Memory vs. X86

[twistedvincent]

I just installed X64 this evening and I noticed it's using about 300,000k. X86 was using about 200,000k.

Same extensions, same theme, what would cause such a difference?

[megaman]

X64 takes advantage of the vast amount of memory that was limited by X32, so it can use more, but it uses it to a great advantage.

I am not completely sure that this is normal, but if you have more than 3GB RAM, it should not be a problem.

[Moonchild]

64-bit applications always use considerably more memory than 32-bit applications. This is normal, and inherent to using 64-bit "large" data units (larger pointers, larger registers, etc.). Also, as Megaman pointed out: Pale Moon x64 can "see" and address much more memory internally, and will see beyond the 32-bit address space limit if you have more memory available (both physical and virtual). It tries to allocate what would give the smoothest operation of the browser.

300MB is not so strange for Pale Moon x64 on a system with plenty of free RAM.

[twistedvincent]

Cool, thanks for the quick reply's. I've only used IE9 X64 and didn't notice it's footprint in the 2 minutes I had it running. I assume it's the same deal.

Thanks again, I'm sure I'll have more questions.

[twistedvincent]

Just posted the above and noticed it's now using almost 400mb....is that still within normal parameters? I have a full 8gb of ram.

PS

One EXCELLENT feature of Pale Moon (both versions) is that they both slow down on minimization....something that used to frustrate the hell out of me with Firefox.

[alan9182]

I've only used IE9 X64 and didn't notice it's footprint in the 2 minutes I had it running.

That is probably one of Microsoft's dirty tricks with which they defeated the superior browser Netscape some decades ago.

To make I.E. APPEAR to launch much faster than Netscape etc,
Microsoft embedded much of I.E. within the Operating System so that much of I.E. was loaded from disc and running in RAM before the system was ready for the user to launch Netscape.
This is like a 100 yard race in which the local home favorite is allowed to walk to within two yards of the finish line before the user can fire the starting pistol and release the other competitors from the starting line.

I believe TRIDENT is the code name for the internals of I.E. that are hidden in Windows,
and I suspect that memory consumed by I.E.9 could be mostly ascribed to some Windows thing - perhaps svchost.

[Moonchild]

Cool, thanks for the quick reply's. I've only used IE9 X64 and didn't notice it's footprint in the 2 minutes I had it running. I assume it's the same deal.

You can't get IE's footprint because IE is your explorer shell - it is what also powers your desktop. any "iexplore.exe" process will likely be only as much as is needed to launch a window and connect to the IE back-end, and whatever it needs to run plugins and store pages.

[twistedvincent]

Now it's running at 500,000 k is that still considered normal?

[Moonchild]

It all depends on what you are doing, how many tabs you have open, how long the browser has been running, how many pages you've visited and how complex they are (Pale Moon keeps pages in memory that you have navigated away from in case you press "back", it keeps closed tabs in memory so you can undo it, etc), and more factors.
In comparison, my own 32-bit one currently (10 tabs open, been running for a good number of hours) is using almost 400MB, with a peak according to task manager of about 500. I have plenty of ram to spare, so that's fine. Memory use really only becomes a problem if it gets out of bounds (e.g. using more than 1 GB with minimal use) and if it starts to negatively impact other applications. As long as that's not the case, the memory use of Pale Moon is considered normal.

[twistedvincent]

I have one more question. How come all of a sudden, for no reason at all, when I open Pale Moon it's at 1/4 size in the corner of my screen? I've no idea what could cause that.