Firefox driving me nuts taking up 100% of the CPU

[Danny D.]

For more than a month (maybe two or three months), Firefox has been sucking
up the CPU like you can't believe.

Of course I turned off everything and started in safe mode and turned off
or uninstalled all the plugins and extensions, but Firefox *still* sucks up
the CPU causing it to go to 100% time and time and time again.

Kill firefox - and the CPU returns to 4 to 7%.
Run Firefox, and it's ok for a short while - but then BAM - all the CPU.

Kill Firefox - and the CPU goes back to normal.
(Repeat, lather, rinse.)

I'm so frustrated with Firefox. Chrome doesn't suck up the CPU and even
Internet Explorer (POS that it is) doesn't do this.

Only Firefox.

How can I debug WHY Firefox sucks up the CPU?

WinXPSP3, FF 47.0. Machine is 1.7Ghz Pentium M, 1GB RAM, nothing else is
overtly running (it's just FF that sucks up 95% such that the CPU is 100%).

[gabriel]

My thought is that your Firefox profile has gone corrupt (why is not
tracable).
I would deinstall Firefox and then delete the complete Firefox profile
(is not deteted with the deinstall).
Reinstalling should then do the trick.
success, gabriël

[Dave Symes]

In article
<mailman.711.1468481005...@lists.mozilla.org>,

Maybe remove your Firefox, but *DON'T* delete your Profile otherwise
you'll lose everything. (unless you are wise and have backups).

Move it somewhere safe, so you can filter back from it to your new
profile, things like Bookmarks, Passwords, etc.

Dave

--

Dave Triffid

[Chris Ilias]

Looking at the solutions at
<https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-uses-too-many-cpu-resources-how-fix>,
you could still try the last two items.

--
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator

[Danny Kile]

If none of these work for maybe you could try installing SeaMonkey which
is also Mozilla based and can use the same profile.

[Micky]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 00:15:59 -0500, "Danny D."
<dannyd...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>For more than a month (maybe two or three months), Firefox has been sucking
>up the CPU like you can't believe.
>
>Of course I turned off everything and started in safe mode and turned off
>or uninstalled all the plugins and extensions, but Firefox *still* sucks up
>the CPU causing it to go to 100% time and time and time again.

FWIW my FF ranges up and down between 2% and 49% when I'm not doing
anything. I have dual cores so iiuc 49% representss 98% of one
core, but it's only above 25% for very short times, and spends most of
its time at 2-5%.

[Ed Mullen]

On 7/14/2016 at 1:15 AM, Danny D.'s prodigious digits fired off:

Does it still do that in Safe Mode?

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
I thought about how mothers feed their babies with little tiny spoons
and forks so I wonder what Chinese mothers use. Toothpicks?

[Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP]]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 11:20:03 -0400, Ed Mullen <ejEM...@edmullen.net>
wrote:

>On 7/14/2016 at 1:15 AM, Danny D.'s prodigious digits fired off:
>> For more than a month (maybe two or three months), Firefox has been sucking
>> up the CPU like you can't believe.
>>
>> Of course I turned off everything and started in safe mode and turned off
>> or uninstalled all the plugins and extensions, but Firefox *still* sucks up
>> the CPU causing it to go to 100% time and time and time again.
>>
>> Kill firefox - and the CPU returns to 4 to 7%.
>> Run Firefox, and it's ok for a short while - but then BAM - all the CPU.
>>
>> Kill Firefox - and the CPU goes back to normal.
>> (Repeat, lather, rinse.)
>>
>> I'm so frustrated with Firefox. Chrome doesn't suck up the CPU and even
>> Internet Explorer (POS that it is) doesn't do this.
>>
>> Only Firefox.
>>
>> How can I debug WHY Firefox sucks up the CPU?
>>
>> WinXPSP3, FF 47.0. Machine is 1.7Ghz Pentium M, 1GB RAM, nothing else is
>> overtly running (it's just FF that sucks up 95% such that the CPU is 100%).
>>
>
>Does it still do that in Safe Mode?

He already said that he tried Safe Mode.

- Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP]

[NFN Smith]

Dave Symes wrote:
>> My thought is that your Firefox profile has gone corrupt (why is not
>> >tracable).
>> >I would deinstall Firefox and then delete the complete Firefox profile
>> >(is not deteted with the deinstall).
>> >Reinstalling should then do the trick.

>> >success, gabriėl
> Maybe remove your Firefox, but*DON'T* delete your Profile otherwise

> you'll lose everything. (unless you are wise and have backups).
>
> Move it somewhere safe, so you can filter back from it to your new
> profile, things like Bookmarks, Passwords, etc.

