<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_20_1951212</id>
	<title>Memory Usage of Chrome, Firefox 3.5, et al.</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1245518460000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"This experiment graphs the <a href="http://dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory">memory usage of Chrome and Firefox 3.5</a> (along with Safari and Opera) over a series of 150 Web page loads using an automated script. Firefox 3.5 shows the lowest memory usage in all categories, including average memory usage, maximum memory usage, and final memory usage. Chrome uses over 1 GB of memory due to its process architecture. Safari 4 and Opera show memory usage degradation over time, while Chrome and Firefox 3.5 are more reliable in freeing memory to the OS."</i> IE 8 was not included "because the author could not find a way to prevent it from opening a new window on each invocation of the command."</htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " This experiment graphs the memory usage of Chrome and Firefox 3.5 ( along with Safari and Opera ) over a series of 150 Web page loads using an automated script .
Firefox 3.5 shows the lowest memory usage in all categories , including average memory usage , maximum memory usage , and final memory usage .
Chrome uses over 1 GB of memory due to its process architecture .
Safari 4 and Opera show memory usage degradation over time , while Chrome and Firefox 3.5 are more reliable in freeing memory to the OS .
" IE 8 was not included " because the author could not find a way to prevent it from opening a new window on each invocation of the command .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "This experiment graphs the memory usage of Chrome and Firefox 3.5 (along with Safari and Opera) over a series of 150 Web page loads using an automated script.
Firefox 3.5 shows the lowest memory usage in all categories, including average memory usage, maximum memory usage, and final memory usage.
Chrome uses over 1 GB of memory due to its process architecture.
Safari 4 and Opera show memory usage degradation over time, while Chrome and Firefox 3.5 are more reliable in freeing memory to the OS.
" IE 8 was not included "because the author could not find a way to prevent it from opening a new window on each invocation of the command.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408253</id>
	<title>Tabs hell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245525060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live in tabs hell. I have... uncountable numbers of tabs open right now--over 9,000, probabaly. My Firefox memory usage can easily push 1400mb. When that happens I kill it and reload, and the memory resets at around 400-600mb.</p><p>Seeing this graph, I can only imagine what Chrome would do to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in tabs hell .
I have... uncountable numbers of tabs open right now--over 9,000 , probabaly .
My Firefox memory usage can easily push 1400mb .
When that happens I kill it and reload , and the memory resets at around 400-600mb.Seeing this graph , I can only imagine what Chrome would do to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in tabs hell.
I have... uncountable numbers of tabs open right now--over 9,000, probabaly.
My Firefox memory usage can easily push 1400mb.
When that happens I kill it and reload, and the memory resets at around 400-600mb.Seeing this graph, I can only imagine what Chrome would do to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409915</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>valinor89</author>
	<datestamp>1245591420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Certainly with 4 Gb (actually 3.4 becouse XP 32b) I don't think my problems are with memory (3.0.XX) but with not being able to utilize more than 1 CPU ( with a Q6600 is using 25\%) and sometimes it feels sluggish, when using lots of tabs, sound start to stutter, video stops, etc. And it's pretty common to find some poor designed web that uses some script that uses a lot of CPU. On the other hand with using ABP the start time of FF is simply abyssmal and really makes my HDD crazy for like 30s. That is when it soesn't crash ramdomly ( once a week usually ).

Does FF 3.5 solve all this problems? If not it would be a shame. Still, I will continue to use it, becouse ABP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Certainly with 4 Gb ( actually 3.4 becouse XP 32b ) I do n't think my problems are with memory ( 3.0.XX ) but with not being able to utilize more than 1 CPU ( with a Q6600 is using 25 \ % ) and sometimes it feels sluggish , when using lots of tabs , sound start to stutter , video stops , etc .
And it 's pretty common to find some poor designed web that uses some script that uses a lot of CPU .
On the other hand with using ABP the start time of FF is simply abyssmal and really makes my HDD crazy for like 30s .
That is when it soes n't crash ramdomly ( once a week usually ) .
Does FF 3.5 solve all this problems ?
If not it would be a shame .
Still , I will continue to use it , becouse ABP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Certainly with 4 Gb (actually 3.4 becouse XP 32b) I don't think my problems are with memory (3.0.XX) but with not being able to utilize more than 1 CPU ( with a Q6600 is using 25\%) and sometimes it feels sluggish, when using lots of tabs, sound start to stutter, video stops, etc.
And it's pretty common to find some poor designed web that uses some script that uses a lot of CPU.
On the other hand with using ABP the start time of FF is simply abyssmal and really makes my HDD crazy for like 30s.
That is when it soesn't crash ramdomly ( once a week usually ).
Does FF 3.5 solve all this problems?
If not it would be a shame.
Still, I will continue to use it, becouse ABP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408161</id>
	<title>how is his memory usage that low?</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1245524100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the Linux version of Firefox particularly horrid or something? When using more than 10 tabs or so, my memory usage is typically in the 600mb+ range. It's currently taking 1.1g resident for about 40 tabs. I'm on x86-64, but even if we assume there's a full doubling of RAM usage due to the architecture, that's still 550mb equivalent, which his test never hits even with 150 tabs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the Linux version of Firefox particularly horrid or something ?
When using more than 10 tabs or so , my memory usage is typically in the 600mb + range .
It 's currently taking 1.1g resident for about 40 tabs .
I 'm on x86-64 , but even if we assume there 's a full doubling of RAM usage due to the architecture , that 's still 550mb equivalent , which his test never hits even with 150 tabs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the Linux version of Firefox particularly horrid or something?
When using more than 10 tabs or so, my memory usage is typically in the 600mb+ range.
It's currently taking 1.1g resident for about 40 tabs.
I'm on x86-64, but even if we assume there's a full doubling of RAM usage due to the architecture, that's still 550mb equivalent, which his test never hits even with 150 tabs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408537</id>
	<title>Low Firefox Memory Usage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245614760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, I *wish* I could get Firefox 3.5 to use so little memory!  As I write this Firefox is using 1821M VIRT, 944M RES...and I only have 23 tabs open!  Firefox memory usage has always been abysmal for me.  Does Firefox perform drastically differently on Linux than on Windows?  I would be quite horrified if it actually performed better on Windows, but I don't understand how it possibly managed to be so low...I've never seen Firefox use less than<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.5G with even a few tabs open for a while...  I realize my personal experience involves extensions, plugins and other things which suck of RAM, it still seems terribly high for me.  If I leave it running for several days, it will peak 2G and I have to restart the browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , I * wish * I could get Firefox 3.5 to use so little memory !
As I write this Firefox is using 1821M VIRT , 944M RES...and I only have 23 tabs open !
Firefox memory usage has always been abysmal for me .
Does Firefox perform drastically differently on Linux than on Windows ?
I would be quite horrified if it actually performed better on Windows , but I do n't understand how it possibly managed to be so low...I 've never seen Firefox use less than .5G with even a few tabs open for a while... I realize my personal experience involves extensions , plugins and other things which suck of RAM , it still seems terribly high for me .
If I leave it running for several days , it will peak 2G and I have to restart the browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, I *wish* I could get Firefox 3.5 to use so little memory!
As I write this Firefox is using 1821M VIRT, 944M RES...and I only have 23 tabs open!
Firefox memory usage has always been abysmal for me.
Does Firefox perform drastically differently on Linux than on Windows?
I would be quite horrified if it actually performed better on Windows, but I don't understand how it possibly managed to be so low...I've never seen Firefox use less than .5G with even a few tabs open for a while...  I realize my personal experience involves extensions, plugins and other things which suck of RAM, it still seems terribly high for me.
If I leave it running for several days, it will peak 2G and I have to restart the browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408075</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1245523140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't really agree, that's ram which I could be using for other things, there isn't really any good reason why a browser or any other application should be allowed to take up a lot of unnecessary ram. In order to deal with the spikes, there has to either be enough ram or the OS has to page things over to swap. Neither of which is necessarily what you want. And it's really not acceptable to require people to pay for too much ram simply because the developers are too lazy to worry about the amount of ram that they're wasting.<br> <br>

Yes, getting CSS right is important, but let's be honest, as long as IE6 is making things look like ass, it's rather a moot point in most cases.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really agree , that 's ram which I could be using for other things , there is n't really any good reason why a browser or any other application should be allowed to take up a lot of unnecessary ram .
In order to deal with the spikes , there has to either be enough ram or the OS has to page things over to swap .
Neither of which is necessarily what you want .
And it 's really not acceptable to require people to pay for too much ram simply because the developers are too lazy to worry about the amount of ram that they 're wasting .
Yes , getting CSS right is important , but let 's be honest , as long as IE6 is making things look like ass , it 's rather a moot point in most cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really agree, that's ram which I could be using for other things, there isn't really any good reason why a browser or any other application should be allowed to take up a lot of unnecessary ram.
In order to deal with the spikes, there has to either be enough ram or the OS has to page things over to swap.
Neither of which is necessarily what you want.
And it's really not acceptable to require people to pay for too much ram simply because the developers are too lazy to worry about the amount of ram that they're wasting.
Yes, getting CSS right is important, but let's be honest, as long as IE6 is making things look like ass, it's rather a moot point in most cases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408741</id>
	<title>Re:how is his memory usage that low?</title>
	<author>Jeeeb</author>
	<datestamp>1245574920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Firefox 3.0 (FlashBlock, No-Script, CacheViewer) on OS-X with 10 tabs open - Slashdot, Yahoo, Google, Wikipedia x 7 and real memory usage is at about 128mb. I'd look at what extensions you're running and if any of the sites you have open are using Flash.

Personally I think the oft-talked about Firefox memory issues are just a symptom of people with a tonne of extension installed opening hundreds of tabs and acting surprised when it uses a lot of memory. Oh and throw in a generous dosage of Flash-related issues.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox 3.0 ( FlashBlock , No-Script , CacheViewer ) on OS-X with 10 tabs open - Slashdot , Yahoo , Google , Wikipedia x 7 and real memory usage is at about 128mb .
I 'd look at what extensions you 're running and if any of the sites you have open are using Flash .
Personally I think the oft-talked about Firefox memory issues are just a symptom of people with a tonne of extension installed opening hundreds of tabs and acting surprised when it uses a lot of memory .
Oh and throw in a generous dosage of Flash-related issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox 3.0 (FlashBlock, No-Script, CacheViewer) on OS-X with 10 tabs open - Slashdot, Yahoo, Google, Wikipedia x 7 and real memory usage is at about 128mb.
I'd look at what extensions you're running and if any of the sites you have open are using Flash.
Personally I think the oft-talked about Firefox memory issues are just a symptom of people with a tonne of extension installed opening hundreds of tabs and acting surprised when it uses a lot of memory.
Oh and throw in a generous dosage of Flash-related issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28417291</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1245610020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except neither of them will use that on a system with 512MB of memory.  They use more ram when more is available when its beneficial in some way.</p><p>People need to remember that these aren't static DOS apps from 20 years ago.  These are apps that in one form or another run on mobile devices all the way up to our nice beefy modern desktops.  They are aware of the available RAM and will adjust to use more if its available to an extent.</p><p>I use chrome on a WindowsXP machines with 256MB of ram on occasion and I've never noticed it swapping , I'm sure it does to some extent but its not enough for me to notice.  Mind you, I'm not doing anything else on that machine at that point, but it certainly does just sit there and chug at the disk for hours on end while I browse around.</p><p>Theres more to memory usage profiling than just running an app and looking at the memory usage column in task manager to figure out what its doing.</p><p>I can write you an app on Windows that can allocate a gig of ram on a machine with 256MB of physical memory and you won't see it swap.  Just because one of the memory allocation reports says its using a lot of ram doesn't mean that its ACTUALLY using that much RAM anyway.</p><p>This simple benchmark doesn't really tell you anything useful other than Google Chrome likes to malloc A LOT of space or specifies some rather large internal buffers that probably never get used.</p><p>Another good example of how these numbers are misleading.  If you run a Win2k3 machine in under ESX server you can look at the memory usage reports and you'll see things like how much space the OS requested, how much space the hypervisor has reserved or is using for the VM, and how much of the ram is actually being used for something.  Those numbers are only close together during the boot sequence for a short time, after that they are each separated considerably most of the time.</p><p>Theres simply more to this sort of metric than this article considers.  Its like saying that the force of gravity is 9.8m/s/s.  Its not.  You get that sort of force at a certain distance from the center of the Earth (which is roughly the average surface altitude.)  On the moon the measured force is completely different, and on Mars and you should see how the Sun compares on its 'surface'.  You won't find any rocket scientist assuming a constant 9.8m/s/s force when calculating a launch on any planet, including Earth, since it changes in relation to everything around it as its moving away from the planet, possibly closer to a moon or what have you.  The picture painted here is a useless metric without taking a whole lot more data into account, which it doesn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except neither of them will use that on a system with 512MB of memory .
They use more ram when more is available when its beneficial in some way.People need to remember that these are n't static DOS apps from 20 years ago .
These are apps that in one form or another run on mobile devices all the way up to our nice beefy modern desktops .
They are aware of the available RAM and will adjust to use more if its available to an extent.I use chrome on a WindowsXP machines with 256MB of ram on occasion and I 've never noticed it swapping , I 'm sure it does to some extent but its not enough for me to notice .
Mind you , I 'm not doing anything else on that machine at that point , but it certainly does just sit there and chug at the disk for hours on end while I browse around.Theres more to memory usage profiling than just running an app and looking at the memory usage column in task manager to figure out what its doing.I can write you an app on Windows that can allocate a gig of ram on a machine with 256MB of physical memory and you wo n't see it swap .
Just because one of the memory allocation reports says its using a lot of ram does n't mean that its ACTUALLY using that much RAM anyway.This simple benchmark does n't really tell you anything useful other than Google Chrome likes to malloc A LOT of space or specifies some rather large internal buffers that probably never get used.Another good example of how these numbers are misleading .
If you run a Win2k3 machine in under ESX server you can look at the memory usage reports and you 'll see things like how much space the OS requested , how much space the hypervisor has reserved or is using for the VM , and how much of the ram is actually being used for something .
Those numbers are only close together during the boot sequence for a short time , after that they are each separated considerably most of the time.Theres simply more to this sort of metric than this article considers .
Its like saying that the force of gravity is 9.8m/s/s .
Its not .
You get that sort of force at a certain distance from the center of the Earth ( which is roughly the average surface altitude .
) On the moon the measured force is completely different , and on Mars and you should see how the Sun compares on its 'surface' .
You wo n't find any rocket scientist assuming a constant 9.8m/s/s force when calculating a launch on any planet , including Earth , since it changes in relation to everything around it as its moving away from the planet , possibly closer to a moon or what have you .
The picture painted here is a useless metric without taking a whole lot more data into account , which it does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except neither of them will use that on a system with 512MB of memory.
They use more ram when more is available when its beneficial in some way.People need to remember that these aren't static DOS apps from 20 years ago.
These are apps that in one form or another run on mobile devices all the way up to our nice beefy modern desktops.
They are aware of the available RAM and will adjust to use more if its available to an extent.I use chrome on a WindowsXP machines with 256MB of ram on occasion and I've never noticed it swapping , I'm sure it does to some extent but its not enough for me to notice.
Mind you, I'm not doing anything else on that machine at that point, but it certainly does just sit there and chug at the disk for hours on end while I browse around.Theres more to memory usage profiling than just running an app and looking at the memory usage column in task manager to figure out what its doing.I can write you an app on Windows that can allocate a gig of ram on a machine with 256MB of physical memory and you won't see it swap.
Just because one of the memory allocation reports says its using a lot of ram doesn't mean that its ACTUALLY using that much RAM anyway.This simple benchmark doesn't really tell you anything useful other than Google Chrome likes to malloc A LOT of space or specifies some rather large internal buffers that probably never get used.Another good example of how these numbers are misleading.
If you run a Win2k3 machine in under ESX server you can look at the memory usage reports and you'll see things like how much space the OS requested, how much space the hypervisor has reserved or is using for the VM, and how much of the ram is actually being used for something.
Those numbers are only close together during the boot sequence for a short time, after that they are each separated considerably most of the time.Theres simply more to this sort of metric than this article considers.
Its like saying that the force of gravity is 9.8m/s/s.
Its not.
You get that sort of force at a certain distance from the center of the Earth (which is roughly the average surface altitude.
)  On the moon the measured force is completely different, and on Mars and you should see how the Sun compares on its 'surface'.
You won't find any rocket scientist assuming a constant 9.8m/s/s force when calculating a launch on any planet, including Earth, since it changes in relation to everything around it as its moving away from the planet, possibly closer to a moon or what have you.
The picture painted here is a useless metric without taking a whole lot more data into account, which it doesn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409191</id>
	<title>I use both FF3.0.x and Opera 10 at work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245580260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Opera usually doesn't go over 300 megs over days, but Firefox often goes to 1 giga in a matter of 2-3 days. Even if I close all tabs, it still hogs to this 1 giga. So I have to restert it, since I've got 2 gigs only.<br>Weird thing is that I use Firefox only for its firebug and debugging of intranet software (I'm developer), while Opera is for the rest - I've got very weak intel graphic card, so Firefox doesn't work very well.<br>But Opera isn't perfect either, when Firefox gets to it 1 gigs memory, Opera usually gets to its CPU eating process... not really sure why, but it just keeps my 2 cores at 100\% until I restart it. I think it was the same for Opera 9.</p><p>I haven't tested FF3.5 for it yet, but if its fixed, then I'm gonna be happier<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera usually does n't go over 300 megs over days , but Firefox often goes to 1 giga in a matter of 2-3 days .
Even if I close all tabs , it still hogs to this 1 giga .
So I have to restert it , since I 've got 2 gigs only.Weird thing is that I use Firefox only for its firebug and debugging of intranet software ( I 'm developer ) , while Opera is for the rest - I 've got very weak intel graphic card , so Firefox does n't work very well.But Opera is n't perfect either , when Firefox gets to it 1 gigs memory , Opera usually gets to its CPU eating process... not really sure why , but it just keeps my 2 cores at 100 \ % until I restart it .
I think it was the same for Opera 9.I have n't tested FF3.5 for it yet , but if its fixed , then I 'm gon na be happier : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera usually doesn't go over 300 megs over days, but Firefox often goes to 1 giga in a matter of 2-3 days.
Even if I close all tabs, it still hogs to this 1 giga.
So I have to restert it, since I've got 2 gigs only.Weird thing is that I use Firefox only for its firebug and debugging of intranet software (I'm developer), while Opera is for the rest - I've got very weak intel graphic card, so Firefox doesn't work very well.But Opera isn't perfect either, when Firefox gets to it 1 gigs memory, Opera usually gets to its CPU eating process... not really sure why, but it just keeps my 2 cores at 100\% until I restart it.
I think it was the same for Opera 9.I haven't tested FF3.5 for it yet, but if its fixed, then I'm gonna be happier :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408717</id>
	<title>Tabs settings</title>
	<author>mdsharpe</author>
	<datestamp>1245617580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IE 8 was not included "because the author could not find a way to prevent it from opening a new window on each invocation of the command."</p></div><p>Did the author try Tools -&gt; Internet Options -&gt; Tabs -&gt; Settings and change the option from the default "Always open pop-ups in a new window"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IE 8 was not included " because the author could not find a way to prevent it from opening a new window on each invocation of the command .
" Did the author try Tools - &gt; Internet Options - &gt; Tabs - &gt; Settings and change the option from the default " Always open pop-ups in a new window " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE 8 was not included "because the author could not find a way to prevent it from opening a new window on each invocation of the command.
"Did the author try Tools -&gt; Internet Options -&gt; Tabs -&gt; Settings and change the option from the default "Always open pop-ups in a new window"?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408785</id>
	<title>Re:how is his memory usage that low?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245575640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I'm running Iceweasel but I don't think that matters: it really depends on the kind of site you're visiting. Right now, with 6 tabs open firefox has a resident size of 86M (191 virtual). When I add one single tab pointing at the Java docs (http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/), memory usage increases to 150M (257 virtual), meaning that that one tab requires 64MB of memory (non-scientifically speaking).</p><p>In other words: depends on the site. Opening 40 tabs with Java docs woud require over 2GB of memory, while my regular sites (nu.nl,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., daily wtf and work-related sites) would take near 550MB. This is all linear extrapolation of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I 'm running Iceweasel but I do n't think that matters : it really depends on the kind of site you 're visiting .
Right now , with 6 tabs open firefox has a resident size of 86M ( 191 virtual ) .
When I add one single tab pointing at the Java docs ( http : //java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/ ) , memory usage increases to 150M ( 257 virtual ) , meaning that that one tab requires 64MB of memory ( non-scientifically speaking ) .In other words : depends on the site .
Opening 40 tabs with Java docs woud require over 2GB of memory , while my regular sites ( nu.nl , /. , daily wtf and work-related sites ) would take near 550MB .
This is all linear extrapolation of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I'm running Iceweasel but I don't think that matters: it really depends on the kind of site you're visiting.
Right now, with 6 tabs open firefox has a resident size of 86M (191 virtual).
When I add one single tab pointing at the Java docs (http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/), memory usage increases to 150M (257 virtual), meaning that that one tab requires 64MB of memory (non-scientifically speaking).In other words: depends on the site.
Opening 40 tabs with Java docs woud require over 2GB of memory, while my regular sites (nu.nl, /., daily wtf and work-related sites) would take near 550MB.
This is all linear extrapolation of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409109</id>
	<title>Re:et al</title>
	<author>Vectronic</author>
	<datestamp>1245579300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could have sworn that "et al" was "and others", whereas "etc" (et cetera) was "and the rest", it's only fairly recently that "etc" became generic and stood for both more, or the rest. And that "et al" was more of the same, but "etc" is more, but not necessarily the same...</p><p>Bob, Joe, Lisa... et al.<br>Ferrari, Mazda, Honda... et al.</p><p>Dogs, Butterflies, Plants... etc.<br>Plates, Bowls, Forks... etc</p><p>Considering this isn't all the browsers only some (most) of the main ones, "et al" is more correct than "etc", otherwise there would be at least 100 more browsers in this benchmark.</p><p>But, I could be wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could have sworn that " et al " was " and others " , whereas " etc " ( et cetera ) was " and the rest " , it 's only fairly recently that " etc " became generic and stood for both more , or the rest .
And that " et al " was more of the same , but " etc " is more , but not necessarily the same...Bob , Joe , Lisa... et al.Ferrari , Mazda , Honda... et al.Dogs , Butterflies , Plants... etc.Plates , Bowls , Forks... etcConsidering this is n't all the browsers only some ( most ) of the main ones , " et al " is more correct than " etc " , otherwise there would be at least 100 more browsers in this benchmark.But , I could be wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could have sworn that "et al" was "and others", whereas "etc" (et cetera) was "and the rest", it's only fairly recently that "etc" became generic and stood for both more, or the rest.
And that "et al" was more of the same, but "etc" is more, but not necessarily the same...Bob, Joe, Lisa... et al.Ferrari, Mazda, Honda... et al.Dogs, Butterflies, Plants... etc.Plates, Bowls, Forks... etcConsidering this isn't all the browsers only some (most) of the main ones, "et al" is more correct than "etc", otherwise there would be at least 100 more browsers in this benchmark.But, I could be wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409785</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>herve\_masson</author>
	<datestamp>1245589260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Memory usage comes with a bad side effect: memory fragmentation, which tends to eat a significant share of CPU cycles for no reason other than  allocate/reorganize/etc memory blocs. That's a problem.</p><p>Seeing how well FF shows on TFA is just amazing to me. My own experience tells me the contrary: FF performs bad when it comes to memory usage and, more importantly, leaks. At some point, just exiting FF (usualy because it reached the swap area) on my linux box takes about 30s. ff guys think using the exit() syscall is not good enough, hence ff tries to unallocate everything before exiting, which takes forever and tells a lot on how the memory is badly fragmented with tons of leaked small memory blocs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Memory usage comes with a bad side effect : memory fragmentation , which tends to eat a significant share of CPU cycles for no reason other than allocate/reorganize/etc memory blocs .
That 's a problem.Seeing how well FF shows on TFA is just amazing to me .
My own experience tells me the contrary : FF performs bad when it comes to memory usage and , more importantly , leaks .
At some point , just exiting FF ( usualy because it reached the swap area ) on my linux box takes about 30s .
ff guys think using the exit ( ) syscall is not good enough , hence ff tries to unallocate everything before exiting , which takes forever and tells a lot on how the memory is badly fragmented with tons of leaked small memory blocs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Memory usage comes with a bad side effect: memory fragmentation, which tends to eat a significant share of CPU cycles for no reason other than  allocate/reorganize/etc memory blocs.
That's a problem.Seeing how well FF shows on TFA is just amazing to me.
My own experience tells me the contrary: FF performs bad when it comes to memory usage and, more importantly, leaks.
At some point, just exiting FF (usualy because it reached the swap area) on my linux box takes about 30s.
ff guys think using the exit() syscall is not good enough, hence ff tries to unallocate everything before exiting, which takes forever and tells a lot on how the memory is badly fragmented with tons of leaked small memory blocs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409085</id>
	<title>Re:Why are we so worried about RAM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245579060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm also not sure why ram is something that is worried about anymore. I don't find it important that firefox only uses 300mb or so of my 4GB.</i></p><p>That's nice for you.</p><p>An average user's system at the moment probably has les than 1GB of RAM; 512MB and 1GB (running on WinXP) are the most common configurations right now.  300MB on a 512MB system is intolerable for something that's basically a background process most people leave running all the time.  It's barely acceptable on 1GB.  I find that kind of usage tolerable on my 1.5GB system, but I often see Firefox with 500MB usage or even more (and I run flashblock, so I doubt it's flash that's responsible).</p><p><i>Basically, I would rather have faster software that takes advantage of the memory that I use, then slower software that avoids using it.</i></p><p>On a system high-end enough for 4GB RAM (i.e., you're presumably running on a 64 bit processor, and I would hope are using a 64 bit OS to go with it), I sincerely doubt you spend much (if any) time waiting for your browser to calculate stuff that could be readily accelerated by using extra memory.  Chances are the only thing you ever wait for with your browser are slow javascripts and/or flash applications to run.  It's irrelevant that the browser's cacheing an uncompressed copy of the images from the last 10 pages you viewed, because it would probably take your system less time to uncompress them from its compressed cache than it would for your monitor to update to show them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm also not sure why ram is something that is worried about anymore .
