Jump to content
We apologize for the inconvenience, but chat support is currently unavailable. Please feel free to submit an email ticket or reach out at discussion.evernote.com. Thank you for understanding. ×

webclipperer

Level 1
  • Content Count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About webclipperer

  1. I am also running the same FF and WC versions -- but, no issues for a while. The more recent versions of FF's multiprocess architecture are much more stable on my machine, too. When I started this thread, it was a real nightmare -- but now it works fine. Sorry you're still having trouble. :-(
  2. I gave up and now just copy URLs I want to save to a Chrome window. Annoying at first, but I got used to it fast. I also use the Chrome window for scrolling captures, since FF multiprocess and Snag-It are not compatible. At this point, I'm not going to reinstall the FF Webclipper until someone says it's working right. Looking forward to Firefox 57 in mid-November, and hoping they caught up to Chrome in terms of speed...
  3. Thanks, gazumped. Yeah, Firefox assumes a huge amount of virtual memory and lets the OS worry about paging and working sets. But, that's proper -- in 2016, most apps should let the OS worry about physical memory. When I get to 1.5GB on the about:memory panel, Firefox is noticeably more sluggish. When I get over 2GB, it's annoying. Over 2.5 GB and Firefox is unusable. When I'm not using the last three Web Cilpper versions, I haven't seen memory usage above 1GB. [But, I have not been in the habit of checking about:memory prior to my current problem, so I can't be sure that I hav
  4. 98% of the reason I'm an Evernote Premium user is so that I can clip Web content in Firefox. While version 6.10.2beta2 works best for me, it and beta1 and 6.9.3 all include a dealbreaker: an increase in memory used until the browser becomes unusable and needs to be restarted. This memory grab proceeds slowly, even if I'm not actively using the browser (maybe due to unattended activity by Gmail, Facebook, etc.). Using the browser heavily makes the memory grab happen much faster. When I say memory grab, I'm talking about 1.5 to 2 GIGAbytes (according to about:memory) on top of my initial
×
×
  • Create New...