121–130 of 210 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would venture to say that most of the world isn't using computers with 32GB RAM...
I consider 2GB acceptable, 4GB normal, and 8GB high-end (maybe even overkill).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the use of night mode? Even if someone needs to browse web in the darkness (which is a bad idea anyway), it should be implemented somewhere in the OS, not in applications.
Sometimes you need to browse in the darkness. It should be implemented in the OS, but it isn't. I don't have a mobile OS on my TODO list. The night mode would be just a small additional setting on top of a color scheme selection.
Oh, and of course everyone rolls their own, so that website with the dancing pigs not only has its own stack, but also one for every ad and tracking network it pulls in. It takes a whole lot of javascript to provide that transparent pixel!
The situation is no better on the server side, of course. Why write static HTML for your pageful of text when you can have a web framework pulling C++ from a SQL database, compiling it to web assembly on the fly and vomiting forth to the browser just in time because someone might want their flying unicorn background to have different colour sparkles and pointing those people at a different static location is just gauche.
No, I’m not bitter, far from it. It all makes work for the working man to do.
I use Opera as my primary browser because Chrome is slow, a memory hog and makes the fans on my macbook air really noisy
> One tab on chrome takes about 100MB memory, why? Two reasons 1) Because, Chrome is ready to do something with that tab: browse the web. Do this, create a browser that doesn't use much memory when a tab is idle. Switch back to that tab and interact with the page or go to a new page. You will experience latency. It will feel slow. That's why the tab uses a lot of memory. It is staying ready at all times to be interac…
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.
You say you sometimes have "hundreds" of tabs open, I've done this too, but my laptop doesn't have 20GB of RAM, but it just seems to work anyway.
What I ended up doing was: just stop looking at resource monitors.
(I have worked as an engineer on both Ubuntu and Chrome) > One tab on chrome takes about 100MB memory, why? It probably doesn't. Much of that apparent memory usage is shared between all tabs, and the browser renderer process, etc. in the form of shared memory. Quite a bit of it will be the executable code itself, which is "mapped" into memory, given an address, and allocated the full size but doesn't actually consume…
My "private bytes" numbers very from 50 to 300MB per chrome process, so that's not counting shared memory or untouched memory. An HD pixel buffer is only 6MB.
Don't forget that the browser splits out different layers and composites them together, so it'll be a little bigger than that.
Because it is 2018 and people have forgotten how to static HTML. All that lovely rendering code in your browser goes unused as people rewrite it in Javascript, badly; or even in C++ and then compile to web assembly, that’s all the rage now, because why stick with one layer of abstraction when you can involve three? Oh, and of course everyone rolls their own, so that website with the dancing pigs not only has its own…
People want and expect websites to be very close to web applications that react to who you are, what actions you take on the page and a myriad of other factors.
That's just not possible with static HTML.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I consider 2GB acceptable, 4GB normal, and 8GB high-end (maybe even overkill).
Strange, that's the metric I personally used around 2008. Haven't ran into a computer with less than 16GB for the last few years.
* Literally every current MacBook except the 15" MBP
* iMacs unless you choose to upgrade the RAM
* My local PC retailers website has 34 models with 4GB of RAM, 84 with 8GB and 28 with 16GB. The cheapest 16gb laptop there is €1100. They also sell 3 Chromebooks and 1 windows 10 device with 2GB of RAM..
There are several answers here: - Is 100 MB the marginal memory cost to add one more tab when you already have a bunch open, or is it the memory usage when you have a single tab open? Don't forget that there is a baseline amount of memory usage for the application itself. - Measuring memory usage is hard, doubly so for web browsers. You'd think it would just be about counting all the allocations, but shared libraries…
Allow me to partially disagree, it is true that browsers have basically become mini-operating systems, but not (IMHO) because of "increasing demands of web standards", because of "increasing demand of web publishers and all the crap that every other site has now embedded or is serving to you or is using to track this or that aspect of your visit".
A good question for the OP could be, how much memory does your Chrome use per tab if you disable javascript and open - say - 20 Hacker News pages?
Because it is 2018 and people have forgotten how to static HTML. All that lovely rendering code in your browser goes unused as people rewrite it in Javascript, badly; or even in C++ and then compile to web assembly, that’s all the rage now, because why stick with one layer of abstraction when you can involve three? Oh, and of course everyone rolls their own, so that website with the dancing pigs not only has its own…
Aww, come on. People want and expect websites to be very close to web applications that react to who you are, what actions you take on the page and a myriad of other factors. That's just not possible with static HTML.
In all seriousness, we need waaay fewer layers of dynamic abstraction than actually get employed to solve most problems.