I do n't find it important that firefox only uses 300mb or so of my 4GB.That 's nice for you.An average user 's system at the moment probably has les than 1GB of RAM ; 512MB and 1GB ( running on WinXP ) are the most common configurations right now .
300MB on a 512MB system is intolerable for something that 's basically a background process most people leave running all the time .
It 's barely acceptable on 1GB .
I find that kind of usage tolerable on my 1.5GB system , but I often see Firefox with 500MB usage or even more ( and I run flashblock , so I doubt it 's flash that 's responsible ) .Basically , I would rather have faster software that takes advantage of the memory that I use , then slower software that avoids using it.On a system high-end enough for 4GB RAM ( i.e. , you 're presumably running on a 64 bit processor , and I would hope are using a 64 bit OS to go with it ) , I sincerely doubt you spend much ( if any ) time waiting for your browser to calculate stuff that could be readily accelerated by using extra memory .
Chances are the only thing you ever wait for with your browser are slow javascripts and/or flash applications to run .
It 's irrelevant that the browser 's cacheing an uncompressed copy of the images from the last 10 pages you viewed , because it would probably take your system less time to uncompress them from its compressed cache than it would for your monitor to update to show them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm also not sure why ram is something that is worried about anymore.
I don't find it important that firefox only uses 300mb or so of my 4GB.That's nice for you.An average user's system at the moment probably has les than 1GB of RAM; 512MB and 1GB (running on WinXP) are the most common configurations right now.
300MB on a 512MB system is intolerable for something that's basically a background process most people leave running all the time.
It's barely acceptable on 1GB.
I find that kind of usage tolerable on my 1.5GB system, but I often see Firefox with 500MB usage or even more (and I run flashblock, so I doubt it's flash that's responsible).Basically, I would rather have faster software that takes advantage of the memory that I use, then slower software that avoids using it.On a system high-end enough for 4GB RAM (i.e., you're presumably running on a 64 bit processor, and I would hope are using a 64 bit OS to go with it), I sincerely doubt you spend much (if any) time waiting for your browser to calculate stuff that could be readily accelerated by using extra memory.
Chances are the only thing you ever wait for with your browser are slow javascripts and/or flash applications to run.
It's irrelevant that the browser's cacheing an uncompressed copy of the images from the last 10 pages you viewed, because it would probably take your system less time to uncompress them from its compressed cache than it would for your monitor to update to show them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410893</id>
	<title>Chrome: 100Mb  to look at this page.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1245600960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's pathetic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's pathetic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's pathetic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409639</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox 3.0 vs Firefox 3.5, night and day diff.</title>
	<author>Trogre</author>
	<datestamp>1245587100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you mean the latest 3.5 BETA?  If we're talking official releases, then 3.0.11 is the latest Firefox.</p><p>The latest I tried (3.5b4 I believe) had utterly abysmal performance on 4 year old hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you mean the latest 3.5 BETA ?
If we 're talking official releases , then 3.0.11 is the latest Firefox.The latest I tried ( 3.5b4 I believe ) had utterly abysmal performance on 4 year old hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you mean the latest 3.5 BETA?
If we're talking official releases, then 3.0.11 is the latest Firefox.The latest I tried (3.5b4 I believe) had utterly abysmal performance on 4 year old hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408383</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245526500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Something like "it doesn't show weird ass icons and bars when Slashdot decides to change CSS" is probably much more important. Firefox 3 totally screws up Slashdot in Default mode.</i> <p>
It's totally fucked up in Opera too. Aside from graphics elements appearing randomly all over the screen, it takes a minute to load the page before I can scroll the damn thing. Then it freezes and jerks around. </p><p>
And the fucking front page that decides to load another 10 stories when IT wants to, and again freezes the screen till it's done. </p><p>
I can turn off javascript and get a reasonable page that loads quickly and is responsive, or just close the window and go somewhere else. </p><p>
How the hell they can unleash this piece of shit on a million users is beyond me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something like " it does n't show weird ass icons and bars when Slashdot decides to change CSS " is probably much more important .
Firefox 3 totally screws up Slashdot in Default mode .
It 's totally fucked up in Opera too .
Aside from graphics elements appearing randomly all over the screen , it takes a minute to load the page before I can scroll the damn thing .
Then it freezes and jerks around .
And the fucking front page that decides to load another 10 stories when IT wants to , and again freezes the screen till it 's done .
I can turn off javascript and get a reasonable page that loads quickly and is responsive , or just close the window and go somewhere else .
How the hell they can unleash this piece of shit on a million users is beyond me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something like "it doesn't show weird ass icons and bars when Slashdot decides to change CSS" is probably much more important.
Firefox 3 totally screws up Slashdot in Default mode.
It's totally fucked up in Opera too.
Aside from graphics elements appearing randomly all over the screen, it takes a minute to load the page before I can scroll the damn thing.
Then it freezes and jerks around.
And the fucking front page that decides to load another 10 stories when IT wants to, and again freezes the screen till it's done.
I can turn off javascript and get a reasonable page that loads quickly and is responsive, or just close the window and go somewhere else.
How the hell they can unleash this piece of shit on a million users is beyond me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408989</id>
	<title>Caching problems</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1245577980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://blog.codefront.net/2008/09/10/optimize-firefoxs-memory-usage-by-tweaking-session-preferences/" title="codefront.net">http://blog.codefront.net/2008/09/10/optimize-firefoxs-memory-usage-by-tweaking-session-preferences/</a> [codefront.net]</p><p>Check that link out guys - I did the caching tweaks, and it sped things up some, so I went back and used all the tweaks.</p><p>Let's remember that FF3.5 is still a beta.  We should probably send feedback if we aren't happy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //blog.codefront.net/2008/09/10/optimize-firefoxs-memory-usage-by-tweaking-session-preferences/ [ codefront.net ] Check that link out guys - I did the caching tweaks , and it sped things up some , so I went back and used all the tweaks.Let 's remember that FF3.5 is still a beta .
We should probably send feedback if we are n't happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://blog.codefront.net/2008/09/10/optimize-firefoxs-memory-usage-by-tweaking-session-preferences/ [codefront.net]Check that link out guys - I did the caching tweaks, and it sped things up some, so I went back and used all the tweaks.Let's remember that FF3.5 is still a beta.
We should probably send feedback if we aren't happy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409965</id>
	<title>Run it again on a low memory system</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245592080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was wondering if Chrome was using a lot of memory, simply because there was a lot of free memory to use.</p><p>This seems like a nice way to develop applications to me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... gobble up a stack of resources so that you can perform really quickly<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... however, also know how to operate (at reduced speed) with reduced memory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was wondering if Chrome was using a lot of memory , simply because there was a lot of free memory to use.This seems like a nice way to develop applications to me ... gobble up a stack of resources so that you can perform really quickly ... however , also know how to operate ( at reduced speed ) with reduced memory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was wondering if Chrome was using a lot of memory, simply because there was a lot of free memory to use.This seems like a nice way to develop applications to me ... gobble up a stack of resources so that you can perform really quickly ... however, also know how to operate (at reduced speed) with reduced memory.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409883</id>
	<title>Re:Offtopic, what the hell is up with Slashdot's C</title>
	<author>dzfoo</author>
	<datestamp>1245590880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes.  I see them too.  They arrived right after they fixed the white-on-white comment titles.</p><p>You can work around the issue in the same way as with the previous bug:  click the "Change" button on top of the comments.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -dZ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
I see them too .
They arrived right after they fixed the white-on-white comment titles.You can work around the issue in the same way as with the previous bug : click the " Change " button on top of the comments .
        -dZ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
I see them too.
They arrived right after they fixed the white-on-white comment titles.You can work around the issue in the same way as with the previous bug:  click the "Change" button on top of the comments.
        -dZ.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409207</id>
	<title>Re:Low Firefox Memory Usage</title>
	<author>EMN13</author>
	<datestamp>1245580380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In real life usage, I've almost never seen FF (3.1 - 3.5) exceed 500MB of usage.  I've got 21 tabs open now, playing 4 videos simultaneously on sites using silverlight, flash, and windows media player (different plugins just to make sure), and a few popups open, and the private working set is 245 MB (Virtual size is well and truly not relevant to OS memory consumption), private +unshared but shareable is 269, +shared mem is 285MB.  In short, it's using 270MB of ram.</p><p>That's pretty typical in my eyes.</p><p>Just for the heck, if I open a few more windows for about 100 tabs total, I see 340MB private+unshared.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In real life usage , I 've almost never seen FF ( 3.1 - 3.5 ) exceed 500MB of usage .
I 've got 21 tabs open now , playing 4 videos simultaneously on sites using silverlight , flash , and windows media player ( different plugins just to make sure ) , and a few popups open , and the private working set is 245 MB ( Virtual size is well and truly not relevant to OS memory consumption ) , private + unshared but shareable is 269 , + shared mem is 285MB .
In short , it 's using 270MB of ram.That 's pretty typical in my eyes.Just for the heck , if I open a few more windows for about 100 tabs total , I see 340MB private + unshared .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In real life usage, I've almost never seen FF (3.1 - 3.5) exceed 500MB of usage.
I've got 21 tabs open now, playing 4 videos simultaneously on sites using silverlight, flash, and windows media player (different plugins just to make sure), and a few popups open, and the private working set is 245 MB (Virtual size is well and truly not relevant to OS memory consumption), private +unshared but shareable is 269, +shared mem is 285MB.
In short, it's using 270MB of ram.That's pretty typical in my eyes.Just for the heck, if I open a few more windows for about 100 tabs total, I see 340MB private+unshared.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408987</id>
	<title>Offtopic, what the hell is up with Slashdot's CSS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245577980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the hell is up with Slashdot's CSS? I keep seeing images all over the comments (the bars used on the new comments section, the relationship icons). Is anyone else seeing them. I'm using Firefox 3.5.</p><p>Regards<br>elFarto</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell is up with Slashdot 's CSS ?
I keep seeing images all over the comments ( the bars used on the new comments section , the relationship icons ) .
Is anyone else seeing them .
I 'm using Firefox 3.5.RegardselFarto</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell is up with Slashdot's CSS?
I keep seeing images all over the comments (the bars used on the new comments section, the relationship icons).
Is anyone else seeing them.
I'm using Firefox 3.5.RegardselFarto</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409829</id>
	<title>The Fox is my Friend</title>
	<author>derspankster</author>
	<datestamp>1245589920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just like Firefox. It works the way I like. Guess I've never considered memory leaks and all that. And, I don't even own a Firefox t-shirt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just like Firefox .
It works the way I like .
Guess I 've never considered memory leaks and all that .
And , I do n't even own a Firefox t-shirt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just like Firefox.
It works the way I like.
Guess I've never considered memory leaks and all that.
And, I don't even own a Firefox t-shirt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408759</id>
	<title>Re:how is his memory usage that low?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245575220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I get the impression that you are new to linux.  If not, I apologize.  But, Linux manages memory completely differently than Windows does.  Linux will generally fill memory up, as much as possible, instead of swapping out to disk.  Using Ubuntu, my physical memory is almost always at 100\% usage, but swap memory is almost always zero.</p><p>I'm not qualified to explain how Linux manages memory - I can't even claim to completely understand it.  But feel free to google Linux memory management.  It's really interesting.  Firefox on Linux has actually reached a full gigabyte of memory usage for me.  That's one heck of a lot of windows and tabs open.  But, the important thing is, I was NOT using swap memory - it was all physical memory, and FF did not slow down for me.</p><p>At a guess, I would say that you have 4 gig of memory installed.  The machine I'm using for 64 bit only has 3 gig.  I don't "think" that FF uses quite as much memory for similar tabs on my machine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I get the impression that you are new to linux .
If not , I apologize .
But , Linux manages memory completely differently than Windows does .
Linux will generally fill memory up , as much as possible , instead of swapping out to disk .
Using Ubuntu , my physical memory is almost always at 100 \ % usage , but swap memory is almost always zero.I 'm not qualified to explain how Linux manages memory - I ca n't even claim to completely understand it .
But feel free to google Linux memory management .
It 's really interesting .
Firefox on Linux has actually reached a full gigabyte of memory usage for me .
That 's one heck of a lot of windows and tabs open .
But , the important thing is , I was NOT using swap memory - it was all physical memory , and FF did not slow down for me.At a guess , I would say that you have 4 gig of memory installed .
The machine I 'm using for 64 bit only has 3 gig .
I do n't " think " that FF uses quite as much memory for similar tabs on my machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get the impression that you are new to linux.
If not, I apologize.
But, Linux manages memory completely differently than Windows does.
Linux will generally fill memory up, as much as possible, instead of swapping out to disk.
Using Ubuntu, my physical memory is almost always at 100\% usage, but swap memory is almost always zero.I'm not qualified to explain how Linux manages memory - I can't even claim to completely understand it.
But feel free to google Linux memory management.
It's really interesting.
Firefox on Linux has actually reached a full gigabyte of memory usage for me.
That's one heck of a lot of windows and tabs open.
But, the important thing is, I was NOT using swap memory - it was all physical memory, and FF did not slow down for me.At a guess, I would say that you have 4 gig of memory installed.
The machine I'm using for 64 bit only has 3 gig.
I don't "think" that FF uses quite as much memory for similar tabs on my machine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28411417</id>
	<title>Re:Why are we so worried about RAM</title>
	<author>onefriedrice</author>
	<datestamp>1245605640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
In the early days, more RAM meant that you could cache some frequently used information in memory instead of recomputing it or loading it on demand.
But there's a diminishing return. Nowadays, it's usually faster to recompute than read it all back from RAM...</p></div><p>That's not quite right.  There is a trade-off between speed and memory usage in many cases, but nowadays we have what we consider to be slow <i>and</i>"bloated" software not because the software is storing in memory what it should compute each time, but rather because of the large number of abstractions used in some modern software.  Each level of abstraction increases overhead (essentially wasted CPU cycles) as well as overall memory use.  Thus we see that new features and required resources increase at some above-linear rate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the early days , more RAM meant that you could cache some frequently used information in memory instead of recomputing it or loading it on demand .
But there 's a diminishing return .
Nowadays , it 's usually faster to recompute than read it all back from RAM...That 's not quite right .
There is a trade-off between speed and memory usage in many cases , but nowadays we have what we consider to be slow and " bloated " software not because the software is storing in memory what it should compute each time , but rather because of the large number of abstractions used in some modern software .
Each level of abstraction increases overhead ( essentially wasted CPU cycles ) as well as overall memory use .
Thus we see that new features and required resources increase at some above-linear rate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
In the early days, more RAM meant that you could cache some frequently used information in memory instead of recomputing it or loading it on demand.
But there's a diminishing return.
Nowadays, it's usually faster to recompute than read it all back from RAM...That's not quite right.
There is a trade-off between speed and memory usage in many cases, but nowadays we have what we consider to be slow and"bloated" software not because the software is storing in memory what it should compute each time, but rather because of the large number of abstractions used in some modern software.
Each level of abstraction increases overhead (essentially wasted CPU cycles) as well as overall memory use.
Thus we see that new features and required resources increase at some above-linear rate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408067</id>
	<title>Who uses vanilla FF anyway?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245523080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>We all know that the thing that hogs the most memory in Firefox is all the extensions that people use to immitate other browsers... Who actually uses Firefox without a single extension and brags about how good it is anyway?</htmltext>
<tokenext>We all know that the thing that hogs the most memory in Firefox is all the extensions that people use to immitate other browsers... Who actually uses Firefox without a single extension and brags about how good it is anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all know that the thing that hogs the most memory in Firefox is all the extensions that people use to immitate other browsers... Who actually uses Firefox without a single extension and brags about how good it is anyway?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410687</id>
	<title>CPU usage</title>
	<author>Danzigism</author>
	<datestamp>1245599280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it seems to me that memory usage is far less important that CPU usage. I mean if you spike out that processor, then your computer is at a fucking standstill. RAM is cheap, easy to upgrade, and can also be paged out to your hard drive. it is like putting a RAM upgrade in a Celeron. Yes it will *kinda* help with multitasking, but it will still be slow because the processor is holding it back. Chrome still has all of them beat in my eyes as far as speed is concerned.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it seems to me that memory usage is far less important that CPU usage .
I mean if you spike out that processor , then your computer is at a fucking standstill .
RAM is cheap , easy to upgrade , and can also be paged out to your hard drive .
it is like putting a RAM upgrade in a Celeron .
Yes it will * kinda * help with multitasking , but it will still be slow because the processor is holding it back .
Chrome still has all of them beat in my eyes as far as speed is concerned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it seems to me that memory usage is far less important that CPU usage.
I mean if you spike out that processor, then your computer is at a fucking standstill.
RAM is cheap, easy to upgrade, and can also be paged out to your hard drive.
it is like putting a RAM upgrade in a Celeron.
Yes it will *kinda* help with multitasking, but it will still be slow because the processor is holding it back.
Chrome still has all of them beat in my eyes as far as speed is concerned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408913</id>
	<title>Re:how is his memory usage that low?</title>
	<author>ion.simon.c</author>
	<datestamp>1245577200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Strange. My copy of Ffox sits at ~1.25GB virtual for 400-&gt;500 tabs.</p><p>I'm running on an x86 machine, FWIW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Strange .
My copy of Ffox sits at ~ 1.25GB virtual for 400- &gt; 500 tabs.I 'm running on an x86 machine , FWIW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Strange.
My copy of Ffox sits at ~1.25GB virtual for 400-&gt;500 tabs.I'm running on an x86 machine, FWIW.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28424931</id>
	<title>More explanation from Chrome</title>
	<author>mbelshe</author>
	<datestamp>1245694980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[disclaimer:  I work for google on chrome]</p><p>First off, Firefox is definitely great at keeping memory usage low - better than Chrome.  Some on this thread say that firefox has memory leaks and bugs.  I don't know about that, I find Firefox is pretty solid.  Nonetheless - one advantage Chrome has is that tabs are in separate processes.  So, as you close tabs you get to completely flush out all memory from that process.  This adds a level of resiliency to chrome you can't match in single process browsers.</p><p>Second - thanks to dotnetperls for posting their methodology and their exact test source code!  The only question I have is "which memory metric was used?"  There is a big difference between "working set private", "working set total", "private bytes", etc.</p><p>What is the right metric to use?  I use the same metric Vista uses:  private working set.  You might argue "why not use private bytes"?  I agree this seems like a good metric, and it's not a bad one.  But, it doesn't reflect user experience.</p><p>Why?  Because the working set is the amount of memory *not available to other apps*.  If other apps can have the memory, then using the bytes is inconsequential.  Private bytes does reflect bytes allocated by the process at some point, but the OS is not using physical RAM for those pages right now.</p><p>For most applications, there isn't much difference between "private bytes" and "working set private bytes".  However, because of Chrome's multi-proc architecture, there is a big difference.  The reason is because Chrome intentionally gives memory back to the OS.  For instance, on my current instance of Chrome, I'm using 16 tabs.  The sum of the private bytes is 514408.  The sum of the private working set bytes is 275040, nearly half of the private bytes number.  This is on a machine with 8GB of RAM, so there is plenty of memory to go around.  But if some other app wants the memory, Chrome gave it back to the OS and will suffer the page faults to get it back.  Since Chrome has given it back to the OS (and has volunteered to take the performance consequences of getting it back), I don't think it should be counted as Chrome usage.  Others may disagree. But Windows uses working set as the primary metric for all applications the OS folks agree that working set is the right way to account for memory usage.</p><p>Single process browsers have a hard time giving memory back, because they can't differentiate which pages are accounted to unused, background tabs and which pages are accounted to the active, in-use tabs.</p><p>One last note:  If you have a version of chromium, you can run it using --single-process.  I ran the dotnetperls test in this mode, and then Chrome and Firefox are pretty close in memory usage.  Firefox still wins.  But most of this memory use is due to the explicit tradeoff to use multiple processes rather than use minimalist memory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ disclaimer : I work for google on chrome ] First off , Firefox is definitely great at keeping memory usage low - better than Chrome .
Some on this thread say that firefox has memory leaks and bugs .
I do n't know about that , I find Firefox is pretty solid .
Nonetheless - one advantage Chrome has is that tabs are in separate processes .
So , as you close tabs you get to completely flush out all memory from that process .
This adds a level of resiliency to chrome you ca n't match in single process browsers.Second - thanks to dotnetperls for posting their methodology and their exact test source code !
The only question I have is " which memory metric was used ?
" There is a big difference between " working set private " , " working set total " , " private bytes " , etc.What is the right metric to use ?
I use the same metric Vista uses : private working set .
You might argue " why not use private bytes " ?
I agree this seems like a good metric , and it 's not a bad one .
But , it does n't reflect user experience.Why ?
Because the working set is the amount of memory * not available to other apps * .
If other apps can have the memory , then using the bytes is inconsequential .
Private bytes does reflect bytes allocated by the process at some point , but the OS is not using physical RAM for those pages right now.For most applications , there is n't much difference between " private bytes " and " working set private bytes " .
However , because of Chrome 's multi-proc architecture , there is a big difference .
The reason is because Chrome intentionally gives memory back to the OS .
For instance , on my current instance of Chrome , I 'm using 16 tabs .
The sum of the private bytes is 514408 .
The sum of the private working set bytes is 275040 , nearly half of the private bytes number .
This is on a machine with 8GB of RAM , so there is plenty of memory to go around .
But if some other app wants the memory , Chrome gave it back to the OS and will suffer the page faults to get it back .
Since Chrome has given it back to the OS ( and has volunteered to take the performance consequences of getting it back ) , I do n't think it should be counted as Chrome usage .
Others may disagree .
But Windows uses working set as the primary metric for all applications the OS folks agree that working set is the right way to account for memory usage.Single process browsers have a hard time giving memory back , because they ca n't differentiate which pages are accounted to unused , background tabs and which pages are accounted to the active , in-use tabs.One last note : If you have a version of chromium , you can run it using --single-process .
I ran the dotnetperls test in this mode , and then Chrome and Firefox are pretty close in memory usage .
Firefox still wins .
But most of this memory use is due to the explicit tradeoff to use multiple processes rather than use minimalist memory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[disclaimer:  I work for google on chrome]First off, Firefox is definitely great at keeping memory usage low - better than Chrome.
Some on this thread say that firefox has memory leaks and bugs.
I don't know about that, I find Firefox is pretty solid.
Nonetheless - one advantage Chrome has is that tabs are in separate processes.
So, as you close tabs you get to completely flush out all memory from that process.
This adds a level of resiliency to chrome you can't match in single process browsers.Second - thanks to dotnetperls for posting their methodology and their exact test source code!
The only question I have is "which memory metric was used?
"  There is a big difference between "working set private", "working set total", "private bytes", etc.What is the right metric to use?
I use the same metric Vista uses:  private working set.
You might argue "why not use private bytes"?
I agree this seems like a good metric, and it's not a bad one.
But, it doesn't reflect user experience.Why?
Because the working set is the amount of memory *not available to other apps*.
If other apps can have the memory, then using the bytes is inconsequential.
Private bytes does reflect bytes allocated by the process at some point, but the OS is not using physical RAM for those pages right now.For most applications, there isn't much difference between "private bytes" and "working set private bytes".
However, because of Chrome's multi-proc architecture, there is a big difference.
The reason is because Chrome intentionally gives memory back to the OS.
For instance, on my current instance of Chrome, I'm using 16 tabs.
The sum of the private bytes is 514408.
The sum of the private working set bytes is 275040, nearly half of the private bytes number.
This is on a machine with 8GB of RAM, so there is plenty of memory to go around.
But if some other app wants the memory, Chrome gave it back to the OS and will suffer the page faults to get it back.
Since Chrome has given it back to the OS (and has volunteered to take the performance consequences of getting it back), I don't think it should be counted as Chrome usage.
Others may disagree.
But Windows uses working set as the primary metric for all applications the OS folks agree that working set is the right way to account for memory usage.Single process browsers have a hard time giving memory back, because they can't differentiate which pages are accounted to unused, background tabs and which pages are accounted to the active, in-use tabs.One last note:  If you have a version of chromium, you can run it using --single-process.
I ran the dotnetperls test in this mode, and then Chrome and Firefox are pretty close in memory usage.
Firefox still wins.
But most of this memory use is due to the explicit tradeoff to use multiple processes rather than use minimalist memory.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409641</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>hab136</author>
	<datestamp>1245587160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Something like "it doesn't show weird ass icons and bars when Slashdot decides to change CSS" is probably much more important. Firefox 3 totally screws up Slashdot in Default mode.</p></div></blockquote><p>I had to AdBlock "http://c.fsdn.com/sd/cs\_sic\_controls\_new.png?T\_2\_5\_0\_261a" and then it was all better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Something like " it does n't show weird ass icons and bars when Slashdot decides to change CSS " is probably much more important .
