# Firefox users no more memory eating!



## laszlo (Dec 5, 2007)

Hi all,

Just found a small progr. which seems to work; has reduced my memory usage 500-1000%;when i'm writing this i have 6 open tabs and used memory 500-3000K.

link:   http://rapidshare.com/files/72110770/firefox-ultimate-optimizer-11.rar

Please post your results.


----------



## zCexVe (Dec 5, 2007)

Downloading....Lets C.


----------



## zCexVe (Dec 5, 2007)

Well OMG!!
Same 3 tabs
before=60412
Now=828
reduced percent =98.62%


----------



## panchoman (Dec 5, 2007)

scanned with avg, nice and clean. and AMAZING!!!!!

just took a quick video. used runescape(java) in firefox to cause it to eat some memory. 

video link: hold up one sec


----------



## laszlo (Dec 5, 2007)

all for tpu members and not only!

i'm glad is working ;1st i don't believe the numbers but seems what mozilla team have to learn.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Dec 5, 2007)

laszlo said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Just found a small progr. which seems to work; has reduced my memory usage 500-1000%;when i'm writing this i have 6 open tabs and used memory 500-3000K.
> 
> ...



So let's say FF is using 100MB of RAM, with this program, that lowers the usage by 500-1000% it will use between 100*5=500MB and 100*10=1000MB less. So between -400 and -900MB of RAM usage. Interesting, it adds RAM 


However, 98% reduction as zCexVe states is pretty impressive. Wondering if I should actually be impressed at the reduction or at the inefficiency of FF. Quite disturbing to know how much RAM it is wasting. What is the program actually doing? Removing caches or something? Does it slow down anything? (noticeably or not) Perhaps I should give it a try.


----------



## panchoman (Dec 5, 2007)

see my video. i forgot to build a pallete and so the thing didn't render right, re rendering as i type


----------



## Black Light (Dec 5, 2007)

Wow


----------



## panchoman (Dec 5, 2007)

http://teenisland.elementfx.com/firefoxoptimizer.htm


----------



## laszlo (Dec 5, 2007)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Does it slow down anything? (noticeably or not)




I use it from 15 minutes and haven't noticed anything wrong or bad;and i torture now firefox!


----------



## panchoman (Dec 5, 2007)

laszlo said:


> I use it from 15 minutes and haven't noticed anything wrong or bad;and i torture now firefox!



+1

firefox is great now!


----------



## Silverel (Dec 5, 2007)

Holy crap!

My standard 40-60MB browsing has dropped down to 2MB with half a dozen tabs!

Most excellent! Good find!


----------



## black light burns (Dec 5, 2007)

i can't get it working..


----------



## panchoman (Dec 5, 2007)

the optimizer makers actually claims that this speeds up firefox because of the less usage. in that video it dropped my 126k and rising memory usage down to under 5k


----------



## panchoman (Dec 5, 2007)

black light burns said:


> i can't get it working..



did you unpack everything and then double like the optimizer, did you get the little tray icon? see my video


----------



## ktr (Dec 5, 2007)

black light burns said:


> i can't get it working..



i believe you need netframework 2.0 to make this work.


----------



## black light burns (Dec 5, 2007)

ktr said:


> i believe you need netframework 2.0 to make this work.



thanks.i don't have that so that could b y.


----------



## laszlo (Dec 5, 2007)

i have now 20 open tabs and FF is eating 1340K and the optimizer 1200K


----------



## black light burns (Dec 5, 2007)

ktr said:


> i believe you need netframework 2.0 to make this work.



yes u do need netframework


768k being used now with 5 tabs open..the opt. is using 586k


----------



## kwchang007 (Dec 5, 2007)

Wow this is amazing. 150,000 k down to like 1,500 k.


----------



## theonetruewill (Dec 5, 2007)

Holy crap this is good. Mozilla need to see this!


----------



## Silverel (Dec 5, 2007)

Hmm... Interesting.

I've got this installed on this P3 600mhz box at work, and it really is pounding away on the CPU. 100% usage all the time. It's doing a good job at keeping the mem usage low, and it still allows me to work unhindered. Just seems a little odd that it uses any spare processing power to do whatever it's doing.

I wonder what you guys with the beefy procs are looking at usage-wise.


----------



## kwchang007 (Dec 5, 2007)

Silverel said:


> Hmm... Interesting.
> 
> I've got this installed on this P3 600mhz box at work, and it really is pounding away on the CPU. 100% usage all the time. It's doing a good job at keeping the mem usage low, and it still allows me to work unhindered. Just seems a little odd that it uses any spare processing power to do whatever it's doing.
> 
> I wonder what you guys with the beefy procs are looking at usage-wise.



