This site will have limited functionality while we undergo maintenance to improve your experience. If an article doesn't solve your issue and you want to ask a question, we have our support community waiting to help you at @FirefoxSupport on Twitter and/r/firefox on Reddit.

Avatar for Username

Search Support

Avoid support scams. We will never ask you to call or text a phone number or share personal information. Please report suspicious activity using the “Report Abuse” option.

Learn More

Èròjà atẹ̀lélànà yii ni a ti fi pamọ́ fọ́jọ́ pípẹ́. Jọ̀wọ́ béèrè ìbéèrè titun bí o bá nílò ìrànwọ́.

Supernova (115.2.2) the CPU - related to calendar

  • 4 àwọn èsì
  • 1 ní ìṣòro yìí
  • 1 view
  • Èsì tí ó kẹ́hìn lọ́wọ́ selfsimilar01

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%

All Replies (4)

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

Let us know how 115.2.3 is later this week.

selfsimilar01
selfsimilar01 Ìbéèrè olóhun
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%

Ti ṣàtúnṣe nípa selfsimilar01

selfsimilar01
selfsimilar01 Ìbéèrè olóhun
more options

Does anyone read these questions??

selfsimilar01
selfsimilar01 Ìbéèrè olóhun
more options

Problem described above still exists in 115.3.2