Firefox 3 totally screws up Slashdot in Default mode.I had to AdBlock " http : //c.fsdn.com/sd/cs \ _sic \ _controls \ _new.png ? T \ _2 \ _5 \ _0 \ _261a " and then it was all better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something like "it doesn't show weird ass icons and bars when Slashdot decides to change CSS" is probably much more important.
Firefox 3 totally screws up Slashdot in Default mode.I had to AdBlock "http://c.fsdn.com/sd/cs\_sic\_controls\_new.png?T\_2\_5\_0\_261a" and then it was all better.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28412827</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1245616320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox certainly does: both the size of the HTTP memory cache and the size of the back-forward history cache depend on the amount of RAM installed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox certainly does : both the size of the HTTP memory cache and the size of the back-forward history cache depend on the amount of RAM installed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox certainly does: both the size of the HTTP memory cache and the size of the back-forward history cache depend on the amount of RAM installed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408009</id>
	<title>IE8, huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245522180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I couldn't find a way to keep it from sucking so forcefully all the air was evacuated from my office every time it was run.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't find a way to keep it from sucking so forcefully all the air was evacuated from my office every time it was run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't find a way to keep it from sucking so forcefully all the air was evacuated from my office every time it was run.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409365</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245582960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look at it this way: if you can open 30 tabs in Chrome with the amount of memory you have, you should be able to open 120 tabs in Firefox. So memory usage does matter even if you have a lot of it. In fact, most modern desktop applications are more limited by the available memory than processing power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at it this way : if you can open 30 tabs in Chrome with the amount of memory you have , you should be able to open 120 tabs in Firefox .
So memory usage does matter even if you have a lot of it .
In fact , most modern desktop applications are more limited by the available memory than processing power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at it this way: if you can open 30 tabs in Chrome with the amount of memory you have, you should be able to open 120 tabs in Firefox.
So memory usage does matter even if you have a lot of it.
In fact, most modern desktop applications are more limited by the available memory than processing power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28413357</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1245577200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps someone should consider the fact that the test is inducing non-standard memory usage in these browsers.  The test is in no way an indication of standard browsing habits.</p><p>Throwing 1000 urls at a browser as fast as it can load them is very little like loading a page, letting the JS on it run for a few minutes, doing something on the page, waiting a few more minutes and moving on to some other page.  In this benchmark is a joke.  I've seen a chart for 'memory usage'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... windows has at least 3 different sets you can get back from an API call that I know of off the top of my head, which one are we using?  Virtual?  Actual?  Allocated?  Only one of those actually matters as far as performance is concerned.  Any developer with a clue can tell you that all of those numbers are likely to be substantially different.</p><p>This 'benchmark' is just silly and practically pointless outside of academia.  The guy wrote a crappy little<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET app to run some processes and dump 'Mem usage' column from task manager into Excel without actually knowing anything about the way the OS works or what memory allocation numbers  actually mean.</p><p>Take into account that all of these browsers to some extent adjust the way the operate based on how much RAM the system has means that you will never get results anything like this if you throw it at a machine with say<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... 1 Gig of ram.</p><p>In short, if you think this 'benchmark' has any real world meaning, you don't really have a clue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps someone should consider the fact that the test is inducing non-standard memory usage in these browsers .
The test is in no way an indication of standard browsing habits.Throwing 1000 urls at a browser as fast as it can load them is very little like loading a page , letting the JS on it run for a few minutes , doing something on the page , waiting a few more minutes and moving on to some other page .
In this benchmark is a joke .
I 've seen a chart for 'memory usage ' ... windows has at least 3 different sets you can get back from an API call that I know of off the top of my head , which one are we using ?
Virtual ? Actual ?
Allocated ? Only one of those actually matters as far as performance is concerned .
Any developer with a clue can tell you that all of those numbers are likely to be substantially different.This 'benchmark ' is just silly and practically pointless outside of academia .
The guy wrote a crappy little .NET app to run some processes and dump 'Mem usage ' column from task manager into Excel without actually knowing anything about the way the OS works or what memory allocation numbers actually mean.Take into account that all of these browsers to some extent adjust the way the operate based on how much RAM the system has means that you will never get results anything like this if you throw it at a machine with say ... 1 Gig of ram.In short , if you think this 'benchmark ' has any real world meaning , you do n't really have a clue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps someone should consider the fact that the test is inducing non-standard memory usage in these browsers.
The test is in no way an indication of standard browsing habits.Throwing 1000 urls at a browser as fast as it can load them is very little like loading a page, letting the JS on it run for a few minutes, doing something on the page, waiting a few more minutes and moving on to some other page.
In this benchmark is a joke.
I've seen a chart for 'memory usage' ... windows has at least 3 different sets you can get back from an API call that I know of off the top of my head, which one are we using?
Virtual?  Actual?
Allocated?  Only one of those actually matters as far as performance is concerned.
Any developer with a clue can tell you that all of those numbers are likely to be substantially different.This 'benchmark' is just silly and practically pointless outside of academia.
The guy wrote a crappy little .NET app to run some processes and dump 'Mem usage' column from task manager into Excel without actually knowing anything about the way the OS works or what memory allocation numbers  actually mean.Take into account that all of these browsers to some extent adjust the way the operate based on how much RAM the system has means that you will never get results anything like this if you throw it at a machine with say ... 1 Gig of ram.In short, if you think this 'benchmark' has any real world meaning, you don't really have a clue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408661</id>
	<title>CPU usage comparison please.</title>
	<author>DTemp</author>
	<datestamp>1245616740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would like to see the CPU usage of different browsers tested.  I run Firefox 3.5b and Safari 4 on OS X 10.5, and with JUST ONE TAB open with gmail loaded, firefox uses 8\% of the CPU sustained with bursts for some reason to 40\%, and safari uses 1\%.</p><p>With my usual workload, with like 40 tabs open among 5 or 6 windows, Firefox uses 40\%, safari 4\%.  This is ridiculous!  This means a lot when you're on a portable on battery, not to mention general system responsiveness.</p><p>I would like to see the CPU usage of browsers compared.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to see the CPU usage of different browsers tested .
I run Firefox 3.5b and Safari 4 on OS X 10.5 , and with JUST ONE TAB open with gmail loaded , firefox uses 8 \ % of the CPU sustained with bursts for some reason to 40 \ % , and safari uses 1 \ % .With my usual workload , with like 40 tabs open among 5 or 6 windows , Firefox uses 40 \ % , safari 4 \ % .
This is ridiculous !
This means a lot when you 're on a portable on battery , not to mention general system responsiveness.I would like to see the CPU usage of browsers compared .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to see the CPU usage of different browsers tested.
I run Firefox 3.5b and Safari 4 on OS X 10.5, and with JUST ONE TAB open with gmail loaded, firefox uses 8\% of the CPU sustained with bursts for some reason to 40\%, and safari uses 1\%.With my usual workload, with like 40 tabs open among 5 or 6 windows, Firefox uses 40\%, safari 4\%.
This is ridiculous!
This means a lot when you're on a portable on battery, not to mention general system responsiveness.I would like to see the CPU usage of browsers compared.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28411513</id>
	<title>Re:Who uses vanilla FF anyway?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245606660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is true. Add to this the fact the only people who care about memory management in their browser are the ones that use plenty of add-ons. Your average Joe Computer-user probably isn't going to pay that much attention to such a fact. Anyone that uses vanilla FF probably doesn't even know what memory is anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is true .
Add to this the fact the only people who care about memory management in their browser are the ones that use plenty of add-ons .
Your average Joe Computer-user probably is n't going to pay that much attention to such a fact .
Anyone that uses vanilla FF probably does n't even know what memory is anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is true.
Add to this the fact the only people who care about memory management in their browser are the ones that use plenty of add-ons.
Your average Joe Computer-user probably isn't going to pay that much attention to such a fact.
Anyone that uses vanilla FF probably doesn't even know what memory is anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410237</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>guppysap13</author>
	<datestamp>1245595560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>These comments about Opera bother me slightly...I'm running Ubuntu with 512mb ram (495 after video card grabs some), and Opera Unite doesn't even use half of it (plus, that's when it's been left on with multiple webpages open overnight when I fell asleep at the computer). Do the browsers scale their usage based on the amount of available ram on the system?</htmltext>
<tokenext>These comments about Opera bother me slightly...I 'm running Ubuntu with 512mb ram ( 495 after video card grabs some ) , and Opera Unite does n't even use half of it ( plus , that 's when it 's been left on with multiple webpages open overnight when I fell asleep at the computer ) .
Do the browsers scale their usage based on the amount of available ram on the system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These comments about Opera bother me slightly...I'm running Ubuntu with 512mb ram (495 after video card grabs some), and Opera Unite doesn't even use half of it (plus, that's when it's been left on with multiple webpages open overnight when I fell asleep at the computer).
Do the browsers scale their usage based on the amount of available ram on the system?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409529</id>
	<title>Doesn't it?</title>
	<author>De-Jean7777</author>
	<datestamp>1245585180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've seen some here say that memory usage is not important unless you have a old computer. What if you run a lot of processes like I do. I have my IDE open, Firefox, Pidgin, Winamp or Rhytmbox, Several explorer or nautilus windows, subversion server, TortoiseSVN explorer extension(when on windows) etc. And I only have 512 MiB of memory. If I wanted to buy some more memory for my computer I'd probably have to decide between paying for memory(DDR400, which costs about twice as much as DDR2, even though it's older) or not paying for my internet connection(that would make the ISP very unhappy and me ending up on court getting sewed for not paying). I'm a student, don't have a job, and yeah, money is important, as well as memory is. Just because memory is 'cheap' these days is no excuse for writting a bloated memory hogging program. The browser is not the only thing that is running on peoples computers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen some here say that memory usage is not important unless you have a old computer .
What if you run a lot of processes like I do .
I have my IDE open , Firefox , Pidgin , Winamp or Rhytmbox , Several explorer or nautilus windows , subversion server , TortoiseSVN explorer extension ( when on windows ) etc .
And I only have 512 MiB of memory .
If I wanted to buy some more memory for my computer I 'd probably have to decide between paying for memory ( DDR400 , which costs about twice as much as DDR2 , even though it 's older ) or not paying for my internet connection ( that would make the ISP very unhappy and me ending up on court getting sewed for not paying ) .
I 'm a student , do n't have a job , and yeah , money is important , as well as memory is .
Just because memory is 'cheap ' these days is no excuse for writting a bloated memory hogging program .
The browser is not the only thing that is running on peoples computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen some here say that memory usage is not important unless you have a old computer.
What if you run a lot of processes like I do.
I have my IDE open, Firefox, Pidgin, Winamp or Rhytmbox, Several explorer or nautilus windows, subversion server, TortoiseSVN explorer extension(when on windows) etc.
And I only have 512 MiB of memory.
If I wanted to buy some more memory for my computer I'd probably have to decide between paying for memory(DDR400, which costs about twice as much as DDR2, even though it's older) or not paying for my internet connection(that would make the ISP very unhappy and me ending up on court getting sewed for not paying).
I'm a student, don't have a job, and yeah, money is important, as well as memory is.
Just because memory is 'cheap' these days is no excuse for writting a bloated memory hogging program.
The browser is not the only thing that is running on peoples computers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410521</id>
	<title>Re:Low Firefox Memory Usage</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1245598020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could it be Flash, perhaps? Or the way Linux manages memory?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could it be Flash , perhaps ?
Or the way Linux manages memory ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could it be Flash, perhaps?
Or the way Linux manages memory?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408365</id>
	<title>Firefox 3.0 vs Firefox 3.5, night and day diff.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245526260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To all who bash Firefox, make sure you are using newest 3.5 and not some previous version.<br> <br>
It seams to me that lots of people haven't even recognized a small difference in number, but it is a big milestone for Firefox internally.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To all who bash Firefox , make sure you are using newest 3.5 and not some previous version .
It seams to me that lots of people have n't even recognized a small difference in number , but it is a big milestone for Firefox internally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To all who bash Firefox, make sure you are using newest 3.5 and not some previous version.
It seams to me that lots of people haven't even recognized a small difference in number, but it is a big milestone for Firefox internally.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409699</id>
	<title>it doesn't matter anymore</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245588000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can get all the memory you need for  the cost of a video game. cheap asses</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can get all the memory you need for the cost of a video game .
cheap asses</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can get all the memory you need for  the cost of a video game.
cheap asses</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410691</id>
	<title>Re:how is his memory usage that low?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245599340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows doesn't page out unless it's really necessary either, and in fact takes it one step further and fills your memory with random things you \_might\_ want in the future. Hard page faults are extremely rare unless you run out of memory.</p><p>I think much of this confusion comes from the task manager in XP which uses very confusing terminology.</p><p>When it says page faults, it's talking about \_both\_ soft (i.e the page wasn't mapped in the process's address space) and hard (had to be retrieved from disk) faults. When it says "page file usage", it actually means commit charge, which is the total amount of both physical and virtual memory you are using. In other words, it is not showing you the amount of data actually residing on disk.</p><p>This seems to have led to the web being full of thousands of pages claiming that Windows is always swapping things to disk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows does n't page out unless it 's really necessary either , and in fact takes it one step further and fills your memory with random things you \ _might \ _ want in the future .
Hard page faults are extremely rare unless you run out of memory.I think much of this confusion comes from the task manager in XP which uses very confusing terminology.When it says page faults , it 's talking about \ _both \ _ soft ( i.e the page was n't mapped in the process 's address space ) and hard ( had to be retrieved from disk ) faults .
When it says " page file usage " , it actually means commit charge , which is the total amount of both physical and virtual memory you are using .
In other words , it is not showing you the amount of data actually residing on disk.This seems to have led to the web being full of thousands of pages claiming that Windows is always swapping things to disk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows doesn't page out unless it's really necessary either, and in fact takes it one step further and fills your memory with random things you \_might\_ want in the future.
Hard page faults are extremely rare unless you run out of memory.I think much of this confusion comes from the task manager in XP which uses very confusing terminology.When it says page faults, it's talking about \_both\_ soft (i.e the page wasn't mapped in the process's address space) and hard (had to be retrieved from disk) faults.
When it says "page file usage", it actually means commit charge, which is the total amount of both physical and virtual memory you are using.
In other words, it is not showing you the amount of data actually residing on disk.This seems to have led to the web being full of thousands of pages claiming that Windows is always swapping things to disk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410559</id>
	<title>Almost like my Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245598200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>only that the peaks are at 100\% memory instead of 200 M, and the vertical lines are when it crashes and I have to restart it. And no, it's not fixed in 3.5.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>only that the peaks are at 100 \ % memory instead of 200 M , and the vertical lines are when it crashes and I have to restart it .
And no , it 's not fixed in 3.5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>only that the peaks are at 100\% memory instead of 200 M, and the vertical lines are when it crashes and I have to restart it.
And no, it's not fixed in 3.5.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28412161</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245611100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I completely turn off JavaScript for slashdot site to load and not stutter.  What the hell is it doing that's so processor intensive?  I'm running a 2.2GHz dual core and it freezes for a whole minute, I scroll a little bit and freeze for another minute.</p><p>And everyone should stop using CSS for layout and just use tables.  CSS seems to be only good for formatting text -- it's only good for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely turn off JavaScript for slashdot site to load and not stutter .
What the hell is it doing that 's so processor intensive ?
I 'm running a 2.2GHz dual core and it freezes for a whole minute , I scroll a little bit and freeze for another minute.And everyone should stop using CSS for layout and just use tables .
CSS seems to be only good for formatting text -- it 's only good for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely turn off JavaScript for slashdot site to load and not stutter.
What the hell is it doing that's so processor intensive?
I'm running a 2.2GHz dual core and it freezes for a whole minute, I scroll a little bit and freeze for another minute.And everyone should stop using CSS for layout and just use tables.
CSS seems to be only good for formatting text -- it's only good for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408603</id>
	<title>copy on write pages?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245615720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this test is meaningless in assessing chrome.  totaling all memory for each individual chrome process does not indicate how much memory they use in aggregate.  much of the program code and data is shared between processes and thus over counted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this test is meaningless in assessing chrome .
totaling all memory for each individual chrome process does not indicate how much memory they use in aggregate .
much of the program code and data is shared between processes and thus over counted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this test is meaningless in assessing chrome.
totaling all memory for each individual chrome process does not indicate how much memory they use in aggregate.
much of the program code and data is shared between processes and thus over counted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409499</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245584580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; They weren't trolls. I've seen the memory leaks first hand. Plenty of people have posted OS memory usage screenshots. It may have been particular extensions or advanced settings that caused the problems but it was not some work of fiction.</p><p>While they weren't trolls, people have been talking about them as if they were still there long after Firefox addressed pretty much all of them.  There might be a buggy extension or two still designed to gobble up memory, but I haven't seen one no matter how much I use Firefox on the pitiful machines we have at work, and I use quite a few of the more popular extensions (Adblock+, NoScript, and about a dozen others).</p><p>So they weren't trolling, but I suspect some people are still bashing Firefox based on outdated information.  Unless you have new OS memory usage screenshots to post?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; They were n't trolls .
I 've seen the memory leaks first hand .
Plenty of people have posted OS memory usage screenshots .
It may have been particular extensions or advanced settings that caused the problems but it was not some work of fiction.While they were n't trolls , people have been talking about them as if they were still there long after Firefox addressed pretty much all of them .
There might be a buggy extension or two still designed to gobble up memory , but I have n't seen one no matter how much I use Firefox on the pitiful machines we have at work , and I use quite a few of the more popular extensions ( Adblock + , NoScript , and about a dozen others ) .So they were n't trolling , but I suspect some people are still bashing Firefox based on outdated information .
Unless you have new OS memory usage screenshots to post ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; They weren't trolls.
I've seen the memory leaks first hand.
Plenty of people have posted OS memory usage screenshots.
It may have been particular extensions or advanced settings that caused the problems but it was not some work of fiction.While they weren't trolls, people have been talking about them as if they were still there long after Firefox addressed pretty much all of them.
There might be a buggy extension or two still designed to gobble up memory, but I haven't seen one no matter how much I use Firefox on the pitiful machines we have at work, and I use quite a few of the more popular extensions (Adblock+, NoScript, and about a dozen others).So they weren't trolling, but I suspect some people are still bashing Firefox based on outdated information.
Unless you have new OS memory usage screenshots to post?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409855</id>
	<title>I would care, but...</title>
	<author>luna69</author>
	<datestamp>1245590220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...I don't.</p><p>I have five machines ranging from 4 to 12 GB. I also don't keep applications open long enough for "degradation" to play a role; closing an app gives the OS a chance to play memory organizer just as surely as rebooting a machine (sorry *nix fanboys who brag about all of your oh-so-important 'uptime' when rebooting takes, at worst, a few minutes) gives it a fresh pallette.</p><p>I don't CARE about memory usage. Just isn't on my radar, anywhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...I do n't.I have five machines ranging from 4 to 12 GB .
I also do n't keep applications open long enough for " degradation " to play a role ; closing an app gives the OS a chance to play memory organizer just as surely as rebooting a machine ( sorry * nix fanboys who brag about all of your oh-so-important 'uptime ' when rebooting takes , at worst , a few minutes ) gives it a fresh pallette.I do n't CARE about memory usage .
Just is n't on my radar , anywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I don't.I have five machines ranging from 4 to 12 GB.
I also don't keep applications open long enough for "degradation" to play a role; closing an app gives the OS a chance to play memory organizer just as surely as rebooting a machine (sorry *nix fanboys who brag about all of your oh-so-important 'uptime' when rebooting takes, at worst, a few minutes) gives it a fresh pallette.I don't CARE about memory usage.
Just isn't on my radar, anywhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408149</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1245523920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Finally, this should stop perennial "firefox is a memory hog" trolls. Hopefully.</p></div><p>This really hasn't been my experience, and I am not trolling. My experience, <b> <i>which is to say what actually happens to me when I am surfing</i> </b>, is that after awhile with a few (2 or 3) tabs open, FF memory usage rises to the point where my machine crawls to a stop, and I have to kill FF with the task manager.<br> <br>Why is my FF experience different than the average FF fanboy? Why this is, I don't know. I do know that I am unwilling to get "under the hood" and edit config files, because I don't think I should have to.<br> <br>This is my experience as what I believe to be "average" use.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , this should stop perennial " firefox is a memory hog " trolls .
Hopefully.This really has n't been my experience , and I am not trolling .
My experience , which is to say what actually happens to me when I am surfing , is that after awhile with a few ( 2 or 3 ) tabs open , FF memory usage rises to the point where my machine crawls to a stop , and I have to kill FF with the task manager .
Why is my FF experience different than the average FF fanboy ?
Why this is , I do n't know .
I do know that I am unwilling to get " under the hood " and edit config files , because I do n't think I should have to .
This is my experience as what I believe to be " average " use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, this should stop perennial "firefox is a memory hog" trolls.
Hopefully.This really hasn't been my experience, and I am not trolling.
My experience,  which is to say what actually happens to me when I am surfing , is that after awhile with a few (2 or 3) tabs open, FF memory usage rises to the point where my machine crawls to a stop, and I have to kill FF with the task manager.
Why is my FF experience different than the average FF fanboy?
Why this is, I don't know.
I do know that I am unwilling to get "under the hood" and edit config files, because I don't think I should have to.
This is my experience as what I believe to be "average" use.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408613</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1245616020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Finally, this should stop perennial "firefox is a memory hog" trolls. Hopefully.</i></p><p>They weren't trolls. I've seen the memory leaks first hand. Plenty of people have posted OS memory usage screenshots. It may have been particular extensions or advanced settings that caused the problems but it was not some work of fiction.</p><p>You're the one trolling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , this should stop perennial " firefox is a memory hog " trolls .
Hopefully.They were n't trolls .
I 've seen the memory leaks first hand .
Plenty of people have posted OS memory usage screenshots .
It may have been particular extensions or advanced settings that caused the problems but it was not some work of fiction.You 're the one trolling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, this should stop perennial "firefox is a memory hog" trolls.
Hopefully.They weren't trolls.
I've seen the memory leaks first hand.
Plenty of people have posted OS memory usage screenshots.
It may have been particular extensions or advanced settings that caused the problems but it was not some work of fiction.You're the one trolling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28445395</id>
	<title>Re:Opera</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1245751860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Opera runs comfortable even on low-memory mobile phones with the same engine (and I'm talking about the full browser, not Opera Mini). Firefox does not. You were saying again?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera runs comfortable even on low-memory mobile phones with the same engine ( and I 'm talking about the full browser , not Opera Mini ) .
Firefox does not .
You were saying again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera runs comfortable even on low-memory mobile phones with the same engine (and I'm talking about the full browser, not Opera Mini).
Firefox does not.
You were saying again?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409719</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>gilboad</author>
	<datestamp>1245588240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any known work around?<br>I'm an inch from installing IE6 under wine just to view SD....</p><p>- Gilboa</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any known work around ? I 'm an inch from installing IE6 under wine just to view SD....- Gilboa</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any known work around?I'm an inch from installing IE6 under wine just to view SD....- Gilboa</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410631</id>
	<title>Re:Offtopic, what the hell is up with Slashdot's C</title>
	<author>theurge14</author>
	<datestamp>1245598740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It does this in Safari 4 as well.</p><p>I was able to get rid of this by going to by Slashdot account preferences and selecting "Classic index" under Layout.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does this in Safari 4 as well.I was able to get rid of this by going to by Slashdot account preferences and selecting " Classic index " under Layout .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does this in Safari 4 as well.I was able to get rid of this by going to by Slashdot account preferences and selecting "Classic index" under Layout.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408909</id>
	<title>Re:how is his memory usage that low?</title>
	<author>Quantumstate</author>
	<datestamp>1245577200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You didn't mention what version of Firefox you are using.  The article was talking about 3.5 and that is an important distinction.  I am using 3.5 on Linux and it does make a big difference usually about half the ram of 3.0 plus it releases memory more rapidly when you close tabs.  Also the amount of ram on the machine is an important factor since Firefox does adapt its memory usage depending on the ram available.  I have 768mb of ram and I have never seen firefox 3 above 45\% and that was a very unusual case with some nasty flash game.  It was commonly about 20-25\% with firefox 3.0 and with 3.5 it usually has 10-15\%.  As you may have guessed conky only gives me percentages and I can't be bothered to convert.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You did n't mention what version of Firefox you are using .
The article was talking about 3.5 and that is an important distinction .
I am using 3.5 on Linux and it does make a big difference usually about half the ram of 3.0 plus it releases memory more rapidly when you close tabs .
Also the amount of ram on the machine is an important factor since Firefox does adapt its memory usage depending on the ram available .
I have 768mb of ram and I have never seen firefox 3 above 45 \ % and that was a very unusual case with some nasty flash game .
It was commonly about 20-25 \ % with firefox 3.0 and with 3.5 it usually has 10-15 \ % .
As you may have guessed conky only gives me percentages and I ca n't be bothered to convert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You didn't mention what version of Firefox you are using.
The article was talking about 3.5 and that is an important distinction.
I am using 3.5 on Linux and it does make a big difference usually about half the ram of 3.0 plus it releases memory more rapidly when you close tabs.
Also the amount of ram on the machine is an important factor since Firefox does adapt its memory usage depending on the ram available.
I have 768mb of ram and I have never seen firefox 3 above 45\% and that was a very unusual case with some nasty flash game.
It was commonly about 20-25\% with firefox 3.0 and with 3.5 it usually has 10-15\%.
