Spletno mesto bo delovalo z omejenimi zmožnostmi, medtem ko na njem izvajamo vzdrževalna dela za vas. Če članki ne rešijo vaše težave in želite zastaviti vprašanje, naša skupnost za podporo čaka na vas na @FirefoxSupport na Twitterju in na /r/firefox na Redditu.

Avatar for Username

Iskanje po podpori

Izogibajte se prevarantski tehnični podpori. Nikoli vam ne bomo naročili, da pokličete telefonsko številko ali nam pošljete osebne podatke. Sumljivo dejavnost prijavite z gumbom »Prijavi zlorabo«.

Več o tem

Ta tema je arhivirana. Postavite prosim novo vprašanje, če potrebujete pomoč.

Supernova (115.2.2) the CPU - related to calendar

selfsimilar01
selfsimilar01
more options

Until I updated to Supernova (115.2.2) the CPU usage was low but since the update there is a high usage on a Lenovo Win 10 PC that is up to date.

It seems it is related to the calendar. If the calendar is not brought into focus immediately after starting SuperNova the CPU usage is up around 14%. Once the calendar is brought into focus and I go back to any inbox the CPU usage drops to less than 1%

Until I updated to Supernova (115.2.2) the CPU usage was low but since the update there is a high usage on a Lenovo Win 10 PC that is up to date. It seems it is related to the calendar. If the calendar is not brought into focus immediately after starting SuperNova the CPU usage is up around 14%. Once the calendar is brought into focus and I go back to any inbox the CPU usage drops to less than 1%

Vsi odgovori (4)

Wayne Mery
Wayne Mery
  • Moderator
  • Top 10 Contributor
more options

Let us know how 115.2.3 is later this week.

selfsimilar01
selfsimilar01 Lastnik vprašanja
more options

On closer examination - it looks like this problem is not completely solved. In the task manager After Supernova opens and settles down there is 10-14% CPU utilization until the calendar is brought into focus then it drops down to < 1%

Spremenil selfsimilar01

selfsimilar01
selfsimilar01 Lastnik vprašanja
more options

Does anyone read these questions??

selfsimilar01
selfsimilar01 Lastnik vprašanja
more options

Problem described above still exists in 115.3.2