111–120 of 210 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, they don't offer that on their laptops, but what the OP is talking about is a desktop machine. Apple definitely offers 32 GB in their desktops.
OP is talking about the machines Google devs use, and I am betting they are definitely not desktop machines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chrome devs are given both a laptop (most choose a MacBook Pro) and a fairly beefy desktop. My one had 64G of RAM, and that was given to me six years ago.
Are those 64GB for browsing the web as parent poster claims, or for compiling software, leaving much less for web browsing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm perfectly willing to wait a second for the page to be reloaded from solid-state storage, if I haven't visited the page for an hour or more. Some people might say I shouldn't keep hundreds of tabs open for weeks. But I'm an old guy, and by my standards my laptop is a freakin supercomputer, so in my mind it should be able to handle all the web pages I can manually throw at it.
> I'm perfectly willing to wait a second for the page to be reloaded from solid-state storage, if I haven't visited the page for an hour or more. Great, then set vm.swappiness = 100 And stop complaining about about virtual memory usage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless you lack the memory necessary to do something else, you shouldn't care. This is exactly the attitude that leads to such problems. Applications that assume they can use all of the available memory on the machine are hostile to multitasking environments.
Applications should use all available RAM they practically can for things like cache. Ideally they will hold on to it lightly so other applications can take what they need. Entirely unused RAM is a waste if never used.
Yes, you can actually manage RAM more efficiently for your application, if you just reserve a whole bunch of it and work inside of that, but at best you'll trick your users into thinking your applications is fast, but it's not actually in the interest of the user. If they wanted to dedicate all RAM to your application, they would not have opened a second application.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm perfectly willing to wait a second for the page to be reloaded from solid-state storage, if I haven't visited the page for an hour or more. Some people might say I shouldn't keep hundreds of tabs open for weeks. But I'm an old guy, and by my standards my laptop is a freakin supercomputer, so in my mind it should be able to handle all the web pages I can manually throw at it.
As a person who also has way too manu tabs open at all times, I've had success with the great suspender [0]. It "suspends" pages after a timeout so they use less memory. [0]: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/the-great-suspende...
It’s not always happy if Chrome crashes or I have to do a cold reboot, but mostly it keeps Chrome’s gluttony under control.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm perfectly willing to wait a second for the page to be reloaded from solid-state storage, if I haven't visited the page for an hour or more. Some people might say I shouldn't keep hundreds of tabs open for weeks. But I'm an old guy, and by my standards my laptop is a freakin supercomputer, so in my mind it should be able to handle all the web pages I can manually throw at it.
As a person who also has way too manu tabs open at all times, I've had success with the great suspender [0]. It "suspends" pages after a timeout so they use less memory. [0]: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/the-great-suspende...
To my overly long TODO-list I added a web browser project. I would like to see something akin to Links [0] or Lynx [1] with a bit of Dillo [2], but also for mobile. Features & non-features: - it would generally work like the reader mode (no other modes) trying to place navigation links in a predictable place - user can easily select text size and color schemes - night mode (Android does not have one) - because of it'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1 is entirely possible. Opera 12.x takes ~3-10MB per TAB (+the weight of the media used on the page). There is zero latency, opening new/switching tabs is instantaneous. Google devs use 16-32 core machines, often with hundreds of gigabytes ram. Why would they bother optimizing?
>Google devs use 16-32 core machines, often with hundreds of gigabytes ram You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Most devs at Google use MacBook Pros.. which cannot even be upgraded to hold hundreds of gigs of ram.
The required build tools and software for the internal engineering systems aren't usually available on a Mac so you'll need to have a Linux machine (physical or virtual) somewhere to remote into to do any dev work (again some teams are different but the bulk of engineers use the centralised Google infrastructure for source control, builds etc)
In addition to the desktop, every engineer gets a choice of laptop (Mac/windows/Chromebook) as well for email, meetings and cat videos.
Non-engineering just get a single laptop. Many many people now pick to use Chromebooks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a person who also has way too manu tabs open at all times, I've had success with the great suspender [0]. It "suspends" pages after a timeout so they use less memory. [0]: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/the-great-suspende...
The current version also has a bug where it will create so many cookies on google-owned domains that it will exceed the header limit and cause a 500 response. The dev refuses to fix it until he implements a feature to make suspended tabs persist across updates, which is apparently slow going.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what functionality does it provide for that tons of javascript? I am asking honestly because most of the magic of gmail (which I love) is on the server side. The functionality that it has on the client side is trivial and in some cases atrocious. In these days it cannot even resize the compose box. The power of it's search bar should require trivial amount of client side code, so should the auto save. The only th…
(Key point: Gmail uses over 100MB where FastMail uses 10MB. Careful engineering helps a lot.) Gmail provides a lot more functionality with that JavaScript than you may think. There’s a fair bit of magic that goes into making an email client work as you want it to. That being said: most web apps are surprisingly inefficient in their memory usage (I find it surprising, anyway), and Gmail is no exception. I last used Gm…