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

221–230 of 236 posts

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#221

Post by stygiansonic »

mercer wrote: post #212
renaudg wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thanks for the info! I had no idea this functionality existed.

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#222

Post by esrauch »

reitanqild wrote: post #207
lrem wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's about the reasoning behind amp...

Didn't downvote you but I think you fell for the marketing.

Did he? The original comment said "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." which sounds exactly what AMP is doing.

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#223

Post by esrauch »

kbenson wrote: post #59
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can run `curl wttr.in` to get your local weather and 3-day forecast. Or just go to http://wttr.in/

Hmm. "Weather for City: Santa Rosa, Philippines" That's the wrong Santa Rosa, in the wrong country. There's an interesting bug in there somewhere.

I get the same thing: shows a city in a different country with the same name.

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#224

Post by colechristensen »

esrauch wrote: post #222
reitanqild wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't downvote you but I think you fell for the marketing.

Did he? The original comment said "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." which sounds exactly what AMP is doing.

Meh, I mean, it's in the neighborhood but philosophically unsatisfying.

I want to cut the fat, not add another layer of it on top.

Something like writing a simpler feature-clone (not how it does things but copies the big picture things it does) of postscript with hyperlinks and videos.

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#225

Post by ksec »

happycodework wrote: post #167
ksec wrote: post #155

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..)

YEs, but images 2,336 x 3,504 = 8,185,344 pixels @ 24bit color roughly equals to 24MB. That is lots of images even if you are on native resolution retina display. And doubling that gives you 48MB only. ( And someone has pointed out they are compressed differently within memory, so likely only consuming 1/2 to 1/3 memory size )

That leaves with 200MB memory gods knows what they are.

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#226

Post by johnp_ »

Tempest1981 wrote: post #92

Any way to set the minimum tab width yet? Once I get 7+ tabs in a window, they're truncated to a useless width.

Firefox originally had a preference for that, but they moved it to CSS, so you can modify it via an addon or with userchrome.css:

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.tabs.tabMinWidth

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#227

Post by majewsky »

jholman wrote: post #199
notatoad wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Meanwhile, I feel like a compulsive hoarder when there are more than 10 tabs open. :)

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#228

Post by majewsky »

Cyph0n wrote: post #50
mmozeiko wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://wttr.in/?m For other options see http://wttr.in/:help

Awesome, thanks! It's hard being a metric user in the US :P

It seems to do region detection, though. `curl wttr.in/dresden` gives me celsius scale and km/h wind speeds.

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#229

Post by majewsky »

vikrantvm wrote: post #97
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can run `curl wttr.in` to get your local weather and 3-day forecast. Or just go to http://wttr.in/

This is great. Hope the dev fixes location detection! Weather from the terminal, woot

Location detection is notoriously hard. For example, my auto-detected location is 500 km off because of the corporate HTTP proxy.

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#230

Post by mercer »

stygiansonic wrote: post #221
mercer wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thanks for the info! I had no idea this functionality existed.

I used it way back when and the for about a year I thought the feature had been removed. Was very happy to rediscover it!
Post reply on HN