As you may have guessed conky only gives me percentages and I can't be bothered to convert.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408475</id>
	<title>You are correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245527640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are correct, summing is not the right thing to do, because the Chrome processes all share a lot of memory. I'm running a Chrome derivate at the moment, SRWare Iron, which uses generally a few tens of MB. So long as you don't use Flash it doesn't tend to reach the 100 MB mark and it runs blazingly fast on my computer (10 years old) where Firefox slows to the point of being unusable and IE8 is probably not even an option. Also, according to Process Explorer, if you consider its working set, Iron is a lot more memory friendly than other browsers, which probably explains why it isn't swapping even though I only have about 400 MB RAM total. But don't take your information from inane mathematically challenged internet articles, or this post for that matter. Why not simply try the browsers yourself and see which one works best for you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are correct , summing is not the right thing to do , because the Chrome processes all share a lot of memory .
I 'm running a Chrome derivate at the moment , SRWare Iron , which uses generally a few tens of MB .
So long as you do n't use Flash it does n't tend to reach the 100 MB mark and it runs blazingly fast on my computer ( 10 years old ) where Firefox slows to the point of being unusable and IE8 is probably not even an option .
Also , according to Process Explorer , if you consider its working set , Iron is a lot more memory friendly than other browsers , which probably explains why it is n't swapping even though I only have about 400 MB RAM total .
But do n't take your information from inane mathematically challenged internet articles , or this post for that matter .
Why not simply try the browsers yourself and see which one works best for you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are correct, summing is not the right thing to do, because the Chrome processes all share a lot of memory.
I'm running a Chrome derivate at the moment, SRWare Iron, which uses generally a few tens of MB.
So long as you don't use Flash it doesn't tend to reach the 100 MB mark and it runs blazingly fast on my computer (10 years old) where Firefox slows to the point of being unusable and IE8 is probably not even an option.
Also, according to Process Explorer, if you consider its working set, Iron is a lot more memory friendly than other browsers, which probably explains why it isn't swapping even though I only have about 400 MB RAM total.
But don't take your information from inane mathematically challenged internet articles, or this post for that matter.
Why not simply try the browsers yourself and see which one works best for you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28412789</id>
	<title>Re:how is his memory usage that low?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245615960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But, Linux manages memory completely differently than Windows does. Linux will generally fill memory up, as much as possible, instead of swapping out to disk.</p></div></blockquote><p>Thats what Windows does too, and as someone pointed out already, goes a step further and precache stuff in advance, especially on Vista, and is the behavior responsible for people flipping out about how bloated it is (then they just hide it on Win7 and everyone is in awe at the amazing efficiency machine that is Win7...lol).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But , Linux manages memory completely differently than Windows does .
Linux will generally fill memory up , as much as possible , instead of swapping out to disk.Thats what Windows does too , and as someone pointed out already , goes a step further and precache stuff in advance , especially on Vista , and is the behavior responsible for people flipping out about how bloated it is ( then they just hide it on Win7 and everyone is in awe at the amazing efficiency machine that is Win7...lol ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, Linux manages memory completely differently than Windows does.
Linux will generally fill memory up, as much as possible, instead of swapping out to disk.Thats what Windows does too, and as someone pointed out already, goes a step further and precache stuff in advance, especially on Vista, and is the behavior responsible for people flipping out about how bloated it is (then they just hide it on Win7 and everyone is in awe at the amazing efficiency machine that is Win7...lol).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410333</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox 3.0 vs Firefox 3.5, night and day diff.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245596340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Minefield has been pretty bad lately, I'm not sure how it lines up with the the firefox releases, but if it's any indication, stay away! I run version: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2a1pre) Gecko/20090621 Minefield/3.6a1pre (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Minefield has been pretty bad lately , I 'm not sure how it lines up with the the firefox releases , but if it 's any indication , stay away !
I run version : Mozilla/5.0 ( Windows ; U ; Windows NT 6.1 ; en-US ; rv : 1.9.2a1pre ) Gecko/20090621 Minefield/3.6a1pre ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Minefield has been pretty bad lately, I'm not sure how it lines up with the the firefox releases, but if it's any indication, stay away!
I run version: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2a1pre) Gecko/20090621 Minefield/3.6a1pre (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409625</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245586860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It used <em>up to</em> 1GB on a system with 4GB of RAM, but was also capable of dropping down to ~100MB at intervals (basically the same as Firefox). It should also be considered that Chrome supports prefetching and other features.</p><p>How do we know this wasn't just a case of Chrome recognizing that the system had plenty of available RAM, and then doing extra preprocessing to take advantage of it? It might be that Chrome is every bit as memory efficient as Firefox, except that it also does a better job of using whatever extra resources are available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It used up to 1GB on a system with 4GB of RAM , but was also capable of dropping down to ~ 100MB at intervals ( basically the same as Firefox ) .
It should also be considered that Chrome supports prefetching and other features.How do we know this was n't just a case of Chrome recognizing that the system had plenty of available RAM , and then doing extra preprocessing to take advantage of it ?
It might be that Chrome is every bit as memory efficient as Firefox , except that it also does a better job of using whatever extra resources are available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It used up to 1GB on a system with 4GB of RAM, but was also capable of dropping down to ~100MB at intervals (basically the same as Firefox).
It should also be considered that Chrome supports prefetching and other features.How do we know this wasn't just a case of Chrome recognizing that the system had plenty of available RAM, and then doing extra preprocessing to take advantage of it?
It might be that Chrome is every bit as memory efficient as Firefox, except that it also does a better job of using whatever extra resources are available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408091</id>
	<title>Of course not...</title>
	<author>The Master Control P</author>
	<datestamp>1245523320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then a few years later we end up wondering how come our software now sucks ten times more ram than before despite no corresponding quantum leap in functionality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then a few years later we end up wondering how come our software now sucks ten times more ram than before despite no corresponding quantum leap in functionality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then a few years later we end up wondering how come our software now sucks ten times more ram than before despite no corresponding quantum leap in functionality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28413211</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1245576060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I view Slashdot on a positively ancient system. CSS would murder it, so I just add an entry to my hosts file that points c.fsdn.com to 0.0.0.0. Kills the CSS and makes the page load quite quickly. I love the look too; looks like classic HTML without any font changes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I view Slashdot on a positively ancient system .
CSS would murder it , so I just add an entry to my hosts file that points c.fsdn.com to 0.0.0.0 .
Kills the CSS and makes the page load quite quickly .
I love the look too ; looks like classic HTML without any font changes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I view Slashdot on a positively ancient system.
CSS would murder it, so I just add an entry to my hosts file that points c.fsdn.com to 0.0.0.0.
Kills the CSS and makes the page load quite quickly.
I love the look too; looks like classic HTML without any font changes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408405</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245526680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If its "finally" being resolved, then it was an actual problem, not a troll.</p><p>Funny how the fanboys always try to make out all criticism as "trolls".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If its " finally " being resolved , then it was an actual problem , not a troll.Funny how the fanboys always try to make out all criticism as " trolls " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If its "finally" being resolved, then it was an actual problem, not a troll.Funny how the fanboys always try to make out all criticism as "trolls".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410063</id>
	<title>Time vs. Usage</title>
	<author>JackSpratts</author>
	<datestamp>1245593520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>leaving any browser open all day long makes my weezy thinkpad x22 essentially freeze after some 16 hours, even if i'm barely using the box (it's durational more than usage based). however unlike what the author experienced chrome causes the least issues and opera the most for me, with firefox right behind opera.</p><p>it's a problem since opera is my favorite browser and the stripped down x22 my favorite laptop. luckily it only happens at the end of these long stretches. if i reboot after eight ours it's fine. simply using any browser no matter how intensively for just a few hours is not enough for any memory leakage to become apparent with my setup.</p><p> - js.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>leaving any browser open all day long makes my weezy thinkpad x22 essentially freeze after some 16 hours , even if i 'm barely using the box ( it 's durational more than usage based ) .
however unlike what the author experienced chrome causes the least issues and opera the most for me , with firefox right behind opera.it 's a problem since opera is my favorite browser and the stripped down x22 my favorite laptop .
luckily it only happens at the end of these long stretches .
if i reboot after eight ours it 's fine .
simply using any browser no matter how intensively for just a few hours is not enough for any memory leakage to become apparent with my setup .
- js .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>leaving any browser open all day long makes my weezy thinkpad x22 essentially freeze after some 16 hours, even if i'm barely using the box (it's durational more than usage based).
however unlike what the author experienced chrome causes the least issues and opera the most for me, with firefox right behind opera.it's a problem since opera is my favorite browser and the stripped down x22 my favorite laptop.
luckily it only happens at the end of these long stretches.
if i reboot after eight ours it's fine.
simply using any browser no matter how intensively for just a few hours is not enough for any memory leakage to become apparent with my setup.
- js.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409279</id>
	<title>Re:Why are we so worried about RAM</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1245581580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Recomputing a web page layout when all the data is already available is not a timeconsuming operation. What likely takes all that RAM in your web browser are copies of images and open PDF documents which are referenced by the open pages.
<p>
But here's the thing, it's not clear cut why those things should be sitting in your web browser's process RAM. You already have a disk cache, and the operating system is probably keeping your frequently used files in unused RAM already (if all your programs leave enough of it for the OS to use).
</p><p>
If your web browser fills a huge chunk of RAM with cached opened media, then the OS has less ability to optimize what's going on in the computer. Moreover,
the actual speed difference from displaying eg an image kept in process RAM vs streaming it from the filesystem might not be that big (if that section of the disk was cached in RAM by the OS).
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Recomputing a web page layout when all the data is already available is not a timeconsuming operation .
What likely takes all that RAM in your web browser are copies of images and open PDF documents which are referenced by the open pages .
But here 's the thing , it 's not clear cut why those things should be sitting in your web browser 's process RAM .
You already have a disk cache , and the operating system is probably keeping your frequently used files in unused RAM already ( if all your programs leave enough of it for the OS to use ) .
If your web browser fills a huge chunk of RAM with cached opened media , then the OS has less ability to optimize what 's going on in the computer .
Moreover , the actual speed difference from displaying eg an image kept in process RAM vs streaming it from the filesystem might not be that big ( if that section of the disk was cached in RAM by the OS ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recomputing a web page layout when all the data is already available is not a timeconsuming operation.
What likely takes all that RAM in your web browser are copies of images and open PDF documents which are referenced by the open pages.
But here's the thing, it's not clear cut why those things should be sitting in your web browser's process RAM.
You already have a disk cache, and the operating system is probably keeping your frequently used files in unused RAM already (if all your programs leave enough of it for the OS to use).
If your web browser fills a huge chunk of RAM with cached opened media, then the OS has less ability to optimize what's going on in the computer.
Moreover,
the actual speed difference from displaying eg an image kept in process RAM vs streaming it from the filesystem might not be that big (if that section of the disk was cached in RAM by the OS).
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28419803</id>
	<title>Re:how is his memory usage that low?</title>
	<author>rodrigovr</author>
	<datestamp>1245675240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>x86\_64 doesn&#194;t use 2x x86 RAM. Not even the program code.
Linux will use nearly 100\% RAM all the time. It&#194;s because of the caching model.</htmltext>
<tokenext>x86 \ _64 doesn   t use 2x x86 RAM .
Not even the program code .
Linux will use nearly 100 \ % RAM all the time .
It   s because of the caching model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>x86\_64 doesnÂt use 2x x86 RAM.
Not even the program code.
Linux will use nearly 100\% RAM all the time.
ItÂs because of the caching model.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410073</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Domomojo</author>
	<datestamp>1245593640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had weird bars and icons all over the place, until I told NoScript to allow fsdn.net. Now things look OK. The FAQ says it's their image server.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had weird bars and icons all over the place , until I told NoScript to allow fsdn.net .
Now things look OK. The FAQ says it 's their image server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had weird bars and icons all over the place, until I told NoScript to allow fsdn.net.
Now things look OK. The FAQ says it's their image server.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408515</id>
	<title>IE8 hardly matters for people who choose a browser</title>
	<author>iYk6</author>
	<datestamp>1245614580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You test all the browsers except the most up-to-date version of the most popular one. In other words, the one that matters the most.</p></div><p>Benchmarks are for people who choose software. Only a small minority choose IE. In a way, IE8 was included. It failed to compete due to lack of necessary features.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You test all the browsers except the most up-to-date version of the most popular one .
In other words , the one that matters the most.Benchmarks are for people who choose software .
Only a small minority choose IE .
In a way , IE8 was included .
It failed to compete due to lack of necessary features .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You test all the browsers except the most up-to-date version of the most popular one.
In other words, the one that matters the most.Benchmarks are for people who choose software.
Only a small minority choose IE.
In a way, IE8 was included.
It failed to compete due to lack of necessary features.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408437</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Kaboom13</author>
	<datestamp>1245527220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you seen the average corporate america system?  They are often running 1 gb max on Windows XP.  Add in IT department mandated AV software, management software, business apps coded in a bizarre mixture of visual basic, java, and excel/word macros, auto updaters for 20 different apps, and Outlook or Lotus Notes.  I've seen images where just the mandatory software that ran at boot had the workstations paging to disk.  In that kind of environment, ram usage matters.  1 app being wasteful with ram is not a big deal, but when all the devs for all the apps you use decide to be lazy, it can be an issue.  A web browser should not use excessive ram, and memory leaks are a problem in any app.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you seen the average corporate america system ?
They are often running 1 gb max on Windows XP .
Add in IT department mandated AV software , management software , business apps coded in a bizarre mixture of visual basic , java , and excel/word macros , auto updaters for 20 different apps , and Outlook or Lotus Notes .
I 've seen images where just the mandatory software that ran at boot had the workstations paging to disk .
In that kind of environment , ram usage matters .
1 app being wasteful with ram is not a big deal , but when all the devs for all the apps you use decide to be lazy , it can be an issue .
A web browser should not use excessive ram , and memory leaks are a problem in any app .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you seen the average corporate america system?
They are often running 1 gb max on Windows XP.
Add in IT department mandated AV software, management software, business apps coded in a bizarre mixture of visual basic, java, and excel/word macros, auto updaters for 20 different apps, and Outlook or Lotus Notes.
I've seen images where just the mandatory software that ran at boot had the workstations paging to disk.
In that kind of environment, ram usage matters.
1 app being wasteful with ram is not a big deal, but when all the devs for all the apps you use decide to be lazy, it can be an issue.
A web browser should not use excessive ram, and memory leaks are a problem in any app.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408573</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245615240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a Firefox user...  does it really show ass icons?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a Firefox user... does it really show ass icons ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a Firefox user...  does it really show ass icons?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408769</id>
	<title>how much of that 1.1G was COW by the OS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245575280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> on linux you can have many different processes that each think that they own memory, but in reality the OS uses the same ram for all of them</p><p>in the case of chrome where it is forking from  the same core process repeatedly, this will have a \_very\_ significant effect on the real memory requirements.</p><p>however, it's impossible to tell this from userspace, you have to ask the kernel for information to track this down</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>on linux you can have many different processes that each think that they own memory , but in reality the OS uses the same ram for all of themin the case of chrome where it is forking from the same core process repeatedly , this will have a \ _very \ _ significant effect on the real memory requirements.however , it 's impossible to tell this from userspace , you have to ask the kernel for information to track this down</tokentext>
<sentencetext> on linux you can have many different processes that each think that they own memory, but in reality the OS uses the same ram for all of themin the case of chrome where it is forking from  the same core process repeatedly, this will have a \_very\_ significant effect on the real memory requirements.however, it's impossible to tell this from userspace, you have to ask the kernel for information to track this down</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408077</id>
	<title>What is process architecture?</title>
	<author>ockegheim</author>
	<datestamp>1245523140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and is the difference between Firefox, Opera and Safari basically how efficient they are at freeing memory that's no longer used?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and is the difference between Firefox , Opera and Safari basically how efficient they are at freeing memory that 's no longer used ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and is the difference between Firefox, Opera and Safari basically how efficient they are at freeing memory that's no longer used?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410023</id>
	<title>Re:Opera</title>
	<author>A Friendly Troll</author>
	<datestamp>1245593040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Interesting to see that Opera is not the memory sipping, lightweight browser that it's proponents make it out to be.</p></div><p>Opera has advanced memory caching. When you close a tab, it remains cached in RAM. If you decide to undo the operation and reopen it, nothing is usually reloaded from the disk cache or the network (Opera even keeps the tab history cached, so you can go back and forward with lightning speed on a reopened tab). Other browsers don't do anything like that, so when a tab is reopened, they reload the content (to put it differently, when a tab is closed in Fx/Safari/Chrome, it's gone from RAM, as can be seen from the sharp drops in the graph from TFA).</p><p>This just isn't a valid test because Opera works differently from everything else, which is why I love it; advanced caching is one of those things that make all other browsers "unusable" for an Opera user.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting to see that Opera is not the memory sipping , lightweight browser that it 's proponents make it out to be.Opera has advanced memory caching .
When you close a tab , it remains cached in RAM .
If you decide to undo the operation and reopen it , nothing is usually reloaded from the disk cache or the network ( Opera even keeps the tab history cached , so you can go back and forward with lightning speed on a reopened tab ) .
Other browsers do n't do anything like that , so when a tab is reopened , they reload the content ( to put it differently , when a tab is closed in Fx/Safari/Chrome , it 's gone from RAM , as can be seen from the sharp drops in the graph from TFA ) .This just is n't a valid test because Opera works differently from everything else , which is why I love it ; advanced caching is one of those things that make all other browsers " unusable " for an Opera user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting to see that Opera is not the memory sipping, lightweight browser that it's proponents make it out to be.Opera has advanced memory caching.
When you close a tab, it remains cached in RAM.
If you decide to undo the operation and reopen it, nothing is usually reloaded from the disk cache or the network (Opera even keeps the tab history cached, so you can go back and forward with lightning speed on a reopened tab).
Other browsers don't do anything like that, so when a tab is reopened, they reload the content (to put it differently, when a tab is closed in Fx/Safari/Chrome, it's gone from RAM, as can be seen from the sharp drops in the graph from TFA).This just isn't a valid test because Opera works differently from everything else, which is why I love it; advanced caching is one of those things that make all other browsers "unusable" for an Opera user.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409227</id>
	<title>300 tabs</title>
	<author>improfane</author>
	<datestamp>1245580620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to run 100s of tabs at a time (up to 300 at one point) on a 1gb RAM machine. This is proof of how bad my browsing habits are but also shows that the only browser capable of this right now is Opera.</p><p>Try it in Firefox and your PC will definitely grind to a halt. If you need extensions, use Firefox.</p><p>Efficient, Extensible, Correct<br>Pick two<br>Firefox - Extensible &amp; Correct<br>Opera - Correct, Efficient</p><p>There is not the development community in Opera, despite supporting widgets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to run 100s of tabs at a time ( up to 300 at one point ) on a 1gb RAM machine .
This is proof of how bad my browsing habits are but also shows that the only browser capable of this right now is Opera.Try it in Firefox and your PC will definitely grind to a halt .
If you need extensions , use Firefox.Efficient , Extensible , CorrectPick twoFirefox - Extensible &amp; CorrectOpera - Correct , EfficientThere is not the development community in Opera , despite supporting widgets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to run 100s of tabs at a time (up to 300 at one point) on a 1gb RAM machine.
This is proof of how bad my browsing habits are but also shows that the only browser capable of this right now is Opera.Try it in Firefox and your PC will definitely grind to a halt.
If you need extensions, use Firefox.Efficient, Extensible, CorrectPick twoFirefox - Extensible &amp; CorrectOpera - Correct, EfficientThere is not the development community in Opera, despite supporting widgets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28411615</id>
	<title>Re:Low Firefox Memory Usage</title>
	<author>guyniraxn</author>
	<datestamp>1245607380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On my XP machines, FF is pretty good with memory. A couple sites I rarely use will cause runaways but, like I said, that's rare. On my linux installation, I've tried the most recent stable FF and SwiftFox 3.5b4; they both have frequent memory runaways that force me to kill the process or crashing. I think it's the flash plugin because I see it when I'm looking at a variety of flash video sites. I'm using CrunchBang and that uses the Ubuntu repos so I've tried both versions of the Flash plugin (free and nonfree), no difference. It's gotten to the point where I've started searching for a full-featured Linux-compatible web browser that isn't FF just to see if there's a difference.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On my XP machines , FF is pretty good with memory .
A couple sites I rarely use will cause runaways but , like I said , that 's rare .
On my linux installation , I 've tried the most recent stable FF and SwiftFox 3.5b4 ; they both have frequent memory runaways that force me to kill the process or crashing .
I think it 's the flash plugin because I see it when I 'm looking at a variety of flash video sites .
I 'm using CrunchBang and that uses the Ubuntu repos so I 've tried both versions of the Flash plugin ( free and nonfree ) , no difference .
It 's gotten to the point where I 've started searching for a full-featured Linux-compatible web browser that is n't FF just to see if there 's a difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On my XP machines, FF is pretty good with memory.
A couple sites I rarely use will cause runaways but, like I said, that's rare.
On my linux installation, I've tried the most recent stable FF and SwiftFox 3.5b4; they both have frequent memory runaways that force me to kill the process or crashing.
I think it's the flash plugin because I see it when I'm looking at a variety of flash video sites.
I'm using CrunchBang and that uses the Ubuntu repos so I've tried both versions of the Flash plugin (free and nonfree), no difference.
It's gotten to the point where I've started searching for a full-featured Linux-compatible web browser that isn't FF just to see if there's a difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408767</id>
	<title>Re:Who uses vanilla FF anyway?</title>
	<author>Jeeeb</author>
	<datestamp>1245575280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could you specify what significant pieces of functionality are missing from Firefox which are present in Safari/Chrome/IE? Personally I have FlashBlock, NoScript and CacheViewer installed. All of which provide functionality not present in the other major browsers. Perhaps it might have been more accurate to say that the thing that hogs memory in Firefox is all the extensions people use to add functionality not present in any major browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you specify what significant pieces of functionality are missing from Firefox which are present in Safari/Chrome/IE ?
Personally I have FlashBlock , NoScript and CacheViewer installed .
All of which provide functionality not present in the other major browsers .
Perhaps it might have been more accurate to say that the thing that hogs memory in Firefox is all the extensions people use to add functionality not present in any major browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you specify what significant pieces of functionality are missing from Firefox which are present in Safari/Chrome/IE?
Personally I have FlashBlock, NoScript and CacheViewer installed.
All of which provide functionality not present in the other major browsers.
Perhaps it might have been more accurate to say that the thing that hogs memory in Firefox is all the extensions people use to add functionality not present in any major browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28411695</id>
	<title>Re:Tabs hell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245607740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wtf? you cannot be serious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wtf ?
you can not be serious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wtf?
you cannot be serious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28415551</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245596940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>try running it on a machine with less memory than was stated in the test - i still get decent performance out of opera on a P3 machine with 256 megs of ram. Though to be quite honest, when its running windows, IE 7 is far smoother than the competition, so i sometimes go between opera and IE just because i like the opera UI better.</p><p>If you have a ton of resources not being used, use them - they're wasted otherwise. You can code better too. But theres a tradeoff in which machines with a bajillion gigs of ram dont really care about a few hundred extra megs of ram used.</p><p>A more useful test would have been to  :</p><p>- Not write an idiotic C# app to do this<br>- Test multiple hardware configurations (low, middle, high over the course of a few gens of hardware)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>try running it on a machine with less memory than was stated in the test - i still get decent performance out of opera on a P3 machine with 256 megs of ram .
Though to be quite honest , when its running windows , IE 7 is far smoother than the competition , so i sometimes go between opera and IE just because i like the opera UI better.If you have a ton of resources not being used , use them - they 're wasted otherwise .
You can code better too .
But theres a tradeoff in which machines with a bajillion gigs of ram dont really care about a few hundred extra megs of ram used.A more useful test would have been to : - Not write an idiotic C # app to do this- Test multiple hardware configurations ( low , middle , high over the course of a few gens of hardware )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>try running it on a machine with less memory than was stated in the test - i still get decent performance out of opera on a P3 machine with 256 megs of ram.
Though to be quite honest, when its running windows, IE 7 is far smoother than the competition, so i sometimes go between opera and IE just because i like the opera UI better.If you have a ton of resources not being used, use them - they're wasted otherwise.
You can code better too.
But theres a tradeoff in which machines with a bajillion gigs of ram dont really care about a few hundred extra megs of ram used.A more useful test would have been to  :- Not write an idiotic C# app to do this- Test multiple hardware configurations (low, middle, high over the course of a few gens of hardware)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408467</id>
	<title>Re:Who uses vanilla FF anyway?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245527460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually I don't see other browsers sporting the features I get via NoScript and Adblock Plus. In fact, the main reason I stick with Firefox over other "alternative" browsers is because of Noscript. I won't browse without it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I do n't see other browsers sporting the features I get via NoScript and Adblock Plus .
In fact , the main reason I stick with Firefox over other " alternative " browsers is because of Noscript .
I wo n't browse without it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I don't see other browsers sporting the features I get via NoScript and Adblock Plus.
In fact, the main reason I stick with Firefox over other "alternative" browsers is because of Noscript.
