81–90 of 171 posts
Chrome doing caching and therefore taking some RAM is correct behavior. What's not being measured is if and how much the chrome memory policy is adaptative to system memory contention, i.e If I open another app that make the RAM full, will chrome adapt by doing less future caching, by freeing some of the existing caches, by tuning the JIT to reduce throughout for reduced memory consumption, etc
(Disclaimer: V8 dev) This post is unfortunately nonsense, because it's making a fundamental measurement error: not including renderer processes for Safari, and only measuring the browser process (which should be expected to be roughly O(1) memory in the number of tabs). To the author's credit, they _are trying_ to include child processes - I'm not sure why, but `psrecord` seems to not (in local testing) include child…
Given that Chrome is busy trying to subsume the web and the OS (it has bluetooth now, and usb, and serial ports, and over a thousand chrome-specific web apis [1]), no one is even remotely surprised to see such results, because by now people just assume Chrome to be a beast. And Chrome has in the past been the most RAM-eating of all browsers out there.
The graphs should be questioned, of course, but Chrome has already earned its reputation, and it's very hard to un-earn it.
[1] https://web-confluence.appspot.com/#!/confluence see "Browser-Specific" tab
Flotato, From homepage, >From browser tab to magic Mac app. >Break free from the browser and add web pages to your Mac dock. How about a mac app for Gmail, Twitter, Instagram, Netflix, and literally millions more? From their help page, > Dig in to making real Mac apps from websites with Flotato. Looks like you can create apps of your websites. And it looks like it does it using Safari's engine.
Isn't that just the same as installing a PWA? ( https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Progressive_web... )
(Disclaimer: V8 dev) This post is unfortunately nonsense, because it's making a fundamental measurement error: not including renderer processes for Safari, and only measuring the browser process (which should be expected to be roughly O(1) memory in the number of tabs). To the author's credit, they _are trying_ to include child processes - I'm not sure why, but `psrecord` seems to not (in local testing) include child…
> I'm somewhat disappointed that the author, or half the comments on the post, didn't question these _wildly_ different results though... Given that Chrome is busy trying to subsume the web and the OS (it has bluetooth now, and usb, and serial ports, and over a thousand chrome-specific web apis [1]), no one is even remotely surprised to see such results, because by now people just assume Chrome to be a beast. And Chr…
I use Safari because it's best by a mile on macOS for power consumption, but if you ever use a memory hungry site like Facebook for more than a few minutes it throws up a memory usage warning and everything becomes extremely slow and you get astronomical scroll jank. I'm guessing that's because it throws a hard cap on tab memory usage and if you go over that it thrashes wildly. So it respects your system, but in doin…
You got about 10 minutes to look at Reddit with the new design
Now if only there was a way to calm Twitter down...
The whole browser situation at the moment is so incredibly frustrating. I will NOT browse the internet without a fully-fledged adblocker - no pihole is not enough. This means pretty much only using Firefox - but I have about 10 tabs open at the moment, each using over 500mb of ram while idle. What on earth they are doing I don't know... and I find it very sluggish when playing video. Chrome is my daily browser, even…
I went to check my Firefox memory usage on Windows 10 (two tabs, extensions include ublock, facebook, bitwarden, contrast and multi-account containers) but I saw something unexpected. https://imgur.com/a/UJnV7ak Adding up the RAM totals 671.7MB on a 16GB device. But why do I have one Firefox with 4 sub-processes, and 3 (no 4) additional lone Firefox processes? I think the 4 background processes must be extensions in…
I don’t know anything about Firefox’s specifics, but forking an already initialized process typically is faster than launching a new process, so if I were to write a multi-process browser, I might have an empty, initialized, process hanging around of every type that can be forked and then sent a message to load a page or extension.
Alternatively, Firefox could keep processes running on the decent chance that you will want to open a new tab soon.
(Disclaimer: V8 dev) This post is unfortunately nonsense, because it's making a fundamental measurement error: not including renderer processes for Safari, and only measuring the browser process (which should be expected to be roughly O(1) memory in the number of tabs). To the author's credit, they _are trying_ to include child processes - I'm not sure why, but `psrecord` seems to not (in local testing) include child…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm somewhat disappointed that the author, or half the comments on the post, didn't question these _wildly_ different results though... Given that Chrome is busy trying to subsume the web and the OS (it has bluetooth now, and usb, and serial ports, and over a thousand chrome-specific web apis [1]), no one is even remotely surprised to see such results, because by now people just assume Chrome to be a beast. And Chr…
This is a bizarre rationalization of a misleading post. So what if Chrome has features, some of which you don't care for? That doesn't make the post right.
> half the comments on the post, didn't question these _wildly_ different results though...