I disagree on uninstalling Firefox. And if you keep the profile, then
you'll see the same symptoms after a reinstall.

Most of the time, issues like this are profile-related, in some way. The
only way you benefit from uninstall/reinstall is if you have reason to
believe that there's corruption -- usually, that would be program
binaries, but Windows Registry could also be an issue.

Normally, the first step would be Safe Mode, but that doesn't always work.

Two things I would look at:

1) Take a look at what plug-ins are installed (and enabled). There's a
lot of stuff that installs itself as a plugin, where you don't
necessarily want capacity available inside Firefox. This is especially
true with various video tools, such as Flash, Shockwave, etc. On my own
browser, the only things that I've set to allow "Always Activate" are my
external PDF reader, and my external download manger. Everything else is
set at least to "Ask to Activate", and most to "Never activate".

It's only a guess, but I'm inclined to believe one of your plugins is
going awry, and that Firefox is the effect, rather than the cause. For
Flash, you may want to consider completely uninstalling it, and then
reinstalling, only if you decide that you really need it.

Related: if it is Flash that is hanging on something, it might be useful
if you completely empty your cache, and discard all cookies.

2) I find that occasionally, even safe mode won't clear a problem
profile. However, if you create a new profile, that will do the work of
setting everything back to default conditions. In Windows, launch
firefox.exe, and make sure you have -profile-manager at the end of the
command line.

If a new profile works, then it is a pretty solid indicator that there's
something wrong with your existing profile. On my own setups, I keep a
separate profile called "bare metal", where nearly all the settings are
default (and no extensions). Thus, if my regular profile is not
behaving the way I want (and I have a *lot* of preference tweaks),
running the bare metal profile allows me to test whether my problems are
related to my profile (and my extensive tweaking), or something that is
more general to the browser. I can't remember the last time that I had
problems running from the bare metal profile.

But as noted, I think it doubtful that uninstall/reinstall of Firefox
will accomplish anything useful.

Smith

[James Moe]

On 07/13/2016 10:15 PM, Danny D. wrote:
> Kill firefox - and the CPU returns to 4 to 7%.
> Run Firefox, and it's ok for a short while - but then BAM - all the CPU.
>

I have seen a number of sites that use Javascript in a most
ineffecient way, usually with a processing loop that consumes a lot of
CPU just sitting there. Facebook is one such site.
Does the CPU usage seem to track which sites you visit?

--
James Moe
jmm-list at sohnen-moe dot com
Think.

[WaltS48]

Glad I'm not the only one with reading comprehension issues. ;-) 😉


--
Visit Pittsburgh <http://www.visitpittsburgh.com/>
Picklesburgh <http://www.picklesburgh.com/>
Pittsburgh Vintage Grand Prix <http://www.pvgp.org/>
National Jazz Workshop <http://njwpgh.org/>

[EE]

SeaMonkey will not use the same profile. You can import things into it
from another Mozilla application, but it will create its own profile.

[Mozillian]

That is the way FireFox code is written.

The FireFox programmers make background tasks the priority over user tasks !

I see it all the time while running FireFox.

Nothing you or I can do about it except complain and hope for smarter
FireFox programmers !!!

[Good Guy]

On 14/07/2016 18:42, NFN Smith wrote:

Normally, the first step would be Safe Mode, but that doesn't always work.

I would try to rename the profile and then launch FF again to see if it works as expected.  The purpose of renaming the profile is to re-instate it if the new profile doesn't rectify the problem.

Me thinks so but hey this may not be relevant for FF as FF becomes bloated at every new releases.  what is required is a completely new way of browsing the web as experienced in Microsoft Edge. 

however, the OPs problem might be something to do with WindowsXP because I don't think Mozilla is actively supporting XP systems so the code may not be compatible with XP system.  I don't use XP anymore so can't test it.

--
If you want to filter all of my posts then please read this article:
<https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/organize-your-messages-using-filters>
In step 7 select "Delete"

With over 350 million devices now running Windows 10, customer satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.

[Micky]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:42:52 -0700, NFN Smith <worldo...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Dave Symes wrote:
>>> My thought is that your Firefox profile has gone corrupt (why is not
>>> >tracable).
>>> >I would deinstall Firefox and then delete the complete Firefox profile
>>> >(is not deteted with the deinstall).
>>> >Reinstalling should then do the trick.