I won't browse without it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28426743</id>
	<title>Re:how is his memory usage that low?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245701460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm at 25 tabs open with 3.0.10 on 64 bit gentoo and I'm at 430mb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm at 25 tabs open with 3.0.10 on 64 bit gentoo and I 'm at 430mb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm at 25 tabs open with 3.0.10 on 64 bit gentoo and I'm at 430mb.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408601</id>
	<title>funny you should mention this today</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245615720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just added another 4G of RAM to my new Fedora 11 x86\_64 workstation because the 4G that I started with wasn't enough to keep it from bogging to a slow crawl today (after running mostly Firefox for less than a week).</p><p>And I haven't even installed the 64-bit Flash plugin yet!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just added another 4G of RAM to my new Fedora 11 x86 \ _64 workstation because the 4G that I started with was n't enough to keep it from bogging to a slow crawl today ( after running mostly Firefox for less than a week ) .And I have n't even installed the 64-bit Flash plugin yet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just added another 4G of RAM to my new Fedora 11 x86\_64 workstation because the 4G that I started with wasn't enough to keep it from bogging to a slow crawl today (after running mostly Firefox for less than a week).And I haven't even installed the 64-bit Flash plugin yet!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409539</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>donaldm</author>
	<datestamp>1245585360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My experience with Firefox has been exactly the opposite.  I am now running Fedora 11 which comes standard with Firefox 3.5b4, however since my laptop (2GB memory) acts as a server it is not unusual to have my son and wife logged in and in addition to myself they are all running Firefox. We all run multiple tabs (at least four or more) and I have not had any performance issues. See the following after almost three days of use.<p><div class="quote"><p>top - 20:42:01 up 2 days, 22:38,  7 users,  load average: 0.10, 0.16, 0.20 <br>
Tasks: 224 total,   5 running, 216 sleeping,   3 stopped,   0 zombie <br>
Cpu(s):  3.5\%us,  2.4\%sy,  0.0\%ni, 94.0\%id,  0.0\%wa,  0.0\%hi,  0.2\%si,  0.0\%st <br>
Mem:   2037912k total,  1965812k used,    72100k free,   101852k buffers <br>
Swap:  2097144k total,    26020k used,  2071124k free,   939908k cached</p></div><p>Running Firefox or any non system application as root is really asking for trouble. Try use in <b>"useradd"</b> or your admin GUI and create a normal user name and use that. You only need root access when administrating your machine and that should only be on rare occasions at least for non MS Windows OS's.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My experience with Firefox has been exactly the opposite .
I am now running Fedora 11 which comes standard with Firefox 3.5b4 , however since my laptop ( 2GB memory ) acts as a server it is not unusual to have my son and wife logged in and in addition to myself they are all running Firefox .
We all run multiple tabs ( at least four or more ) and I have not had any performance issues .
See the following after almost three days of use.top - 20 : 42 : 01 up 2 days , 22 : 38 , 7 users , load average : 0.10 , 0.16 , 0.20 Tasks : 224 total , 5 running , 216 sleeping , 3 stopped , 0 zombie Cpu ( s ) : 3.5 \ % us , 2.4 \ % sy , 0.0 \ % ni , 94.0 \ % id , 0.0 \ % wa , 0.0 \ % hi , 0.2 \ % si , 0.0 \ % st Mem : 2037912k total , 1965812k used , 72100k free , 101852k buffers Swap : 2097144k total , 26020k used , 2071124k free , 939908k cachedRunning Firefox or any non system application as root is really asking for trouble .
Try use in " useradd " or your admin GUI and create a normal user name and use that .
You only need root access when administrating your machine and that should only be on rare occasions at least for non MS Windows OS 's .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My experience with Firefox has been exactly the opposite.
I am now running Fedora 11 which comes standard with Firefox 3.5b4, however since my laptop (2GB memory) acts as a server it is not unusual to have my son and wife logged in and in addition to myself they are all running Firefox.
We all run multiple tabs (at least four or more) and I have not had any performance issues.
See the following after almost three days of use.top - 20:42:01 up 2 days, 22:38,  7 users,  load average: 0.10, 0.16, 0.20 
Tasks: 224 total,   5 running, 216 sleeping,   3 stopped,   0 zombie 
Cpu(s):  3.5\%us,  2.4\%sy,  0.0\%ni, 94.0\%id,  0.0\%wa,  0.0\%hi,  0.2\%si,  0.0\%st 
Mem:   2037912k total,  1965812k used,    72100k free,   101852k buffers 
Swap:  2097144k total,    26020k used,  2071124k free,   939908k cachedRunning Firefox or any non system application as root is really asking for trouble.
Try use in "useradd" or your admin GUI and create a normal user name and use that.
You only need root access when administrating your machine and that should only be on rare occasions at least for non MS Windows OS's.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408083</id>
	<title>Chrome stats probably erroneous</title>
	<author>l00sr</author>
	<datestamp>1245523200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Summing the memory usage of all the Chrome processes is probably not the correct thing to do, as the memory usage indicated most likely includes shared libraries.  I can't say this for sure about Vista, but on all sane operating systems, each shared library is loaded only once into memory, and then shared among different running programs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Summing the memory usage of all the Chrome processes is probably not the correct thing to do , as the memory usage indicated most likely includes shared libraries .
I ca n't say this for sure about Vista , but on all sane operating systems , each shared library is loaded only once into memory , and then shared among different running programs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Summing the memory usage of all the Chrome processes is probably not the correct thing to do, as the memory usage indicated most likely includes shared libraries.
I can't say this for sure about Vista, but on all sane operating systems, each shared library is loaded only once into memory, and then shared among different running programs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28415999</id>
	<title>Wow! I was about to submit this observatn to /.</title>
	<author>aqk</author>
	<datestamp>1245600840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recently noticed from my simple memory-usage indicator in the Vista taskbar, that FF 3.5 beta hardly ever increased in size when I opened a new tab.<br>Yet Chrome started gobbling up memmory right 'n left when I opened new tabs. </p><p>I hadn't gotten around to measuring Safari or IE8 yet, but I do know that I am sticking with FF 3.5 at present, as I only have one gig of mem with my Vista system.</p><p>And I might add, it works quite WELL, you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. linux weenies! (unless I start using Chrome, which seems to slow down Googling, and even GMAIL!) </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recently noticed from my simple memory-usage indicator in the Vista taskbar , that FF 3.5 beta hardly ever increased in size when I opened a new tab.Yet Chrome started gobbling up memmory right 'n left when I opened new tabs .
I had n't gotten around to measuring Safari or IE8 yet , but I do know that I am sticking with FF 3.5 at present , as I only have one gig of mem with my Vista system.And I might add , it works quite WELL , you / .
linux weenies !
( unless I start using Chrome , which seems to slow down Googling , and even GMAIL !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recently noticed from my simple memory-usage indicator in the Vista taskbar, that FF 3.5 beta hardly ever increased in size when I opened a new tab.Yet Chrome started gobbling up memmory right 'n left when I opened new tabs.
I hadn't gotten around to measuring Safari or IE8 yet, but I do know that I am sticking with FF 3.5 at present, as I only have one gig of mem with my Vista system.And I might add, it works quite WELL, you /.
linux weenies!
(unless I start using Chrome, which seems to slow down Googling, and even GMAIL!
) </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408385</id>
	<title>Re:Why are we so worried about RAM</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1245526560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a false dichotomy. Most software that uses less RAM is actually also faster.
<p>
In the early days, more RAM meant that you could cache some frequently used information in memory instead of recomputing it or loading it on demand.
But there's a diminishing return. Nowadays, it's usually faster to recompute than read it all back from RAM, and if an interactive program uses a lot of RAM, then it's likely keeping a lot of junk in memory that it doesn't need. That tells you that the programmers didn't think things through carefully, and they probably didn't optimize other things that matter either.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a false dichotomy .
Most software that uses less RAM is actually also faster .
In the early days , more RAM meant that you could cache some frequently used information in memory instead of recomputing it or loading it on demand .
But there 's a diminishing return .
Nowadays , it 's usually faster to recompute than read it all back from RAM , and if an interactive program uses a lot of RAM , then it 's likely keeping a lot of junk in memory that it does n't need .
That tells you that the programmers did n't think things through carefully , and they probably did n't optimize other things that matter either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a false dichotomy.
Most software that uses less RAM is actually also faster.
In the early days, more RAM meant that you could cache some frequently used information in memory instead of recomputing it or loading it on demand.
But there's a diminishing return.
Nowadays, it's usually faster to recompute than read it all back from RAM, and if an interactive program uses a lot of RAM, then it's likely keeping a lot of junk in memory that it doesn't need.
That tells you that the programmers didn't think things through carefully, and they probably didn't optimize other things that matter either.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409097</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox 3.0 vs Firefox 3.5, night and day diff.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245579120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Leave Firefox 3.5 running for two weeks constantly, while doing all of your normal browsing in it. If after that time you can come back here and say it's not using a shitload of memory, then I might consider taking a look at it.</p><p>I am the kind of person who never closes the browser because I am always having to look up information and check mail. Currently my browser (Opera 9.64) has an uptime of over 42 days and is still working just fine. In my experience, Firefox is horrible for this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Leave Firefox 3.5 running for two weeks constantly , while doing all of your normal browsing in it .
If after that time you can come back here and say it 's not using a shitload of memory , then I might consider taking a look at it.I am the kind of person who never closes the browser because I am always having to look up information and check mail .
Currently my browser ( Opera 9.64 ) has an uptime of over 42 days and is still working just fine .
In my experience , Firefox is horrible for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leave Firefox 3.5 running for two weeks constantly, while doing all of your normal browsing in it.
If after that time you can come back here and say it's not using a shitload of memory, then I might consider taking a look at it.I am the kind of person who never closes the browser because I am always having to look up information and check mail.
Currently my browser (Opera 9.64) has an uptime of over 42 days and is still working just fine.
In my experience, Firefox is horrible for this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408247</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>compro01</author>
	<datestamp>1245525000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Something like "it doesn't show weird ass icons and bars when Slashdot decides to change CSS" is probably much more important. Firefox 3 totally screws up Slashdot in Default mode.</p></div><p>Being as I get the exact same behavior on firefox (3.0.11), IE (6, 7, and 8), safari, and opera, I somewhat doubt it's firefox's fault.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Something like " it does n't show weird ass icons and bars when Slashdot decides to change CSS " is probably much more important .
Firefox 3 totally screws up Slashdot in Default mode.Being as I get the exact same behavior on firefox ( 3.0.11 ) , IE ( 6 , 7 , and 8 ) , safari , and opera , I somewhat doubt it 's firefox 's fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something like "it doesn't show weird ass icons and bars when Slashdot decides to change CSS" is probably much more important.
Firefox 3 totally screws up Slashdot in Default mode.Being as I get the exact same behavior on firefox (3.0.11), IE (6, 7, and 8), safari, and opera, I somewhat doubt it's firefox's fault.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410425</id>
	<title>Re:Offtopic, what the hell is up with Slashdot's C</title>
	<author>Nimey</author>
	<datestamp>1245597240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see it too.  Real professional that they make these insufficiently-tested (or untested) changes on the live site instead of a test box.</p><p>It's merely an annoyance, but still.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see it too .
Real professional that they make these insufficiently-tested ( or untested ) changes on the live site instead of a test box.It 's merely an annoyance , but still .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see it too.
Real professional that they make these insufficiently-tested (or untested) changes on the live site instead of a test box.It's merely an annoyance, but still.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28411657</id>
	<title>Re:Opera</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245607560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Others have answered this already but I'll reply to you personally. Opera scales its memory usage to the machine it is running on. I currently have it on a machine with 512 MB or RAM and it only sips a little less than 40 MB of RAM (38,412 KB and not moving as I type this) with four tabs open and reloading one of the tabs every 15 minutes since over a week now.</p><p>One other person posted this link, which explains one way Opera adapts itself: <a href="http://avencius.nl/content/firefox-3-vs-opera-95-memory-usage-take-2" title="avencius.nl" rel="nofollow">http://avencius.nl/content/firefox-3-vs-opera-95-memory-usage-take-2</a> [avencius.nl]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Others have answered this already but I 'll reply to you personally .
Opera scales its memory usage to the machine it is running on .
I currently have it on a machine with 512 MB or RAM and it only sips a little less than 40 MB of RAM ( 38,412 KB and not moving as I type this ) with four tabs open and reloading one of the tabs every 15 minutes since over a week now.One other person posted this link , which explains one way Opera adapts itself : http : //avencius.nl/content/firefox-3-vs-opera-95-memory-usage-take-2 [ avencius.nl ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Others have answered this already but I'll reply to you personally.
Opera scales its memory usage to the machine it is running on.
I currently have it on a machine with 512 MB or RAM and it only sips a little less than 40 MB of RAM (38,412 KB and not moving as I type this) with four tabs open and reloading one of the tabs every 15 minutes since over a week now.One other person posted this link, which explains one way Opera adapts itself: http://avencius.nl/content/firefox-3-vs-opera-95-memory-usage-take-2 [avencius.nl]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28413055</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>VxMorpheusxV</author>
	<datestamp>1245617880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Normal" here clearly depends on what sort of browsing you are doing.  I use chrome exclusively now, but when I used Ffox there was absolutely no question that watching some [flash] videos meant I would have to restart the browser eventually.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Normal " here clearly depends on what sort of browsing you are doing .
I use chrome exclusively now , but when I used Ffox there was absolutely no question that watching some [ flash ] videos meant I would have to restart the browser eventually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Normal" here clearly depends on what sort of browsing you are doing.
I use chrome exclusively now, but when I used Ffox there was absolutely no question that watching some [flash] videos meant I would have to restart the browser eventually.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408579</id>
	<title>Opera</title>
	<author>Xyde</author>
	<datestamp>1245615480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting to see that Opera is not the memory sipping, lightweight browser that it's proponents make it out to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting to see that Opera is not the memory sipping , lightweight browser that it 's proponents make it out to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting to see that Opera is not the memory sipping, lightweight browser that it's proponents make it out to be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28461323</id>
	<title>cheap aion kina</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245851640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you know the <a href="http://aionolgold.com/" title="aionolgold.com" rel="nofollow">aion kina</a> [aionolgold.com], in the game you need the <a href="http://aionolgold.com/" title="aionolgold.com" rel="nofollow">aion online kina</a> [aionolgold.com]. It can help you increase your level. My friends always asked me how to <a href="http://aionolgold.com/" title="aionolgold.com" rel="nofollow">buy aion kina</a> [aionolgold.com], and I do not know he spend how much money to buy the <a href="http://aionolgold.com/" title="aionolgold.com" rel="nofollow">aion gold</a> [aionolgold.com], when I see him in order to play the game and search which the place can buy the <a href="http://aionolgold.com/" title="aionolgold.com" rel="nofollow">cheap aion kina</a> [aionolgold.com]. I am happy with him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you know the aion kina [ aionolgold.com ] , in the game you need the aion online kina [ aionolgold.com ] .
It can help you increase your level .
My friends always asked me how to buy aion kina [ aionolgold.com ] , and I do not know he spend how much money to buy the aion gold [ aionolgold.com ] , when I see him in order to play the game and search which the place can buy the cheap aion kina [ aionolgold.com ] .
I am happy with him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you know the aion kina [aionolgold.com], in the game you need the aion online kina [aionolgold.com].
It can help you increase your level.
My friends always asked me how to buy aion kina [aionolgold.com], and I do not know he spend how much money to buy the aion gold [aionolgold.com], when I see him in order to play the game and search which the place can buy the cheap aion kina [aionolgold.com].
I am happy with him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409151</id>
	<title>Not included IE8 because of the inconvenient truth</title>
	<author>Computershack</author>
	<datestamp>1245579720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IE 8 was not included "because the author could not find a way to prevent it from opening a new window on each invocation of the command."</p></div><p>Really? So the "Open links from other programs in" and then choosing either a new tab in the same window or the same tab doesn't exist then? Oh that's right, it does - right under Tools, Internet Options, Tabs.<br>
So either the author is fucking useless or he's lying as he knows the result shows IE winning.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IE 8 was not included " because the author could not find a way to prevent it from opening a new window on each invocation of the command. " Really ?
So the " Open links from other programs in " and then choosing either a new tab in the same window or the same tab does n't exist then ?
Oh that 's right , it does - right under Tools , Internet Options , Tabs .
So either the author is fucking useless or he 's lying as he knows the result shows IE winning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE 8 was not included "because the author could not find a way to prevent it from opening a new window on each invocation of the command."Really?
So the "Open links from other programs in" and then choosing either a new tab in the same window or the same tab doesn't exist then?
Oh that's right, it does - right under Tools, Internet Options, Tabs.
So either the author is fucking useless or he's lying as he knows the result shows IE winning.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408069</id>
	<title>Pfft.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245523080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use Firefox and Safari regularly.  I use two web browsers because each one does something vastly better than the other.  Firefox for porn and online transactions, Safari for basic day-to-day anything that might include bookmark management (long story short, every browser I've used EXCEPT safari still does bookmark management using some variant of the horrific Netscape method - this includes IE, Mozilla, Firefox, etc - whereas Safari is the first browser I've used that does it in a non-bullshit fashion).  However, useable as it is for bookmarks, Safari's a dick when it comes to password management and a few other things - most notably, how the browser handles while the system is paging out or otherwise shot in the ass with RAM overuse from other applications.</p><p>Long story short, under ANY kind of system load - we're talking ANYTHING above IDLE - Firefox is more responsive than Safari.  When the system is shitting gold plated bricks trying to deal with the demands After Effects or Photoshop or Final Cut Pro is putting on it, Safari is beyond useless... and Firefox is responsive.</p><p>It all boils down to memory usage.  Specifically, Swap/pagefile useage.  On the Mac, firefox seems to be more responsive under load while safari is LESS responsive under the same conditions - it has ultimately has nothing to do with RAM usage and everything to do with how the respective applications use swap/pagefile.</p><p>Eat as much ram as you like... but until Apple does <i>something</i> about disk I/O, stay the HELL away from swap - or I'll use the application that <i>does</i>.  (namely, Firefox.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Firefox and Safari regularly .
I use two web browsers because each one does something vastly better than the other .
Firefox for porn and online transactions , Safari for basic day-to-day anything that might include bookmark management ( long story short , every browser I 've used EXCEPT safari still does bookmark management using some variant of the horrific Netscape method - this includes IE , Mozilla , Firefox , etc - whereas Safari is the first browser I 've used that does it in a non-bullshit fashion ) .
However , useable as it is for bookmarks , Safari 's a dick when it comes to password management and a few other things - most notably , how the browser handles while the system is paging out or otherwise shot in the ass with RAM overuse from other applications.Long story short , under ANY kind of system load - we 're talking ANYTHING above IDLE - Firefox is more responsive than Safari .
When the system is shitting gold plated bricks trying to deal with the demands After Effects or Photoshop or Final Cut Pro is putting on it , Safari is beyond useless... and Firefox is responsive.It all boils down to memory usage .
Specifically , Swap/pagefile useage .
On the Mac , firefox seems to be more responsive under load while safari is LESS responsive under the same conditions - it has ultimately has nothing to do with RAM usage and everything to do with how the respective applications use swap/pagefile.Eat as much ram as you like... but until Apple does something about disk I/O , stay the HELL away from swap - or I 'll use the application that does .
( namely , Firefox .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Firefox and Safari regularly.
I use two web browsers because each one does something vastly better than the other.
Firefox for porn and online transactions, Safari for basic day-to-day anything that might include bookmark management (long story short, every browser I've used EXCEPT safari still does bookmark management using some variant of the horrific Netscape method - this includes IE, Mozilla, Firefox, etc - whereas Safari is the first browser I've used that does it in a non-bullshit fashion).
However, useable as it is for bookmarks, Safari's a dick when it comes to password management and a few other things - most notably, how the browser handles while the system is paging out or otherwise shot in the ass with RAM overuse from other applications.Long story short, under ANY kind of system load - we're talking ANYTHING above IDLE - Firefox is more responsive than Safari.
When the system is shitting gold plated bricks trying to deal with the demands After Effects or Photoshop or Final Cut Pro is putting on it, Safari is beyond useless... and Firefox is responsive.It all boils down to memory usage.
Specifically, Swap/pagefile useage.
On the Mac, firefox seems to be more responsive under load while safari is LESS responsive under the same conditions - it has ultimately has nothing to do with RAM usage and everything to do with how the respective applications use swap/pagefile.Eat as much ram as you like... but until Apple does something about disk I/O, stay the HELL away from swap - or I'll use the application that does.
(namely, Firefox.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408481</id>
	<title>Re:Who uses vanilla FF anyway?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245527820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've never used an extension that "attempts to imitate other browsers".  That's interesting, though.  There's a string in the about:config where you can set your browser's id string, why install an extension that "imitates other browsers"?
<br> <br>
I have some alternative download UI elements and forecastfox, a couple other plugins, but only an idiot would install anything and not expect SOME cost.
<br> <br>
I think basically, my question is, how the hell does the GP get modded up past 1?  And how is that insightful when it's either a troll or shows an amazing lack of understanding of how Firefox works?  I don't get it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never used an extension that " attempts to imitate other browsers " .
That 's interesting , though .
There 's a string in the about : config where you can set your browser 's id string , why install an extension that " imitates other browsers " ?
I have some alternative download UI elements and forecastfox , a couple other plugins , but only an idiot would install anything and not expect SOME cost .
I think basically , my question is , how the hell does the GP get modded up past 1 ?
And how is that insightful when it 's either a troll or shows an amazing lack of understanding of how Firefox works ?
I do n't get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never used an extension that "attempts to imitate other browsers".
That's interesting, though.
There's a string in the about:config where you can set your browser's id string, why install an extension that "imitates other browsers"?
I have some alternative download UI elements and forecastfox, a couple other plugins, but only an idiot would install anything and not expect SOME cost.
I think basically, my question is, how the hell does the GP get modded up past 1?
And how is that insightful when it's either a troll or shows an amazing lack of understanding of how Firefox works?
I don't get it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28411051</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245602220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've turned off javascript to view slashdot.  The front page loads when I hit refresh, and it's quick.</p><p>In opera, right click on the page, "edit site preferences", go to scripting, and disable JS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've turned off javascript to view slashdot .
The front page loads when I hit refresh , and it 's quick.In opera , right click on the page , " edit site preferences " , go to scripting , and disable JS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've turned off javascript to view slashdot.
The front page loads when I hit refresh, and it's quick.In opera, right click on the page, "edit site preferences", go to scripting, and disable JS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410129</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>Ogive17</author>
	<datestamp>1245594300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's what people on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. do, beat a dead horse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what people on / .
do , beat a dead horse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what people on /.
do, beat a dead horse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28424493</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245693480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check your title bar dearest Troll.  I believe you may be mistaken and are actually using IE 6.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check your title bar dearest Troll .
I believe you may be mistaken and are actually using IE 6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check your title bar dearest Troll.
I believe you may be mistaken and are actually using IE 6.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408265</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245525180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of those "trolls" weren't about memory usage, but about overall degradation of user experience over time (hey, I have tons of memory, apps should use it).</p><p>I used Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox almost since its inception, plus functionality of few nice plugins isn't implemented in Opera (<b>vast majority</b> of features/plugins that, according to claims, keep people on Firefox, actually <b>are</b>), but the latter is the only browser which doesn't force me into managing it / using it in a particular way just so it remains usable (Chrome comes close to it, technically, but it lacks features; IE is of course even worse; didn't really try Safari; and what's funny...Mozilla Suite/Seamonkey is noticeably better than "leaner" Firefox)</p><p>As a matter of fact...Firefox 2.x was much better than 3.x (I check it every few months) when it comes to UI remaining responsive/etc. under heavy usage; which causes me to suspect they overshoot with memory usage reduction, missed that sweet spot of amount of memory required by particular codebase to work properly (and Gecko has it higher than others - how many years are we waiting for mobile version? Will it work on my 230MHz AMR phone with 12MB of user RAM? (Webkit and Opera do...))</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of those " trolls " were n't about memory usage , but about overall degradation of user experience over time ( hey , I have tons of memory , apps should use it ) .I used Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox almost since its inception , plus functionality of few nice plugins is n't implemented in Opera ( vast majority of features/plugins that , according to claims , keep people on Firefox , actually are ) , but the latter is the only browser which does n't force me into managing it / using it in a particular way just so it remains usable ( Chrome comes close to it , technically , but it lacks features ; IE is of course even worse ; did n't really try Safari ; and what 's funny...Mozilla Suite/Seamonkey is noticeably better than " leaner " Firefox ) As a matter of fact...Firefox 2.x was much better than 3.x ( I check it every few months ) when it comes to UI remaining responsive/etc .
under heavy usage ; which causes me to suspect they overshoot with memory usage reduction , missed that sweet spot of amount of memory required by particular codebase to work properly ( and Gecko has it higher than others - how many years are we waiting for mobile version ?
Will it work on my 230MHz AMR phone with 12MB of user RAM ?
( Webkit and Opera do... ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of those "trolls" weren't about memory usage, but about overall degradation of user experience over time (hey, I have tons of memory, apps should use it).I used Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox almost since its inception, plus functionality of few nice plugins isn't implemented in Opera (vast majority of features/plugins that, according to claims, keep people on Firefox, actually are), but the latter is the only browser which doesn't force me into managing it / using it in a particular way just so it remains usable (Chrome comes close to it, technically, but it lacks features; IE is of course even worse; didn't really try Safari; and what's funny...Mozilla Suite/Seamonkey is noticeably better than "leaner" Firefox)As a matter of fact...Firefox 2.x was much better than 3.x (I check it every few months) when it comes to UI remaining responsive/etc.
under heavy usage; which causes me to suspect they overshoot with memory usage reduction, missed that sweet spot of amount of memory required by particular codebase to work properly (and Gecko has it higher than others - how many years are we waiting for mobile version?
Will it work on my 230MHz AMR phone with 12MB of user RAM?
(Webkit and Opera do...))</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28413241</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1245576360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too bad it won't stop the 'Firefox is slow and bloated as hell when I have 1512512512 addons installed!' crowd.  I'd really like to take them out back and shoot them.</p><p>Yes, when you bloat your browser with a bunch of addons so it has all those cool features of other browsers, it does indeed become just as bloated as the other browsers, go figure.</p><p>Wanna make firefox suck less?  Start turning off stuff like adblock and noscript and all the greasemonkey/page modification addons you've thrown at it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad it wo n't stop the 'Firefox is slow and bloated as hell when I have 1512512512 addons installed !
