Firefox vs. IE Options

[zetec]

i fluctuate between 96,000k and 160,000k depending on how many tabs i have open, any media being displayed, and some other factors

[Mommy]

maybe Stephan was running that video he was talking about when he took that screen shot.

[Mommy]

and Im running at just under 45 k right now

[Hartmann]

maybe Stephan was running that video he was talking about when he took that screen shot.

Yes, there is a video playing in one of the tabs when I took the screenshot. Hence the high use of memory. I hover around 25,000.



Back to what I said earlier. I said that IE and explorer.exe were dependant on each other. I didn't say one was more dependant thant the other, I just said they had dependencies.

My statement about IE sometimes forcing explorer.exe still stands. You can reproduce this yourself, just because you can kill explorer when you are browsing doesn't mean anything. Sometimes you cannot kill explorer or your browser will die. The simple fact that their libraries work with each other means that they do share some memory resources. If one of the libraries is in use by both processes they are going to get shared evenly, makes sense right? Well, if you have a library that is being used specifically by IE then it can use some of explorer's memory footprint to perform more efficiently. See, Microsoft did this ingenius thing, they explored faux-multithreading a long time ago, and it seems to work (for the most part).

impala, I know you don't know much about me but calling my major or me stupid for taking it is just childish. I have been doing this whole computer thing since I was 12. I have worked for numerous companies (including Microsoft oddily enough, my freshman year), even without a degree. Why not attack the argument instead of trying to look big and attack me. I called your coworker an idiot because quiet frankly that's what someone is who talks about things like they know what they are talking about.

[Mommy]

Stephan wins.

[zetec]

don't bother, he's gonna say you're backtracking or change his argument again.


Maybe you just have to repeat your argument a magical number of times until he accepts it. My guess is that number is probably in the quadruple-digits.

[Mommy]

I dont think he ever got my argument about mis vs cs. *shrug*

[moebary]

impala: computer blah blah blah
zetec: computer blah blah blah
lance: DRAMA!
jessica: random self quote from other thread
impala: computer blah blah blah
zetec: computer blah blah blah
jessica: i'm gonna make more money that you

[Mommy]

impala: computer blah blah blah
zetec: computer blah blah blah
lance: DRAMA!
jessica: random self quote from other thread
impala: computer blah blah blah
zetec: computer blah blah blah
jessica: i'm gonna make more money that you

hey, i put some computer blah blah blah in there too

[zetec]

yeah i think he gave up 4 of 5 pages in, he missed the great ownage in the pages thus following.

[impala454]

Back to what I said earlier. I said that IE and explorer.exe were dependant on each other. I didn't say one was more dependant thant the other, I just said they had dependencies.

My statement about IE sometimes forcing explorer.exe still stands. You can reproduce this yourself, just because you can kill explorer when you are browsing doesn't mean anything. Sometimes you cannot kill explorer or your browser will die. The simple fact that their libraries work with each other means that they do share some memory resources. If one of the libraries is in use by both processes they are going to get shared evenly, makes sense right? Well, if you have a library that is being used specifically by IE then it can use some of explorer's memory footprint to perform more efficiently. See, Microsoft did this ingenius thing, they explored faux-multithreading a long time ago, and it seems to work (for the most part).

libraries are dynamic, as in they're loaded as their own instance, which is the whole point of using them. a "shared" library doesn't mean that two applications are accessing the same memory space at the same time, it means that the two appications create their own instance of the library to run. hence, if you tried to remove ie and all its dependencies (several low level windows APIs), windows explorer wouldn't function correctly (and neither would a lot of other apps).

impala, I know you don't know much about me but calling my major or me stupid for taking it is just childish.  I have been doing this whole computer thing since I was 12. I have worked for numerous companies (including Microsoft oddily enough, my freshman year), even without a degree. Why not attack the argument instead of trying to look big and attack me.

I didn't call you or your major stupid. I had asked for clarification on your still vague response of iexplore.exe making explorer.exe "work harder". I threw the MIS jab in there so maybe you'd actually explain it to me. Maybe it is childish, but so is making shit up to try to make a point on a message board. Telling me you worked with Microsoft as a freshman doesn't make a vague argument any more valid either.