>>> >success, gabriël

>> Maybe remove your Firefox, but*DON'T* delete your Profile otherwise
>> you'll lose everything. (unless you are wise and have backups).
>>
>> Move it somewhere safe, so you can filter back from it to your new
>> profile, things like Bookmarks, Passwords, etc.
>
>I disagree on uninstalling Firefox. And if you keep the profile, then
>you'll see the same symptoms after a reinstall.

Dave said to keep it some place else, not installed. So immediately
he woudl know if there is something wrong with the profile.

I think what Dave said was to take one part at a time and move that
part back into use. That way one will have the benefit of the good
sections and if he is lucky or smart enough to save the bad section
for last, he'll only be missing that one part, the bad part.

Even that might be able to be separated into pieces, not sure.

>
>Most of the time, issues like this are profile-related, in some way. The
>only way you benefit from uninstall/reinstall is if you have reason to
>believe that there's corruption -- usually, that would be program
>binaries, but Windows Registry could also be an issue.
>
>Normally, the first step would be Safe Mode, but that doesn't always work.

He already tried that.

[Danny D.]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:42:52 -0700, NFN Smith wrote:

> I disagree on uninstalling Firefox. And if you keep the profile, then
> you'll see the same symptoms after a reinstall.

About a month ago, I installed a fresh Firefox 47.0 after wiping out
everything possible that had Mozilla's stamp on it, including the profile
directory.

After uninstalling, I just now put Firefox 47.0.1 in
c:\apps\browsers\firefox and I let it decide where to put the profiles.

> Most of the time, issues like this are profile-related, in some way. The
> only way you benefit from uninstall/reinstall is if you have reason to
> believe that there's corruption -- usually, that would be program
> binaries, but Windows Registry could also be an issue.

What would make the profile use up 100% of the CPU after a while?
I open up to a blank page, which does *not* use 100% of the CPU.
I also debug in SAFE MODE, which will use up the CPU after a while.

> Normally, the first step would be Safe Mode, but that doesn't always work.

Exactly!

> Two things I would look at:
> 1) Take a look at what plug-ins are installed (and enabled). There's a
> lot of stuff that installs itself as a plugin, where you don't
> necessarily want capacity available inside Firefox. This is especially
> true with various video tools, such as Flash, Shockwave, etc. On my own
> browser, the only things that I've set to allow "Always Activate" are my
> external PDF reader, and my external download manger. Everything else is
> set at least to "Ask to Activate", and most to "Never activate".

Of course I removed and disabled all the extensions and plugins I could,
but it *still* comes back.

Here's a screenshot of the plugins:
http://i.cubeupload.com/IyatKO.gif

Here's a screenshot of the extensions:
http://i.cubeupload.com/HwdudH.gif

> It's only a guess, but I'm inclined to believe one of your plugins is
> going awry, and that Firefox is the effect, rather than the cause. For
> Flash, you may want to consider completely uninstalling it, and then
> reinstalling, only if you decide that you really need it.

I really have no plugins to speak of.
See the screenshot above.
What else can I remvoe?

> Related: if it is Flash that is hanging on something, it might be useful
> if you completely empty your cache, and discard all cookies.

It happens with or without Flash even being installed, so, while we
*always* blame Flash (rightly so), I can't see how flash is the culprit
here.

I wish I didn't need Flash, but it has to be there, because you can't
render pages without it. But even when I removed Flash, it still happened.

> 2) I find that occasionally, even safe mode won't clear a problem
> profile. However, if you create a new profile, that will do the work of
> setting everything back to default conditions. In Windows, launch
> firefox.exe, and make sure you have -profile-manager at the end of the
> command line.

I'll wipe out the profile. Again.
But it will be back.
Otherwise, I wouldn't have posted here for help!
:)

> If a new profile works, then it is a pretty solid indicator that there's
> something wrong with your existing profile. On my own setups, I keep a
> separate profile called "bare metal", where nearly all the settings are
> default (and no extensions). Thus, if my regular profile is not
> behaving the way I want (and I have a *lot* of preference tweaks),
> running the bare metal profile allows me to test whether my problems are
> related to my profile (and my extensive tweaking), or something that is
> more general to the browser. I can't remember the last time that I had
> problems running from the bare metal profile.
>
> But as noted, I think it doubtful that uninstall/reinstall of Firefox
> will accomplish anything useful.

It didn't.

[Danny D.]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:14:53 +0100, Dave Symes wrote:

> Maybe remove your Firefox, but *DON'T* delete your Profile otherwise
> you'll lose everything. (unless you are wise and have backups).

There's nothing in the profile that I want to save.
I deleted my original profile more than a month ago, in an attempt to
resolve why Firefox uses up 100% of the CPU.

