Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mozilla Developers Testing Mobile OS

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the marketplace-of-ideas dept.

Mozilla 109

MojoKid writes "Mozilla has been experimenting with an interesting idea called Boot 2 Gecko. Essentially, B2G (as it's called) is a mobile operating system based on the Web, as opposed to what the project's wiki calls 'proprietary, single-vendor stacks.' Mozilla has something here. Open Web technologies provide an intriguing platform for lots of things, mobile and otherwise. The B2G project is still pretty new, but according to the project roadmap, testing has already begun and will continue through the rest of 2011. Messaging, telephony, and battery management aspects of the OS are underway, and contacts, screen/power management, and settings are scheduled. A product demo is scheduled for sometime in the first quarter of 2012."

cancel ×

109 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Memory footprint should be first priority (3, Insightful)

Vandil X (636030) | more than 2 years ago | (#37967884)

The more memory in use, the more energy Mobile devices burn. Mozilla's Firefox is a huge memory hog on personal computers. If they want a shot on the mobile market, they'll need to keep the memory footprint to a minimum.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37967918)

No it isn't. Firefox uses about as much as Chrome or any other browser. For a long time now. So why don't you repeat some other old bs now, cause this is getting boring.

On another note, I'm interested in seeing this. Looks like a new idea.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37967996)

Dude, put down the Mozilla Kool-Aid, ease back on the weed.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (3, Interesting)

n4t3 (266019) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968142)

Firefox is slower than chrome, but generally uses less memory. There were a couple versions of FF that had a memory leak problm if I recall.
See http://www.dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory [dotnetperls.com] too

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (3, Insightful)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968258)

Listen - I have to restart my browser about once a day, because it gradually loses performance until it runs worse (Firefox 7.0.1 on a C2D w/ 4GB of memory) than my old craptop's copy (Firefox 2 on an Athlon 900 w/ 512MB RAM). And that it takes about 2 minutes to restart Firefox when it gets like that.

That's pathetic. That's the kind of stuff I'd expect from Internet Explorer, not Firefox.

I don't know precisely if it's a memory leak, nor do I care. It could be some renderer bug, or some problem interfacing with the OS, or whatever. All I know is that Firefox has severe performance degradation issues, and that the only reason I haven't switched to Chrome permanently is Live Bookmarks (I was primarily Chrome user for all of FF3, using Firefox only to check webcomics once a day).

Memory usage itself isn't necessarily the problem - I'm using half a gig right now, and I've got another two gigs free. But whatever the problem is, it acts a lot like a memory leak, so most people are going to just assume that's it.

I don't care if it uses a LOT of memory, as long as it uses it well. I don't expect to be able to alt-tab between Firefox, Crysis and Blender without delay. I do, however, expect Firefox to run properly when all the machine is running is Firefox, Notepad++ and MPC.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37968330)

No it doesn't. It does for you, because one of your addons, your windows install, or your specific software configuration is causing a bug. Your bitching and moaning deserves to be on a bug tracker, not a public discussion thread where nobody excepted people who always suffer from the same bug will have this issue.

For us, Firefox uses less memory than other browsers. Now 2 fucking gigs. That's just you or your 200 tabs.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37968566)

I love when people counter with this. It's so hilarious.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (2)

corychristison (951993) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968798)

I have never, ever seen Firefox consume more than 300MB of RAM on any machine I've ever used it on. My workstation has 6GB RAM, AMD Athlon X2 5200+. On a regular basis I have upto 3-4 Windows with upto 2-10 tabs open at any given time.

Every system is different, there are too many factors to try to figure out what is causing the problem. You're talking about a piece of software that runs on virtually any x86-based machine, as well as few other architectures. Not to mention most operating systems, Win/Mac/Linux/BSD and a few others.. there are bound to be configurations that cause issues... as with any piece of software.

GP is right though, submit some information to the bug tracker. Complaining on slashdot is not going to get you anywhere.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1)

horza (87255) | more than 2 years ago | (#37971326)

Looking at my computer, I've had Firefox 4.01 running overnight with a single window just a couple of tabs open, and it takes 1.4GB (plus 3GB of virtual). It normally takes 30-40% CPU at idle. Sounds like I should upgrade to Firefox 7.

Phillip.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (2)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968866)

OK, then, how about this:

Configuration:
Firefox 7.0.1 (fully up-to-date)

Hardware:
Core 2 Duo, 2.26gHz
GeForce 9600
4GB memory

OS:
Windows 6.0.6002, exhibits absolutely no problems with any other programs (ie. even if it's a problem with Windows, it's one that every single other developer has worked around).

Only plugin is:
Shockwave Flash (10.3.183.10)

Addons:
AdBlock Plus
Colorzilla
DownloadHelper
DownloadThemAll
Greasemonkey
Menu Editor (small thing that lets you remove useless context menu items like "set as background image")
Restart Firefox (adds a button to restart the browser)
SkipScreen
TinEye Reverse Image Search
User Agent Switcher

Oh, and I usually have 1-4 tabs open. Sometimes 30 or so, mainly images. I don't think I've ever had 200 tabs open.

And in case you didn't notice, I didn't complain about the memory. It's using half a gig, and I wouldn't mind at all if it used four times as much, as long as it actually put the memory to good use.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1)

MagusSlurpy (592575) | more than 2 years ago | (#37970430)

I can't remember what the precise problem was, but I remember hearing six or twelve months ago that DownloadHelper was really bad about memory leaks or startup times or crashes or something, because I was convinced to uninstall it. Greasemonkey could be an issue too, depending on what you have it running.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#37970528)

Just so you know you aren't alone and so someone doesn't say its a Win 7 issue, i've run into the same thing on XP Home SP3, Sempron 1.8Ghz, 1.5Gb of RAM, and I have even replaced the Windows shell with AstonShell. my addons are only flash, adblock plus, downloadhelper, and forecast fox, the same add ons I have in Dragon with the exception of downloadhelper. I have seen the same behavior on a customers Win2K pro machine, 2Ghz P4 with 2gb of RAM, and a customers Vista SP2 with an Athlon 7550 dual with 2gb of RAM.

In all of the cases including my XP sempron if left alone with NO activity FF will eventually make the entire machine unresponsive. Not a programmer so don't ask me why, I'm just telling what i saw with my own peepers. The same machines with Dragon, Chrome, or Opera? NO problems. In fact the gal with Vista switched to Opera full time and hasn't had a single issue with performance or the machine lagging since. Most of my other customers have either joined me in using Dragon or switched to Chrome, and these folks aren't the type to switch on a whim, it has to be REALLY slowing them down or causing them problems for them to switch. I only have a single customer that hasn't given me a single complaint since FF started spinning up in numbers and that is a guy on a tri-core AMD with 8Gb of RAM and Win 7 X64. Maybe FF can't see the third core and therefor doesn't slam it?

All I know was I was a die HARD Mozilla fan and didn't think anybody would get me to switch ever. I was using FF before it was even called that and the suite before that. But since FF 4 I've seen the performance and responsiveness of FF go right in the shitter, it got bad enough that I started trying other browsers just to see if it WAS an OS issue and found it was FF giving me the trouble. i have the same extensions in Dragon, no hangs or CPU slams.

But by FF 6 it got so bad on both my Sempron and my netbook that I went out and bought a third party video download program just so I wouldn't need FF for downloading videos anymore. After that I removed ALL extensions but frankly i couldn't see that it helped, in fact removing ABP made it that much slower since it now had to load ads.

This isn't some "yay chrome, boo FF" thing I still miss Moz sometimes, enough I downloaded Pale Moon [palemoon.org] hoping they may have been able to fix the problems in FF. It helped a little but sadly not enough. i truly hope they fix FF, I really do, as I do miss it sometimes. But ATM on anything short of my quad it just sucks too much CPU, is too slow to load pages, seems to become unresponsive WAY too easily, I don't know what they did but its a real shame as it just killed any love I had for FF as a day to day browser. I still keep it installed and updated though, and with each new version I fire it up and try it for an hour hoping its gotten better, but it just ain't.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1)

DarkTempes (822722) | more than 2 years ago | (#37971158)

Have you tried disabling all of your addons/etc to see if you still have the problem?
While in a perfect world addons wouldn't be able to cause memory leaks, it's a very hard thing to design against without putting severe limitations on addons.

I know firebug on my 3.6.x install of firefox has memory leak issues but otherwise I can run it for weeks without any significant memory increases (and I've done comparisons of firefox vs chrome usage and firefox was less or equal for the same sites with about ~15 tabs open).
People just think Chrome uses less because every tab is a separate process and so it looks like less.
My firefox 7.x machines don't use addons and don't even get much heavy flash usage so I've never see large memory usage on those either...

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1)

n4t3 (266019) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968382)

I'll try to pay more attention when I'm back on my desktop, but i run Linux and haven't seen *any* problems like you describe with memory on my box. The windows machines at work are using a version of FF 7 packaged by Frontmotion (so I can push it out on AD) and haven't had any problems with those boxes either.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968452)

All I know is that Firefox has severe performance degradation issues

Weird. Because I leave Firefox running for weeks and it uses a couple of hundred megabytes on a 4GB system.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968800)

It isn't the RAM usage - it's the performance. I leave Firefox on for two days, it doesn't use any more memory, but rendering, page loading and scrolling are all notably slower. Videos become unwatchable because the screen updates maybe once a second, there's a second or two of delay before it even starts loading a page, and it sometimes lags so badly that it drops input events. All while leaving a gigabyte or two of free memory.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1)

corychristison (951993) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968878)

Sounds like firefox is being swapped out when you let it sit and isn't being brought back into RAM properly, either because of other applications you are running are consuming more than firefox needs or there is some kind of bug. I have never experienced such a bug. I have had the odd crash but nothing lately. Currently running FF 7.0.1

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (2)

jlebar (1904578) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969172)

We'd love it if you filed a bug on this issue. A slashdot thread isn't the ideal place to try and figure this out.

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ [mozilla.org] Please cc ":jlebar" on the bug you file and I'll follow up.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969326)

Will do next time I can gather data on it. Since it's a gradual thing, I can't really do it right now.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37972646)

Just to let you know, I used to file bugs regarding this and similar issues with Firefox only to be told that it wasn't Firefox's fault. My fix for the bugs was to uninstall Firefox and install another browser. Since then, I haven't had a single problem.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (2)

Lennie (16154) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969178)

I did a test a short while ago.

Just open the browser, disable anything that could run automatically (no updates, a fresh profile, no addons and no extensions) and only have one page open and occasionally refresh it: about:memory

I had it setup like that for a few days.

The results:

- Firefox 7 leaks a lot less than older version
- Firefox 8 beta leaks even less.

So, they are working on it and I think they've almost cracked it.

Luckily with the fast release cycle we might even get it soon. ;-)

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969826)

Listen - I have to restart my browser about once a day.

Short answer: switch to Chrome. I couldn't get my wife to switch until she was getting a virus a day from Facebook via Firefox, that convinced her to try it, and she loves it now. Somebody will target Chrome with a successful virus sooner or later, but the real point is: Chrome is good, Chrome is newer (fresher) than Firefox, and, for the moment, it's worth trying.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969878)

I have Chrome installed, and I used to use it as my main browser during the FF3 era.

There is literally only one thing keeping me on Firefox - Live Bookmarks. I'm subscribed to a dozen blogs and over a hundred webcomics, all via RSS, and Live Bookmarks are the best way I've found to handle all that. I've tried several other RSS readers, they really don't make sense for the way I use them.

If Chrome ever adds that feature, I'm gone.

Firefox 3 had a nasty bug with Live Bookmarks, where refreshing them (which it does frequently) will make the entire browser freeze. For 1-2 feeds, it's unnoticeable. For a hundred, your browser is basically out of commission for five minutes every hour. It only affected FF3 - FF2 was fine, and FF4 fixed it. So for all that period, I used Chrome, only booting up Firefox once a day to check my feeds.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969934)

Back when Chrome was new, it had some compatibility problems with certain websites, more than FF or IE did (maybe about on par with Opera). That has gotten better and better over the years.

My RSS "subscriptions" are all on my yahoo/google "homepages" - not sure if that would scratch your itch or not, works for me, in every browser on every desk - which is another nice feature of Chrome, synchronized bookmarks - I live by the little bookmark bar, erasing the names so I can fit about 20 icons one-click away... in Chrome those bookmarks are synchronized between home, work and various notebook PCs, very nice.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#37970574)

Hey friend, have you tried live bookmarks for chrome [google.com] ? I'm not really into live bookmarks so i can't tell you how well it works or not, but it sounds like what you are looking for.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1)

MagusSlurpy (592575) | more than 2 years ago | (#37970438)

Now that the FF memory hole is fixed, I've been wondering what drives the Chrome memory usage up. How much of that is due to running each tab as a separate process?

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968532)

Dude, put down the Mozilla Kool-Aid, ease back on the weed.

Do you know what the generic name of the "Mozilla Kool-Aid" is? It's "Freedom". Sometimes also known as "Power to the people".

Even if browser vendor this, that or the other makes theirs faster/leaner/shinier, none of them is on a mission from Good, which is what Mozilla is. That is the greatest value of Firefox/Iceweasel, unless I'm mistaken.

And weed? Are you implying one should not think about abstract beautiful things like the future of freedom or what are the hippie-love-ideas one should not dream about, in your opinion?

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968336)

This is not true. On my Mac OS X box, I've got Firefox, Chrome and Safari running. I just started Firefox and Chrome.

Firefox (8 beta) on startup is using 159.3MB of real memory and 166MB virtual with 22 threads running. Chrome (15.0.874.106) is using 50MB of real memory with 219.1MB virtual and 28 threads. Safari (latest on lion, which has been running for days and has 12 tabs running) is using 194.3MB of ram with 358.2 virtual and 13 threads.

This test isn't fair to safari, but valid for the other two browsers. Before one blames firefox add ons, i only have firebug installed. I think that's fair since every other browser has those features built in.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968776)

Have you remembered to sum the memory of all the Chrome processes? Mine has five different processes running with just one tab open, and put together they're definitively using more than that.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37971984)

The same for Safari. The browser and the rendering engine run in different processes with recent versions of Safari, so you have to add the two up. 194MB sounds very low for both...

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973408)

Ah good point. New test of chrome shows two processes with 63.5MB + 42.4MB real memory, 32 threads total and 229.1MB + 118.9MB virtual memory.

As for safari, it's still running and shows 600MB + 198.4MB real with 649.1MB + 359.8MB virtual.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37970370)

50 megs chrome and also 22 tabs ?
haha. lie is too big to fly sorry. and im a chrome fanboi

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37968350)

Bullshit and lies. The mobile OS: smoke and mirrors.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (3, Informative)

Shoe Puppet (1557239) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968600)

Firefox uses about as much as Chrome or any other browser

That doesn't mean it's not a memory hog.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#37970154)

I don't know about memory MR AC but I know that FF since FF 4 has just about been unusable on the older office boxes and netbooks that I have to support. I keep a 1.8Ghz Sempron around both as a low power nettop and as a test bed for older office boxes and frankly FF is just scary in its level of suckiness now. You try to launch a new tab and watching AnVir Task Manager I can sit there and watch it pound the living hell out of the CPU and if that tab has video? better go make a sandwich friend it'll be awhile and the video will be a slideshow. compare this to Comodo Dragon which I've been switching my users over to for awhile now (based on Chromium) and it doesn't ever seem to slam, nor does it make the computer unable to multitask while opening a new tab. oh and SD video actually plays quite well, with around 65% CPU usage but it is still snappy as far as browser response goes.

As for TFA I have a silly question...why? We already got chromeOS, Android, iOS, WinPhone and soon Win 8, RIM, and if they sell it off WebOS, do we REALLY need yet another competitor in such an already crowded market? Maybe its just me but it seems like Moz kinda slipped off the tracks when Chrome came along and started climbing. I mean none of my long time FF users like the new UI, as i pointed out at least on AMD CPUs it sucks performance wise, it just doesn't "feel" nice or responsive, yet they are suddenly gonna go off on this new tangent, why? What can they offer that is so much better than Android?

Wouldn't it make more sense to just make the best damned browser and try to take back the share they've been losing to Chrome and its derivatives? This just smacks to me of a case of the "me too!" syndrome with Moz trying to do everything Google does like MSFT trying to copy Apple.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37967960)

There is no reason why a web browser should be using 1.6 gigs of RAM. That is just ridiculous. I see it using that much all the time. The OP is right. They need to learn to write more efficient code before they move to the mobile market...

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (0)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968038)

Oh look, a bunch of anonymous cowards spreading FUD simultaneously!

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1)

SquareVoid (973740) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968198)

FUD You say? Fx Memory Footprint [imageshack.us]

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968266)

It is FUD, there's a vocal minority of people that keep claiming that there's this monstrous memory leak, but in practice it's not something that most people see. And I have yet to hear about any developers observing the problem on any of their machines.

So, it's probably technically possible, or there's something about those particular machines that leads to the problem. Considering how consistently Firefox beats the snot out of Chrome on memory use, I'm leaning towards it not being a common problem.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (2)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968582)

Just because "most people" don't see it, does not mean it's FUD. We don't know how many people actually see it. 51% not seeing it could be considered "most people". Not that I'm suggesting it's anywhere near that bad, but I'm also not pretending that the problem isn't there.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1)

WankersRevenge (452399) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969590)

I don't know. It's a mess on OSX. The process peaks around a gig on my machine before it pukes all over itself and crashes. This with maybe four or five extensions with about six or seven tabs open. I restart the damn thing at least once a day.

Sometime back, some slashdotter informed me that I was spreading pure FUD and then a week later, the firefox team announced that version 7 would address the memory problems (which it hasn't on my machine). Although Installing flashblock did improve the browser's responsiveness.

Honestly, I could care less at this point. I'm just waiting for Chrome's web developer tools to get as good as Firebug and then firefox will be relegated to a pure testing browser. And personally, I think Mozilla has grown too big and lost sight of its priorities.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969724)

Well, SquareVoid isn't an anonymous coward, and SquareVoid actually presented evidence. That's not FUD.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 2 years ago | (#37972004)

I thought the same, and I have done so since around FF3 or FF4. Why do these people makes these damn memory claims when they don't happen to me?

FF7 has been causing me problems. It feels like big stonking memory issues.

It looks like memory issues when FF7 takes up 1.5gb of my 3gb.

But, it's actually a Flash problem for me. Uninstall Flash and the problem goes away. Stay away from armour games and newsgrounds and the slow-downs stay away.

I've changed my opinion on FF memory issues. Calling "FUD" doesn't help any one.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968620)

Rubbish, how old is that stat and what did you have opened, 50 pictures of Pamela Anderson?

Here it' usually never over 250 MB.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (2)

SquareVoid (973740) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969016)

I took it when I replied. And so what if it was 50 pictures of Pamela Anderson? It appears that is a non-fringe use case for which Firefox hogs up a lot of memory instead of just caching it to my HDD.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (5, Interesting)

jlebar (1904578) | more than 2 years ago | (#37967976)

Right now, b2g uses considerably less memory than Android. The difference is about 200mb on the phone I tested on.

Of course, b2g doesn't currently do much, and our memory usage will probably increase as we add more features. But we're paying close attention.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1, Interesting)

bemymonkey (1244086) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968100)

How exactly are you counting? Android in all its smartphone iterations up to Gingerbread runs just fine on phones with 192MB of RAM (less than 100MB accessible by the system at runtime!)... does B2G use roughly -100MB (negative one hundred megabytes) of RAM?

If you're just counting used RAM in a task manager type app in Android: Don't bother - Android precaches very aggressively.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (3, Insightful)

brentrad (1013501) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968280)

I beg to differ - my original Motorola Droid with 256 MB RAM runs like ass with 2.2 Froyo. It can take 20 seconds to re-draw my home screen after running even a semi-large app, and sometimes it just gets so unresponsive I can't do anything on it.

It just doesn't have enough free RAM to run very fast with newer versions of Android. When it's really lagging, I run a task killer and free up a bit of RAM, and it runs much better - but not what you could call fast at all.

It ran much faster with 2.1, but I do love all the new features 2.2 came with so I grin and bear it for now until I can get a new phone.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968478)

Huh, that's odd. I have a Cowon D3, which only has 256MB too, and it runs just fine (well, more or less, but that's another issue) on Gingerbread. RAM doesn't tend to be a major problem, although I would have loved more (but then it is only a MP3 player/ MID, which it does just fine.)

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1)

brentrad (1013501) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968574)

Might be the difference between a cell phone and an MP3 player. Since with a cell phone you have an always-on data connection, you tend to run more always-on background processes, in my experience.

A lot of the background processes I have are things like Google+ auto-picture upload, Facebook, Google Voice, Weatherbug, work email and Gmail (both push emails), etc. Pretty normal and mainstream apps. They don't take a whole lot of RAM each, but when you run enough of them they add up. I'd guess that if I just restored it to stock and didn't install any of these apps, it'd probably run much better - but then running these apps are why I have a smartphone in the first place - added functionality.

I'm sure I could root it and install a custom ROM to fix my issues (and get Gingerbread which was never officially released for this phone), but this is my work phone so I don't want to mess with it too much. And honestly I'd rather get a newer faster more-capable phone anyway. :)

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37968764)

My Droid handles CyanogenMod 7.1 (Gingerbread) just fine.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1)

brentrad (1013501) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969022)

Thanks, that's what I've heard. But like I say in a comment below, it's my work phone so I don't want to mess with it too much. Besides, I've had it two years and a brand new top of the line phone with all the new features and hardware (paid for by my job) sounds a lot better. If I had to live with this phone another year though, I'd be throwing CyanogenMod on there posthaste.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (2)

versificator (2031720) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969952)

in all fairness, your lag is likely due to MotoBlur, and nothing inherently to do with Android itself.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (2)

brentrad (1013501) | more than 2 years ago | (#37970166)

The original Motorola Droid doesn't have Motoblur, it's vanilla Android.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (2)

bemymonkey (1244086) | more than 2 years ago | (#37970832)

Unfortunately, Motorola's ineptitude isn't limited to Motoblur. Their stock ROMs on the Droid/Milestone were similarly slow-as-molasses... other devices with slower processors and less RAM are snappier than my old stock Milestone :(

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1)

bemymonkey (1244086) | more than 2 years ago | (#37970820)

If you're running Moto's original Froyo firmware that's no wonder. I used to have a Moto Milestone (the GSM version of the Droid) which was annoying as hell in that regard. I now have an HTC Dream lying around for testing purposes, which has even less RAM than the Droid, and with a decent custom ROM that locks the home screen in memory, there are no such problems.

You luckily still have an unlocked bootloader on that Droid (the Milestone and nearly all of the models following the Droid are locked up really tight), so try out CyanogenMod... It won't give you more RAM, but it will allow you to tweak a few things like keeping the launcher in memory at all times.

Er...isn't this just webOS Mk II? (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968062)

B2G just sounds like an evolution of webOS. When i saw your sig I assumed you thought so too, as the key is also the one that enables developer mode on webOS phones.

However, memory only uses more power if it is constantly being accessed; the refresh power is constant if the data is not changing. More power will be used at initialisation, this is true, but the point about phones is that they rarely reboot.

There may be a penalty but they seem to be working on it.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37968666)

Nice FUD. I award you no karma, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (1)

Hidyman (225308) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968994)

False.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (2)

syousef (465911) | more than 2 years ago | (#37970088)

The more memory in use, the more energy Mobile devices burn. Mozilla's Firefox is a huge memory hog on personal computers. If they want a shot on the mobile market, they'll need to keep the memory footprint to a minimum.

This is true, despite what the naysayers try to argue, and truer still if you use addons BUT that isn't why I don't care about Mozilla Firefox on mobile. The real reason is that after all the changes forced on to me on the PC, the recent version and update extension hell, and the arrogance displayed by the developers I would rather poke my eye out than rely on another piece of gear from Mozilla. There is no hope memory leaks and the like will be fixed when the attitude is to deny and force "improvements" on the user. I use to be a fan but now I only begrudgingly use Firefox for the extensions....and I hope something better comes along soon.

Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37971498)

I was about to flame you for vehiculing a cliché, then I opened my task manager to check for FF memory usage ...

(2 tabs opened == 172 MO used)

Well now (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37967912)

Glad to see the Mozilla developers are working on something that's REALLY important, rather than trifling things such as memory footprint and MSI installers.

Re:Well now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37968022)

MSI installers? I was not aware that Redmond produces stuff you can smoke.

Re:Well now (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37968164)

MSI installers?

The Windows Installer (previously known as Microsoft Installer) is a software component used for the installation, maintenance, and removal of software on modern Microsoft Windows systems. The installation information, and often the files themselves, are packaged in installation packages, loosely relational databases structured as OLE COM Structured Storages and commonly known as "MSI files", from their default file extension.

Calling something an MSI Installer might be an example of RAS syndrome, but I'm not sure.

I was not aware that Redmond produces stuff you can smoke.

So... which MSI [wikipedia.org] can you smoke?

Re:Well now (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37968220)

If Mozilla really wanted to help us they'd abandon Gecko and let the web centralize around Webkit.

Re:Well now (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37968328)

Yeah, because monocultures and monopolies are always such a smart thing...

--- Below this line only if you can handle it with fun and without a truckload of disclaimers. ^^ -------------------
Next up: If Israel really wanted to help, they'd abandon Jews and let the middle east centralize around Muslims.

Re:Well now (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968612)

...what?

Re:Well now (1)

SEE (7681) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969340)

Really, what we should do is evacuate all of Israel's Jews to Iraan.

Re:Well now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37970422)

it actually is much more important thanyou think.
in the near future most browsers will be mobile. most internet users will be mobile.
all locked up in their platforms. thats why mozilla does this.

aka for you.if b2g is actualy nit only truly open but aslo technically sound and fast, in 12 month from now what will you say?

Re:Well now (2)

BZ (40346) | more than 2 years ago | (#37970642)

Except they _are_ working on memory footprint.

As for MSI installers, those may be important for _Firefox_. Whether they're more important for the _Web_ than having an alternative to locked-down app stacks is a good question.

Recall that Mozilla's mission is "choice and innovation on the web", not "build a web browser".

Yet another version ticker.... (2)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968014)

So one more player in the market - iOS, Android, WebOS, Windows 8,,,? Can they whip out a new rev every month, so that by Christmas next year, we'll be on version 12?

The global market... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37968110)

could consume much more different OS's and ecosystems.
The MS monopoly we have used to in PC's for two decades is just blinded us all. Evolution requires free markets and changes for every idea.

WebOS All Over Again? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37968042)

What advantages does this have over WebOS? What advantages does it have over running Android with FireFox mobile as the default browser?

Re:WebOS All Over Again? (5, Insightful)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968420)

What advantages does this have over WebOS?

How about a) properly open source so it's likely to survive and b) hasn't just been cancelled?

What advantages does it have over running Android with FireFox mobile as the default browser?

How about a) controlled by an organisation which has a history of developing in the open and b) doesn't require all software to be written in Java?

Re:WebOS All Over Again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37968762)

I believe an apt utterance at this point in the thread would be "Booyah!"

In your face, GP!

Re:WebOS All Over Again? (1)

Parker Lewis (999165) | more than 2 years ago | (#37971960)

It requires all software to be written in Java... script :D

In their new minimalist style (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37968046)

It won't have a version number, and in the future, the name will actually be dropped as well. It'll just be.

boot? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37968054)

great, i was just in the process of "booting gecko" off my computer and installing chrome.

now i will also have to "boot" it off my phone as well.

to boot, i wonder where i can buy a big enough boot to do all this booting.

Should be ok (1, Insightful)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968206)

as long as they can restrain themselves from releasing a new major version every 2 weeks like firefox

Re:Should be ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37969482)

Or bloating it like they did to Firefox.

Versions (0)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968304)

Considering how even Android manufacturers lag behind the current version I really hope they don't do the same rapid release as with Firefox.

Re:Versions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37968436)

Considering how even Android manufacturers lag behind the current version I really hope they don't do the same rapid release as with Firefox.

Why? Those same manufacturers won't suddenly have a more up to date version installed if it hasn't been released. You'll be no better off.

Re:Versions (3, Insightful)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968578)

The more versions out, the more difficult it becomes to build an app that works on every single one.

Sounds familiar (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968706)

So... Basically, the same as the original iPhone, then?

Web OS Returns - all new and improved! (1)

GambitStudios (2501958) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968738)

Sounds like these guys had the same innovative idea... 2 years later. Just hope it works out better for them than the last crew.

Re:Web OS Returns - all new and improved! (3, Insightful)

migla (1099771) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968822)

I don't think the point is that it's a novel idea. The point is that mozilla is in it for your freedom. And while webos didn't slaghter the marketplace, it's not like everyone else is saying this web thing is not the shit. They're all saying it's the shit, aren't they.

Hence we might need for there to be a b2g, lest control of the information and communication technology is yoinked away fro us.

Re:Web OS Returns - all new and improved! (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#37970646)

The problem with that, as we have seen with Linux on the desktop and OpenMoko, is that simply yelling "free as in freedom!" won't give you ANY advantage in the marketplace. Just look at the lines when the new iShiny comes out and those things are so locked down they make Gates blush.

No for this to have a chance they can't just be freer than the other guys they are gonna HAVE TO be better, and not by a little either. They are gonna have to have a better memory footprint (so folks can run more apps and get better battery life) they are gonna have to have a nice and responsive UI, and they will have to have better apps, both in the default install AND in their market.

Those are gonna be some pretty tall orders to fill friend, and that they are such a small company compared to the competition only makes that order harder to fill. You can't just port the Linux catalog to this thing as mobile is a different ball game. they'll have to be made from scratch or serious porting work done to match the UI and power restraints of the new platform, and with all the buzz being around the app store again this is NOT gonna be easy.

So while i wish them luck if you think simply having the four freedoms will even get them a single percentage point in this market I'm afraid you are dreaming. Hell look at the trucks filled with money old Ballmer is throwing at it and is having trouble even buying his way to third place! with as much competition as their is in that market you can't even be as good as the other guy, you better be able to seriously kick his ass.

Re:Web OS Returns - all new and improved! (1)

Rennt (582550) | more than 2 years ago | (#37971098)

If you think the only point of being in the race is to win then of course this looks silly. But Mozilla ain't that kind of company. I'd argue that having a Free new mobile OS about can only be a good thing for the market, no matter what minuscule percentage they manage to capture - and I'd wager Mozilla feels the same way.

Re:Web OS Returns - all new and improved! (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#37971292)

Oh so you agree that the "year of the Linux desktop" stuff should be thrown in the bin and this is a hobbyist OS? You can't have your cake and eat it to friend, either this is "Bob's OS" that will be as rare as a set of mint condition purple velvet bell bottoms or they will have to step up, your choice, can't be both, its one or the other.

BTW if they are truly taking that attitude its already dead, yes? because i hate to break the news to ya but to rip off a former POTUS its the APPS stupid. Nobody is gonna give a wet fart about your "free" OS, I don't care if its so damn free it sings the RMS hacker song on startup, if it doesn't have the big name apps like everybody else. No Angry Birds? no latest flavor of the month app? you're toast, nobody will care or carry it, you won't move enough units to even get put on the back aisle of Walmart.

It is this attitude that is probably gonna doom FOSS OSes to an also ran, you can't just stick your toes in the edge of the water, you gotta jump in there. if you want the hardware manufacturers to use YOUR OS instead of the other guy's? You need to fight, want the specs on the hardware? want the big software houses to make sure the big apps are on YOUR platform? you gotta fight and more importantly give the people what they want and "free as in freedom!" may make YOU weak in the knees but the numbers don't lie, folks don't give a rat's ass about that.

But if you want your OS to be more than a hobbyist OS you HAVE TO give the people what they DO want or you simply won't get the numbers. Look at it from a marketing perspective, you've been yelling "free as in freedom" for 20 years, the reports come in and you head of marketing says "That slogan just ain't selling shit, what else we got"....well? What else you got? sadly all I've seen is "free as in beer/freedom" which again the iShiny proves those aren't big selling points either. Nobody buys Android because it is free, it is because Google is a fricking verb now.

So I truly hope they have something more to bring to the game, otherwise this is gonna be as big a mismatch as putting your HS football team against the NE Patriots.

Re:Web OS Returns - all new and improved! (1)

Rennt (582550) | more than 2 years ago | (#37971402)

Oh so you agree that the "year of the Linux desktop" stuff should be thrown in the bin...

Well, yeah? I thought we generally agreed that was a load of hyperbolic nonsense. As for the rest of your diatribe, did you actually read my comment? As in, actually comprehend it? Seems you went off in an entirely unrelated direction there friend.

Oh Look!!! A Bandwagon!!! (2)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969166)

Must get on!
 

Re:Oh Look!!! A Bandwagon!!! (1)

ravinald (638270) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969850)

Much like personal computers, the internet, or even mobile phones themselves? All fads and companies were just getting on the bandwagon?

They need to fix their mobile browser first. (1)

scottbomb (1290580) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969226)

Last I checked, it STILL doesn't support Flash on Android. I'd love to use it because I happen to like the synced bookmarks feature but no flash was a deal-killer. I therefore use Dolphin which works great and allows a manual bookmark sync.

I don't consider Flashless browsers "broken" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37969782)

n/t

Re:They need to fix their mobile browser first. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37971470)

Dolphin for Android sends every URL you visit to their servers God knows why.I guess you missed that story when it was on /. Just my opinion, but that puts it pretty low on the list of best browsers.

Also, I'm pretty sure flash isn't firefox's problem, but rather Android itself, or your hardware manufacturer. They pay for the license, not firefox.

Qt anyone? (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969844)

Qt (basis of Safari, IIRC) would seem to be a good place to start something like this....

Closed hardware = limited audience (1)

Pausanias (681077) | more than 2 years ago | (#37971360)

Sorry Mozilla---unlike the PC, where everyone can download and install Linux, you cannot just download and install a mobile OS unless you are in a tiny minority. Your only hope is open hardware, which, good luck with finding any.

Not trying to dissuade you from exercising your right to tinker, just trying to understand why I should care.

How about a firefox for iOS instead, mmmh? Wouldn't that be a better usage of your resources? Lots of us here would love that.

Re:Closed hardware = limited audience (1)

kangsterizer (1698322) | more than 2 years ago | (#37971758)

Closed software. You should know its not possible to make a Firefox for iOS. Only for jailbroken devices.
Apple does not allow competing browser engines. They all use Safari's webkit and/or remote rendering to run on iOS.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?