181–190 of 236 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
120 tabs?! What for?!
I personally use tabs like a desktop with all kinds of papers, documents and books flying around. Sort of like this: https://s15.postimg.org/dpq7mpmaz/messydesk.jpg
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 Firefo…
Firefox easily handles upwards of 50 tabs while Chrome keeps crashing most of the times for me and takes up a lot of load time. FF extensions are really great compared to Chrome (apart from some Chorome Apps). My only remaining gripe with Firefox is the tab spinning problem (it seems to improve after every new build. I'm on nightly.).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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..)
More exciting news coming in Chrome 56 with complete optimization.. V8 can optimize the entirety of the JavaScript language. Can't wait for Christmas presents
Do you have a link for that?
> V8 version 5.6, which will be in beta until it is released in coordination with Chrome 56 Stable in several weeks...
> Starting with 5.6, V8 can optimize the entirety of the JavaScript language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
I just want to see text, images, and video with light formatting and hyperlinks. This _doesn't_ require hundreds of megabytes of memory. It would involve restricting what the new web could do and those restrictions would make things better. We don't need the kitchen sink in every page.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would it work with German zip codes? Zip codes are not universal...
Why would it work with USA zip codes? Zip codes are not universal...
So, you can't just enter any zip code in there. There would be clashes since zip codes aren't unique across countries.
For the layman web developer with little knowledge of browser internals, how does this compare to Firefox's memory usage?