> Move it somewhere safe, so you can filter back from it to your new
> profile, things like Bookmarks, Passwords, etc.

I will delete it again.

[Danny D.]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:22:51 +0200, gabriel wrote:

> My thought is that your Firefox profile has gone corrupt (why is not
> tracable).
> I would deinstall Firefox and then delete the complete Firefox profile
> (is not deteted with the deinstall).
> Reinstalling should then do the trick.
> success, gabriël

Actually, I had done that, and this helped initially.
But that was one of the many things I tried more than a month ago.
And it's back.

[Danny D.]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 21:29:36 +0100, Good Guy wrote:

> I would try to rename the profile and then launch FF again to see if it
> works as expected. The purpose of renaming the profile is to re-instate
> it if the new profile doesn't rectify the problem.

I have no problem wiping out profiles, as I've wiped it out many times.
Something *else* is causing the problem.

That something else *may* be corrupting the profile - but it isn't the
profile itself that is causing the problem (since it's a new profile each
time).

> Me thinks so but hey this may not be relevant for FF as FF becomes
> bloated at every new releases. what is required is a completely new way
> of browsing the web as experienced in Microsoft Edge.

The only thing I really want is to be able to *debug* why Firefox is using
up 100% of the cpu.

> however, the OPs problem might be something to do with WindowsXP because
> I don't think Mozilla is actively supporting XP systems so the code may
> not be compatible with XP system. I don't use XP anymore so can't test it.

I just want to have *debugging* tools so I can figure out *why* Firefox is
soaking up all the CPU resources.

[Danny D.]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 18:10:47 -0400, Micky wrote:

> Dave said to keep it some place else, not installed. So immediately
> he woudl know if there is something wrong with the profile.

There's nothing in a profile that I can't easily replace.

I'm *very* proficient with Firefox configuration (as is almost everyone
here).

What I only need is real-time *debugging* hints as to figure out what it is
about Firefox that is causing all the CPU resources to be used up.

I have *many* about:config customizations, all for the purpose of privacy,
but I don't think *any* of them are causing the problem because it happens
even with an out-of-the-box Firefox and profile.

So there is some type of interaction of Firefox with Windows. It could be
Windows - but it only happens with Firefox.

So, really, it's *debugging* I need to do to figure out what part of
Windows is affecting what part of Firefox to cause the CPU to jump to 100%
where the only solution is to kill Firefox.

[Danny D.]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 06:46:59 -0400, Chris Ilias wrote:

> Looking at the solutions at
> <https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-uses-too-many-cpu-resources-how-fix>,
> you could still try the last two items.

Yeah. I've been there. This problem has been going on for a long time now,
so, that's why I resorted to asking you guys. The first time I blew away
the content-prefs.sqlite file, I thought I was a genius.

Until the CPU problem came back.

At that web page, it recommended a lousy task manager, so a month or two
ago I researched and found far better ones, which I'm using (e.g., Mark
Russinovich's old PC Magazine Task Explorer and the more recently developed
Process Hacker tool).

At this point, a month or two into the game, I have no problem identifying
Firefox as the culprit in these tools.

What I need tools for is debugging what Firefox is doing that is causing
the CPU resources to skyrocket to 100%.

Here are the recommendations at that web page:
[done] Updating to the latest version
[done] Disabling CPU consuming extensions and themes
[done] Hiding intrusive content (e.g., noscript)
[done] Updating your plugins
[done] Disabling CPU consuming plugins
[????] Checking Flash hardware acceleration
[????] Checking Firefox hardware acceleration
[done] Corrupt content-prefs.sqlite file

BTW, since this *only* happens with Firefox, and plenty of other things use
the graphic display, do you really think hardware acceleration is the
issue?

I don't think I need to update the graphics drivers (it's only Firefox that
has this problem) - but do you see *anything* that indicates graphics
drivers are the problem?

[Danny D.]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 08:27:07 -0600, Danny Kile wrote:

> If none of these work for maybe you could try installing SeaMonkey which
> is also Mozilla based and can use the same profile.

I don't need *more* browsers, I'm not sure why I'd *want* SeaMonkey
otherwise, but, it might work as a *debugging* tool to see if SeaMonkey
exhibits the same problem of sucking up the CPU resources, so thanks for
that idea.

[Danny D.]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 12:03:22 -0700, EE wrote:

> SeaMonkey will not use the same profile. You can import things into it
> from another Mozilla application, but it will create its own profile.