I called your coworker an idiot because quiet frankly that's what someone is who talks about things like they know what they are talking about.

You called him an idiot because he didnt know apple got away from the gay ass 1 button mouse shit. Who gives a shit. besides, who in their right mind who doesnt read up and and give a shit about apple would take one look at and think this was a 2 button mouse

[zetec]

libraries are dynamic, as in they're loaded as their own instance, which is the whole point of using them.  a "shared" library doesn't mean that two applications are accessing the same memory space at the same time, it means that the two appications create their own instance of the library to run.  hence, if you tried to remove ie and all its dependencies (several low level windows APIs), windows explorer wouldn't function correctly (and neither would a lot of other apps). 

Thanks for finally proving our point.

I didn't call you or your major stupid.  I had asked for clarification on your still vague response of iexplore.exe making explorer.exe "work harder".  I threw the MIS jab in there so maybe you'd actually explain it to me.  Maybe it is childish, but so is making shit up to try to make a point on a message board.  Telling me you worked with Microsoft as a freshman doesn't make a vague argument any more valid either. 

If anything sounds like backtracking in this thread, it's this. And his microsoft employment has relevance, once again you're just refusing to pay attention to anything that exudes logic.

You called him an idiot because he didnt know apple got away from the gay ass 1 button mouse shit.  Who gives a shit.  besides, who in their right mind who doesnt read up and and give a shit about apple would take one look at and think this was a 2 button mouse

apparently you gave a shit, because you felt it was important enough to post. and I'm not sure how you don't think that's a two button mouse, it clearly has buttons on the side, not to mention the "scroll wheel", which goes without stating obviously clicks. don't blame us for your lack of an ability to deduce obvious conclusions from mere observation.

edit: split up the post and removed the original double-quote

This post has been edited by zetec: Apr 5 2006, 03:20 PM

[Throwdown]

i don't know what anyone is talking about, but i do know that stephan and zetec are a helluva lot more intellegent than impala

hence, they win

[Hartmann]

libraries are dynamic, as in they're loaded as their own instance, which is the whole point of using them.  a "shared" library doesn't mean that two applications are accessing the same memory space at the same time, it means that the two appications create their own instance of the library to run.  hence, if you tried to remove ie and all its dependencies (several low level windows APIs), windows explorer wouldn't function correctly (and neither would a lot of other apps).

Just so you know, not all libraries are dynamic just because they have a .dll extension. Win32 is not created dynamically, ok it's created when Windows starts up, but it's a very static library, same with run and lsass (depending on which version of Windows). I am confused, first IE and Explorer weren't tied together, now they are but not in the way I have presented it, is this just an e-penis contest because honestly, you can claim to have the bigger one, I really don't care.

I didn't call you or your major stupid. I had asked for clarification on your still vague response of iexplore.exe making explorer.exe "work harder". I threw the MIS jab in there so maybe you'd actually explain it to me. Maybe it is childish, but so is making shit up to try to make a point on a message board. Telling me you worked with Microsoft as a freshman doesn't make a vague argument any more valid either.

There was no reason for jabs. I clarified in my above post what I meant. The fact that I worked for Microsoft has nothing to do with me being a freshman but everything to do with the fact that I do have some knowledge of the way Windows works beyond some C# book that I got from Barnes & Noble. I am no expert on Windows, mainly because I don't use it all the time, but I had to learn the library system and the way to link between them and how they can potentially be used to piggyback off of each other because that's what I did for my job.

You called him an idiot because he didnt know apple got away from the gay ass 1 button mouse shit.  Who gives a shit.  besides, who in their right mind who doesnt read up and and give a shit about apple would take one look at and think this was a 2 button mouse

So you're saying he doesn't pay attention? I mean, all he'd have to do is a little reading and he'd figure it out. Plus there's the point that zetec made in the other thread, you don't have to use the single button mouse that comes with the mac. The simple fact that he doesn't read up gives me the right to call him a moron for making such a (get this) moronic and poorly informed statement. I don't go around screaming Microsoft sucks, but if I did I would definitely have something to back it up with.

[zetec]

BURNNNNNN!