http://www.seamonkey-project.org/ uses less CPU
Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54
211–220 of 236 posts
Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54
#212Wow. 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/
For those who use OneTab I can highly recommend setting a keyboard shortcut for 1) seeing your OneTab list (although that can also be a bookmark), and more importantly, 2) sending the current tab to OneTab.
I had to rediscover how to do this, or OneTab changed in its behavior. You have to go to your extensions screen (Chrome), scroll way to the bottom, and set your shortcuts for extensions there.
Just FYI, as setting extension shortcuts in general wasn't intuitive to me.
Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
Private versus shared memory from chrome://system. I suspect shared doesn't really matter. I'm using shift+esc task manager, and top to see overall system free ram.
I updated Chrome after checking the RAM usage, same tabs opened as before, this is the change:
Browser 324 MB private, 83 MB shared
Browser 226 MB private, 67 MB shared
Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
Private versus shared memory from chrome://system. I suspect shared doesn't really matter. I'm using shift+esc task manager, and top to see overall system free ram.
I updated Chrome after checking the RAM usage, same tabs opened as before, this is the change: Browser 324 MB private, 83 MB shared Browser 226 MB private, 67 MB shared
Note that often RAM usage goes up as the browser is running longer. A good test would wait the same amount of time after opening the browser to check.
Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is mainly because Chrome allocates a process for each page whereas FF only allocates a thread. The important factor being that threads share an address space where processes are allocated their own and thus consume more memory. Separate processes are arguably more secure and of one process crashes it does not take down the whole browser but all this comes at a cost. This cost is very apparent with many tabs open…
> processes are allocated their own and thus consume more memory. Copy-on-write means this needn't be a large overhead. Only pages that change after forking are duplicated.
But the OS is committing to supplying memory for any writable pages you duplicated, because after all you might write to them. The OS doesn't know which pages you won't duplicate.
Unless you set your vm.overcommit_memory sysctl variable to 1 (= never refuse malloc), duplicated writable pages are going to subtract from available memory, even if all copies are currently the same.
Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
chrome already has this behavior built in, start where I left off under settings. Is this different?
Chrome's session restore silently loses tabs when you have a lot open. It is completely unreliable in my experience. Sometimes a window will come back with half the tabs missing, which is obvious, but when it's only a couple missing, it's much harder to even know. Also, Session Buddy lets you export sessions to back them up and move them between computers, etc.
If a tab goes missing and you can't tell, did it really matter?
Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tabs are the new bookmarks.
They're better. If I bookmark something with any service, chances of me ever checking that out again drop to nearly zero. Tabs, by virtue of being there bugging you, are bookmarks, to-do lists, and task reminders all in one.
For me session manager sessions (in firefox) are the new bookmarks.
i try to split different fields of interest into separate windows. Then i save that window as a suitably titled session and close the window. If i need to add a new tab to a session, i use the "append to session" feature. That way i dont clutter up my bookmarks or my primary firefox session.
Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
trolololo
Please don't post unsubstantively like this here.
Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54
#219Earlier 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.
We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the guidelines after we've asked you to stop. This account has posted a lot of decent comments, so we'd be very glad to unban it if you email hn@ycombinator.com and we believe you'll stop breaking the guidelines.
Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54
#220Earlier 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…
> 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
Sounds like you want to set a mobile user-agent string. Most sites will avoid serving you the whole 'kitchen sink'.