I'll try SeaMonkey as a *debugging* procedure.
I'm never worried about a profile becuase I store nothing in a profile that
I would care about.

The only thing that matters is my score of about:config changes, but I
accidentally wiped them out (user.js) when I last wiped out the profile.

So now I'm just like any normal user with no privacy in Firefox.
:)

[Danny D.]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 11:05:43 -0400, Micky wrote:

> FWIW my FF ranges up and down between 2% and 49% when I'm not doing
> anything. I have dual cores so iiuc 49% representss 98% of one
> core, but it's only above 25% for very short times, and spends most of
> its time at 2-5%.

In your case, how can you tell *what* Firefox is doing when it's consuming
the CPU resources.

[PietB]

Danny D. wrote:
> For more than a month (maybe two or three months), Firefox has been sucking
> up the CPU like you can't believe.

> ...

> WinXPSP3, FF 47.0. Machine is 1.7Ghz Pentium M, 1GB RAM, nothing else is
> overtly running (it's just FF that sucks up 95% such that the CPU is 100%).

With only 1GB you really risk memory starvation. You may want to
check how much memory is in use and how much memory FF is using.
With 'about:memory" you can see what takes up most of FF memory.
Now, with memory starvation, I'd expect things to slow down and
the system be paging like mad, but it might be a starting point
to find the real culprit.

-p

[Danny D.]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 19:47:55 +0200, PietB wrote:

> With only 1GB you really risk memory starvation. You may want to
> check how much memory is in use and how much memory FF is using.
> With 'about:memory" you can see what takes up most of FF memory.
> Now, with memory starvation, I'd expect things to slow down and
> the system be paging like mad, but it might be a starting point
> to find the real culprit.

Wow. I had never heard of "about:memory".
It sure has a cryptic output though.
http://i.cubeupload.com/Zg5kKK.jpg

I'm gonna haft'a figure this out.
It seems to be a "diff" like utility?
Is it?

I've only seen it for a few seconds, but it seems to save two memory maps,
where one would be the "good" firefox session and the other the 'bad'
firefox session.

Is that right?
Then I can diff them to find which "thing" is sucking up the memory in
Firefox.

Is that right?

[Ant]

What about 2.5 GB of RAM?
--
"Ant colonies are remarkably similar to cities. No one choreographs the
action, not even the queen ant, but ant behavior is controlled by swarm
logic--put 10,000 dumb ants together, and they become smart. They will
calculate the shortest routes to food supplies sniffing out pheromone
signals from other ants and Johnson says people do the same thing in
cities using low-level interactions of people on the street." --Alex
Cukan, "Stories of modern science," United Press International, October
8, 2001
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see
this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) Chop ANT from its address if e-mailing privately.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

[Chris Ilias]

On 2016-07-15 12:20 PM, Danny D. wrote:
>
> Here are the recommendations at that web page:
> [done] Updating to the latest version
> [done] Disabling CPU consuming extensions and themes
> [done] Hiding intrusive content (e.g., noscript)
> [done] Updating your plugins
> [done] Disabling CPU consuming plugins
> [????] Checking Flash hardware acceleration
> [????] Checking Firefox hardware acceleration
> [done] Corrupt content-prefs.sqlite file
>
> BTW, since this *only* happens with Firefox, and plenty of other things use
> the graphic display, do you really think hardware acceleration is the
> issue?

I don't know; I just want to make sure you've tried all the solutions on
that page. :)

> I don't think I need to update the graphics drivers (it's only Firefox that
> has this problem) - but do you see *anything* that indicates graphics
> drivers are the problem?

You can try disabling hardware acceleration to find out.

[Chris Ilias]

There's info at
<https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Performance/about%3Amemory>.
You can also try the [Minimize memory usage] button.

[Micky]

I could go to the Resource Monitor and check on what files it is
writing or reading. I could check on whether it is uploading or
downloading date from the net.

Other than that, I can't tell *what* it is doing. Can anyone? In
fact I wonder why it uses 5% when it's not doing anything, but I
haven't looked in Res. Mon. for a clue when it's low and not
interfering with anything.

If I had a page that was playing a video, even if its tab didn't have
focus and I couldn't see it, and I'd turned off the sound, I'd know
what some of that CPU time was for, downloading, playing. But it's
very rarely that I have a video playing. (If I have one, I watch it
adn close the tab.)

What else does FF do that takes cycles that doesn't have a visible,
audible, or graphable output I could detect? Calculations? I doubt
it does many calculations.

[Micky]

So it must be something that changed the profile to make it bad**
again. Maybe delete it again and keep a log of everything you do,
every url you go to, that could affect the profile.

