<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Firefox 3</title>
	<atom:link href="http://aeroppon.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/firefox-3/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://aeroppon.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/firefox-3/</link>
	<description>thoughts, training, and life</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Dec 2009 07:25:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Roppon</title>
		<link>http://aeroppon.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/firefox-3/#comment-212</link>
		<dc:creator>Roppon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 01:43:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aeroppon.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/firefox-3/#comment-212</guid>
		<description>I am currently using Safari 3 more than Firefox 3 myself. It&#039;s quicker on Vista.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am currently using Safari 3 more than Firefox 3 myself. It&#8217;s quicker on Vista.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://aeroppon.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/firefox-3/#comment-211</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2008 20:30:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aeroppon.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/firefox-3/#comment-211</guid>
		<description>Well I guess this is good news for people who find this info to actually be true when using Firefox 3 (beta 4).However my personal experience while running 3.0 Beta 4 on a machine running Vista Ultimate 64bit is just the opposite.Firefox 2.0 used to use alot of ram,upwards of 700MB, however 3.0 hasn&#039;t improved on that at all.In actuality Firefox 3.0 Beta 4 has been constantly using over 1GB of ram with only a few windows open.Closing windows does not help at all, the RAM is never released until Firefox is completely restarted.I have tried all the tricks I&#039;ve seen on the net.Manually setting the maximum memory cache,enabling release memory when minimized,disabling the extensions,running in safe mode,tried the RAMback extension,clearing download history,setting it so it doesn&#039;t remember what is downloaded,still Firefox 3.0 beta 4 hogs up memory.At one point it was up to 1.8GB memory usage.Looks like it&#039;s either go back to 2.0 or try a different browser such as Safari or IE7(despite what others have mentioned here,for me IE7 uses less memory) .</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well I guess this is good news for people who find this info to actually be true when using Firefox 3 (beta 4).However my personal experience while running 3.0 Beta 4 on a machine running Vista Ultimate 64bit is just the opposite.Firefox 2.0 used to use alot of ram,upwards of 700MB, however 3.0 hasn&#8217;t improved on that at all.In actuality Firefox 3.0 Beta 4 has been constantly using over 1GB of ram with only a few windows open.Closing windows does not help at all, the RAM is never released until Firefox is completely restarted.I have tried all the tricks I&#8217;ve seen on the net.Manually setting the maximum memory cache,enabling release memory when minimized,disabling the extensions,running in safe mode,tried the RAMback extension,clearing download history,setting it so it doesn&#8217;t remember what is downloaded,still Firefox 3.0 beta 4 hogs up memory.At one point it was up to 1.8GB memory usage.Looks like it&#8217;s either go back to 2.0 or try a different browser such as Safari or IE7(despite what others have mentioned here,for me IE7 uses less memory) .</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