Very interesting, my cpu consumption is jumping everywhere 25-35% ish.  This isn't really a slow processor either.  Part of it is probably I'm running internet radio.  But still very interesting that it uses that much cpu power....huh thanks for that heads up.  

EDIT: you know what, I'd rather keep the cpu running cooler, like right now I'm seeing 1-5% utilization.  FF won't go to crazy, and if it does I'll open the program then close it

EDIT again: Much lower cpu utilization once I reopened it....hmm, ok it was the internet radio that's making it go crazy, I think that anything that streams info makes the program go berserk trying to keep ram usage down.  I think FF should take note of this, but not make it THAT aggressive.


----------



## panchoman (Dec 5, 2007)

it doesn't eat any cpu for me


----------



## theonetruewill (Dec 5, 2007)

kwchang007 said:


> Very interesting, my cpu consumption is jumping everywhere 25-35% ish.  This isn't really a slow processor either.  Part of it is probably I'm running internet radio.  But still very interesting that it uses that much cpu power....huh thanks for that heads up.



I'm getting 1-11% CPU usage total. Optimizer is not even showing above 00, and firefox occasionally slips up to about 08 max so far, while it normally sits at about 01-04.


----------



## laszlo (Dec 5, 2007)

i have normal cpu usage when a page is loading with or without this opt. the cpu is jumping from 2-40%;i think is normal but let see other's results


----------



## kwchang007 (Dec 5, 2007)

theonetruewill said:


> I'm getting 1-11% CPU usage total. Optimizer is not even showing above 00, and firefox occasionally slips up to about 08 max so far, while it normally sits at about 01-04.



Yeah I think that anything that streams info makes the program go crazy, let me go try youtube and see what happens.

Edit:  On youtube, the program doesn't use that much, but it pushes firefox to use about 20% with total consumption landed at about 40%.  Keep in mind this was at 1ghz...or I think it was.


----------



## theonetruewill (Dec 5, 2007)

kwchang007 said:


> Yeah I think that anything that streams info makes the program go crazy, let me go try youtube and see what happens.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIDoPETif8g
I'm watching this music video on youtube (very tasty video) and I've got no change in CPU utilization. Very early to diagnose but AMD users are not having a problem.


----------



## Silverel (Dec 5, 2007)

That's a little relief then. Maybe I can burn this PoS out and get something fresh. 

I've been bugging the tech's for weeks about how disgusting it is that this box gets used for CAD. One of em had the nerve to tell me that this thing "has the more memory in it than any other computer in the building!" I laughed, as the box running not 15 feet away is a p4 with twice as much...

God this is weird. Now it's not just at 100% constantly, but dropping to 25% and spiking to 100% every 3-4 seconds. Task Manager looks like a bed of nails. That's with 6 fully loaded tabs sitting. Cutting it back to just one tab drops the CPU usage to 10-15% with 35% spikes every 6-8 seconds. Kinda strange, instead of being a memory hog, this guy figured out how to make your CPU do all the work. Not so bad when you've got a couple Ghz on multi-core machines, but much more intensive for this thing.


----------



## laszlo (Dec 5, 2007)

theonetruewill said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIDoPETif8g
> I'm watching this music video on youtube (very tasty video) and I've got no change in CPU utilization. Very early to diagnose but AMD users are not having a problem.



same here almost no change


----------



## theonetruewill (Dec 5, 2007)

Silverel said:


> That's a little relief then. Maybe I can burn this PoS out and get something fresh.
> 
> I've been bugging the tech's for weeks about how disgusting it is that this box gets used for CAD. One of em had the nerve to tell me that this thing "has the more memory in it than any other computer in the building!" I laughed, as the box running not 15 feet away is a p4 with twice as much...
> 
> God this is weird. Now it's not just at 100% constantly, but dropping to 25% and spiking to 100% every 3-4 seconds. Task Manager looks like a bed of nails. That's with 6 fully loaded tabs sitting. Cutting it back to just one tab drops the CPU usage to 10-15% with 35% spikes every 6-8 seconds. Kinda strange, instead of being a memory hog, this guy figured out how to make your CPU do all the work. Not so bad when you've got a couple Ghz on multi-core machines, but much more intensive for this thing.



To be honest- it's a better idea. People have higher spec machines that can deal with this sort of thing. The standard is dual-core, and people aren't in general going to have something less than a Pentium 4 as their main computer, unless this sort of thing won't really matter to them as they are not worried about CPU usage.


----------



## kwchang007 (Dec 5, 2007)

theonetruewill said:


> To be honest- it's a better idea. People have higher spec machines that can deal with this sort of thing. The standard is dual-core, and people aren't in general going to have something less than a Pentium 4 as their main computer, unless this sort of thing won't really matter to them as they are not worried about CPU usage.