**My poor use of words. There are no bad profiles, only profiles that
do bad things.

[Micky]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 19:47:55 +0200, PietB <opt...@opt-in.invalid>
wrote:

>Danny D. wrote:
>> For more than a month (maybe two or three months), Firefox has been sucking
>> up the CPU like you can't believe.
>> ...
>> WinXPSP3, FF 47.0. Machine is 1.7Ghz Pentium M, 1GB RAM, nothing else is
>> overtly running (it's just FF that sucks up 95% such that the CPU is 100%).
>
>With only 1GB you really risk memory starvation. You may want to

That's for sure. I have Vista and only 2gig and it's constantly
moving things in and out of the swap file, even when I'm only at 85%
of RAM in use.

>check how much memory is in use and how much memory FF is using.
>With 'about:memory" you can see what takes up most of FF memory.

How about that? .... I just ran that and got a script error, but as
soon as I clicked on stop, it gave its report. It was very long and
since I have no problem with that now, I only skimmed it.

[Danny D.]

On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 15:28:46 -0400, Micky wrote:

> So it must be something that changed the profile to make it bad**
> again. Maybe delete it again and keep a log of everything you do,
> every url you go to, that could affect the profile.
>
> **My poor use of words. There are no bad profiles, only profiles that
> do bad things.

I started a new profile, so I expect Firefox to chew up the resources soon,
but I'll try to keep track of what I've changed.

While setting up the Firefox settings from scratch, I did find the hardware
acceleration button though...
http://i.cubeupload.com/HdBtNC.jpg

[Danny D.]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 19:35:32 -0400, Chris Ilias wrote:

> You can try disabling hardware acceleration to find out.

OK. I'll try that.
http://i.cubeupload.com/HdBtNC.jpg

[Danny D.]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 20:42:32 -0400, Chris Ilias wrote:

> There's info at
> <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Performance/about%3Amemory>.
> You can also try the [Minimize memory usage] button.

Thanks for that URL of:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Performance/about%3Amemory

I am now reading the section titled "Interpreting memory reports", which I
presume will enable me to, um, er, interpret the memory reports! :)

BTW, why do some people manually add angle brackets <xxx> around a URL?
What's the advantage?
I always have to manually edit them out when I copy and paste.

[Danny D.]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 20:42:32 -0400, Chris Ilias wrote:

> You can also try the [Minimize memory usage] button.

The what button?
Hmmmmmmm.... Did I miss something.
Where is this "minimize memory usage" button in Firefox?

Googling, this is the first hit:
https://www.davidtan.org/tips-reduce-firefox-memory-cache-usage/

And this is the second hit:
http://www.ampercent.com/reduce-firefox-memory-usage-hacks/1637/

And the third set:
http://www.werockyourweb.com/firefox-memory-leak/
http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/how-to-reduce-firefox-memory-consumption/
http://www.ghacks.net/2015/04/08/what-you-do-when-firefox-uses-too-much-memory/

Is it here?
about:cache?device=memory

Or, maybe here?
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-uses-too-much-memory-ram

Ah, I found it in the about:memory page under "Free Memory"!
(Sorry for being dense!)

[WaltS48]

Why do you copy and paste? Clicking the URL should open it in your
default browser.

--
Visit Pittsburgh<http://www.visitpittsburgh.com/>
Three Rivers Regatta<http://yougottaregatta.com/>
Little Italy Days<http://littleitalydays.com/>
Pittsburgh Renaissance Festival<http://pittsburghrenfest.com/>
Britsburgh<http://bacpgh.com/our-programs/events/britsburgh/>
Ubuntu 16.04LTS

[Danny D.]

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 19:05:02 -0400, WaltS48 wrote:

> Why do you copy and paste? Clicking the URL should open it in your
> default browser.

Browser?
For Usenet?
Ug.

A browser is a very useful hand tool.
It's like a screwdriver.

It does a lot.
But it doesn't do *everything*.

Just as a screwdriver can be used as a chisel in an emergency, a browser
can be used as a Usenet client in an emergency.

But only in an emergency.
:)

[WaltS48]

On 07/17/2016 07:27 PM, Danny D. wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 19:05:02 -0400, WaltS48 wrote:
>
>> Why do you copy and paste? Clicking the URL should open it in your
>> default browser.
> Browser?
> For Usenet?
> Ug.
>

What do you paste the URL into then?

[WaltS48]

On 07/17/2016 06:52 PM, Danny D. wrote:

BTW, why do some people manually add angle brackets <xxx> around a URL?
What's the advantage?
I always have to manually edit them out when I copy and paste.