' crowd .
I 'd really like to take them out back and shoot them.Yes , when you bloat your browser with a bunch of addons so it has all those cool features of other browsers , it does indeed become just as bloated as the other browsers , go figure.Wan na make firefox suck less ?
Start turning off stuff like adblock and noscript and all the greasemonkey/page modification addons you 've thrown at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad it won't stop the 'Firefox is slow and bloated as hell when I have 1512512512 addons installed!
' crowd.
I'd really like to take them out back and shoot them.Yes, when you bloat your browser with a bunch of addons so it has all those cool features of other browsers, it does indeed become just as bloated as the other browsers, go figure.Wanna make firefox suck less?
Start turning off stuff like adblock and noscript and all the greasemonkey/page modification addons you've thrown at it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409055</id>
	<title>Re:Why are we so worried about RAM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245578580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is simply not true for things like web browsing. How are you going to "recompute" a web page the user visited 10 minutes ago? The only way to make going back to that page fast is to cache it. RAM is a fine way of caching things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is simply not true for things like web browsing .
How are you going to " recompute " a web page the user visited 10 minutes ago ?
The only way to make going back to that page fast is to cache it .
RAM is a fine way of caching things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is simply not true for things like web browsing.
How are you going to "recompute" a web page the user visited 10 minutes ago?
The only way to make going back to that page fast is to cache it.
RAM is a fine way of caching things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408549</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>amirulbahr</author>
	<datestamp>1245614940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It matters a lot in thin client scenarios.  You want as many users as possible on the same server.  Importantly, you want idle sessions to be friendly to the system by releasing as much memory as possible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It matters a lot in thin client scenarios .
You want as many users as possible on the same server .
Importantly , you want idle sessions to be friendly to the system by releasing as much memory as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It matters a lot in thin client scenarios.
You want as many users as possible on the same server.
Importantly, you want idle sessions to be friendly to the system by releasing as much memory as possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28416377</id>
	<title>Resource management functionality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245602940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Related:</p><p>How about functionality for IE/FF that showed the resource usage of each extension?</p><p>How about a way to show resource usage of objects in the browser, so you can see just how much memory/CPU a particular Flash application/annoying ad is devouring?</p><p>How about a way to disable extensions (and free up their associated memory) that you absolutely NEED, but are giant bloated pigs - without restarting the browser? Include objects of all sorts (images, applets, etc.) as well - select object, open context menu "remove current Object" - but AFTER it's been running, rather than before it loads like with Flashblock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Related : How about functionality for IE/FF that showed the resource usage of each extension ? How about a way to show resource usage of objects in the browser , so you can see just how much memory/CPU a particular Flash application/annoying ad is devouring ? How about a way to disable extensions ( and free up their associated memory ) that you absolutely NEED , but are giant bloated pigs - without restarting the browser ?
Include objects of all sorts ( images , applets , etc .
) as well - select object , open context menu " remove current Object " - but AFTER it 's been running , rather than before it loads like with Flashblock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Related:How about functionality for IE/FF that showed the resource usage of each extension?How about a way to show resource usage of objects in the browser, so you can see just how much memory/CPU a particular Flash application/annoying ad is devouring?How about a way to disable extensions (and free up their associated memory) that you absolutely NEED, but are giant bloated pigs - without restarting the browser?
Include objects of all sorts (images, applets, etc.
) as well - select object, open context menu "remove current Object" - but AFTER it's been running, rather than before it loads like with Flashblock.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28412949</id>
	<title>Re:Low Firefox Memory Usage</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1245616980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I would be quite horrified if it actually performed better on Windows</p><p>I wouldn't: if you're using plug-ins their memory usage counts as part of the browser's memory usage in a test like this (until the plug-ins start running in separate processes), and Flash on Linux leaks a lot more than Flash on Windows last I measured.  I've found that browsing with the Flash plug-in disabled significantly cuts down on CPU and memory usage on Mac too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I would be quite horrified if it actually performed better on WindowsI would n't : if you 're using plug-ins their memory usage counts as part of the browser 's memory usage in a test like this ( until the plug-ins start running in separate processes ) , and Flash on Linux leaks a lot more than Flash on Windows last I measured .
I 've found that browsing with the Flash plug-in disabled significantly cuts down on CPU and memory usage on Mac too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I would be quite horrified if it actually performed better on WindowsI wouldn't: if you're using plug-ins their memory usage counts as part of the browser's memory usage in a test like this (until the plug-ins start running in separate processes), and Flash on Linux leaks a lot more than Flash on Windows last I measured.
I've found that browsing with the Flash plug-in disabled significantly cuts down on CPU and memory usage on Mac too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408605</id>
	<title>64-bit Firefox on Windows</title>
	<author>nemesisrocks</author>
	<datestamp>1245615840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're running a 64-bit version of Windows (Vista x64, etc), then give serious thought to running a <a href="http://www.mozilla-x86-64.com/" title="mozilla-x86-64.com" rel="nofollow">64-bit build of Firefox</a> [mozilla-x86-64.com].</p><p>I've found this build to not only be noticably faster, but also infinitely more stable and less of a memory hog.</p><p>In terms of numbers, I've had only one crash in the last 8 months, and at the moment, it's using 159MB with 15 tabs open.  I've <b>never</b> seen the official 32-bit build perform like that...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're running a 64-bit version of Windows ( Vista x64 , etc ) , then give serious thought to running a 64-bit build of Firefox [ mozilla-x86-64.com ] .I 've found this build to not only be noticably faster , but also infinitely more stable and less of a memory hog.In terms of numbers , I 've had only one crash in the last 8 months , and at the moment , it 's using 159MB with 15 tabs open .
I 've never seen the official 32-bit build perform like that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're running a 64-bit version of Windows (Vista x64, etc), then give serious thought to running a 64-bit build of Firefox [mozilla-x86-64.com].I've found this build to not only be noticably faster, but also infinitely more stable and less of a memory hog.In terms of numbers, I've had only one crash in the last 8 months, and at the moment, it's using 159MB with 15 tabs open.
I've never seen the official 32-bit build perform like that...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408855</id>
	<title>Show me the Memory Chart on OS X when SL arrives</title>
	<author>tyrione</author>
	<datestamp>1245576540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd love to see the memory management for Chrome, FF3.5, Safari 4 and Opera 10 when Snow Leopard arrives. Then I'd love to see how they compare to Windows 7 and see where work needs to be improved on both platforms.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd love to see the memory management for Chrome , FF3.5 , Safari 4 and Opera 10 when Snow Leopard arrives .
Then I 'd love to see how they compare to Windows 7 and see where work needs to be improved on both platforms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd love to see the memory management for Chrome, FF3.5, Safari 4 and Opera 10 when Snow Leopard arrives.
Then I'd love to see how they compare to Windows 7 and see where work needs to be improved on both platforms.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409409</id>
	<title>browser wars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245583500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ah browser wars.<br>its funny how no matter what u say:<br>- chrome lovers will find a way to say what it does is done best and its the best in the world<br>- safari lovers will find a way to say what it does is done best and its the best in the world<br>- opera lovers will find a way to say what it does is done best and its the best in the world<br>- firefox lovers will find a way to say what it does is done best and its the best in the world</p><p>"opera has debug code and its so slow" = rofl. 1: its compared against other "debug" releases and 2: so called "debug" code rarely makes any difference, beside exe file size.<br>"firefox sux when ive 100 shit extensions so dont say it doesnt use little memory u fucking troll" yeah right. you're dumb.<br>"1.2GB is nothing in my 16GB workstation". yeah right. you're dumb as well</p><p>could go on forever</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ah browser wars.its funny how no matter what u say : - chrome lovers will find a way to say what it does is done best and its the best in the world- safari lovers will find a way to say what it does is done best and its the best in the world- opera lovers will find a way to say what it does is done best and its the best in the world- firefox lovers will find a way to say what it does is done best and its the best in the world " opera has debug code and its so slow " = rofl .
1 : its compared against other " debug " releases and 2 : so called " debug " code rarely makes any difference , beside exe file size .
" firefox sux when ive 100 shit extensions so dont say it doesnt use little memory u fucking troll " yeah right .
you 're dumb .
" 1.2GB is nothing in my 16GB workstation " .
yeah right .
you 're dumb as wellcould go on forever</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ah browser wars.its funny how no matter what u say:- chrome lovers will find a way to say what it does is done best and its the best in the world- safari lovers will find a way to say what it does is done best and its the best in the world- opera lovers will find a way to say what it does is done best and its the best in the world- firefox lovers will find a way to say what it does is done best and its the best in the world"opera has debug code and its so slow" = rofl.
1: its compared against other "debug" releases and 2: so called "debug" code rarely makes any difference, beside exe file size.
"firefox sux when ive 100 shit extensions so dont say it doesnt use little memory u fucking troll" yeah right.
you're dumb.
"1.2GB is nothing in my 16GB workstation".
yeah right.
you're dumb as wellcould go on forever</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027</id>
	<title>It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245522420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless you are talking about a system with severely limited memory, memory usage is probably not the right criteria for deciding which browser to use.</p><p>Something like "it doesn't show weird ass icons and bars when Slashdot decides to change CSS" is probably much more important. Firefox 3 totally screws up Slashdot in Default mode.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you are talking about a system with severely limited memory , memory usage is probably not the right criteria for deciding which browser to use.Something like " it does n't show weird ass icons and bars when Slashdot decides to change CSS " is probably much more important .
Firefox 3 totally screws up Slashdot in Default mode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you are talking about a system with severely limited memory, memory usage is probably not the right criteria for deciding which browser to use.Something like "it doesn't show weird ass icons and bars when Slashdot decides to change CSS" is probably much more important.
Firefox 3 totally screws up Slashdot in Default mode.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409371</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Tweenk</author>
	<datestamp>1245583080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the Chrome processes share a lot of their virtual space, so their actual memory usage is a lower.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the Chrome processes share a lot of their virtual space , so their actual memory usage is a lower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the Chrome processes share a lot of their virtual space, so their actual memory usage is a lower.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28411199</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245603480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use Seamonkey (I hate FF with a passion)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... with no plugins except Prefbar. Main problem I run into isn't memory but CPU usage. -- My internet machine is a lowly P3-550 with 1GB RAM and Win98 (swapfile disabled), so it's noticeable:</p><p>As a quick experiment I just sent SM to the worst site I could think of offhand, realtor.com, opened a bunch of new windows (I never use tabs) and per sysmon, RAM usage increased by only about 10mb.<br>Closed SM entirely and recovered about 150mb of RAM.</p><p>However, CPU usage jammed up at 100\% for a while SM arrived at realtor.com, and did so again for each new window.</p><p>Personally I think devs should be forced to live with their creations on the MINIMUM hardware for a while, so they don't forget that not everyone has an employer buying them the latest and greatest whenever they want it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Seamonkey ( I hate FF with a passion ) ... with no plugins except Prefbar .
Main problem I run into is n't memory but CPU usage .
-- My internet machine is a lowly P3-550 with 1GB RAM and Win98 ( swapfile disabled ) , so it 's noticeable : As a quick experiment I just sent SM to the worst site I could think of offhand , realtor.com , opened a bunch of new windows ( I never use tabs ) and per sysmon , RAM usage increased by only about 10mb.Closed SM entirely and recovered about 150mb of RAM.However , CPU usage jammed up at 100 \ % for a while SM arrived at realtor.com , and did so again for each new window.Personally I think devs should be forced to live with their creations on the MINIMUM hardware for a while , so they do n't forget that not everyone has an employer buying them the latest and greatest whenever they want it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Seamonkey (I hate FF with a passion) ... with no plugins except Prefbar.
Main problem I run into isn't memory but CPU usage.
-- My internet machine is a lowly P3-550 with 1GB RAM and Win98 (swapfile disabled), so it's noticeable:As a quick experiment I just sent SM to the worst site I could think of offhand, realtor.com, opened a bunch of new windows (I never use tabs) and per sysmon, RAM usage increased by only about 10mb.Closed SM entirely and recovered about 150mb of RAM.However, CPU usage jammed up at 100\% for a while SM arrived at realtor.com, and did so again for each new window.Personally I think devs should be forced to live with their creations on the MINIMUM hardware for a while, so they don't forget that not everyone has an employer buying them the latest and greatest whenever they want it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408547</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Bill, Shooter of Bul</author>
	<datestamp>1245614940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, its not that my systems have a low amount of memory installed in them. Its that I do a gazillion things at once on my computer. A couple virtual machines running sucking a gig each, Eclipse running, Five different browsers all running at the same time, email, feed reader, Open office running, Adobe PDF reader, scribus working on creating a pdf, and anti virus.</p><p>With all of that running, the 4 gigs of memory doesn't quite seem like enough sometimes. I'd certainly appreciate it if any one of my memory hogging programs could use less. But maybe I don't get a vote in this conversation because I have Chrome, IE, Safari, FireFox and Opera currently running<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  actually lynx is also running but I don't think its the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , its not that my systems have a low amount of memory installed in them .
Its that I do a gazillion things at once on my computer .
A couple virtual machines running sucking a gig each , Eclipse running , Five different browsers all running at the same time , email , feed reader , Open office running , Adobe PDF reader , scribus working on creating a pdf , and anti virus.With all of that running , the 4 gigs of memory does n't quite seem like enough sometimes .
I 'd certainly appreciate it if any one of my memory hogging programs could use less .
But maybe I do n't get a vote in this conversation because I have Chrome , IE , Safari , FireFox and Opera currently running ... actually lynx is also running but I do n't think its the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, its not that my systems have a low amount of memory installed in them.
Its that I do a gazillion things at once on my computer.
A couple virtual machines running sucking a gig each, Eclipse running, Five different browsers all running at the same time, email, feed reader, Open office running, Adobe PDF reader, scribus working on creating a pdf, and anti virus.With all of that running, the 4 gigs of memory doesn't quite seem like enough sometimes.
I'd certainly appreciate it if any one of my memory hogging programs could use less.
But maybe I don't get a vote in this conversation because I have Chrome, IE, Safari, FireFox and Opera currently running ...  actually lynx is also running but I don't think its the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28417337</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1245610500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Modern OSes have this cool way of dealing with memory called 'virtual memory'.  Lets you do neat stuff like simulate memory with 'swap space' on 'disk' and over commit to the amount of RAM you actually have if it doesn't think the app will ever use it or it can come up with it by the time the app does ( I think its the same technology used by the broadband providers today ).</p><p>I realize that swapping is horrible in the environment you describe, but this particular problem was considered and dealt with, even by Microsoft a while ago.  Allocated ram that never gets used typically doesn't get swapped either and it certainly doesn't get actually written to disk before its ever been used.  Google Chrome is probably just allocating a large internal buffer to use its own memory allocation routines with.  A Chromium dev may be able to shed some light here.  I doubt its Webkit doing it since Safari didn't respond the same way, perhaps its the Google javascript engine.  Either way I don't seem to have a problem with Chrome on a machine with 256M running XP.  I don't do anything else on it, but it doesn't sit around constantly swapping and not being able to render a page in less than 19 years like this benchmark would suggest.</p><p>Perhaps the lack of Flash and Java on my XP machine makes the difference, would have thought the spyware would have made up for that though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Modern OSes have this cool way of dealing with memory called 'virtual memory' .
Lets you do neat stuff like simulate memory with 'swap space ' on 'disk ' and over commit to the amount of RAM you actually have if it does n't think the app will ever use it or it can come up with it by the time the app does ( I think its the same technology used by the broadband providers today ) .I realize that swapping is horrible in the environment you describe , but this particular problem was considered and dealt with , even by Microsoft a while ago .
Allocated ram that never gets used typically does n't get swapped either and it certainly does n't get actually written to disk before its ever been used .
Google Chrome is probably just allocating a large internal buffer to use its own memory allocation routines with .
A Chromium dev may be able to shed some light here .
I doubt its Webkit doing it since Safari did n't respond the same way , perhaps its the Google javascript engine .
Either way I do n't seem to have a problem with Chrome on a machine with 256M running XP .
I do n't do anything else on it , but it does n't sit around constantly swapping and not being able to render a page in less than 19 years like this benchmark would suggest.Perhaps the lack of Flash and Java on my XP machine makes the difference , would have thought the spyware would have made up for that though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Modern OSes have this cool way of dealing with memory called 'virtual memory'.
Lets you do neat stuff like simulate memory with 'swap space' on 'disk' and over commit to the amount of RAM you actually have if it doesn't think the app will ever use it or it can come up with it by the time the app does ( I think its the same technology used by the broadband providers today ).I realize that swapping is horrible in the environment you describe, but this particular problem was considered and dealt with, even by Microsoft a while ago.
Allocated ram that never gets used typically doesn't get swapped either and it certainly doesn't get actually written to disk before its ever been used.
Google Chrome is probably just allocating a large internal buffer to use its own memory allocation routines with.
A Chromium dev may be able to shed some light here.
I doubt its Webkit doing it since Safari didn't respond the same way, perhaps its the Google javascript engine.
Either way I don't seem to have a problem with Chrome on a machine with 256M running XP.
I don't do anything else on it, but it doesn't sit around constantly swapping and not being able to render a page in less than 19 years like this benchmark would suggest.Perhaps the lack of Flash and Java on my XP machine makes the difference, would have thought the spyware would have made up for that though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408549</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408463</id>
	<title>Invalid bechmark</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245527400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am sure that this is true for all of the browsers, but in Opera's case...</p><p>The machine has 4GB in question and Opera is set to "automatic" for the memory cache (default). According to <a href="http://avencius.nl/content/firefox-3-vs-opera-95-memory-usage-take-2" title="avencius.nl" rel="nofollow">this</a> [avencius.nl] article, this instructs Opera to use up to ~10\% of the system memory. This is quite tunable based on the environment, so one could easily optimize for a low-end machine and have satasfactory performance. The browser using the memory effectively is the more interesting test, which this benchmark fails to determine. An interesting detail in the graphs is how sharp the memory reclaim cycles are, where the smoother indicates better memory management. The graphs indicate that Opera does a good job in this regard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am sure that this is true for all of the browsers , but in Opera 's case...The machine has 4GB in question and Opera is set to " automatic " for the memory cache ( default ) .
According to this [ avencius.nl ] article , this instructs Opera to use up to ~ 10 \ % of the system memory .
This is quite tunable based on the environment , so one could easily optimize for a low-end machine and have satasfactory performance .
The browser using the memory effectively is the more interesting test , which this benchmark fails to determine .
An interesting detail in the graphs is how sharp the memory reclaim cycles are , where the smoother indicates better memory management .
The graphs indicate that Opera does a good job in this regard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am sure that this is true for all of the browsers, but in Opera's case...The machine has 4GB in question and Opera is set to "automatic" for the memory cache (default).
According to this [avencius.nl] article, this instructs Opera to use up to ~10\% of the system memory.
This is quite tunable based on the environment, so one could easily optimize for a low-end machine and have satasfactory performance.
The browser using the memory effectively is the more interesting test, which this benchmark fails to determine.
An interesting detail in the graphs is how sharp the memory reclaim cycles are, where the smoother indicates better memory management.
The graphs indicate that Opera does a good job in this regard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28420751</id>
	<title>I think it may be FF's javascript engine</title>
	<author>walterbyrd</author>
	<datestamp>1245680760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try this: load a simple html file (no javascript) in ff, open several tabs and load the simple html file in each tab. I am guess that will not crash ff.</p><p>For me, it's javascript that kills ff. I am guessing that certain ff just can not handle certain javascript operations. For me, hitting the wrong kind of javascript is like stepping on land-mine, cpu usage is peaked at 100\% and I have to kill ff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try this : load a simple html file ( no javascript ) in ff , open several tabs and load the simple html file in each tab .
I am guess that will not crash ff.For me , it 's javascript that kills ff .
I am guessing that certain ff just can not handle certain javascript operations .
For me , hitting the wrong kind of javascript is like stepping on land-mine , cpu usage is peaked at 100 \ % and I have to kill ff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try this: load a simple html file (no javascript) in ff, open several tabs and load the simple html file in each tab.
I am guess that will not crash ff.For me, it's javascript that kills ff.
I am guessing that certain ff just can not handle certain javascript operations.
For me, hitting the wrong kind of javascript is like stepping on land-mine, cpu usage is peaked at 100\% and I have to kill ff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410335</id>
	<title>Don't quite understand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245596340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't quite understand everyone's aversion to applications using memory. I mean--I'd much rather my applications take the time to use the memory I have, with all 4.5GB/sec of performance on sustained reads than my hard drive which is roughly about 3\% of that speed on good parts of the drive structure with RAID0.<br><br>Application performance should never be about how much ram it uses, but how it uses it. I'm all for applications being efficient, but if it wants a bunch of ram to make things a bit faster--by all means, I've got 8G in my system, have at it.<br><br>This is one of the primary reasons I like Superfetch in Windows Vista/7--because it utilizes ram for application and data prefetching. What better way to use the ram than have the most frequently used programs and information cached and readily available at super high speeds?<br><br>I wish some of my applications used more ram (see: WoW) just to improve visible performance (I'd rather have a higher upfront load time than the loading/performance drops mid-game).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't quite understand everyone 's aversion to applications using memory .
I mean--I 'd much rather my applications take the time to use the memory I have , with all 4.5GB/sec of performance on sustained reads than my hard drive which is roughly about 3 \ % of that speed on good parts of the drive structure with RAID0.Application performance should never be about how much ram it uses , but how it uses it .
I 'm all for applications being efficient , but if it wants a bunch of ram to make things a bit faster--by all means , I 've got 8G in my system , have at it.This is one of the primary reasons I like Superfetch in Windows Vista/7--because it utilizes ram for application and data prefetching .
What better way to use the ram than have the most frequently used programs and information cached and readily available at super high speeds ? I wish some of my applications used more ram ( see : WoW ) just to improve visible performance ( I 'd rather have a higher upfront load time than the loading/performance drops mid-game ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't quite understand everyone's aversion to applications using memory.
I mean--I'd much rather my applications take the time to use the memory I have, with all 4.5GB/sec of performance on sustained reads than my hard drive which is roughly about 3\% of that speed on good parts of the drive structure with RAID0.Application performance should never be about how much ram it uses, but how it uses it.
I'm all for applications being efficient, but if it wants a bunch of ram to make things a bit faster--by all means, I've got 8G in my system, have at it.This is one of the primary reasons I like Superfetch in Windows Vista/7--because it utilizes ram for application and data prefetching.
What better way to use the ram than have the most frequently used programs and information cached and readily available at super high speeds?I wish some of my applications used more ram (see: WoW) just to improve visible performance (I'd rather have a higher upfront load time than the loading/performance drops mid-game).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408093</id>
	<title>Why are we so worried about RAM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245523320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You test all the browsers except the most up-to-date version of the most popular one.  In other words, the one that matters the most.<br><br>I'm also not sure why ram is something that is worried about anymore.  I don't find it important that firefox only uses 300mb or so of my 4GB.  With RAM at an all time low and most modern computers having at least 2GB is just not worth worrying about as much as it has been in the past.  Basically, I would rather have faster software that takes advantage of the memory that I use, then slower software that avoids using it.  This metric would matter to me.  To each their own, I suppose, but I see this as meaningless for most users.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You test all the browsers except the most up-to-date version of the most popular one .
In other words , the one that matters the most.I 'm also not sure why ram is something that is worried about anymore .
I do n't find it important that firefox only uses 300mb or so of my 4GB .
With RAM at an all time low and most modern computers having at least 2GB is just not worth worrying about as much as it has been in the past .
Basically , I would rather have faster software that takes advantage of the memory that I use , then slower software that avoids using it .
This metric would matter to me .
To each their own , I suppose , but I see this as meaningless for most users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You test all the browsers except the most up-to-date version of the most popular one.
In other words, the one that matters the most.I'm also not sure why ram is something that is worried about anymore.
I don't find it important that firefox only uses 300mb or so of my 4GB.
With RAM at an all time low and most modern computers having at least 2GB is just not worth worrying about as much as it has been in the past.
Basically, I would rather have faster software that takes advantage of the memory that I use, then slower software that avoids using it.
This metric would matter to me.
To each their own, I suppose, but I see this as meaningless for most users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410253</id>
	<title>Totally different results for my PC</title>
	<author>rrossman2</author>
	<datestamp>1245595680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ran the same FF and Opera browser setup, and Opera beats the pants off of FF. Don't forget, FF has the worst of the Javascript performance both speed wise and the fact memory usage shoots above Opera and Chrome.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ran the same FF and Opera browser setup , and Opera beats the pants off of FF .
Do n't forget , FF has the worst of the Javascript performance both speed wise and the fact memory usage shoots above Opera and Chrome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ran the same FF and Opera browser setup, and Opera beats the pants off of FF.
Don't forget, FF has the worst of the Javascript performance both speed wise and the fact memory usage shoots above Opera and Chrome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28411225</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>rcamans</author>
	<datestamp>1245603720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I have seen problems with prior versions of all browsers. I am not sure that I can say for sure that the problems were memory leaks. The pages left open for a long time, overnight, even, were msnbc, boingboing, various search pages, etc. the offenders mostly had active animations and movies. ie, flash, adobe reader, etc. I believe many of the problems were actually flash player, etc, not the browser itself. The plugins are not reliable. This is not the fault of the browser. What the browser guys need to do is run a code check of the plugins, looking for memory issues, etc. Then get the authors to fix them<br>Does acid test have a bunch of plugin tests?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I have seen problems with prior versions of all browsers .
I am not sure that I can say for sure that the problems were memory leaks .
