Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

prerender.cloud

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 236 posts

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#101

Post by Theodores »

curiousgal wrote: post #33
ausjke wrote: post #29

awesome news then, chrome really needs to improve memory usage, especially when I have lots of tabs open. under firefox I normally had 120 tabs open all the time, and it's fine. with chrome, I dare not to exceed 60 tabs. chrome triggers heavy swap all the time still, which renders the system very sluggish.

120 tabs?! What for?!

Sometimes I open 100 or so tabs to do repetitive stuff I cannot code, data entry work that won't be easily automated or needs the human touch, e.g. updating a product catalogue. On top of the 10-50 tabs open that gets to be a lot of heavy pages but makes for an efficient workflow. With hot keys and 'close all tabs to the right' I can quickly get through a lot of stuff that needs attention to detail and focus to get done.

All I am saying is that there are situations when a lot of tabs is the best option given the circumstances, e.g. lots of data entry work.

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#102

Post by Theodores »

curiousgal wrote: post #33
ausjke wrote: post #29

awesome news then, chrome really needs to improve memory usage, especially when I have lots of tabs open. under firefox I normally had 120 tabs open all the time, and it's fine. with chrome, I dare not to exceed 60 tabs. chrome triggers heavy swap all the time still, which renders the system very sluggish.

120 tabs?! What for?!

Sometimes I open 100 or so tabs to do repetitive stuff I cannot code, data entry work that won't be easily automated or needs the human touch, e.g. updating a product catalogue. On top of the 10-50 tabs open that gets to be a lot of heavy pages but makes for an efficient workflow. With hot keys and 'close all tabs to the right' I can quickly get through a lot of stuff that needs attention to detail and focus to get done.

All I am saying is that there are situations when a lot of tabs is the best option given the circumstances, e.g. lots of data entry work.

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#104

Post by nazri1 »

ausjke wrote: post #29

awesome news then, chrome really needs to improve memory usage, especially when I have lots of tabs open. under firefox I normally had 120 tabs open all the time, and it's fine. with chrome, I dare not to exceed 60 tabs. chrome triggers heavy swap all the time still, which renders the system very sluggish.

My laptop has no ssd. This sluggishness brings back memories of linux trashing the swap partition when it ran out of memory back in the early 2000s. Quite understandable since back then most people don't have that much RAM (64Mb?). Nowadays I have 8Gb on my laptop and I run linux with swap disabled. The only disk trashing that I'm having nowadays is due to chrome, and it's definitely not due to swap but the effect is almost the same - at best the laptop is unusable for up to 30 seconds, at worst, I have to do a hard reboot because that's the only way to recover - I can't even switch to a new terminal to kill chrome. Attempts to log in via the tty console (Ctrl+Alt+F2) in order to kill chrome is futile. I could enter the username, but the password prompt took forever to appear. Most of the time it expires after 60 seconds. If I manage to enter the password, the shell prompt can take forever to appear.

Nowadays I do a "killall chrome; sleep 2; killall chrome" whenever it starts to trash the disk and giving me the bad vibe.

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#105

Post by PeCaN »

tdkl wrote: post #49
wiredfool wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tabs are the new bookmarks.

Sadly they aren't bookmarks and then people moan about memory usage, when they should get a reality check instead.

just curious if you've ever used a computer

Pretty sure users aren't the ones that need a reality check, go fuck yourself.

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#106

Post by somecallitblues »

MetaMonk wrote: post #67
bogomipz wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is The Great Suspender?

Suspends tabs after a set period of disuse. Great for people who open a ton of tabs in Chrome.

But then you miss out on the new chance at life http://www.theonion.com/article/accidentally-closing-browser...

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#107

Post by kuschku »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #79
SiVal wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TO THE DEVELOPER, FWIW: I'm also in California and it thinks I'm in the Philippines in a town with the same name as one a few miles from here. I assume you use IP to find town, country; throw away country; look up town in a list with country names in alphabetical order (Philippines Note that even if you get the country right it won't be enough, because there is a "Springfield" in each of the 50 states. You'll have to…

As a workaround, you can use your zip code instead. E.g. http://wttr.in/90401

Doesn’t work with German ZIP codes: http://wttr.in/24107 or ISO ZIP codes: http://wttr.in/D-24107

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#108

Post by mishac »

wtallis wrote: post #61
moreira wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might just be because of the difference in platforms. 32-bit Mac has been gone for half a decade, whereas 32-bit Windows is still out there (32-bit Windows 10 exists), and those wouldn't be able to run 64-bit Chrome, so they may be using 32-bit as the default in order to avoid user confusion.

More specifically about OS X: support for 32-bit hardware was dropped in 2011, but support for 64-bit applications has been available on all 64-bit hardware since 2007, even if you were running the 32-bit OS kernel. Apple handled that transition way better than Microsoft.

To be fair, microsoft's userbase requires backwards compatibility a lot more than apple's does, since Macs are largely consumer systems rather than enterprise ones.

Microsoft got flack for dropping 16bit app support in 64bit OSes (since 64 bit windows doesn't have NTVDM). They'd be flayed alive if they dropped 32bit support.

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#109

Post by grzm »

PeCaN wrote: post #105
tdkl wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly they aren't bookmarks and then people moan about memory usage, when they should get a reality check instead.

just curious if you've ever used a computer Pretty sure users aren't the ones that need a reality check, go fuck yourself.

go fuck yourself

Please don't be uncivil on HN, regardless of the discussion.

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#110

Post by barnacs »

Great news! A simple weather website, with about 1 MB worth of actual content (text, markup, images, layout) now only uses 250 MB of memory. And it only takes a few seconds to load on a 100Mbps+ connection whenever I click a menu item (that's with all ads and tracking blocked and most of the stuff already cached).

I'm sorry, I just don't see any reason to celebrate.

Post reply on HN