It's the conventional way, like only posting in plain text. O:-)

See the discussion at Clickable links

[Danny D.]

On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 16:44:46 -0400, Micky wrote:

> How about that? .... I just ran that and got a script error, but as
> soon as I clicked on stop, it gave its report. It was very long and
> since I have no problem with that now, I only skimmed it.

Here's what I've tried so far that I'm testing:
Firefox consuming too many CPU resources 100% CPU
about:memory -> Minimize Memory Usage
about:cache?device=memory
about:config
browser.sessionhistory.max_entries 50 -> 5
browser. sessionhistory. max_total_viewers -1 -> 0
NEW BOOLEAN: config.trim_on_minimize -> boolean true
browser.cache.disk.enable;true
browser.cache.memory.enable;true
browser.cache.disk.capacity 358400 -> 3584
NEW INTEGER: browser.cache.memory.capacity -> 4096
NEW BOOLEAN: config.trim_on_minimize -> true
NEW INTEGER: nglayout.initialpaint.delay ->

[Danny D.]

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 19:52:31 -0400, WaltS48 wrote:

> What do you paste the URL into then?

Fair enough.

1. I read and post using a Usenet client
2. My particular Usenet client is ancient
3. So it doesn't understand URLs
4. When I need to view a URL
5. I copy and paste the URL into Firefox
6. After removing the extraneous < > brackets.

[Danny D.]

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 23:54:33 -0500, Danny D. wrote:

> Here's what I've tried so far that I'm testing:
> Firefox consuming too many CPU resources 100% CPU
> about:memory -> Minimize Memory Usage
> about:cache?device=memory
> about:config
> browser.sessionhistory.max_entries 50 -> 5
> browser. sessionhistory. max_total_viewers -1 -> 0
> NEW BOOLEAN: config.trim_on_minimize -> boolean true
> browser.cache.disk.enable;true
> browser.cache.memory.enable;true
> browser.cache.disk.capacity 358400 -> 3584
> NEW INTEGER: browser.cache.memory.capacity -> 4096
> NEW BOOLEAN: config.trim_on_minimize -> true
> NEW INTEGER: nglayout.initialpaint.delay ->

So far, so good!

[TCW]

Would be good if you submitted a bug report to Bugzilla with this
info. I would think you might not be the only person having this
issue. Have you also done the POS2009 hack?

[Danny D.]

On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 08:14:17 -0500, TCW wrote:

> Would be good if you submitted a bug report to Bugzilla with this
> info. I would think you might not be the only person having this
> issue. Have you also done the POS2009 hack?

The POS2009 hack?

Google ... google ... google...

Oooooooooooh..... nice! Very nice!
http://www.zdnet.com/article/registry-hack-enables-continued-updates-for-windows-xp/

foo.reg

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\WPA\PosReady]
"Installed"=dword:00000001

[Danny D.]

On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 18:21:16 -0500, Danny D. wrote:

> Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\WPA\PosReady]
> "Installed"=dword:00000001

Apparently this is even better...

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\WindowsEmbedded\ProductVersion]
"FeaturePackVersion"="SP3"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\WPA\WEPOS]
"Installed"=dword:00000000

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\WPA\WES]
"Installed"=dword:00000000

[TCW]

So, you will also submit a bug report to Bugzilla? it's easy to do. I
am a regular bug reporter.

As for the POS2009 hack, it's to keep you secure. You really should
move to at least Windows 7. Mozilla will, eventually, stop making
Firefox for Win XP.

[Danny D.]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 08:02:13 -0500, TCW wrote:

> So, you will also submit a bug report to Bugzilla? it's easy to do. I
> am a regular bug reporter.
>
> As for the POS2009 hack, it's to keep you secure. You really should
> move to at least Windows 7. Mozilla will, eventually, stop making
> Firefox for Win XP.

To be honest, I probably won't submit a bug report.
As you can tell, I'm not a fire-and-forget type person, so, I know the
immense amount of work it will take to *document* how to reproduce the
problem.

For all I know, it could simply be that Firefox is working, where it just
needed better settings on my side of the equation.

The problem with most people who submit bug reports is that.

As an extreme example, people write bug reports like "it doesn't work", and
the poor developer is stuck with asking all the questions.

Me? When I never submit a bug report that I can't 100% reproduce time and
time again, and then I write a step-by-step 1-2-3 procedure for the
developer to reproduce.