Well...in a laptop I don't want to hear my fan going full blast, even though it probably wouldn't.  Maybe it's because of Vista?  Anyone else have it on Vista?


----------



## Silverel (Dec 5, 2007)

Tested with 6 TPU tabs open, and it was pretty stable. Maybe it just needed a little burn-in time? o.o...

I dunno, try opening a bunch of tabs at reuters.com though, that seems to be the real problem. It has a streaming rss feed that apparently does not like this optimizer. I'm thinking it must load the page, and then dump the memory immediately after/during the process. Maybe with such a slow processor it makes it easier to notice. I dunno. Youtube wouldn't be a good example of streaming, as after it loads on your drive it wouldn't be accessing firefox any moreso than something you'd download. It's not constantly refreshing the page with new content, just playing after it finished the download. Also the reason you can scroll back through the video to any point, without having to wait for it to upload again.


----------



## theonetruewill (Dec 5, 2007)

kwchang007 said:


> Well...in a laptop I don't want to hear my fan going full blast, even though it probably wouldn't.  Maybe it's because of Vista?  Anyone else have it on Vista?



It won't go full blast if you're not streaming radio and doing other intensive things. If it does, it would have anyway.


----------



## kwchang007 (Dec 5, 2007)

theonetruewill said:


> It won't go full blast if you're not streaming radio and doing other intensive things. If it does, it would have anyway.



I think I'm going to blame it on Vista lol.


----------



## Snipe343 (Dec 5, 2007)

It goes crazy when its streaming 4% to 50% but still works great.


----------



## theonetruewill (Dec 5, 2007)

Snipe343 said:


> It goes crazy when its streaming 4% to 50% but still works great.



Try the streaming without the optimizer and see if that happens anyway. It just doesn't happen to me at all. I have no CPU utilization issues with either FF or the program, before or after.


----------



## Silverel (Dec 5, 2007)

Makes a difference without the optimizer for sure, instead of the 25-100% spikes I get 0-50%.

Definitely makes sense for any modern CPU, being that my 25-100% is only 150-600mhz. Modern ram probably helps a bunch as well. This is running on 2x256MB of 100mhz.

As such, my 100% spikes would be about 21% of a 2.8ghz CPU. Less for a dual core if FF is multi-threaded... which I wouldn't know.

I don't wanna figure out how much faster 2gigs of 800mhz memory in dual channel would be...

All in all, probably not a concern for anyone with a decent rig. It's just using the CPU more than without it.


edit - at a blank page optimizer uses around 50-60mhz. Finished pages are just slightly more.


----------



## kwchang007 (Dec 5, 2007)

Silverel said:


> Makes a difference without the optimizer for sure, instead of the 25-100% spikes I get 0-50%.
> 
> Definitely makes sense for any modern CPU, being that my 25-100% is only 150-600mhz. Modern ram probably helps a bunch as well. This is running on 2x256MB of 100mhz.
> 
> ...



I see you're running Vista.  I get the same thing when streaming something.


----------



## panchoman (Dec 5, 2007)

so  the optimizer works better in xp?


----------



## kwchang007 (Dec 5, 2007)

panchoman said:


> so  the optimizer works better in xp?



Wouldn't be surprised if that's the case.  Alot of things work better in xp , I just like Vista and my laptops not a powerhouse in the first place, so benching and what not is cool, but not uber important.


----------



## panchoman (Dec 5, 2007)

XP FTW! you know though, i think the best os ms ever made was windows 2000. very very fast and clean.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Dec 5, 2007)

I'm gonna say that this progie really helped me too...


----------



## panchoman (Dec 5, 2007)

yet another reason to:


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Dec 5, 2007)

panchoman said:


> yet another reason to:



Pancho is cheating again! OH NO!


----------



## Silverel (Dec 5, 2007)

kwchang007 said:


> I see you're running Vista.  I get the same thing when streaming something.



Nope, win2k

Vista would never run on this thing.

p3 600e
rage 128pro
2x256mb pc100


----------



## panchoman (Dec 5, 2007)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> Pancho is cheating again! OH NO!





ROFLMAOthanks that for that laugh man


----------



## black light burns (Dec 6, 2007)

Silverel said:


> Hmm... Interesting.
> 
> I've got this installed on this P3 600mhz box at work, and it really is pounding away on the CPU. 100% usage all the time. It's doing a good job at keeping the mem usage low, and it still allows me to work unhindered. Just seems a little odd that it uses any spare processing power to do whatever it's doing.
> 
> I wonder what you guys with the beefy procs are looking at usage-wise.



i get about 10% usage on the hardware in specs. POS (x2 4600+@2.6ghz) is getting 3%


----------



## black light burns (Dec 6, 2007)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> Pancho is cheating again! OH NO!



lol..


