Safari == memory hog?
Hm ... I switched to Firefox a few days ago as my colleagues kept bothering me ...
Then, in a rendering performance comparison, I saw that Safari was considerably faster and I thought "it'd be cool to have that on the PC, too". To be honest, I wasn't aware that it was available for the PC prior to release 3.1 (was it?) - which was offered with the latest ITunes update the very next day. What a coincident.
Anyway, after I have encountered IE to be a memory hog for years, I was hoping that Safari would be less of a memory monster.
Unfortunately, Safari currently uses 160 MB for three open windows, yesterday it climbed up as far as 360.
It looks like I might switch back to FireFox - any tips on how to make Safari behave less memory hungry?
Before finally switching anywhere back, I'll just go fast forward with Flock.
Then, in a rendering performance comparison, I saw that Safari was considerably faster and I thought "it'd be cool to have that on the PC, too". To be honest, I wasn't aware that it was available for the PC prior to release 3.1 (was it?) - which was offered with the latest ITunes update the very next day. What a coincident.
Anyway, after I have encountered IE to be a memory hog for years, I was hoping that Safari would be less of a memory monster.
Unfortunately, Safari currently uses 160 MB for three open windows, yesterday it climbed up as far as 360.
It looks like I might switch back to FireFox - any tips on how to make Safari behave less memory hungry?
Before finally switching anywhere back, I'll just go fast forward with Flock.
Post a comment
Comment preview