When I do *that*, they fix 'em pronto.
(One developer told me he *loves* to work on my bug reports because I make
it so easy for them to crank them out.)

[Micky]

I checked and I'm told that these last two lines, the same ones you
had in your first suggestoin, enable XP updates.

And the first two lines, "Hkey_Local..." notify the registry that you
have SP3 (though surely installing SP3 also does that.

So do you know what the middle two sets of 2 lines do. I'd like to
know before I run them.

[Danny D.]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 23:34:06 -0400, Micky wrote:

> So do you know what the middle two sets of 2 lines do. I'd like to
> know before I run them.

Thanks for confirming what most of the lines mean.
I got them off of alt.windows7.general so I don't know what they mean.

[Micky]

I'll ask there. Actually I ran the first version a year or two ago
on one computer, and a couple nights ago on my netbook. This time, it
didn't work, but I need to put the netbook on a desk instead of a
cardboard box to figure out why, so that's for later. ;-)

[Micky]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 00:33:01 -0500, "Danny D."
<dannyd...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 18:21:16 -0500, Danny D. wrote:
>
>> Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
>> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\WPA\PosReady]
>> "Installed"=dword:00000001

Did you notice that the dword here ends in 1, and below, the matching
dword ends in 0. Since they're supposed to do the same thing, that
does seem right.

>Apparently this is even better...
>
>Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
>
>[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\WindowsEmbedded\ProductVersion]
>"FeaturePackVersion"="SP3"
>
>[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\WPA\WEPOS]
>"Installed"=dword:00000000
>
>[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\WPA\WES]
>"Installed"=dword:00000000
>
>[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\WPA\PosReady]
>"Installed"=dword:0000000

I don't know about the 1st and 2nd dwords. They end in 0 too.

BTW, I tried using groups.google, and it used to be one could search
for the ng and then search in the ng, but I couldn't figure out how to
do the second step. Is it still possible?

[Danny D.]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 03:22:09 -0400, Micky wrote:

> BTW, I tried using groups.google, and it used to be one could search
> for the ng and then search in the ng, but I couldn't figure out how to
> do the second step. Is it still possible?

Google Groups search sucks, to say the least.

What I do is go to the group first:
http://tinyurl.com/alt-windows7-general

And then I run a search in the search box but when the selections pop up, I
select the one that says to search *within* the group.

Otherwise, the default search is *all groups*, which, for what we're
looking at, will just result in pulling out our hair.

[Mark12547]

In article <mailman.844.1468796441.18165.support-
fir...@lists.mozilla.org>, dannyd...@yahoo.com says...

> > You can also try the [Minimize memory usage] button.
>
> The what button?
>
>

There is a "Minimize Memory Usage" button on the "about:memory" screen
in Firefox. The third ... bubble (?) ... on the top of the screen is
labeled "Free memory". In that bubble are three buttons, the third one
being "Minimize memory usage".

This is in Firefox 47.0.1 (32 bit) running on Windows 7. If you don't
see it there, please state the version of Firefox and platform.

[Danny D.]

On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 11:17:39 -0700, Mark12547 wrote:

> There is a "Minimize Memory Usage" button on the "about:memory" screen
> in Firefox. The third ... bubble (?) ... on the top of the screen is
> labeled "Free memory". In that bubble are three buttons, the third one
> being "Minimize memory usage".
>
> This is in Firefox 47.0.1 (32 bit) running on Windows 7. If you don't
> see it there, please state the version of Firefox and platform.

Thanks.
I did hit that button.
When the CPU is being consumed, it doesn't seem to have any direct effect.
At least not immediately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've also tried to prevent re-loading of pages when you revisit them:
Change from:
accessibility.blockautorefresh;false
Change to:
accessibility.blockautorefresh;true
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've also set the following:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
about:cache?device=memory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

browser.sessionhistory.max_entries 50 -> 5
browser. sessionhistory. max_total_viewers -1 -> 0
NEW BOOLEAN: config.trim_on_minimize -> boolean true

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're low on memory, set these to true:
browser.cache.disk.enable;true
browser.cache.memory.enable;true
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

browser.cache.disk.capacity 358400 -> 3584
NEW INTEGER: browser.cache.memory.capacity -> 4096

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This will swap out memory when the program is minimized.

NEW BOOLEAN: config.trim_on_minimize -> true

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This suggested setting doesn't seem to really make much sense to me:
http://lifehacker.com/287107/tweak-firefoxs-rendering-settings

NEW INTEGER: nglayout.initialpaint.delay unset(default 250) -> 0
This value is the amount of time the browser waits before it acts on
information it receives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------