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

161–170 of 236 posts

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#161

Post by laichzeit0 »

ksec wrote: post #155
barnacs wrote: post #110

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.

Exactly this. Even though it is not quite 1MB, but more like 5-10MB including all the images. But requiring 250MB of memory, AND some doesn't even load 60fps smooth on latest machines. At times i wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong with the Web Stack.

Console yourself by remembering that the vast majority of people creating these websites don't have computer science degreees. They learned their "trade" over a few weekends. Their "profession" is the equivalent of self-taught backyard abortionists.

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#162

Post by renaudg »

ikeboy wrote: post #42

Wow. My normal session now leaves me with around 8gb free out of 16, compared to 1-2gb free previously. Gmail is using less than 1GB again. I might even disable The Great Suspender, and stop killing tabs that use up lots of memory. Whoever worked on this, you deserve a raise. QOL improvements for so many people.

I quite like OneTab instead of The Great Suspender, more predictable and really straightforward to use : https://www.one-tab.com/

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#165

Post by jessaustin »

Exuma wrote: post #11
wfunction wrote: post #6

[edit: removing comment as people made it unreadable anyway.]

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/back-to-backspace/...

Or get a chromebook: there's a nice "back" button at the top left next to "esc". There are also some nice "forward" and "reload" buttons.

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#166

Post by johnfn »

barnacs wrote: post #110

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.

Come on man, you don't want to be that guy at HN that rains on everyone's parade. A 30% decrease in RAM usage for an app as complex as Chrome is really something to be celebrated.

Great work is done piece by piece.

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#167

Post by happycodework »

ksec wrote: post #155
barnacs wrote: post #110

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.

Exactly this. Even though it is not quite 1MB, but more like 5-10MB including all the images. But requiring 250MB of memory, AND some doesn't even load 60fps smooth on latest machines. At times i wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong with the Web Stack.

Fun fact, even though it's downloaded as compressed format, the windows drawing api bitblt requires bmp format, so it's probably saved in memory as bmp. A 1024x768x24bpp bmp is multiple megabytes, even though the jpeg is 100kb.

(I think..)

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#168

Post by PeCaN »

grzm wrote: post #109
PeCaN wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

go fuck yourself

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#169

Post by dirkg »

Chrome can't even begin to compare to Firefox when it comes to handling anything >10 tabs, which is I think what 99% of people max out at, so Chrome doesn't bother about the rest even though people have been begging for years.

- no multiple tab rows

- when you launch, it reloads every single tab vs loading only the active one (the only sane option), causing massive slowdown and network traffic

- as a result in Firefox you can have 100's of tabs, open the browser, work in a few and close, without affecting anything.

- Firefox had Tab groups, an awesome visual representation, before they made it optional due to everyone copying Chrome's limited feature set.

- Chrome still uses much more memory

- Firefox extensions are by design much more powerful. e.g. Session Manager. And things like Tree style tabs etc.

Post reply on HN