Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Save Memory in Google Chrome

one-tab.com

41–50 of 298 posts

Re: Show HN: Save Memory in Google Chrome

#42

This is the equivalent of closing all tabs, with the added bonus of having a list of what you just closed. I refuse to compromise on functionality because Chrome can't get its memory deal together.

Firefox seems to be no better: http://www.arewesmallyet.com/

Thats alright. A single chrome tab is regularly >150MiB, and thats for plain sites!

(edit: this seems to measure the size of the installer binary. I think you wanted to link https://areweslimyet.com/ which shows Firefox using <512MiB with 30 tabs for popular websites open)

Re: Show HN: Save Memory in Google Chrome

#44
Super useful, thanks! I was afraid that this would close my pinned tabs, but seems like you paid good attention to this detail. A request: it would be nice to be able to right click and open the one-tab interface/tab without actually having to save all tabs.

Re: Show HN: Save Memory in Google Chrome

#45

This is the equivalent of closing all tabs, with the added bonus of having a list of what you just closed. I refuse to compromise on functionality because Chrome can't get its memory deal together.

Chrome actually already has this built in, too. If you close your window, you'll get a browsable "x tabs" entry in your browsing history. An additional 20-30 MB of memory could be saved by not installing this extension.

Re: Show HN: Save Memory in Google Chrome

#46

This is the equivalent of closing all tabs, with the added bonus of having a list of what you just closed. I refuse to compromise on functionality because Chrome can't get its memory deal together.

Firefox seems to be no better: http://www.arewesmallyet.com/

You just link to a graph showing the sizes of the Firefox binary on various platforms across different versions. It has nothing to do with RAM.

Firefox definitely wins out in memory with more tabs because Chrome's process-per-tab model accumulates overhead for every process, while Firefox's tabs are more lean.

Re: Show HN: Save Memory in Google Chrome

#47
post #18

Looks great and I would definitely put it to use, but on Ubuntu with Chrome 22.0.1229.94, I get "Installation failed either due to cancelling the dialog box or because you already have the extension installed" when installing from your web page. When I try to do it from the web store, I get "There was a problem adding the item to Chrome. Please refresh the page and try again".

Same error happening here along with a Butter bar stating "Manifest file is invalid." in Mac OS X 10.8.2 and Chrome 25.0.1364.160.

We've been looking at this, apparently this happens when an extension has just been released and is "propagating between servers".

If the extension install is not working for you, it should start working later today once Google's webstore servers have updated

Re: Show HN: Save Memory in Google Chrome

#48

This is the equivalent of closing all tabs, with the added bonus of having a list of what you just closed. I refuse to compromise on functionality because Chrome can't get its memory deal together.

I wouldn't be too quick to blame Chrome. What if each open background tab is running a computation/upload that requires the DOM? What if you're listening to music in the background? Point is, Chrome can't just arbitrarily decide to pause execution and free up memory for background tabs.

Me, I'm a documentation-holic. I need to have all the references for whatever project I'm working on a single click away. Sometimes that will be working with a very specific library, so there's no point in replacing my entire bookmarks bar with all the documentation links for that. I'd normally just leave everything in tabs, and when I run out of memory when I need to launch a memory-heavy app, I'd go to Chrome's Task Manager and kill those tabs. So this is a godsend for me.

Re: Show HN: Save Memory in Google Chrome

#49
post #29

I got 16GB+ RAM for a reason: To use it. Nice extension, but I'd rather have the stuff in memory instead of reading it from disk on need. Haven't happened in years that I felt the need to free RAM.

Perhaps this is aimed at the multitudes that don't have 16GB+ of memory?
Post reply on HN