![]() ![]() It goes without saying the numbers (for Linux versions of Firefox & SRWare) will slightly vary. It is obvious but still worth pointing out that my task manager screenshot was for Windows only. I've been using it on a few rare occasions, but much like Eric, I have been such a long time Firefox/Palemoon user that I am not switching over. I like the way it renders pages and it might be even faster than the latest version Palemoon. The latest version is by far the fastest. I can't remember exactly when but I have tried various versions of it for about 1 year now. I've been using SRWare since it was mentioned by Corrine on this forum a while back. So it seems it's on par with Firefox's in terms of memory usage. SRWare ~134,900 K (6 separate processes as shown in task manager) To be fair, I loaded up 4 websites in Firefox (SNF's forum was just one of them) and then I loaded those exact same 4 websites in SRWare.įirefox ~152,000 K (128,000 + Plugin container 24,000 K) ** At the time you took that screenshot, how many tabs did you have open in Firefox and how many tabs for SRWare Iron? I did a little test here myself to see just how much of a memory hog SRWare is because I have reason to doubt your assertion that it eats up too many resources. If you're implying that it is a memory hog by posting the screenshot, you'll need to post more details. All applications eat up some amount of memory that is unavoidable. As mentioned before, iron is noticably fast but seems to eat up resources. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |