Does anyone else find firefox to be a buggy mess?
ed
I like the UI of firefox MUCH better than even the new IE 7, BUT I keep
having firefox shutdown all my open browsers, OR go suck 100% cpu
resources......
I have 4 GB memory and a dual core! I keep Firefox updated.
Is this a wide spread problem with firefox?
K
Nir
1st check whether its a add-ons related issue or not : to check Start >
Programs > Firefox[safe mode]. same problem?
2nd. To check whether any corrupted files within profile folder is
creating this problem : create a test profile : start > run , type
"firefox.exe" -P
start with that new profile and check
3rd. check whether this problem is plugins related or not :
move all files from 'plugins' folder ( located within Firefox Program
folder ) to any other location. start FF and check
also see this article : http://kb.mozillazine.org/Firefox_hangs
Lars-Erik Østerud
> I like the UI of firefox MUCH better than even the new IE 7, BUT I keep
> having firefox shutdown all my open browsers, OR go suck 100% cpu
Strange. With my luck I always find all bugs in all kind of software.
But Firefox 2 has been 100% stable. Both here at home and at work.
Some pages have rendering issues, but then I use the IETAB plugin.
--
Lars-Erik - http://www.osterud.name - ICQ 7297605
My Firefox tweaks: http://osterud.name/firefox.html
Tony Raven
Not here. I find it very stable and can't remember when I last had a
crash or shutdown. Must be something to do with your particular set up
- a bad extension or somesuch. Have you tried running it in Safe Mode
for a while to see if it behaves better?
--
Tony
"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Pete
"ed" <edsn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167399553.9...@k21g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
-Pete
ÐïÅßö¥ø§©
I'm hoping it smooths out soon.
Ron Hunter
avoid some problems with dual core machines, in some cases.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Brian Heinrich
Up till a few weeks ago, I was running Fx on a 400 MHz Celeron with 192 MB
RAM running Win 98 SE and never had an issue with it. It's also worked fine
for me on various W2K, XP-P, SUSE 9.3/10.0/10.1/10.2 boxes with CPUs varying
from 768 MHz to 1.4 GHz and with RAM varying from 384 MB to 768 MB.
That said, there used to be a paging bug that plagued Fx on NT-based systems
and, to a lesser extent, Linux.
There have been people reporting issues similar to yours, and the usual
recommendation has been to check extensions, plug-ins, and profile, checking
to see if there are redundant Bookmark files or cookies files (some people
mark their cookies file as read-only), &c, &c. . . . (Flash files can also
result in high CPU usage.)
You're on XP, and a lot of complaints about Fx pegging the CPU seem to be
coming from people using XP. I did poke around in Bugzilla a bit, but found
nothing particularly promising. . . .
/b.
--
'There is caution, and there is irrational paranoia.' -- Ron Hunter
'And, yes, I AM a bit paranoid. After 25 years online, one gets that way,
if one survives.' -- Ron Hunter
Brian Heinrich
> ed wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I like the UI of firefox MUCH better than even the new IE 7, BUT I keep
>> having firefox shutdown all my open browsers, OR go suck 100% cpu
>> resources......
>>
>> I have 4 GB memory and a dual core! I keep Firefox updated.
>>
>> Is this a wide spread problem with firefox?
>
> You will need to assign a processor affinity to FF startup in order to
> avoid some problems with dual core machines, in some cases.
*Doh!* -- I elided the fact that he's on a dual-core machine. . . . :-[
squaredancer
generate the following:? :
applications on the market that support simultaneous multi threading
(called, strangely, SMT). It seems that the developers in most market
areas were "caught on the hop" - ie, are not up-to-date with their code!
reg
Snagglepuss
I use a product called SeaMonkey, and there's only one thing that
crashes it: WindowBlinds. If I didn't have that product, then I
wouldn't have crashes. But I can live with it.
--
"Oh! Heavens to Murgatroid. Exit, Stage Left!" -- Snagglepuss
http://www.toonopedia.com/snaggle.htm
Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup only. Thanks
squaredancer
>
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I like the UI of firefox MUCH better than even the new IE 7, BUT I keep
>> having firefox shutdown all my open browsers, OR go suck 100% cpu
>> resources......
>>
>> I have 4 GB memory and a dual core! I keep Firefox updated.
>>
>> Is this a wide spread problem with firefox?
>>
>
> Up till a few weeks ago, I was running Fx on a 400 MHz Celeron with 192 MB
> RAM running Win 98 SE and never had an issue with it. It's also worked fine
> for me on various W2K, XP-P, SUSE 9.3/10.0/10.1/10.2 boxes with CPUs varying
> from 768 MHz to 1.4 GHz and with RAM varying from 384 MB to 768 MB.
>
> That said, there used to be a paging bug that plagued Fx on NT-based systems
> and, to a lesser extent, Linux.
>
> There have been people reporting issues similar to yours, and the usual
> recommendation has been to check extensions, plug-ins, and profile, checking
> to see if there are redundant Bookmark files or cookies files (some people
> mark their cookies file as read-only), &c, &c. . . . (Flash files can also
> result in high CPU usage.)
>
> You're on XP, and a lot of complaints about Fx pegging the CPU seem to be
> coming from people using XP. I did poke around in Bugzilla a bit, but found
> nothing particularly promising. . . .
>
> /b.
>
>
most of the reports that you mention, when looked into on these NGs, it
was found to be a website with several to many flash units. such as Ads
or animated graphics! We have looked at single sites that run the CPU at
100% - whilst doing *nothing else* but watch!
Another "hog" status is often reported by users who have (god forbid) 20
plus tabs open... and wonder just what is using the CPU :-(
reg
Bob
> On 2006-12-29 06:39 (-0700 UTC), ed wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I like the UI of firefox MUCH better than even the new IE 7, BUT I keep
>> having firefox shutdown all my open browsers, OR go suck 100% cpu
>> resources......
>>
>> I have 4 GB memory and a dual core! I keep Firefox updated.
>>
>> Is this a wide spread problem with firefox?
>
> Up till a few weeks ago, I was running Fx on a 400 MHz Celeron with 192
> MB RAM running Win 98 SE and never had an issue with it. It's also
> worked fine for me on various W2K, XP-P, SUSE 9.3/10.0/10.1/10.2 boxes
> with CPUs varying from 768 MHz to 1.4 GHz and with RAM varying from 384
> MB to 768 MB.
>
> That said, there used to be a paging bug that plagued Fx on NT-based
> systems and, to a lesser extent, Linux.
>
> There have been people reporting issues similar to yours, and the usual
> recommendation has been to check extensions, plug-ins, and profile,
> checking to see if there are redundant Bookmark files or cookies files
> (some people mark their cookies file as read-only), &c, &c. . . .
> (Flash files can also result in high CPU usage.)
How do I check for redundant Bookmark and cookie files? Where do I find
Flash files? You mean Flash files in my profile?
>
> You're on XP, and a lot of complaints about Fx pegging the CPU seem to
> be coming from people using XP.
I am on Windows 2000 and I am getting it too (sometimes). It's really
erratic.
I did poke around in Bugzilla a bit,
> but found nothing particularly promising. . . .
Yes, I have a blog post about it, and I am getting lots of hits from all
over the world for this issue.
Tony Raven
>
> How do I check for redundant Bookmark and cookie files? Where do I find
> Flash files? You mean Flash files in my profile?
>
Try getting the Flashblock extension which allows you to choose which
Flash elements to allow on a web page
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/
Brian Heinrich
> Brian Heinrich wrote:
>> On 2006-12-29 06:39 (-0700 UTC), ed wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I like the UI of firefox MUCH better than even the new IE 7, BUT I keep
>>> having firefox shutdown all my open browsers, OR go suck 100% cpu
>>> resources......
>>>
>>> I have 4 GB memory and a dual core! I keep Firefox updated.
>>>
>>> Is this a wide spread problem with firefox?
>>
>> Up till a few weeks ago, I was running Fx on a 400 MHz Celeron with
>> 192 MB RAM running Win 98 SE and never had an issue with it. It's
>> also worked fine for me on various W2K, XP-P, SUSE 9.3/10.0/10.1/10.2
>> boxes with CPUs varying from 768 MHz to 1.4 GHz and with RAM varying
>> from 384 MB to 768 MB.
>>
>> That said, there used to be a paging bug that plagued Fx on NT-based
>> systems and, to a lesser extent, Linux.
>>
>> There have been people reporting issues similar to yours, and the
>> usual recommendation has been to check extensions, plug-ins, and
>> profile, checking to see if there are redundant Bookmark files or
>> cookies files (some people mark their cookies file as read-only), &c,
>> &c. . . . (Flash files can also result in high CPU usage.)
>
> How do I check for redundant Bookmark and cookie files?
Check in your profile --
%APP_DATA%\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\[random_string].default\
> Where do I find
> Flash files? You mean Flash files in my profile?
I was actually referring to Flash files that you view in your browser; sorry
for the confusion. . . .
/b.
<snip />
Chris Jahn
news:l8-dncGgip-L7wjY...@mozilla.org:
>> There have been people reporting issues similar to yours, and
>> the usual recommendation has been to check extensions,
>> plug-ins, and profile, checking to see if there are redundant
>> Bookmark files or cookies files (some people mark their
>> cookies file as read-only), &c, &c. . . . (Flash files can
>> also result in high CPU usage.)
>
> How do I check for redundant Bookmark and cookie files?
You're missing the point: the redundant files cause no problems
at all; but some people download software to find them, and that
software (or "extension") causes all kinds of havoc.
> Where
> do I find Flash files? You mean Flash files in my profile?
No. Flash files are embedded in webpages.
The problem isn't with FF, per se. A clean installation, no
extensions, will run very lean and happy. But kludge it up with
certain kinds of extensions, or try to render a badly designed
graphics-intensive page, and it will gobble ram trying to do its
job.
--
Netscape FAQs: http://www.ufaq.org/
Netscape 6/7 Tips: http://www.holgermetzger.de/net6e.html
Web page validation: http://validator.w3.org
About Mozilla: http://www.mozilla.org
I just walk right through the door...
Ron Hunter
intended for it, and a compiler able to deal with the requirements. The
fact remains, that some software needs to be told to run on only a
specific processor to work right. This requirement is why I decided NOT
to get a dual core machine at this point.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Bob
> Bob wrote on 29/12/2006 19:52 +0100:
>>
>> How do I check for redundant Bookmark and cookie files? Where do I
>> find Flash files? You mean Flash files in my profile?
>>>
> Try getting the Flashblock extension which allows you to choose which
> Flash elements to allow on a web page
> http://flashblock.mozdev.org/
Got it. CPU bug now MUCH better.>
Ron Hunter
Bob
Actually, Opera and IE typically handle the very same Flash movies on a
site with no problem whatsoever. There is some sort of a problem, either
with Macromedia's FF plugin or the way that FF mishandles Flash.
Also, with
> most of the reports that you mention, when looked into on these NGs, it
> was found to be a website with several to many flash units.
Yet such websites, with several Flash ads running in the background, run
no problem in Opera and IE, typically.
such as Ads
> or animated graphics!
Same with these. This is a known trigger for the FF CPU bug. Maybe just
some little rotating GIF.
One thing that used to peg CPU extremely bad in FF and actually in Opera
and IE also, were those scrolling tickers, news, stocks, etc. Typically
it is some kind of DHTML program with a file linked offsite, so you
can't even see the source code. I think they are not being written
properly, from what I saw on a site, but I could not understand the
geektalk.
We have looked at single sites that run the CPU at
> 100% - whilst doing *nothing else* but watch!
> Another "hog" status is often reported by users who have (god forbid) 20
> plus tabs open... and wonder just what is using the CPU :-(
>
> reg
I frequently have that many tabs open, and Firefox is not touching the
CPU at all. Keep in mind, the bug occurs when Firefox is minimized in
the tray and you are working on something else. Usually it is just one
page in one of the tabs that is pegging the CPU.
I have 13 tabs open right now, and FF is not touching the CPU. I often
have quite a few tabs open in Opera and it almost never pegs the CPU.
Snagglepuss
> Actually, Opera and IE typically handle the very same Flash movies on a
> site with no problem whatsoever. There is some sort of a problem, either
> with Macromedia's FF plugin or the way that FF mishandles Flash.
>
You know something, people come here complaining about a problem, such
as Flash on some site, and I really don't know what some of you are
talking about. For me, I've never had such a problem with flash and
Moz. Maybe you can give a link to a site thats causing you these
problems. It does help in trying to find a solution. Just saying some
sites doesn't mean anything. Thanks!
Bob
> Bob wrote:
>> Actually, Opera and IE typically handle the very same Flash movies on
>> a site with no problem whatsoever. There is some sort of a problem,
>> either with Macromedia's FF plugin or the way that FF mishandles Flash.
>>
>
> You know something, people come here complaining about a problem, such
> as Flash on some site, and I really don't know what some of you are
> talking about. For me, I've never had such a problem with flash and
> Moz. Maybe you can give a link to a site thats causing you these
> problems. It does help in trying to find a solution. Just saying some
> sites doesn't mean anything. Thanks!
>
is pegging the CPU a bit as I type this.
Yahoo mail chronic problem
Some MySpace pages chronic problem
www.myspace.com/bolton4u
That page pegs the CPU pretty bad.
http://www.ynetnews.com/home/0,7340,L-3083,00.html chronic problem
Actually, Ynet is pegging the CPU a bit as I type this. That's the worst
one of them all.
All those pages used to be way worse. The problem is really sporadic. FF
will just sit there but then every 5-10 secs, hit the CPU. The problem
is often gone for a long time, then mysteriously it comes back. It often
shows up after FF has been running a long time. Closing it stops the
problem.
squaredancer
> squaredancer wrote:
>
>> On 29/12/2006 18:55, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Ron Hunter to
>> generate the following:? :
>>
>>> ed wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I like the UI of firefox MUCH better than even the new IE 7, BUT I keep
>>>> having firefox shutdown all my open browsers, OR go suck 100% cpu
>>>> resources......
>>>>
>>>> I have 4 GB memory and a dual core! I keep Firefox updated.
>>>>
>>>> Is this a wide spread problem with firefox?
>>>>
>>>> K
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You will need to assign a processor affinity to FF startup in order to
>>> avoid some problems with dual core machines, in some cases.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> despite the rapid advance of dual-core processors, there are *very few*
>> applications on the market that support simultaneous multi threading
>> (called, strangely, SMT). It seems that the developers in most market
>> areas were "caught on the hop" - ie, are not up-to-date with their code!
>>
>> reg
>>
> Perhaps because to make use of the dual core machines requires an OS
> intended for it,
machine, as M$ considers a dual-core to be *TWO* processors.... and the
EULA only allows installation on a *single* machine - what did you write
about "paranoia" ??
<<snipped>>
reg
Ron Hunter
Since such machines are sold with WinXP installed, I will let HP, Dell,
etc., worry about that part of it.
I expect quad, or more, processors in 2007. But compilers, and the OS
need to be able to handle these processors better than they do now to
get the most from them.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Tony Raven
>
> Since such machines are sold with WinXP installed, I will let HP, Dell,
> etc., worry about that part of it.
> I expect quad, or more, processors in 2007. But compilers, and the OS
> need to be able to handle these processors better than they do now to
> get the most from them.
>
Need to move to Windows Computer Cluster Server 2003 then ;-)
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/ccs/overview.mspx
Bob
What's dual core? Basically 2 CPU's inside one CPU?
Alex K.
> Bob wrote:
>> Actually, Opera and IE typically handle the very same Flash movies on a
>> site with no problem whatsoever. There is some sort of a problem, either
>> with Macromedia's FF plugin or the way that FF mishandles Flash.
>>
>
> You know something, people come here complaining about a problem, such
> as Flash on some site, and I really don't know what some of you are
> talking about. For me, I've never had such a problem with flash and
> Moz. Maybe you can give a link to a site thats causing you these
> problems. It does help in trying to find a solution. Just saying some
> sites doesn't mean anything. Thanks!
>
Well, I don't have a current example.
But quite a while back, on the yahoo message boards, there was a flash
ad in the rotation that would lock up FF until it popped a dialog box
saying that a script was taking too long to execute, IIRC, and gave me
the choice of terminating it or allowing it to continue.
As soon as I told it to terminate the script, FF became responsive
again. This *only* occurred when that specific ad appeared on the page.
Other flash ads worked just fine, with no problems. That led me to
believe that it was a problem with that particular flash file. I
emailed yahoo, describing the problem, never received a reply, and a few
days later the ad no longer appeared in the rotation.
At the time, I didn't check the CPU usage, but I could tell it was
working harder, as I could hear the fan speed up. Hehe, kind of an
audible CPU meter. :-)
--
Alex K.
Graham P Davis
One site in particular causes me trouble after it's been open a long time -
http://www.genesreunited.co.uk/. I usually find reloading the site cures
the problem. I'm running Firefox 2.0.0.2pre on OpenSUSE Linux 10.2.
Graham
Bob
I run Task Monitor all the time. It places a little icon over in the far
right corner of the tray and you can see the CPU load at all times. Plus
in Processes you can see whatever is pegging. It's really cool. Plus you
can check memory use too and kill a program (LIKE FIREFOX!) that is
consuming memory that a sea cow. ;)
Bob
page. That page is pegging the CPU bad from time to time here too.
Ron Lopshire
Bob,
Have you tried Process Explorer (for Windows v10.21) from
Sysinternals? Free for personal use, read the EULA.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/utilities/ProcessExplorer.mspx
You can set it up to replace the Windows Task Manager, and you can
also leave it running with its animated icon in the taskbar tray. A
great utility for investigating CPU usage.
Ron :)
David McRitchie
mentioned, I'd have not seen a problem.
http://debka.com/ chronic problem (11 Flash movies on one page!)
Was at 41% CPU, which if it were the only such site invoked
would not be noticeable. If I disable Adblock the CPU time
goes up to 91% which might not take much more to be noticeable.
Remove the one flash ad that Adblock was not already blocking
and remove the news banner at the top with Platypus and
down to 4% CPU.
(Win 2000, DELL 600Mhz, 512MB RAM, 1.3GB Free on HD)
If I then bring up IE6 besides the CPU goes up to 47%.
I do have some things installed to block popups on IE, and when
I exit there was an inactive pop under remaining.
The http://www.genesreunited.co.uk/ site presented absolutely
no noticeable problem, all ad Scripts were blocked by Adblock.
Since neither of these sites are sites that I'd been to before,
the blocks in Adblock were probably in about 7 basic blocking strings
though I had downloaded someone's filter at the time I originally
installed Adblock. If I bring up IE CPU goes up to 47%
didn't see a popunder this time. Back to FF remove Adblock
still nothing noticeable (CPU 4%). There are other things
blocking that "crazy ad" at the top in FF probably something basic
in http://www.mozilla.org/support/firefox/tips
I know its not the hosts file because I see that ad in IE.
The point being that Flash may not be handled well in Firefox
for whatever reason, but many of us would not notice the
problem, especially on sites that are visited on a regular basis.
So that may account for the wide range in user experience,
plus many people posting with serious speed problems have
CPU speeds less than mine, while I expect most users here
have CPU's about 3X my speed.
--
David McRitchie, most questions have been asked before.
Firefox customizations/extensions notes, see
http://www.mvps.org/dmcritchie/firefox/firefox.htm
Ed Mullen
>
> What's dual core? Basically 2 CPU's inside one CPU?
Yep. http://www.short-media.com/review.php?r=261
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
How many of you believe in telekinesis? Raise my hands. . . .
Ron Hunter
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
squaredancer
just looked at my GenesReunited HP - the HP itself uses up to 41%
resources - when I open my *full family* tree, the usage goes up to
between 95 and 100%, and stays there.
This is a typical example of Flash - the tree is a Flash graphic. I
have one relative whoes site has over 14.600 names - don't know if that
is a mistake! - and trying to d/l the tree crashes with a script error!
reg
Brian Heinrich
<snip />
> I expect quad, or more, processors in 2007. But compilers, and the OS
> need to be able to handle these processors better than they do now to
> get the most from them.
I've already been seeing dual dual-core boxes. . . .
/b.
Brian Heinrich
<snip />
> What's dual core? Basically 2 CPU's inside one CPU?
Pretty much:
<http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_13041,00.html>;
<http://www.intel.com/technology/computing/dual-core/>.
Graham P Davis
About an hour after sending this I noticed Firefox CPU was running at 5%.
GenesReunited was still on its home page so I just reloaded it and the CPU
dropped to zero. It's still at zero so it's not possible to say how it will
behave form one day to the next. I tend to open a series of tabs I may need
and leave them open for a few days. In this situation, GenesReunited may
eventually be taking all the spare CPU even though I've only left it on the
home page. The variability may been down to what advert is being shown.
I get frustrated with Flash. I have the Flash 7 plug-in installed and
working and have just been told by one site that I need to install the
Flash 7 plug-in.
Graham
Ron Hunter
> On 2006-12-30 01:17 (-0700 UTC), Ron Hunter wrote:
>
> <snip />
>
>> I expect quad, or more, processors in 2007. But compilers, and the OS
>> need to be able to handle these processors better than they do now to
>> get the most from them.
>
> I've already been seeing dual dual-core boxes. . . .
>
> /b.
>
on one chip this year.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Brian Heinrich
> Brian Heinrich wrote:
>> On 2006-12-30 01:17 (-0700 UTC), Ron Hunter wrote:
>>
>> <snip />
>>
>>> I expect quad, or more, processors in 2007. But compilers, and the
>>> OS need to be able to handle these processors better than they do now
>>> to get the most from them.
>>
>> I've already been seeing dual dual-core boxes. . . .
>
> If you mean two dual core processors, yes, but I expect four, or more,
> on one chip this year.
Regardless of whether it's technically possible or not, from a
marketing/sales perspective, I'd be surprised if we saw quad-core procs on
the market before late 2008.
Ron Hunter
> On 2006-12-30 19:55 (-0700 UTC), Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> Brian Heinrich wrote:
>>> On 2006-12-30 01:17 (-0700 UTC), Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip />
>>>
>>>> I expect quad, or more, processors in 2007. But compilers, and the
>>>> OS need to be able to handle these processors better than they do
>>>> now to get the most from them.
>>>
>>> I've already been seeing dual dual-core boxes. . . .
>>
>> If you mean two dual core processors, yes, but I expect four, or more,
>> on one chip this year.
>
> Regardless of whether it's technically possible or not, from a
> marketing/sales perspective, I'd be surprised if we saw quad-core procs
> on the market before late 2008.
>
> /b.
>
another issue. The gamers are always out for the maximum possible speed
and power. It is rather like racing cars, leading the technology race.
Takes a few years for new things to filter down to what you drive to the
grocery store.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Alex K.
> On 2006-12-30 19:55 (-0700 UTC), Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> Brian Heinrich wrote:
>>> On 2006-12-30 01:17 (-0700 UTC), Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip />
>>>
>>>> I expect quad, or more, processors in 2007. But compilers, and the
>>>> OS need to be able to handle these processors better than they do now
>>>> to get the most from them.
>>> I've already been seeing dual dual-core boxes. . . .
>> If you mean two dual core processors, yes, but I expect four, or more,
>> on one chip this year.
>
> Regardless of whether it's technically possible or not, from a
> marketing/sales perspective, I'd be surprised if we saw quad-core procs on
> the market before late 2008.
They're already here:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115011
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 Kentsfield 2.66GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache LGA 775
Processor
"Tech Spec
Core Kentsfield
Multi-Core Quad-Core
Name Core 2 Extreme QX6700"
Product Brief - Intel® Core™2 Extreme Quad-Core Processor
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/core2XE/qc_prod_brief.pdf
--
Alex K.
squaredancer
generate the following:? :
Just imaging - rendering Video clips in 15 minutes - wow!
At the mo, 3 hrs Video take about 9-10 hrs to render - a standard 240
min tape, rendered to DVD may take up to 16 hours, during which time the
comp is "blocked" for most any other application!.
And I'm sure you gals and guys who do PSP or Photoshop will appreciate a
quad-core...
reg
squaredancer
> I get frustrated with Flash. I have the Flash 7 plug-in installed and
> working and have just been told by one site that I need to install the
> Flash 7 plug-in.
>
> Graham
>
best for you" *lol*
One of the problems with Flash is, in fact QuickTime Player. If the file
associations in QT are set to run Flash, then the user is bound for
trouble.! That is always one of the first trouble-shoots that I advise,
if a user has Flash problems
reg
Brian Heinrich
I apparently sit corrected. . . .
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T
indicate 2 Core Duo processors Maybe not four slabs on one Processor
substrates but Two Slabs in each Processor and then using two of them.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailto:pjo...@kimbanet.com
http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Hunter
on the same chip, or does the name mislead?
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Brian Heinrich
> Brian Heinrich wrote:
>> On 2006-12-31 03:59 (-0700 UTC), Alex K. wrote:
<snip />
>>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115011
>>> Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 Kentsfield 2.66GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache LGA 775
>>> Processor
>>> "Tech Spec
>>> Core Kentsfield
>>> Multi-Core Quad-Core
>>> Name Core 2 Extreme QX6700"
>>>
>>> Product Brief - Intel® Core™2 Extreme Quad-Core Processor
>>> http://www.intel.com/products/processor/core2XE/qc_prod_brief.pdf
>>
>> I apparently sit corrected. . . .
>>
>> /b.
>
> I believe that has two core 2 processors, for a total of four, but NOT
> on the same chip, or does the name mislead?
The PDF one-sheet refers to 'four separate processing cores' and 'four
independent cores in a single package'. . . .
Ron Hunter
> On 2006-12-31 14:59 (-0700 UTC), Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> Brian Heinrich wrote:
>>> On 2006-12-31 03:59 (-0700 UTC), Alex K. wrote:
>
> <snip />
>
>>>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115011
>>>> Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 Kentsfield 2.66GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache LGA 775
>>>> Processor
>>>> "Tech Spec
>>>> Core Kentsfield
>>>> Multi-Core Quad-Core
>>>> Name Core 2 Extreme QX6700"
>>>>
>>>> Product Brief - Intel® Core™2 Extreme Quad-Core Processor
>>>> http://www.intel.com/products/processor/core2XE/qc_prod_brief.pdf
>>>
>>> I apparently sit corrected. . . .
>>>
>>> /b.
>>
>> I believe that has two core 2 processors, for a total of four, but NOT
>> on the same chip, or does the name mislead?
>
> The PDF one-sheet refers to 'four separate processing cores' and 'four
> independent cores in a single package'. . . .
>
> /b.
>
Core 2 Extreme is not truly "unlocked". Officially (per the BIOS Writers
Guide), it is "a frequency limited processor with additional support for
ratio overrides higher than the maximum Intel-tested bus-to-core ratio."
Currently, that max tested ratio is 11:1 (aka 2.93G @ 1066 FSB). The min
ratio is 6:1. However, do note that the Core 2 Extreme will boot at
2.93G unlike prior generation XE processors which booted to the lowest
possible ratio and had to be "cranked up" to the performance ratio.
Now, as I read that, it has ONLY two processors on each chip, but there
logic in these processors to allow them to work with other processors.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Alex K.
> On 2006-12-31 14:59 (-0700 UTC), Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> Brian Heinrich wrote:
>>> On 2006-12-31 03:59 (-0700 UTC), Alex K. wrote:
>
> <snip />
>
>>>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115011
>>>> Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 Kentsfield 2.66GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache LGA 775
>>>> Processor
>>>> "Tech Spec
>>>> Core Kentsfield
>>>> Multi-Core Quad-Core
>>>> Name Core 2 Extreme QX6700"
>>>>
>>>> Product Brief - Intel® Core™2 Extreme Quad-Core Processor
>>>> http://www.intel.com/products/processor/core2XE/qc_prod_brief.pdf
>>> I apparently sit corrected. . . .
>>>
>>> /b.
>> I believe that has two core 2 processors, for a total of four, but NOT
>> on the same chip, or does the name mislead?
>
> The PDF one-sheet refers to 'four separate processing cores' and 'four
> independent cores in a single package'. . . .
From reviews that I read, while looking up the info yesterday, it seems
that what they did was to put two dual core processors on a single chip.
That seems to be apparent from the L2 cache spec: "2 x 4MB L2 Cache".
The Core 2 Duo processors with either the "Conroe" or the "Merom" cores
both feature a shared L2 cache. The Core 2 Duo with the "Yonah" core
appears to be the first one with dual L2 cache, at 2 x 1MB.
The speculation is, of course, that Intel did it this way in order to
beat AMD to market with a quad core processor.
AMD's counter-point is that they will be using four truly independent
cores, etc. In other words, not simply two Athlon X2's bolted together
on a single chip.
At least that was my take from the couple of articles I read.
--
Alex K.
Alex K.
No, Core 2 *Duo* refers only to their dual-core processors. Core 2
*Extreme* appears to be the moniker for their quad-core offerings.
For more, see my reply to Brian in this thread.
--
Alex K.
Ron Hunter
default (2.93ghz). NOT to a quad core.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T
packages (CCPU's) for a total of 4 processors.
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T
In other words instead of a old timey dual processor machine. Its two
dual processors that act like four.
??—————??
Phil Randal
> AS per my explaination two cores in one unit , but, then two units.
>
> In other words instead of a old timey dual processor machine. Its two
> dual processors that act like four.
As can be seen in this pic:
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/quadcore/images/2006.int.qua.txt.EN.13x18.jpg
Phil
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T
ON the Intel Mac's Think of this picture split extactly in half (right
between the core1/2 and the core3/4 now place these two pieces in there
own sockets. That is the description on Core2 Duo sytem on the Intel Macs.
Brian Heinrich
Interestinge. . . .
Ron Hunter
> Phil Randal wrote:
>> Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:
>>
>>> AS per my explaination two cores in one unit , but, then two units.
>>>
>>> In other words instead of a old timey dual processor machine. Its two
>>> dual processors that act like four.
>>
>> As can be seen in this pic:
>>
>>
>> http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/quadcore/images/2006.int.qua.txt.EN.13x18.jpg
>>
>>
>> Phil
> Good picture and explaination.
>
> ON the Intel Mac's Think of this picture split extactly in half (right
> between the core1/2 and the core3/4 now place these two pieces in there
> own sockets. That is the description on Core2 Duo sytem on the Intel Macs.
>
access any of the L1 cache?
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T
way previous Mac Computers of long ago The Cache chip being a separate
unit. I don't know how the system Works Just know That they are dual
processors with Dual Cores.
MartyH
From: Brian Heinrich <m...@privacy.net>
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 1:16:46 PM
Subject: Does anyone else find firefox to be a buggy mess?
> On 2006-12-29 10:55 (-0700 UTC), Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> ed wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I like the UI of firefox MUCH better than even the new IE 7, BUT I keep
>>> having firefox shutdown all my open browsers, OR go suck 100% cpu
>>> resources......
>>>
>>> I have 4 GB memory and a dual core! I keep Firefox updated.
>>>
>>> Is this a wide spread problem with firefox?
>>
>> You will need to assign a processor affinity to FF startup in order to
>> avoid some problems with dual core machines, in some cases.
>
> *Doh!* -- I elided the fact that he's on a dual-core machine. . . . :-[
>
> /b.
>
Brian,
I like it when someone uses a somewhat (or very) obscure word that has
the perfect meaning for the information they are trying to purvey. I
had to look up "elide", but it was the perfect word.
Thanks for the vocabulary lesson!
--
Marty
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
programs closed, right?
If yes, then try renaming the .s file to signons.txt and copy it and the
key3.db [that went with the .s file] file over.
Does it work now?
--
Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm
http://www.bcdb.com/cartoon/46347-Peter_Potamus_Show.html
http://www.toonarific.com/show.php?s_search=Potamus&Button_Update=Search&show_id=2778
Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup only. Thanks
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
Tom Willett
>
> I like it when someone uses a somewhat (or very) obscure word that has the
> perfect meaning for the information they are trying to purvey. I had to
> look up "elide", but it was the perfect word.
>
> Thanks for the vocabulary lesson!
>
> --
> Marty
A Purvey is a meal provided after a funeral by the family of the deceased to
the mourners
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
purvey
One entry found for purvey.
Main Entry: pur·vey
Pronunciation: (")p&r-'vA, 'p&r-"
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): pur·veyed; pur·vey·ing
Etymology: Middle English purveien, from Anglo-French purveier, purveer
to look at, foresee, provide, from Latin providEre to provide
1 : to supply (as provisions) usually as a matter of business
--
Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
MartyH
From: "Tom Willett" <tomp...@mvps.invalid>
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 10:13:14 PM
Subject: Does anyone else find firefox to be a buggy mess?
Not exclusively. It apparently is more commonly used as a verb meaning
to provide (although it is most frequently used regarding supplies or
food). I found your definition only in Wikipedia; not in any of the
dictionaries I looked at.
See:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/purvey
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/purvey
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/p/p0673400.html
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=purvey*1+0&dict=A
http://www.tfd.com/purvey
http://www.bartleby.com/61/34/P0673400.html
http://www.adictionary.net/purvey.html
http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/purvey.htm
http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/purvey
This one is a little different and I haven't heard it used this way:
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861735772_561506834/nextpage.html
Granted, I probably could have found a better word. But purvey is the
one that popped in my head and it does fit.
--
Marty
Tony Raven
To continue the lesson..... that's the noun form. Even so the (full)
Oxford English Dictionary does not record the noun use as specifically
as you suggest and it would seem to be a local dialect use restricted
primarily to one island in Scotland:
1. The provision of a statute; = PURVIEW 1.
2. An arrangement, provision. rare{em}1.
3. The act of providing or supplying; that which is provided or
supplied; pl. provisions.
4. A sum provided to meet current expenses: for specific use see
quot. 1908. local.
Marty was using the verb form and of the three classes of meaning in the
OED I presume he was intending the third:
"To provide, furnish, supply (something)"
--
Tony
"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
squaredancer
generate the following:? :
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Brian Heinrich <m...@privacy.net>
> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 1:16:46 PM
> Subject: Does anyone else find firefox to be a buggy mess?
>
>> On 2006-12-29 10:55 (-0700 UTC), Ron Hunter wrote:
>>
>>
>>> ed wrote:
>>>
>>> You will need to assign a processor affinity to FF startup in order to
>>> avoid some problems with dual core machines, in some cases.
>>>
>> *Doh!* -- I elided the fact that he's on a dual-core machine. . . . :-[
>>
>> /b.
>>
>>
>
> Brian,
>
> I like it when someone uses a somewhat (or very) obscure word that has
> the perfect meaning for the information they are trying to purvey. I
> had to look up "elide", but it was the perfect word.
>
> Thanks for the vocabulary lesson!
>
>
up there!
reg
squaredancer
generate the following:? :
there that is the way bears confide!
reg
squaredancer
generate the following:? :
purvey verb (transitive
<http://www.collins.co.uk/wordexchange/Sections/DicSrchRsult.aspx?word=transitive>)
1. to sell or provide (commodities, esp foodstuffs) on a large scale
2. to publish or make available (lies, scandal, etc.) 3. noun Scot the
food and drink laid on at a wedding reception, etc.
History: C13: from Old French /porveeir,/ from Latin /providere/ to provide
reg
squaredancer
generate the following:? :
is one for the americans *lol*
Jay seems to have looked here:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/purvey (the Merian-Webster distionary)
reg
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T
Ron Hunter
> Tom Willett wrote on 07/01/2007 04:13 +0100:
>>> I like it when someone uses a somewhat (or very) obscure word that
>>> has the perfect meaning for the information they are trying to
>>> purvey. I had to look up "elide", but it was the perfect word.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the vocabulary lesson!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Marty
>>
>> A Purvey is a meal provided after a funeral by the family of the
>> deceased to the mourners
>>
>
> To continue the lesson..... that's the noun form. Even so the (full)
> Oxford English Dictionary does not record the noun use as specifically
> as you suggest and it would seem to be a local dialect use restricted
> primarily to one island in Scotland:
> 1. The provision of a statute; = PURVIEW 1.
> 2. An arrangement, provision. rare{em}1.
> 3. The act of providing or supplying; that which is provided or
> supplied; pl. provisions.
> 4. A sum provided to meet current expenses: for specific use see
> quot. 1908. local.
>
> Marty was using the verb form and of the three classes of meaning in the
> OED I presume he was intending the third:
> "To provide, furnish, supply (something)"
>
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
MartyH
From: "Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T" <pjo...@kimbanet.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 10:47:30 AM
Subject: Does anyone else find firefox to be a buggy mess?
>>> I like it when someone uses a somewhat (or very) obscure word that
>>> has the perfect meaning for the information they are trying to
>>> purvey. I had to look up "elide", but it was the perfect word.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the vocabulary lesson!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Marty
>>
>> A Purvey is a meal provided after a funeral by the family of the
>> deceased to the mourners
>>
> Should the word be convey?
>
If I had thought of it, convey is a _much_ better word.
Thanks.
--
Marty