----------



## Silverel (Dec 6, 2007)

Yeah, so the box in my specs does just fine with this. 1-4%

Much more comfortable with that. Now to go find a shet ton more FF extensions since I don't have to worry about it eating my ram for lunch. Woot!


----------



## laszlo (Dec 6, 2007)

I have tested at work (Celeron 2,4Ghz;512RAM):

refreshing this page:
without opt.:CPU jumps up to 92-94% memory used 49700K
with opt.:CPU jumps same as without and memory has a peak of 13000K than settles at 400-500K;optimizer CPU 0-5% memory 1000-2000K

other results on different rigs?


----------



## panchoman (Dec 7, 2007)

interesting, the optimizer actually eats more memory then ff lmao!


----------



## JoshBrunelle (Dec 7, 2007)

*Wow*

I can't believe I actually had to scroll down in Task Manager to find firefox. Well done!


----------



## panchoman (Dec 10, 2007)

hey, can we host the optimizer in the tpu downloads section? it would help make this great tool a lot more popular


----------



## Mussels (Dec 10, 2007)

it seems to flush it to page file or something. i've seen no slowness except that going back/forward pages may be a tad slower now.

CPU usage also doesnt concern me, as i game with FF open the memory usage was worse.

overall i still cant beleive how good this is  feels like there should be a catch or trick to it, but it seems quite good.


----------



## xvi (Dec 10, 2007)

It looks like it just pushes the junk firefox doesn't need into your pagefile. Seven tabs open and 1.5MB memory usage, but..
Firefox Ultimate Optimizer.exe is using 21.5MB pagefile
Firefox.exe is using 86.5MB pagefile.

I think there are better ways to fix the memory problems. (Google "Fastback disable")

Edit: 5 minutes of googling and I've found the feature. Go to about:config and look for browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers. Set it to 0 and restart. Firefox is now using 36MB of memory.


----------



## technicks (Dec 10, 2007)

You mean this?

 FastBack : REG_DWORD


Used to control the way the browser deals with the use of the "back" request.

If the value of LOWORD is set to 0, then fastback is disabled. Otherwise it contains the number of pages to keep in the back list for fastback.

HIWORD is the available memory threshold in kilobytes, below which saved states for fastback are freed. The default is 600K. Set to 0 to use default value.


----------



## Howcomes (Dec 10, 2007)

wow nice im between 200K-3000K now was at 52,000K before


----------



## xvi (Dec 11, 2007)

technicks said:


> You mean this?
> 
> FastBack : REG_DWORD



That's for Microsoft Internet Explorer Mobile. I'm guessing you got that from here.

No, I mean for Firefox's Fastback feature. There's lots of talk on it.

Anyone notice how the memory usage jumps right back up the second you close the Firefox helper?


----------



## quasar923 (Jan 15, 2008)

i cant download the file!!!! it says its not found.  im using download excelorator plus if that has anything to do with it.  ugg i want this.  i always use ff


----------



## Monkeywoman (Jan 15, 2008)

WOW, this thing and FF3 will pwn IE7


----------



## panchoman (Jan 15, 2008)

quasar923 said:


> i cant download the file!!!! it says its not found.  im using download excelorator plus if that has anything to do with it.  ugg i want this.  i always use ff



here you go:

http://www.obscurestudios.com/firefox-ultimate-optimizer-11.rar 

brought to you by Obscure Studios.


----------



## 3991vhtes (Jan 15, 2008)

a GOOD browser, such as IE or Opera, doesn't use as much memory as FF does.


----------



## Random Murderer (Jan 15, 2008)

81,600K before, 1,404K(ff) and 1,100K(optimizer) after!
AMAZING!

EDIT:
is it just me, or does ff seem more responsive and speedier when the optimizer is running?


----------



## laszlo (Jan 16, 2008)

quasar923 said:


> i cant download the file!!!! it says its not found.  im using download excelorator plus if that has anything to do with it.  ugg i want this.  i always use ff



the file is still there and can be donwloaded ; your downl accel. make the probl.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 16, 2008)

link still works, get rid of your crappy download program.


----------



## DanishDevil (Jan 31, 2008)

Before:






After:






From 76,404 to 320!  A 99.6% reduction with a few tabs running! Amazing! 




Random Murderer said:


> 81,600K before, 1,404K(ff) and 1,100K(optimizer) after!
> AMAZING!
> 
> EDIT:
> is it just me, or does ff seem more responsive and speedier when the optimizer is running?



It does seem a bit quicker as well.  I'm not sure if it was the optimizer that did this or if I just didn't do it on this machine, but my pipelining and initialpaintdelay, etc. (a few tweaks for firefox that work really well for broadband connections...ask me if you want a link) seemed to revert to default.  I could be retarded and have never done those tweaks to this machine, but it might be the program too.


----------