The pages left open for a long time , overnight , even , were msnbc , boingboing , various search pages , etc .
the offenders mostly had active animations and movies .
ie , flash , adobe reader , etc .
I believe many of the problems were actually flash player , etc , not the browser itself .
The plugins are not reliable .
This is not the fault of the browser .
What the browser guys need to do is run a code check of the plugins , looking for memory issues , etc .
Then get the authors to fix themDoes acid test have a bunch of plugin tests ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I have seen problems with prior versions of all browsers.
I am not sure that I can say for sure that the problems were memory leaks.
The pages left open for a long time, overnight, even, were msnbc, boingboing, various search pages, etc.
the offenders mostly had active animations and movies.
ie, flash, adobe reader, etc.
I believe many of the problems were actually flash player, etc, not the browser itself.
The plugins are not reliable.
This is not the fault of the browser.
What the browser guys need to do is run a code check of the plugins, looking for memory issues, etc.
Then get the authors to fix themDoes acid test have a bunch of plugin tests?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409633</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>dzfoo</author>
	<datestamp>1245587100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree.  Only memory <i>consumption</i> was measured in this test, not efficiency or actual practical usability.</p><p>The test results doesn't tell you, for example, if Chrome just allocates memory aggressively in contemplation of its usage, and therefor opening more than 30 tabs will not make it consume more or run slower.  It also doesn't tell you if, in order to avoid memory pre-allocation and remain "lean", Firefox has to re-generate object graphs on the fly for every few tabs, or constantly hit disk cache, making it run considerably slower when many more tabs are opened (for the sake of avoiding a memory hogging caching system).</p><p>Of course, all of the above is pure fantasy in an effort to illustrate a point.  I make no such claims on any of the browsers, though they certainly are plausible.  The point is that the single metric of this test, though in a way useful, is not the best way to measure performance.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -dZ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
Only memory consumption was measured in this test , not efficiency or actual practical usability.The test results does n't tell you , for example , if Chrome just allocates memory aggressively in contemplation of its usage , and therefor opening more than 30 tabs will not make it consume more or run slower .
It also does n't tell you if , in order to avoid memory pre-allocation and remain " lean " , Firefox has to re-generate object graphs on the fly for every few tabs , or constantly hit disk cache , making it run considerably slower when many more tabs are opened ( for the sake of avoiding a memory hogging caching system ) .Of course , all of the above is pure fantasy in an effort to illustrate a point .
I make no such claims on any of the browsers , though they certainly are plausible .
The point is that the single metric of this test , though in a way useful , is not the best way to measure performance .
        -dZ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
Only memory consumption was measured in this test, not efficiency or actual practical usability.The test results doesn't tell you, for example, if Chrome just allocates memory aggressively in contemplation of its usage, and therefor opening more than 30 tabs will not make it consume more or run slower.
It also doesn't tell you if, in order to avoid memory pre-allocation and remain "lean", Firefox has to re-generate object graphs on the fly for every few tabs, or constantly hit disk cache, making it run considerably slower when many more tabs are opened (for the sake of avoiding a memory hogging caching system).Of course, all of the above is pure fantasy in an effort to illustrate a point.
I make no such claims on any of the browsers, though they certainly are plausible.
The point is that the single metric of this test, though in a way useful, is not the best way to measure performance.
        -dZ.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28412387</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245612540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is also true for me.  FF always been high on memory usage compare to Opera (I use FF when some site do a check on client and said it won't work).  This is also true for a few people I work with.  As far as I'm concern, this test is lying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is also true for me .
FF always been high on memory usage compare to Opera ( I use FF when some site do a check on client and said it wo n't work ) .
This is also true for a few people I work with .
As far as I 'm concern , this test is lying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is also true for me.
FF always been high on memory usage compare to Opera (I use FF when some site do a check on client and said it won't work).
This is also true for a few people I work with.
As far as I'm concern, this test is lying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408257</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245525120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The report doesn't consider plugins, which are the things that I think most people identify with Firefox feeling bloated or memory heavy. Vanilla Firefox may very well be light on memory, but once you load in a handful (or a few dozen) of your favorite plugins, the tests may not turn out the same.
<br>
<br>
Keep in mind, I am not attempting to imply that the results would certainly be worse, just that they are currently unknown to us and that it's something that needs to be considered.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The report does n't consider plugins , which are the things that I think most people identify with Firefox feeling bloated or memory heavy .
Vanilla Firefox may very well be light on memory , but once you load in a handful ( or a few dozen ) of your favorite plugins , the tests may not turn out the same .
Keep in mind , I am not attempting to imply that the results would certainly be worse , just that they are currently unknown to us and that it 's something that needs to be considered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The report doesn't consider plugins, which are the things that I think most people identify with Firefox feeling bloated or memory heavy.
Vanilla Firefox may very well be light on memory, but once you load in a handful (or a few dozen) of your favorite plugins, the tests may not turn out the same.
Keep in mind, I am not attempting to imply that the results would certainly be worse, just that they are currently unknown to us and that it's something that needs to be considered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408141</id>
	<title>should have tweaked chrome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245523800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IIRC its possible to instruct Chrome to not use its process-per-tab model via a command line option.  Can't remember what it is, but I remember reading it existed.  It seems likely that Chrome would have used less memory when running in that mode.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IIRC its possible to instruct Chrome to not use its process-per-tab model via a command line option .
Ca n't remember what it is , but I remember reading it existed .
It seems likely that Chrome would have used less memory when running in that mode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIRC its possible to instruct Chrome to not use its process-per-tab model via a command line option.
Can't remember what it is, but I remember reading it existed.
It seems likely that Chrome would have used less memory when running in that mode.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408335</id>
	<title>Re:how is his memory usage that low?</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1245525780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It must be either the Linux FF client or your particular install, which is a pity.  On Windows you would see a sub 100 MB footprint with 10 tabs (like I see right now with 10 on Vista64).  I'd have expected the Linux version to be more memory efficient than Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It must be either the Linux FF client or your particular install , which is a pity .
On Windows you would see a sub 100 MB footprint with 10 tabs ( like I see right now with 10 on Vista64 ) .
I 'd have expected the Linux version to be more memory efficient than Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It must be either the Linux FF client or your particular install, which is a pity.
On Windows you would see a sub 100 MB footprint with 10 tabs (like I see right now with 10 on Vista64).
I'd have expected the Linux version to be more memory efficient than Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409881</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245590820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it's time to upgrade and stop using FF2 mkay?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's time to upgrade and stop using FF2 mkay ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's time to upgrade and stop using FF2 mkay?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408491</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>kripkenstein</author>
	<datestamp>1245527880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unless you are talking about a system with severely limited memory, memory usage is probably not the right criteria for deciding which browser to use.</p></div><p>Chrome used over <b>1 GB</b> in this test. Safari and Opera passed the <b>500 MB</b> mark. That is an issue for far more machines than 'systems with severely limited memory'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you are talking about a system with severely limited memory , memory usage is probably not the right criteria for deciding which browser to use.Chrome used over 1 GB in this test .
Safari and Opera passed the 500 MB mark .
That is an issue for far more machines than 'systems with severely limited memory' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you are talking about a system with severely limited memory, memory usage is probably not the right criteria for deciding which browser to use.Chrome used over 1 GB in this test.
Safari and Opera passed the 500 MB mark.
That is an issue for far more machines than 'systems with severely limited memory'.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409309</id>
	<title>Opera memory recall</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245581940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The author forgot that Opera has a "closed windows" buffer that keeps some info to do the reopening of closed sites faster, what inevitably consumes memory. Wether the user really wants this or not is another subject,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The author forgot that Opera has a " closed windows " buffer that keeps some info to do the reopening of closed sites faster , what inevitably consumes memory .
Wether the user really wants this or not is another subject,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author forgot that Opera has a "closed windows" buffer that keeps some info to do the reopening of closed sites faster, what inevitably consumes memory.
Wether the user really wants this or not is another subject,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408175</id>
	<title>Re:What is process architecture?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245524280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Chrome uses process per tab, while FF (and perhaps others) uses a single process for all tab.  The per-process scheme uses up more memory due to process overhead.  On the other hand, killing processes as tabs are closed also truly releases memory assigned to the processes.  If the process lives on, as in FF, there are still memory allocation issues even if all chunks are orderly freed - depends on malloc/free implementation.
</p><p>
And no, memory footprint is just one issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome uses process per tab , while FF ( and perhaps others ) uses a single process for all tab .
The per-process scheme uses up more memory due to process overhead .
On the other hand , killing processes as tabs are closed also truly releases memory assigned to the processes .
If the process lives on , as in FF , there are still memory allocation issues even if all chunks are orderly freed - depends on malloc/free implementation .
And no , memory footprint is just one issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Chrome uses process per tab, while FF (and perhaps others) uses a single process for all tab.
The per-process scheme uses up more memory due to process overhead.
On the other hand, killing processes as tabs are closed also truly releases memory assigned to the processes.
If the process lives on, as in FF, there are still memory allocation issues even if all chunks are orderly freed - depends on malloc/free implementation.
And no, memory footprint is just one issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409983</id>
	<title>My two cents</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1245592320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't used Chrome on any platform yet, so I cannot speak for it.</p><p>Firefox has usually been around 100 Mb for me on XP, which I consider bloated, but I'm aware that resource efficiency isn't important to many of the rest of you, these days.  It seems to average at about half that on FreeBSD, but is still the most memory-intensive application I use on a daily basis.  Still, for GUI web browsing, I can't complain, so I'm not.</p><p>I'm not passionately in love with Firefox, but I don't hate it either; it serves its' purpose and I am content with it.  It does what I need, doesn't crash unless there's a problem with a page, and does its' job in a relatively efficient manner.  I suspect that my lack of feeling toward it either way is actually due to its' transparency; it stays out of the way to the point where I barely notice it at all, and lets me focus on web content instead, so people would probably tell me that that is a good reason to actively love it.</p><p>I would not, however, like to go back to using Firefox without Vimperator at this point.  I have heard even one Vim enthusiast express dislike for Vimperator, but I actually consider it probably the single most meaningful user interface upgrade that I have found since Ratpoison; the two complement each other exceptionally well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't used Chrome on any platform yet , so I can not speak for it.Firefox has usually been around 100 Mb for me on XP , which I consider bloated , but I 'm aware that resource efficiency is n't important to many of the rest of you , these days .
It seems to average at about half that on FreeBSD , but is still the most memory-intensive application I use on a daily basis .
Still , for GUI web browsing , I ca n't complain , so I 'm not.I 'm not passionately in love with Firefox , but I do n't hate it either ; it serves its ' purpose and I am content with it .
It does what I need , does n't crash unless there 's a problem with a page , and does its ' job in a relatively efficient manner .
I suspect that my lack of feeling toward it either way is actually due to its ' transparency ; it stays out of the way to the point where I barely notice it at all , and lets me focus on web content instead , so people would probably tell me that that is a good reason to actively love it.I would not , however , like to go back to using Firefox without Vimperator at this point .
I have heard even one Vim enthusiast express dislike for Vimperator , but I actually consider it probably the single most meaningful user interface upgrade that I have found since Ratpoison ; the two complement each other exceptionally well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't used Chrome on any platform yet, so I cannot speak for it.Firefox has usually been around 100 Mb for me on XP, which I consider bloated, but I'm aware that resource efficiency isn't important to many of the rest of you, these days.
It seems to average at about half that on FreeBSD, but is still the most memory-intensive application I use on a daily basis.
Still, for GUI web browsing, I can't complain, so I'm not.I'm not passionately in love with Firefox, but I don't hate it either; it serves its' purpose and I am content with it.
It does what I need, doesn't crash unless there's a problem with a page, and does its' job in a relatively efficient manner.
I suspect that my lack of feeling toward it either way is actually due to its' transparency; it stays out of the way to the point where I barely notice it at all, and lets me focus on web content instead, so people would probably tell me that that is a good reason to actively love it.I would not, however, like to go back to using Firefox without Vimperator at this point.
I have heard even one Vim enthusiast express dislike for Vimperator, but I actually consider it probably the single most meaningful user interface upgrade that I have found since Ratpoison; the two complement each other exceptionally well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409171</id>
	<title>Re:Invalid bechmark</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245579900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I regularly use Opera on Linux with a fixed amount of memory allocated to the cache, but it still has problems with what looks to be a memory leak (quite noticeable on an old machine with just a quarter gig of ram), and I do find I have to close it down and restart every few days. I'm guessing it is a javascript related issue, it seems to be worse when I'm using a lot of Web 2.0 sort of sites. Having said that, I like Opera as a browser and mail client too much to stop using it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I regularly use Opera on Linux with a fixed amount of memory allocated to the cache , but it still has problems with what looks to be a memory leak ( quite noticeable on an old machine with just a quarter gig of ram ) , and I do find I have to close it down and restart every few days .
I 'm guessing it is a javascript related issue , it seems to be worse when I 'm using a lot of Web 2.0 sort of sites .
Having said that , I like Opera as a browser and mail client too much to stop using it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I regularly use Opera on Linux with a fixed amount of memory allocated to the cache, but it still has problems with what looks to be a memory leak (quite noticeable on an old machine with just a quarter gig of ram), and I do find I have to close it down and restart every few days.
I'm guessing it is a javascript related issue, it seems to be worse when I'm using a lot of Web 2.0 sort of sites.
Having said that, I like Opera as a browser and mail client too much to stop using it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410361</id>
	<title>doesn't add up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245596580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My experience of Firefox is over the course use for a week it becomes the biggest resource consumer on my machine and needs to be periodically shutdown (closing it can take nearly 10 minutes watching on Windows XP as it releases the excess of memory that it has accumulated). That isn't I admit with 3.5.</p><p>Point is that test really is not representative of the real daily usage I see. People around me have the browser open with lots and lots of tabs for days on end.</p><p>I've observed Chrome, Arora, KMeleon, Firefox in use on Windows (mainly a LInux user mind you) and find KMeleon the smallest resource user. The only trouble with that as a browser is javascript, every so often it just stops responding because of scripts.</p><p>Memory use of FF I find pretty much the same on Linux too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My experience of Firefox is over the course use for a week it becomes the biggest resource consumer on my machine and needs to be periodically shutdown ( closing it can take nearly 10 minutes watching on Windows XP as it releases the excess of memory that it has accumulated ) .
That is n't I admit with 3.5.Point is that test really is not representative of the real daily usage I see .
People around me have the browser open with lots and lots of tabs for days on end.I 've observed Chrome , Arora , KMeleon , Firefox in use on Windows ( mainly a LInux user mind you ) and find KMeleon the smallest resource user .
The only trouble with that as a browser is javascript , every so often it just stops responding because of scripts.Memory use of FF I find pretty much the same on Linux too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My experience of Firefox is over the course use for a week it becomes the biggest resource consumer on my machine and needs to be periodically shutdown (closing it can take nearly 10 minutes watching on Windows XP as it releases the excess of memory that it has accumulated).
That isn't I admit with 3.5.Point is that test really is not representative of the real daily usage I see.
People around me have the browser open with lots and lots of tabs for days on end.I've observed Chrome, Arora, KMeleon, Firefox in use on Windows (mainly a LInux user mind you) and find KMeleon the smallest resource user.
The only trouble with that as a browser is javascript, every so often it just stops responding because of scripts.Memory use of FF I find pretty much the same on Linux too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409837</id>
	<title>Chrome uses less than 1Gb</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245590040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Chrome uses over 1 Gb of memory due to its process architecture."<br>More likely shared memory is counted more than once due to the process architecture.</p><p>http://blog.chromium.org/2008/09/google-chrome-memory-usage-good-and-bad.html</p><p>Instead of relying on Windows to tell you the memory used, you can use the built-in about:memory page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Chrome uses over 1 Gb of memory due to its process architecture .
" More likely shared memory is counted more than once due to the process architecture.http : //blog.chromium.org/2008/09/google-chrome-memory-usage-good-and-bad.htmlInstead of relying on Windows to tell you the memory used , you can use the built-in about : memory page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Chrome uses over 1 Gb of memory due to its process architecture.
"More likely shared memory is counted more than once due to the process architecture.http://blog.chromium.org/2008/09/google-chrome-memory-usage-good-and-bad.htmlInstead of relying on Windows to tell you the memory used, you can use the built-in about:memory page.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410285</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>Uber Banker</author>
	<datestamp>1245596040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Happens here too, but 'a while' tends to be after 6 hours of surfing.  I'd put a lot of weight on the plugins, mine are Firebug, Flash Player, British English Dictionary, Chinese Pera-kun (that's it).  All are essential to my surfing.  But having to force a shut down isn't a big hassle, the OS keeps running, and that's fine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Happens here too , but 'a while ' tends to be after 6 hours of surfing .
I 'd put a lot of weight on the plugins , mine are Firebug , Flash Player , British English Dictionary , Chinese Pera-kun ( that 's it ) .
All are essential to my surfing .
But having to force a shut down is n't a big hassle , the OS keeps running , and that 's fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Happens here too, but 'a while' tends to be after 6 hours of surfing.
I'd put a lot of weight on the plugins, mine are Firebug, Flash Player, British English Dictionary, Chinese Pera-kun (that's it).
All are essential to my surfing.
But having to force a shut down isn't a big hassle, the OS keeps running, and that's fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408845</id>
	<title>Re:Why are we so worried about RAM</title>
	<author>omz13</author>
	<datestamp>1245576480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nowadays, it's usually faster to recompute than read it all back from RAM, and if an interactive program uses a lot of RAM, then it's likely keeping a lot of junk in memory that it doesn't need. That tells you that the programmers didn't think things through carefully, and they probably didn't optimize other things that matter either.
</p></div><p>
When I was doing real time stuff many years ago (when memory was a limited as hell and the CPU chugged along like a snail), calculations were never recomputed... given the tradeoff between memory use and CPU use (for recalculations) guess which one (it took a few cycles to check if a value was available to fetch opposed to a few hundred to calculate the value).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nowadays , it 's usually faster to recompute than read it all back from RAM , and if an interactive program uses a lot of RAM , then it 's likely keeping a lot of junk in memory that it does n't need .
That tells you that the programmers did n't think things through carefully , and they probably did n't optimize other things that matter either .
When I was doing real time stuff many years ago ( when memory was a limited as hell and the CPU chugged along like a snail ) , calculations were never recomputed... given the tradeoff between memory use and CPU use ( for recalculations ) guess which one ( it took a few cycles to check if a value was available to fetch opposed to a few hundred to calculate the value ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nowadays, it's usually faster to recompute than read it all back from RAM, and if an interactive program uses a lot of RAM, then it's likely keeping a lot of junk in memory that it doesn't need.
That tells you that the programmers didn't think things through carefully, and they probably didn't optimize other things that matter either.
When I was doing real time stuff many years ago (when memory was a limited as hell and the CPU chugged along like a snail), calculations were never recomputed... given the tradeoff between memory use and CPU use (for recalculations) guess which one (it took a few cycles to check if a value was available to fetch opposed to a few hundred to calculate the value).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409517</id>
	<title>In other words</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245584940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Safari is crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Safari is crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Safari is crap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409041</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245578520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those wierd ass icons show up on Opera as well. It's not firefox's fault. It's slashdot web developer's fault for not knowing how to test and not understanding how the web works.</p><p>As for memory usage, FF using up 1Gb and more memory is *THE* reason I switched to Opera. I don't need my browser to grind down my entire system. Opera's memory profile is much much more stable. I'll be happy to try FF 3.5 to see if anything has changed (I suspect the memory hog is actually flash, or wierd javascript crap, or maybe some FF plugin, who knows. Opera rocks).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those wierd ass icons show up on Opera as well .
It 's not firefox 's fault .
It 's slashdot web developer 's fault for not knowing how to test and not understanding how the web works.As for memory usage , FF using up 1Gb and more memory is * THE * reason I switched to Opera .
I do n't need my browser to grind down my entire system .
Opera 's memory profile is much much more stable .
I 'll be happy to try FF 3.5 to see if anything has changed ( I suspect the memory hog is actually flash , or wierd javascript crap , or maybe some FF plugin , who knows .
Opera rocks ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those wierd ass icons show up on Opera as well.
It's not firefox's fault.
It's slashdot web developer's fault for not knowing how to test and not understanding how the web works.As for memory usage, FF using up 1Gb and more memory is *THE* reason I switched to Opera.
I don't need my browser to grind down my entire system.
Opera's memory profile is much much more stable.
I'll be happy to try FF 3.5 to see if anything has changed (I suspect the memory hog is actually flash, or wierd javascript crap, or maybe some FF plugin, who knows.
Opera rocks).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409463</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245584040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Developer mentality I see all the time, especially with the C#/.Net crowd, "Oh but RAM is cheap, so it doesn't matter..."</p><p>True, but if and *only* if your app is the only one running... in a real world situation it isn't so you *should* play nice and not force everything to use the page file because your app is using several hundred megs of RAM when in reality it should use very little.</p><p>I have seen C++ apps that take around 10MB when running been redeveloped into C# apps that suck ~300MB while offering the same functionality. This seems mainly down the UI toolkits been very heavy from what I can tell.</p><p>End of the day there is either a cost to the developer or a cost to the user, you have to pick where you are going to put yourself along that line...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Developer mentality I see all the time , especially with the C # /.Net crowd , " Oh but RAM is cheap , so it does n't matter... " True , but if and * only * if your app is the only one running... in a real world situation it is n't so you * should * play nice and not force everything to use the page file because your app is using several hundred megs of RAM when in reality it should use very little.I have seen C + + apps that take around 10MB when running been redeveloped into C # apps that suck ~ 300MB while offering the same functionality .
This seems mainly down the UI toolkits been very heavy from what I can tell.End of the day there is either a cost to the developer or a cost to the user , you have to pick where you are going to put yourself along that line.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Developer mentality I see all the time, especially with the C#/.Net crowd, "Oh but RAM is cheap, so it doesn't matter..."True, but if and *only* if your app is the only one running... in a real world situation it isn't so you *should* play nice and not force everything to use the page file because your app is using several hundred megs of RAM when in reality it should use very little.I have seen C++ apps that take around 10MB when running been redeveloped into C# apps that suck ~300MB while offering the same functionality.
This seems mainly down the UI toolkits been very heavy from what I can tell.End of the day there is either a cost to the developer or a cost to the user, you have to pick where you are going to put yourself along that line...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410533</id>
	<title>Re:Offtopic, what the hell is up with Slashdot's C</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245598080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fix is to set your User-Agent to IE6; might also need to add "&amp;beta\_index=0" to the URL to make it stick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fix is to set your User-Agent to IE6 ; might also need to add " &amp;beta \ _index = 0 " to the URL to make it stick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fix is to set your User-Agent to IE6; might also need to add "&amp;beta\_index=0" to the URL to make it stick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408775</id>
	<title>Config</title>
	<author>szundi</author>
	<datestamp>1245575340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would really like to see this benchmark repeated with half and double of RAM available.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would really like to see this benchmark repeated with half and double of RAM available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would really like to see this benchmark repeated with half and double of RAM available.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28411187</id>
	<title>Re:Pfft.</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1245603360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Especially since Safari's the one with the private browsing mode. I don't get the FF statement at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially since Safari 's the one with the private browsing mode .
I do n't get the FF statement at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially since Safari's the one with the private browsing mode.
I don't get the FF statement at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408697</id>
	<title>Re:Pfft.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245617220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Eat as much ram as you like... but until Apple does something about disk I/O, stay the HELL away from swap - or I'll use the application that does. (namely, Firefox.)</i></p><p>Hohoho - back to "Virtual Memory 101" for you m'boy.</p><p>Apps request address space. Whether - moment to moment - the actual address space they get given happens to reside in physical RAM or on disk is not something the app gets to decide - let alone decide in advance.<br>--<br>Anonysaurus Cowardodon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eat as much ram as you like... but until Apple does something about disk I/O , stay the HELL away from swap - or I 'll use the application that does .
( namely , Firefox .
) Hohoho - back to " Virtual Memory 101 " for you m'boy.Apps request address space .
Whether - moment to moment - the actual address space they get given happens to reside in physical RAM or on disk is not something the app gets to decide - let alone decide in advance.--Anonysaurus Cowardodon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eat as much ram as you like... but until Apple does something about disk I/O, stay the HELL away from swap - or I'll use the application that does.
(namely, Firefox.
)Hohoho - back to "Virtual Memory 101" for you m'boy.Apps request address space.
Whether - moment to moment - the actual address space they get given happens to reside in physical RAM or on disk is not something the app gets to decide - let alone decide in advance.--Anonysaurus Cowardodon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409303</id>
	<title>Re:Why are we so worried about RAM</title>
	<author>mqduck</author>
	<datestamp>1245581820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because it's a notable matter. Come on, just because it isn't THE issue, that doesn't mean nobody should do a comparison.</p><p>Why do Slashdotters love to complain about articles so much?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it 's a notable matter .
Come on , just because it is n't THE issue , that does n't mean nobody should do a comparison.Why do Slashdotters love to complain about articles so much ?
: -P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it's a notable matter.
Come on, just because it isn't THE issue, that doesn't mean nobody should do a comparison.Why do Slashdotters love to complain about articles so much?
:-P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410235</id>
	<title>Re:Tabs hell</title>
	<author>The MAZZTer</author>
	<datestamp>1245595560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>IMO Chrome would likely be more lightweight and faster.  We've established the <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1276169&amp;cid=28408373" title="slashdot.org">benchmark author doesn't know what he's talking about</a> [slashdot.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>IMO Chrome would likely be more lightweight and faster .
We 've established the benchmark author does n't know what he 's talking about [ slashdot.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMO Chrome would likely be more lightweight and faster.
