From: tnp@invalid.invalid   
      
   On 16/07/2025 00:29, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:   
   > druck  wrote:   
   >> On 10/07/2025 00:02, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:   
   >>> The odd thing is that I ran Firefox on x86 with 512MB RAM a   
   >>> couple of years ago and it wasn't nearly as bad.   
   >>   
   >> Have a look at the size of the executable "then" (which is more likely   
   >> to be 20 to 25 years ago)   
   >   
   > No it really was only two or maybe three years ago and Firefox   
   > wasn't that much bigger then.   
   >   
   >> and now, and you'll see why a 512M Zero 2 doesn't stand a chance.   
   >   
   > The Executable still fits easily in 512MB RAM, for some reason it   
   > tries to allocate lots more RAM after starting and displaying the   
   > browser window (which seems to work fine for a few seconds before   
   > it stalls).   
   >   
   > It seems the RAM usage increased when they started using multiple   
   > processes:   
   >   
   > https://erahm.org/2016/02/11/memory-usage-of-firefox-with-e10s-enabled/   
   >   
   > Maybe on the single-core x86 PC it creates fewer processes and   
   > therefore uses less RAM than the quad-core Pi Zero 2? The methods   
   > of turning off Firefox's multi-process mode don't seem to work   
   > anymore. That also shows how the 64bit builds use significantly   
   > more RAM, which will hurt the 64bit RPi Zero 2 but not the 32bit   
   > RPi 2.   
   >   
   There is also the issue that many modern websites are running memory   
   gobbling Javascript implementations   
      
   --   
   Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as   
   foolish, and by the rulers as useful.   
      
   (Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)