From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20011221 BuildID: 2001122108 This page is original from www.uol.com.br, the most important ISP in Brazil. It's first page presents also a bug, yet related. The original place of this page was http://www.uol.com.br/folha/cotidiano/2001-sequestro.shtml, but I am not sure if it is going to stay long there, so I copied it to another website. While loading this page, CPU usage reaches 100%, mouse gets laggy, and the page is not shown properly. All problems stops if I click the stop button. Maybe a kind of loop? Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1.Open page http://www.geocities.com/thomasphansen/problem.html 2. 3. Actual Results: System gets very slow, CPU usage reaches 100%. Expected Results: Open the page without this problems :)
Able to re-produce the problem on Windows NT SP5 and Mozilla 2002010703... Using Netscape 4.7 this problem doesn _not_ occur on my system.
I had to change the location of the page, due to change of my homepage address. The new URL is http://www.oarauto.com/thomas/problem.html.
Takes approx 15 seconds to load on 750Mhz AMD machine running WindowsXP using 2002020512 build. It does not crash for me. amar: Can you try this URL on Linux? thanks!
On linux 7.1 its taking approx 1 minute to load the page but during that process it uses 100% cpu. On win2k it takes more than 2 munites to load the page where as IE takes just 3-5 seconds to load the page. Marking the priority of this bug to P2 due to its high visibility.
Its a performance issue. There are a lot of link with <a href> tags. Adding perf keyword.
URL loads fine with trunk build 20020501, but not 20020430.
linux branch build 20020503 (1.0rc2) still has problems here (~1.5 minutes to load on PII-450MHz).
whatever fixed this on the trunk made it in between 2002043007 and 2002043021 I can remove <img>, <a>, <tr> and <td> and still get problems. <br> tags and unclosed <table> and <font> tags seem to be the necessary components for this bug.
Marking a dup of bug 113235 based on comment #10. It would be nice if someone with a branch build could verify. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 113235 ***