I hope Mozilla gets its act together in putting its part.

[megaman]

Tackling the add-ons just to see which one is the culprit is a pain, especially when I depend on them since Fx 2.0, at least a bunch.

Yes, browsers cannot keep up with me for that particular reason, which is a drag. Opera will also fall and Chromium-based browsers will suffer worse.

[steviem1]

Mozilla's attitude seems to cause more problems than solutions to my mind; for a browser that boasts user customisation/configurability options they have adopted a strange policy that doesn't facilitate browser add-on compatibility for the end user.

[megaman]

Mozilla's attitude seems to cause more problems than solutions to my mind; for a browser that boasts user customisation/configurability options they have adopted a strange policy that doesn't facilitate browser add-on compatibility for the end user.

Have you read about their add-on memory fix?
Yet, it is back to square 1, where my memory is huge again.

The problem is tackling the add-on that is a pain, I thought the Telemetry thing would have reported it a long time ago for a fix.
I have 1.7 Gigs/3.75 left and it was still laggy. Currently, after restarting, I have 1.6 and it is great without any problems. So, it is not my hardware entirely. Sometimes I have like 800Mbs/3.75GB and it is still stable/smooth.

What's to blame? 5400 RPM HDD most likely.

[Moonchild]

If you are using particularly old add-ons (and forcing compatibility on some of them) you can expect some problems. The "add-on memory fix" is also not a magic wand that you can wave and fix incompatible add-ons. It is created for one particular purpose, and it will not relieve any issues where add-ons leak in the main browser window's chrome or system principal.

About:memory can possibly give some insight.

As an aside: just opening a very large image can make Pale Moon use a large amount of memory. I tortured my copy earlier today with a 30,000x15,000 pixel sized image which made memory use climb to 2.2 GB (but did not slow anything down) - closing it again though reclaimed that memory (back to 450MB) within 10 seconds. You have to keep in mind what all you have opened when you look at memory sizes in task manager - it's also not entirely clear what the size in your screencap is. is it working set? virtual size? peak working set? commit charge?

[megaman]

The problem I can put on the table is that opening many links still stay in memory when closed, opening over 150 and closing them in a bit. Just a guess.

Whenever this happens again I will do an About:memory SS.

Memory (Private Working Set)

Yes, it is the add-ons, but Mozilla made a huge fix and they are working on fixing other add-ons individually, so I still wonder why the ones I use are not being worked on, I use the most commonly-known ones.

The add-ons I use are up-to-date or are made to work with the later versions, none have the "Not available" thing, they have the fully-green button that does work.

[steviem1]

The problem I can put on the table is that opening many links still stay in memory when closed, opening over 150 and closing them in a bit. Just a guess.

Somewhat ironically, on a slightly different note, I use an add-on that keeps memory usage down when I have many tabs open, basically unloading tabs after a specified period of being idle. I only have 1Gb ram and it works for me, I suppose the overall effect is analogous to having temporary bookmarks in the browser.

[stravinsky]

I suppose the overall effect is analogous to having temporary bookmarks in the browser.

which is bad for people with a slow internet connection. i have a 64KB/s net connection, and 4GB RAM. So i like to put everything i can in my RAM, rather than downloading it again.

[Soldier1st]

A slow HDD does not help.

[megaman]

This is another problem due to Flash.
It seems to be the only problem that I encounter with the browsers.
I cannot try 11.4 due to surveys, but hopefully 11.4 can fix this problem or alleviate some of it.