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

191–200 of 236 posts

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#191

Post by Tempest1981 »

hugodahl wrote: post #154
curiousgal wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it's actually often practical to make a program that does one thing do another instead Like using Photoshop to abort a system shutdown if you forgot to commit.[0] 0. https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-greatest-software-misuses...

On Windows, using the built in notepad, you can block any shutdown by having an instance pen with any unsaved changes. Handy when Windows schedules a reboot and you've got your debugging session setup just right.

I read that Win10 will still force a scheduled reboot, even with unsaved documents: https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/3hb614/windows_10...

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#192

Post by stekern »

kyriakos wrote: post #133
dexwiz wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you using Classic Gmail or Google Inbox?

Google inbox web app is painfully slow for me

I've been using the cross-platform, open-source WMail [1] for a couple of weeks, and I find that it offers a faster and more streamlined experience than using Inbox in Chrome.

[1] http://thomas101.github.io/wmail/

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#193

Post by sunnyps »

wamatt wrote: post #136
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.

For me the situation is perhaps not quite as clear cut. On the one hand I'm seeing nice improvements in the large memory hogging tabs. For example a typical reddit thread was reduced from 399 MB down to 295 MB. On the other hand, it appears all extensions now have a >50MB memory usage floor. For example, the Authy extension was using 5MB under Chrome 54. It's now using 55MB on Chrome 55. Similarly the simple archive.…

This might be a side-effect of --isolate-extensions (out of process iframes for extensions) being turned on in M55.

https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!msg/chromiu...

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#194

Post by ygra »

swiley wrote: post #157
saghm wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there are people in Germany who want to get the weather?

I think his point is that there would be collisions with every other country so it could only concivably work with one countries zip codes.

Well, the country prefix solves the collision problem, after which it's just a data problem.

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#195

Post by sunnyps »

weaksauce wrote: post #125
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.

I made a simple firefox/chrome extension for people that horde tabs as temp bookmarks. You might find it useful to find tabs and quickly navigate to them by clicking on the link in the list. It's free and open source. The github page has a gif showing usage. You can also type cmd-shift-e or ctrl-shift-e to switch to it. Chrome Extension: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tabist/hdjegjggiog... Firefox Extensio…

In Chrome you can press "Ctrl/Cmd + Shift + D" and bookmark all open tabs into a folder. Then you can right click on the folder later to open all those tabs.

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#196

Post by david-given »

saghm wrote: post #128
nkkollaw wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would it work with German zip codes? Zip codes are not universal...

Because there are people in Germany who want to get the weather?

There are countries which don't have zip codes.

Turns out that when I'm in the US, I can't use my credit card to order takeaway food online, because they universally require zip code validation, and neither the postcode for my Swiss credit card (8047) or my UK credit card (IV548JS) (both codes modified to protect the guilty) pass the very simple minded zip code validation.

...and Ireland only had them at all since 2015.

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#197

Post by haar »

nkkollaw wrote: post #189
Oletros wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would it work with USA zip codes? Zip codes are not universal...

Because it's programmed for US zip codes. So, you can't just enter any zip code in there. There would be clashes since zip codes aren't unique across countries.

Just to be a pedant, that's not what was stated: "As a workaround, you can use your zip code instead.".

Your assumption is that zip code == "U.S zip code" which is a fair assumption if the site only supports the U.S. Other comments on the thread shows the site does support locations outside of the U.S. It is therefore also a fair assumption that it _might_ support similar functionality outside the U.S., kuschku simply tested said assumption and stated that it was incorrect so that other readers were aware.

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#198

Post by lrem »

colechristensen wrote: post #187
johnfn wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He has a point. For me, most of my 'web' experience isn't doing anything I don't remember doing in 1995. The things websites are doing I usually don't want them to do. 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 ne…

That's about the reasoning behind amp...

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#199

Post by jholman »

notatoad wrote: post #132
somecallitblues wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

23? is that a lot? that's about normal for me, and i didn't think i was too bad. my office mate usually has a couple hundred tabs open.

Last time I restarted Firefox, I had over 350 tabs open. Which is ridiculous, of course, because I'm sure that I haven't looked at more than 100 of them today, but since that all fits into 1.2GB of memory (currently), what's the problem.

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#200

Post by vbezhenar »

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.

I think that web stack has its problems, but generally problem is developers (or their managers) who don't care about performance. It's possible to create awesome and performant websites with current web stack.
Post reply on HN