Very good, that made me chuckle.

Having said that, I find Chrome take an age to load on my office computer, though it's fine once it's loaded, and at home Firefox slows down considerably once I start browsing.

I have got a task manager called the wife and she sits on my shoulder !!!!

Maybe someone like vince might know a browser or windows setting to release the Ram that the browser has finished with?

Unfortunately not. Anything like that would be a 'magic' setting which would help not only with web browsers, but any Windows software that consumes RAM and resources like a Scotsman consumes whisky. (Allegedly). The operating system really has no way to know if the zillion terrabytes of RAM ThisSuperEfficientApp claimed an hour ago is still needed or not - the only way it can know is if the app releases it.

The symptoms you describe leads me to think that Firefox includes a little/some/lots (who knows which) lazy code, where the programmers aren't cleaning up after themselves. It's not unusual, sadly, for some types of programmer to just take the attitude that if it needs more memory/a faster processor/whatever, then you should just get more memory/a faster process/whatever, rather than expect them to program in a less anti-social manner. Sad, but true.

That isn't to say that is the case - it just sounds like it could be the cause. Firefox is my browser of choice, and I don't find it to be a problem here - but I very rarely have that many tabs open (typically less than a dozen, but sometimes as many as twenty, and rarely more than that), and I don't generally have it running for long. Once I'm done with whatever I'm doing, I close it again.

Another factor may (or may not) be the plugins and add-ons I have:

• Of the plugins, none are allowed to run automatically. Instead, they are configured as "Ask to activate." It's more of a security choice than anything else - Flash, for example, is about as secure as a piece of loo roll, IMO - but it could very well have an effect on performance and resource usage of the containing browser.
• Of my browser extensions, two are useful tools (the web developer toolbar, and one to toggle it), but the rest are all about security and privacy. Most importantly, one of these is NoScript, which disables Javascript in the browser unless I actively enable it on any given site, whitelisting some as necessary (such as enough of the scripts on websites I need to use in order that they do what I need them to). That's sure to have a beneficial effect on the browser's resource usage (and often has the benefit of speeding up the rendering of websites where the Javascript is only used for superfluous cosmetic junk, as well as getting rid of some advertising).

And definitely no silly extra toolbars installed alongside other software, taking up browser window space and hogging additional resources. (I've occasionally had to fix people's slow computers, and that's been the main cause - toolbar after toolbar after toolbar installed in their browsers, taking up half the sodding window as well as slowing it down!)

I also have the browser set to wipe all cookies (except those I've explicitly whitelisted) when I close it, and cache nothing between sessions.

On the subject of the page file. On Windows XP, what I advised (and did whenever I set anyone's computer up, as well as my own) was to have a fixed size page file - don't let it shrink or grow; set its initial and maximum sizes the same - and, if possible, put it on its own, separate hard drive partition. The purpose of both of these was to avoid it being affected by disc fragmentation. (Therefore, if for some reason it couldn't be put on a separate partition, it was important to make sure the disc was fully defragged before fixing its size).

On Windows 7 (and now on Windows H8, which is what I have) I haven't felt the need to do either of these.

Shamus wrote:

---

Hi John,

dure that you know how to change the paging file but if not try this to see if it helps your machines performance.

from the control panel goto System.

In the left hand pane got to Advanced system settings.

On the advanced tab under performance click settings

Under advanced

Ensure the Programs radar button is set

What is the size of your paging file? (under virtual memory)

Click change under virtual memory

Your maximum size in MB should be more than the recomended.

My settings if it helps are :

Initial size (MB) : 9214
Maximum Size (MB) : 18418

The recomended size that it comes up with for me is 15358 MB

Try changing that and see if your performance improves.

On the windows desktop right click and go to gadgets. I find the CPU meter is really useful (especially as its both CPU and RAM). as that will warn you when things are getting critical. (I take anything above 70% as the danger zone but it doesn't start going realy slowly / juddery / difficulty closing windows until it hits about 84%).

Might also be worth doing a defrag if one hasn't been done recently.

hope that helps,

Shaun.

p.s. I have read reports that the first releases of Chrome slowed down other browsers on the same machine but I believe that has long since been resolved.

---

Lost me at the programs radar button!  Although I have done a defrag!

Something about needing to be logged on as administrator - well I am the boss, but ....may have to  leave this one to my IT guy!

no, gadgets are an integral part of W7

Really? How on Earth did I never notice them on my Windows 7 machine, then (let alone when I've looked at other people's computers) which was running pretty much all day, every day for over four years? (It's not as though I never had reason to call up the context menu on the Windows desktop!)

[does a bit of searching]

It looks like Gadgets are linked to the Windows Sidebar - something I'd forgotten all about, having decided it was pointless fluff pretty much on day one and sent the same way as all such things.

Generaly, as per John's issue it's Firefox not releasing resources

As I said before, I don't have any problems with it - but that'll be the way it's set up and configured, the add-ons, etc. Of note is that my quick search on the subject of Windows gadgets led me to a page where Microsoft said they'd discontinued it because of vulnerabilities (i.e. there were security implications); I'd suggest that there are similar risks in browsers (not just Firefox) with add-ons etc. if you aren't careful.

although I've also hit issues in the past with Norton (touch wood it that seems to have been ok for a while).

Norton, McAfee, AVG, and other big names - over the years, I've tried them all, and none of them are likely to be installed on my machines again, except when they're pre-installed, when they'll be sent to the bit bucket in the sky pronto. I've been using Trend Micro Titanium A/V for the last few years as my main A/V tool (set to run a scan overnight, every night), with an occasional scan using Malware Bytes Anti-malware as a secondary check (because no A/V is 100%). And so far, so good - with NO performance problems suffered as a result.

(When other people bring their computers to me to clean malware off, I do it the other way around: I use Malware Bytes as a key tool in my clean-up arsenal, and my last step is to scan it with Trend).

No way will I ever install Norton (or the others) on a computer myself.

[and switching to your reply to John]

have you thought that it may not be Firefox but rathe the daily mail site that is not optimised for firefox? I've followed links to that site once or twice and it always makes firefox run like a dog

Okay, I'm going to do something incredibly out of character now, not to mention brave.

I'm going to visit the Daily Mail website...

...it took about 14 seconds to load completely (mahoosive home page) but there seem to be no issues for me with it slowing Firefox down. Clicking on the first story (the plane crash) and the page took about five seconds to load completely, and again no problems. As I said, though... Javascript disabled, add-ons limited, etc. How you configure things can make a world of difference.

(As an aside, and out of curiosity, I also tried NetSurf on my ARMX6 computer, also with Javascript disabled: 8.9 seconds for the Daily Mail home page, and 4.5 seconds for that first story. That's a 2.5GHz Intel dual core Windows computer beaten hands down by a 1GHz ARM single core RISC OS one. Nice!)

I suspect because of the number of adverts it's trying to cram onto the screen at the same time.

What adverts? (See above - it's one of the benefits of my set up!)

Now I just need to go and wash my eyes with bleach for visiting the Daily Mail website.