We've established the benchmark author doesn't know what he's talking about [slashdot.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408085</id>
	<title>Yeah, but do they have servers built in?</title>
	<author>AmigaHeretic</author>
	<datestamp>1245523200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Opera Unite! To help free the Iranian strangle hold on information!!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera Unite !
To help free the Iranian strangle hold on information ! !
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera Unite!
To help free the Iranian strangle hold on information!!
;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408945</id>
	<title>Re:IE8, huh?</title>
	<author>tonywong</author>
	<datestamp>1245577560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Resource usage, compatability, performance and security. Talking about 1 of the criteria without referring to any of the rest is like talking about trees falling in the forest. Especially when it's not compared with IEx as a reference point, since the earlier versions are still(!) the dominant browser for most of the population.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Resource usage , compatability , performance and security .
Talking about 1 of the criteria without referring to any of the rest is like talking about trees falling in the forest .
Especially when it 's not compared with IEx as a reference point , since the earlier versions are still ( !
) the dominant browser for most of the population .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Resource usage, compatability, performance and security.
Talking about 1 of the criteria without referring to any of the rest is like talking about trees falling in the forest.
Especially when it's not compared with IEx as a reference point, since the earlier versions are still(!
) the dominant browser for most of the population.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28414183</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1245583800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what OS are you using, and what version of firefox are you using, or is this too much information that only a fanboy would go into???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what OS are you using , and what version of firefox are you using , or is this too much information that only a fanboy would go into ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what OS are you using, and what version of firefox are you using, or is this too much information that only a fanboy would go into??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408201</id>
	<title>Re:IE8, huh?</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1245524520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I couldn't find a way to keep it from <b>BLOWING</b> so forcefully all the air was evacuated from my office every time it was run.</p></div><p>Fixed that for 'ya, Phil.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't find a way to keep it from BLOWING so forcefully all the air was evacuated from my office every time it was run.Fixed that for 'ya , Phil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't find a way to keep it from BLOWING so forcefully all the air was evacuated from my office every time it was run.Fixed that for 'ya, Phil.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409487</id>
	<title>Re:Low Firefox Memory Usage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245584400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Does Firefox perform drastically differently on Linux than on Windows?</p></div></blockquote><p>Linux is not NT, why is anybody surprised it handles memory differently?</p><p>Just for comparison, linux 2.5.29, XFCE4, firefox 3.0.11 with 23 open tabs and I'm compiling a WebKit nightly in xfce terminal...</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>Mem: 1026276k total, 563256k used, 463020k free,  24304k buffers<br>Swap: 979956k total,    0k used, 979956k free, 192920k cached</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>Saying you have 23 tabs open and have memory issues isn't terribly helpful.  Some of the problems attributed to web browsers are down to bloated web sites.  Not everyone uses tabs and even fewer sites appear to be designed with tabbed browsing in mind.  Don't forget that a compressed 200k jpeg is cached in browser memory as a 4MB bitmap (example numbers courtesy of my ass) for the last 10 closed documents.  That 200k of compressed javascript expands to 600k before it gets converted to the browsers internal representation (bytecode etc), then there's all the memory allocations required to run the script.</p><p>If you want to help fix the issues you're seeing, I suggest identifying a single tab that's using too much memory and then finding out why that is the case.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does Firefox perform drastically differently on Linux than on Windows ? Linux is not NT , why is anybody surprised it handles memory differently ? Just for comparison , linux 2.5.29 , XFCE4 , firefox 3.0.11 with 23 open tabs and I 'm compiling a WebKit nightly in xfce terminal... Mem : 1026276k total , 563256k used , 463020k free , 24304k buffersSwap : 979956k total , 0k used , 979956k free , 192920k cached Saying you have 23 tabs open and have memory issues is n't terribly helpful .
Some of the problems attributed to web browsers are down to bloated web sites .
Not everyone uses tabs and even fewer sites appear to be designed with tabbed browsing in mind .
Do n't forget that a compressed 200k jpeg is cached in browser memory as a 4MB bitmap ( example numbers courtesy of my ass ) for the last 10 closed documents .
That 200k of compressed javascript expands to 600k before it gets converted to the browsers internal representation ( bytecode etc ) , then there 's all the memory allocations required to run the script.If you want to help fix the issues you 're seeing , I suggest identifying a single tab that 's using too much memory and then finding out why that is the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does Firefox perform drastically differently on Linux than on Windows?Linux is not NT, why is anybody surprised it handles memory differently?Just for comparison, linux 2.5.29, XFCE4, firefox 3.0.11 with 23 open tabs and I'm compiling a WebKit nightly in xfce terminal... Mem: 1026276k total, 563256k used, 463020k free,  24304k buffersSwap: 979956k total,    0k used, 979956k free, 192920k cached Saying you have 23 tabs open and have memory issues isn't terribly helpful.
Some of the problems attributed to web browsers are down to bloated web sites.
Not everyone uses tabs and even fewer sites appear to be designed with tabbed browsing in mind.
Don't forget that a compressed 200k jpeg is cached in browser memory as a 4MB bitmap (example numbers courtesy of my ass) for the last 10 closed documents.
That 200k of compressed javascript expands to 600k before it gets converted to the browsers internal representation (bytecode etc), then there's all the memory allocations required to run the script.If you want to help fix the issues you're seeing, I suggest identifying a single tab that's using too much memory and then finding out why that is the case.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408363</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>rtyhurst</author>
	<datestamp>1245526260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hit the "change" button and the weird ass icons (etc.) disappear.</p><p>Same as when the display was eating post titles a while ago...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hit the " change " button and the weird ass icons ( etc .
) disappear.Same as when the display was eating post titles a while ago.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hit the "change" button and the weird ass icons (etc.
) disappear.Same as when the display was eating post titles a while ago...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409595</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245586260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But how does this work when you have shared objects, like on Linux ? Will it then be mem\_usage = users x mem\_pr\_user ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But how does this work when you have shared objects , like on Linux ?
Will it then be mem \ _usage = users x mem \ _pr \ _user ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But how does this work when you have shared objects, like on Linux ?
Will it then be mem\_usage = users x mem\_pr\_user ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408549</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409089</id>
	<title>9000 tabs Re:Tabs hell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245579120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Downloading the Internet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Downloading the Internet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Downloading the Internet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408013</id>
	<title>Finally...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245522240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Finally, this should stop perennial "firefox is a memory hog" trolls. Hopefully.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , this should stop perennial " firefox is a memory hog " trolls .
Hopefully .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, this should stop perennial "firefox is a memory hog" trolls.
Hopefully.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409291</id>
	<title>Re:Pfft.</title>
	<author>mqduck</author>
	<datestamp>1245581640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Firefox for porn and online transactions</p></div><p>Okay, I'll bite. Why is Firefox better for watching porn?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox for porn and online transactionsOkay , I 'll bite .
Why is Firefox better for watching porn ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox for porn and online transactionsOkay, I'll bite.
Why is Firefox better for watching porn?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28412115</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>darpo</author>
	<datestamp>1245610800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Someone really needs to put up a website, say, firefoxmemoryhog.com, and having people submit *exact* details from their machines when this happens. Which extensions are being used, which OS the person has, which version of FF. You hear these anecdotal reports about insane FF memory usage, but they're useless without hard config data.

It's gotta be particular add-ons and plug-ins causing the problem. Just need to identify which ones, and shame them into fixing their issues.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone really needs to put up a website , say , firefoxmemoryhog.com , and having people submit * exact * details from their machines when this happens .
Which extensions are being used , which OS the person has , which version of FF .
You hear these anecdotal reports about insane FF memory usage , but they 're useless without hard config data .
It 's got ta be particular add-ons and plug-ins causing the problem .
Just need to identify which ones , and shame them into fixing their issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone really needs to put up a website, say, firefoxmemoryhog.com, and having people submit *exact* details from their machines when this happens.
Which extensions are being used, which OS the person has, which version of FF.
You hear these anecdotal reports about insane FF memory usage, but they're useless without hard config data.
It's gotta be particular add-ons and plug-ins causing the problem.
Just need to identify which ones, and shame them into fixing their issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410567</id>
	<title>Re:CPU usage comparison please.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245598200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That might actually be Google's fault. They don't supply the same code to all clients, so it could be a bug in their firefox javascript. Alternatively, it's a problem with the javascript engine in the beta version you're using.</p><p>FWIW, for me running the current Firefox 3 with Gmail open plus a number of other tabs it sits mostly at 0\% cpu, with bursts to about 25-30\% when it checks for email. This is on an old P4 laptop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That might actually be Google 's fault .
They do n't supply the same code to all clients , so it could be a bug in their firefox javascript .
Alternatively , it 's a problem with the javascript engine in the beta version you 're using.FWIW , for me running the current Firefox 3 with Gmail open plus a number of other tabs it sits mostly at 0 \ % cpu , with bursts to about 25-30 \ % when it checks for email .
This is on an old P4 laptop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That might actually be Google's fault.
They don't supply the same code to all clients, so it could be a bug in their firefox javascript.
Alternatively, it's a problem with the javascript engine in the beta version you're using.FWIW, for me running the current Firefox 3 with Gmail open plus a number of other tabs it sits mostly at 0\% cpu, with bursts to about 25-30\% when it checks for email.
This is on an old P4 laptop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408147</id>
	<title>Nice to see, but...</title>
	<author>timothyb89</author>
	<datestamp>1245523860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I'm glad to hear that Firefox has finally improved its memory usage. Although my system has plenty of memory, I still find that the amount of memory FF3 requires causes a very annoying slowdown.
</p><p>
Of late, I've been using <a href="http://www.twotoasts.de/index.php?/pages/midori\_summary.html" title="twotoasts.de" rel="nofollow">Midori</a> [twotoasts.de] as an alternative. With it's current git version and a recent WebKit build (r44951), I've found it to perform better than any other browser I've used (opera, konqueror, firefox). Although it does have a few minor kinks, it supports pretty much every site I've come across and works considerably better with mozilla plugins (namely, flash) than Konqueror and Opera.
</p><p>
Currently with an instance I've been using for the last few days, Midori is using 77 MBs of memory (for comparison, my other running browsers: opera- 120 MBs, Konqueror- 91 MBs, Firefox- 119 MBs). I didn't do any even moderately sophisticated benchmarks suck as those in the article, but that beats the average and final amounts of memory of FF3.5 as shown in the article. Obviously this is not Windows-friendly, but I'd say Midori deserves some more attention, considering that (for me, at least) it outperforms all the other major browsers.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad to hear that Firefox has finally improved its memory usage .
Although my system has plenty of memory , I still find that the amount of memory FF3 requires causes a very annoying slowdown .
Of late , I 've been using Midori [ twotoasts.de ] as an alternative .
With it 's current git version and a recent WebKit build ( r44951 ) , I 've found it to perform better than any other browser I 've used ( opera , konqueror , firefox ) .
Although it does have a few minor kinks , it supports pretty much every site I 've come across and works considerably better with mozilla plugins ( namely , flash ) than Konqueror and Opera .
Currently with an instance I 've been using for the last few days , Midori is using 77 MBs of memory ( for comparison , my other running browsers : opera- 120 MBs , Konqueror- 91 MBs , Firefox- 119 MBs ) .
I did n't do any even moderately sophisticated benchmarks suck as those in the article , but that beats the average and final amounts of memory of FF3.5 as shown in the article .
Obviously this is not Windows-friendly , but I 'd say Midori deserves some more attention , considering that ( for me , at least ) it outperforms all the other major browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I'm glad to hear that Firefox has finally improved its memory usage.
Although my system has plenty of memory, I still find that the amount of memory FF3 requires causes a very annoying slowdown.
Of late, I've been using Midori [twotoasts.de] as an alternative.
With it's current git version and a recent WebKit build (r44951), I've found it to perform better than any other browser I've used (opera, konqueror, firefox).
Although it does have a few minor kinks, it supports pretty much every site I've come across and works considerably better with mozilla plugins (namely, flash) than Konqueror and Opera.
Currently with an instance I've been using for the last few days, Midori is using 77 MBs of memory (for comparison, my other running browsers: opera- 120 MBs, Konqueror- 91 MBs, Firefox- 119 MBs).
I didn't do any even moderately sophisticated benchmarks suck as those in the article, but that beats the average and final amounts of memory of FF3.5 as shown in the article.
Obviously this is not Windows-friendly, but I'd say Midori deserves some more attention, considering that (for me, at least) it outperforms all the other major browsers.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28412101</id>
	<title>Re:Who uses vanilla FF anyway?</title>
	<author>Weedhopper</author>
	<datestamp>1245610680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GP is obviously referring to plugins that attempt to imitate the features of other browsers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GP is obviously referring to plugins that attempt to imitate the features of other browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GP is obviously referring to plugins that attempt to imitate the features of other browsers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409931</id>
	<title>I got 12GB...</title>
	<author>siyavash</author>
	<datestamp>1245591720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got 12GB... so who cares?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D oh wait, I use Opera.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got 12GB... so who cares ?
: D oh wait , I use Opera .
: ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got 12GB... so who cares?
:D oh wait, I use Opera.
:]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408473</id>
	<title>et al</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245527580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish people would learn the difference between "et al" and "etc".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish people would learn the difference between " et al " and " etc " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish people would learn the difference between "et al" and "etc".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28414385</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>cryptoluddite</author>
	<datestamp>1245585600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The report doesn't consider plugins<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... once you load in a handful (or a few dozen) of your favorite plugins, the tests may not turn out the same.</p></div><p>But in all likelihood Chrome plugins will take more memory because of the process-per-tab model.  There's necessarily some inefficiency from separating the plugins from everything else.</p><p>Afaik Chrome goes to some lengths to avoid plugins exploding memory by having them run in one process instead of every process, but even so you'll probably end up with complicated plugins doing crazy stuff like inserting javascript into pages as they load, bloating them, that are unnecessary with a shared, one-process model.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The report does n't consider plugins ... once you load in a handful ( or a few dozen ) of your favorite plugins , the tests may not turn out the same.But in all likelihood Chrome plugins will take more memory because of the process-per-tab model .
There 's necessarily some inefficiency from separating the plugins from everything else.Afaik Chrome goes to some lengths to avoid plugins exploding memory by having them run in one process instead of every process , but even so you 'll probably end up with complicated plugins doing crazy stuff like inserting javascript into pages as they load , bloating them , that are unnecessary with a shared , one-process model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The report doesn't consider plugins ... once you load in a handful (or a few dozen) of your favorite plugins, the tests may not turn out the same.But in all likelihood Chrome plugins will take more memory because of the process-per-tab model.
There's necessarily some inefficiency from separating the plugins from everything else.Afaik Chrome goes to some lengths to avoid plugins exploding memory by having them run in one process instead of every process, but even so you'll probably end up with complicated plugins doing crazy stuff like inserting javascript into pages as they load, bloating them, that are unnecessary with a shared, one-process model.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408497</id>
	<title>Re:Who uses vanilla FF anyway?</title>
	<author>kripkenstein</author>
	<datestamp>1245614400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We all know that the thing that hogs the most memory in Firefox is all the extensions that people use to immitate other browsers... Who actually uses Firefox without a single extension and brags about how good it is anyway?</p></div><p>I use Firefox all the time with no extensions at all. Well, except for Ubufox which was installed for me by Ubuntu. And the Flash plugin.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We all know that the thing that hogs the most memory in Firefox is all the extensions that people use to immitate other browsers... Who actually uses Firefox without a single extension and brags about how good it is anyway ? I use Firefox all the time with no extensions at all .
Well , except for Ubufox which was installed for me by Ubuntu .
And the Flash plugin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all know that the thing that hogs the most memory in Firefox is all the extensions that people use to immitate other browsers... Who actually uses Firefox without a single extension and brags about how good it is anyway?I use Firefox all the time with no extensions at all.
Well, except for Ubufox which was installed for me by Ubuntu.
And the Flash plugin.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409623</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Trogre</author>
	<datestamp>1245586740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, Firefox 3.0.10 at least still uses ridiculous amounts of memory.  With 160 tabs open (across several windows) it initially takes up a couple of hundred MB.  Then leaving it for a couple of days doing *absolutely nothing* it often gobbles up in excess of 2GB.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , Firefox 3.0.10 at least still uses ridiculous amounts of memory .
With 160 tabs open ( across several windows ) it initially takes up a couple of hundred MB .
Then leaving it for a couple of days doing * absolutely nothing * it often gobbles up in excess of 2GB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, Firefox 3.0.10 at least still uses ridiculous amounts of memory.
With 160 tabs open (across several windows) it initially takes up a couple of hundred MB.
Then leaving it for a couple of days doing *absolutely nothing* it often gobbles up in excess of 2GB.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410769</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245599880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not on mine. (I'm using 3.5's latest release candidate with XP right now, but I don't recall seeing that problem on my Linux machines...Debian, Ubuntu, and my EeePC(the custom Xandros.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not on mine .
( I 'm using 3.5 's latest release candidate with XP right now , but I do n't recall seeing that problem on my Linux machines...Debian , Ubuntu , and my EeePC ( the custom Xandros .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not on mine.
(I'm using 3.5's latest release candidate with XP right now, but I don't recall seeing that problem on my Linux machines...Debian, Ubuntu, and my EeePC(the custom Xandros.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28413291</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245576600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree - I haven't had any memory issues at all with Firefox...  on Windows, anyway.<br>On Linux, it's a completely different story (same version of Firefox, btw).  My experience has been almost exactly the same as FrostyPiss's - default settings, no plugins or extensions except for Adblock Plus.</p><p>Perhaps all the "firefox is a memory hog trolls" are just regular users running Linux, and everyone else here runs Windows?<br>I wouldn't expect that, but maybe all the Linux users having no problems can tell me what configuration they've done to get it to run decently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree - I have n't had any memory issues at all with Firefox... on Windows , anyway.On Linux , it 's a completely different story ( same version of Firefox , btw ) .
My experience has been almost exactly the same as FrostyPiss 's - default settings , no plugins or extensions except for Adblock Plus.Perhaps all the " firefox is a memory hog trolls " are just regular users running Linux , and everyone else here runs Windows ? I would n't expect that , but maybe all the Linux users having no problems can tell me what configuration they 've done to get it to run decently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree - I haven't had any memory issues at all with Firefox...  on Windows, anyway.On Linux, it's a completely different story (same version of Firefox, btw).
My experience has been almost exactly the same as FrostyPiss's - default settings, no plugins or extensions except for Adblock Plus.Perhaps all the "firefox is a memory hog trolls" are just regular users running Linux, and everyone else here runs Windows?I wouldn't expect that, but maybe all the Linux users having no problems can tell me what configuration they've done to get it to run decently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409163</id>
	<title>Re:IE8 hardly matters for people who choose a brow</title>
	<author>Computershack</author>
	<datestamp>1245579840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In a way, IE8 was included. It failed to compete due to lack of necessary features.</p></div><p>I'm sorry but like the author, you're talking out your fucking arse. The bit you need you'll find in Tools, Internet Options, Tabs where near the bottom you're given the option of how to open links from other programs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a way , IE8 was included .
It failed to compete due to lack of necessary features.I 'm sorry but like the author , you 're talking out your fucking arse .
The bit you need you 'll find in Tools , Internet Options , Tabs where near the bottom you 're given the option of how to open links from other programs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a way, IE8 was included.
It failed to compete due to lack of necessary features.I'm sorry but like the author, you're talking out your fucking arse.
The bit you need you'll find in Tools, Internet Options, Tabs where near the bottom you're given the option of how to open links from other programs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28416857</id>
	<title>Re:Opera</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1245606240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Opera has advanced memory caching. When you close a tab, it remains cached in RAM.</i></p><p>And yet, when Firefox does this (and it does), people bitch that it's bloated.</p><p>Funny, that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera has advanced memory caching .
When you close a tab , it remains cached in RAM.And yet , when Firefox does this ( and it does ) , people bitch that it 's bloated.Funny , that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera has advanced memory caching.
When you close a tab, it remains cached in RAM.And yet, when Firefox does this (and it does), people bitch that it's bloated.Funny, that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410341</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>JackSpratts</author>
	<datestamp>1245596460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you should see it in chrome. takes forever to load &amp; looks like something from 1995.</htmltext>
<tokenext>you should see it in chrome .
takes forever to load &amp; looks like something from 1995 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you should see it in chrome.
takes forever to load &amp; looks like something from 1995.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408321</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245525600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Finally, this should stop perennial "firefox is a memory hog" trolls. Hopefully.</p></div><p>This really hasn't been my experience, and I am not trolling. My experience, <b> <i>which is to say what actually happens to me when I am surfing</i> </b>, is that after awhile with a few (2 or 3) tabs open, FF memory usage rises to the point where my machine crawls to a stop, and I have to kill FF with the task manager.</p><p>Why is my FF experience different than the average FF fanboy? Why this is, I don't know. I do know that I am unwilling to get "under the hood" and edit config files, because I don't think I should have to.</p><p>This is my experience as what I believe to be "average" use.</p></div><p>That's not normal.  Just because someone uses Firefox without it affecting system performance doesn't make that person a "FF fanboy."  On XP, Vista, and 7, FF has no obvious effect on my system performance (on a Lenovo T61, my desktop, and my netbook, respectively).  I have 3.0.11 on two of those and 3.5 on the other.  The only thing I've done to get "under the hood" is install adblock plus.  Right now I have 13 tabs open in Vista and FF is using 109 megs of RAM and 0-1\% of my CPU cycles, with no noticeable effect on anything else.  The only time I've ever felt FF3 affect system performance has been when running flash video on the netbook.  Maybe flash ads are the cause of your woes; they're all removed with adblock.  You might give it a try.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , this should stop perennial " firefox is a memory hog " trolls .
Hopefully.This really has n't been my experience , and I am not trolling .
My experience , which is to say what actually happens to me when I am surfing , is that after awhile with a few ( 2 or 3 ) tabs open , FF memory usage rises to the point where my machine crawls to a stop , and I have to kill FF with the task manager.Why is my FF experience different than the average FF fanboy ?
Why this is , I do n't know .
I do know that I am unwilling to get " under the hood " and edit config files , because I do n't think I should have to.This is my experience as what I believe to be " average " use.That 's not normal .
Just because someone uses Firefox without it affecting system performance does n't make that person a " FF fanboy .
" On XP , Vista , and 7 , FF has no obvious effect on my system performance ( on a Lenovo T61 , my desktop , and my netbook , respectively ) .
I have 3.0.11 on two of those and 3.5 on the other .
The only thing I 've done to get " under the hood " is install adblock plus .
Right now I have 13 tabs open in Vista and FF is using 109 megs of RAM and 0-1 \ % of my CPU cycles , with no noticeable effect on anything else .
The only time I 've ever felt FF3 affect system performance has been when running flash video on the netbook .
Maybe flash ads are the cause of your woes ; they 're all removed with adblock .
You might give it a try .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, this should stop perennial "firefox is a memory hog" trolls.
Hopefully.This really hasn't been my experience, and I am not trolling.
My experience,  which is to say what actually happens to me when I am surfing , is that after awhile with a few (2 or 3) tabs open, FF memory usage rises to the point where my machine crawls to a stop, and I have to kill FF with the task manager.Why is my FF experience different than the average FF fanboy?
Why this is, I don't know.
I do know that I am unwilling to get "under the hood" and edit config files, because I don't think I should have to.This is my experience as what I believe to be "average" use.That's not normal.
Just because someone uses Firefox without it affecting system performance doesn't make that person a "FF fanboy.
"  On XP, Vista, and 7, FF has no obvious effect on my system performance (on a Lenovo T61, my desktop, and my netbook, respectively).
I have 3.0.11 on two of those and 3.5 on the other.
The only thing I've done to get "under the hood" is install adblock plus.
Right now I have 13 tabs open in Vista and FF is using 109 megs of RAM and 0-1\% of my CPU cycles, with no noticeable effect on anything else.
The only time I've ever felt FF3 affect system performance has been when running flash video on the netbook.
Maybe flash ads are the cause of your woes; they're all removed with adblock.
You might give it a try.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408149</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28411615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28411513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28419803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28411657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28413357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410533
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28420751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28412949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28414183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28411225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28413291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28412789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28413211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28412101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28416857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28413055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408767
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28414385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28412827
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28412387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28415551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28411199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28411187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28412115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28411417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28412161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28411695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28424493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28445395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28413241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28417291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28411051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28417337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1951212_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28426743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1951212.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410567
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1951212.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408767
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28411513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408481
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28412101
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1951212.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409171
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1951212.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409191
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1951212.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408475
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1951212.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408987
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410533
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1951212.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28412949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28411615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409207
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1951212.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408265
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28411199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408613
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28411225
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409499
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408149
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408321
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28413291
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28413055
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409539
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28424493
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28412387
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28412115
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28420751
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410285
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409881
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28414183
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28413241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408257
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28414385
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1951212.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408175
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1951212.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410335
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1951212.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408385
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408845
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28411417
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409055
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408515
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409163
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1951212.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408201
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1951212.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410893
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1951212.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410361
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1951212.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28415999
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1951212.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409291
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28411187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408697
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1951212.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28411657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410023
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28416857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28445395
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1951212.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410235
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28411695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409089
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1951212.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408775
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1951212.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408141
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1951212.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409109
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1951212.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408383
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28413211
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28412161
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410341
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28411051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409365
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408247
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408491
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409371
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409625
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28413357
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409463
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28417291
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410237
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28412827
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28415551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408549
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28417337
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409785
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1951212.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28409097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410333
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1951212.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28419803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408909
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408759
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28410691
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28412789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28426743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1951212.28408335
</commentlist>
</conversation>
