<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: Close Firefox Daily</title> <atom:link href="http://www.pcmech.com/article/close-firefox-daily/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.pcmech.com/article/close-firefox-daily/</link> <description>Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On</description> <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:23:00 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <item><title>By: Ben</title><link>http://www.pcmech.com/article/close-firefox-daily/comment-page-1/#comment-31674</link> <dc:creator>Ben</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2009 06:03:51 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.pcmech.com/article/close-firefox-daily/#comment-31674</guid> <description>Wow, then try out Firefox 3.7 (agreed I&#039;m posting 6 months in the future) but it&#039;s gone from 3.0 (a giant leap from 2.0) up to 3.5 (about ten times faster) to 3.6 and 3.7 in testing (about fifty times faster - subjectively). Running tests on my system show some 150 times (not percent) speed increases, and the lowest increase I found was 4 times faster.I can handle the maths for a 400% increase, but  times is just a little mindblowing.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, then try out Firefox 3.7 (agreed I&#8217;m posting 6 months in the future) but it&#8217;s gone from 3.0 (a giant leap from 2.0) up to 3.5 (about ten times faster) to 3.6 and 3.7 in testing (about fifty times faster &#8211; subjectively). Running tests on my system show some 150 times (not percent) speed increases, and the lowest increase I found was 4 times faster.</p><p>I can handle the maths for a 400% increase, but  times is just a little mindblowing.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Jah</title><link>http://www.pcmech.com/article/close-firefox-daily/comment-page-1/#comment-8697</link> <dc:creator>Jah</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:13:27 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.pcmech.com/article/close-firefox-daily/#comment-8697</guid> <description>good tip. sometimes it really gets out of hand. i am currently switching between FF2 and FF3 beta. I am a tab fiend and leave tabs open or just dont wanna bookmark them(I know I would never get back to the page, lol). With around 20 or 30 tabs open, FF2 consumes about 200-350MB memory(I have quite a few addons) and in FF3 with the same tabs open, it takes 100MB. It could be that half my addons are disabled but FF2 is still a major memory hog. Good news is that pretty soon, one will not have to worry about it.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>good tip. sometimes it really gets out of hand. i am currently switching between FF2 and FF3 beta. I am a tab fiend and leave tabs open or just dont wanna bookmark them(I know I would never get back to the page, lol). With around 20 or 30 tabs open, FF2 consumes about 200-350MB memory(I have quite a few addons) and in FF3 with the same tabs open, it takes 100MB. It could be that half my addons are disabled but FF2 is still a major memory hog. Good news is that pretty soon, one will not have to worry about it.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using apc
Page Caching using apc
Database Caching 33/43 queries in 0.016 seconds using apc
Content Delivery Network via pcmech.pcmediainc.netdna-cdn.com

Served from: www.pcmech.com @ 2012-02-14 08:14:29 -->
