude I am a full time Firefox user as much as any one of you are. I use Firefox on 3 platforms & even use the portable version.


----------



## Pat (Sep 6, 2008)

iMav said:


> LOL! proof! You need proof? Here you go:
> 
> *img92.imageshack.us/img92/8079/73150969is3.th.jpg
> 
> Fresh from the oven. Anything else? Dude I am a full time Firefox user as much as any one of you are. I use Firefox on 3 platforms & even use the portable version.



Honestly dude, how hard did you have to struggle to build that proof ? 
Let me guess: 
You must have opened several tabs and closed them seconds before taking the screenshot ?
Also I see some "Library" window! Whats that ?

Good work!


----------



## Faun (Sep 6, 2008)

And you do believe that there are exceptions too.


----------



## iMav (Sep 6, 2008)

Oh damn! How could I forget I had created a thread today itself on this and not surprisingly there was a member who also says that he has this Firefox behavior too.

*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showthread.php?t=97179


----------



## Hitboxx (Sep 6, 2008)

*And I think we should stop this discussion right here as we are getting off topic now. Probably continue in that Browser war thread :=)*


----------



## iMav (Sep 6, 2008)

I hope people do glance at the CPU usage charts too inorder to satisfy their anxiety over me going through opening million tabs & the History to spike the numbers. 

Sorry hitboxx missed your posts. Sure.


----------



## hellknight (Sep 6, 2008)

Seriously Manan, i may aggre that Firefox eats memory in Vista.. but Safari.. 900 MB on OS X.. you're kidding aren't you..


----------



## iMav (Sep 6, 2008)

hellknight said:


> but Safari.. 900 MB on OS X.. you're kidding aren't you..


Not Safari baba, Firefox only.  Hitboxx, this post has to be excused, just clearing a doubt.


----------



## goobimama (Sep 6, 2008)

Virtual Memory in OS X is totally different from the rest of the OSes. My Virtual Memory size is currently 64GB. That's just the way the system works. So using 1GB of virtual memory doesn't mean anything significant.


----------



## Faun (Sep 6, 2008)

64GB ? *s269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/visio159/Unismilies/86.png


----------



## goobimama (Sep 6, 2008)

Yep. Almost any application uses 800MB+ (even the 2MB alarm clock ones). Now I don't dig deep as to why this is, but it works fine and that's what matters.


----------



## Faun (Sep 6, 2008)

^^a link to elaborate it


----------



## goobimama (Sep 6, 2008)

Screenshot enough? I don't know more about this.

*img.skitch.com/20080905-e968bsrhgyi9pdbg5s82qm4xfa.preview.jpg


----------



## Pat (Sep 6, 2008)

iMav said:


> PS: On OS X Firefox consumes 900MB to 1GB virtual memory with 3 tabs.





iMav said:


> When you know of things and are certain, it is advised then one should try to be sarcastic, until then one should sit by the sidelines and let others do the talking.





goobimama said:


> Screenshot enough? I don't know more about this.
> 
> *img.skitch.com/20080905-e968bsrhgyi9pdbg5s82qm4xfa.preview.jpg



 Thats wat I call self-pwnage 

Sorry for going offtopic again


----------



## Faun (Sep 6, 2008)

goobimama said:


> Screenshot enough? I don't know more about this.
> 
> *img.skitch.com/20080905-e968bsrhgyi9pdbg5s82qm4xfa.preview.jpg


Isn't it a waste of space and is there any phenomenal performance gain ?

Mine swap partition is 2.4GB and serves more than enough, not even half of it ever get filled up.


----------



## goobimama (Sep 6, 2008)

Kya waste of space? As long as the OS works butter smooth, I have no complaints. What OS X does behind the scenes is not my problem. Not like its blocking those 64GBs from being used.


----------



## cooldudie3 (Sep 6, 2008)

chesss said:


> WOW WHAT AN AMAZING FEATURE!!!
> THIS IS PROOF THAT INTERNET EXPLORER IS THE BEST BROSAR EVAR!! SOO CUSTOMIZABLE AND FULL OF INNOVATIVE FEATURES.
> NOW I JUST HOPE THEY REINTRODUCE IE5 FEATURES LIKE AUTOINSTALLING TOOLBARS AND FREE PORN POP-UPS


LOL
@ Milind
Wow I didn't realize the apps take 100+MB on my system! 64GB virtual memory! <fainted>


----------



## Faun (Sep 6, 2008)

*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension
lolz

*With the 64 bit opteron on the 2.6 kernel, 128 swap areas are permitted, each a whopping 16 Tb! (thanks to Peter Chubb for the calculation)*
Now imagine the parallelism and performance one can have with proper tweaked setup. Of course you need a different setup for Server and Desktop. You do need to start bashing.

Its not how much virtual memory one can assign, its the page swapping algorithm that determines the performance.
A wrong one can cause lots of thrashing.


----------



## comp@ddict (Sep 6, 2008)

But damn, i'm on 20 tabs, but still it consumes less than 130MB!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## iMav (Sep 6, 2008)

Pat said:


> An illegal, community-hacked, unsupported OS is a right way to compare





Pat said:


> Thats wat I call self-pwnage


Ah! I see so now all of a sudden the performance of "An illegal, community-hacked, unsupported OS" which 2 posts back was a bone of contention now becomes the same as that of a native Mac? Great! I R pwned!


----------



## Pat (Sep 6, 2008)

iMav said:


> Ah! I see so now all of a sudden the performance of "An illegal, community-hacked, unsupported OS" which 2 posts back was a bone of contention now becomes the same as that of a native Mac? Great! I R pwned!



And you purposely did not quote the correct post


----------

