1 files changed, 31 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/04.23.07/Tue/Firefoxbloat.txt b/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/04.23.07/Tue/Firefoxbloat.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3af6648
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/04.23.07/Tue/Firefoxbloat.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+<img width="133" height="133" border="0" alt="Firefoxlogo_3" title="Firefoxlogo_3" src="http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/firefoxlogo_3.png" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px 5px; float: right;" />After today Mozilla will [no longer be maintaining Firefox 1.5][1] -- Firefox 2.0 has arrived. But even as Firefox continues to move forward some users are starting to worry about the future of the popular web browser. 
+
+Yesterday we told you about the Firefox team's [request for feedback from Mac users][3] and judging by comments on that post and a similar one on the [Cult of Mac blog][4], Mac users clearly have some issues with Firefox.
+
+But the complaints are not just from Mac users, Windows and Linux users also report a number of issues with Firefox.
+
+Chief among the complaints leveled at Firefox is the charge that the app has become bloated. Given the fact that Firefox arose at least partly as a reaction to the bloat of Mozilla's previous browser/email/contact manager, all-in-one, good-at-none app, the bloat charge has to sting. And yet it has some truth.
+
+For the sake of figures: Firefox 1.5 was a 41.5MB application, while Firefox 2.0 is 49.5. Compare that to Safari's paltry 16.8 MBs and Opera 9's 24.5.
+
+Yet curiously, my browser of choice, Bon Echo, a build of Firefox [optimized for an Intel Mac][2] is only 30.5 MBs.
+
+Neil Lee, the developer who puts together the various Mac-optimized builds attributes the slimmer file size to the fact that the generic universal binary of Firefox contains all the necessary CPU-specific code that enables Firefox to work on various machines from a single build.
+
+"The universal binaries basically have double the *binary* (actual application) code," Lee says. Although my experience has been that Lee's builds are faster, he cautions that there is no real empirical evidence to support that. Lee also feels his builds are faster, but while they may feel faster, as he points out, "it could very well be a group hallucination."
+
+
+Another complaint from Firefox users is that the application is a RAM hog, which unquestionably it is. Leave Firefox open for a couple days with enough tabs and it'll gobble RAM and bring your system to a grinding halt. Michael says he has to restart his entire machine at least once a day, just quitting Firefox isn't enough.
+
+Of course some of the RAM hogging nature of Firefox is due to third party add-ons, still at least some of it seems to come from memory leaks.
+
+There are no doubt slimmer web browsers, both Opera and Safari use noticeably less RAM on my machine, and Shiira, which I tested and review yesterday uses the least amount of RAM of any browser I've used. But of course the trade off is they don't offer the functionality of Firefox decked your favorite add-ons. 
+
+Firefox seems almost a necessity for the web power user. The question is, is Firefox in danger of moving from necessity, to necessary evil? Will bloat ruin the once lean, mean machine? Are there compelling lighter weight alternatives that don't sacrifice features?
+
+Let us know what you think in the comments below.
+
+[1]: http://www.mozilla.org/news.html#p425 "Firefox 1.5.0.x will be maintained with security and stability updates until April 24, 2007."
+[2]: http://www.beatnikpad.com/archives/2006/10/26/firefox-20 "Optimized Firefox 2.0 for G4, G5, and Intel Macs"
+[3]: http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/04/mac_users_give_.html "Mac Users: Give Firefox Developers A Piece Of Your Mind"
+[4]: http://cultofmac.com/?p=578 "What Do You Think Sucks About Firefox on Mac?"
+\ No newline at end of file