Live data from Hacker News

Chrome will aggressively throttle background tabs

blog.strml.net

241–250 of 403 posts

Re: Chrome will aggressively throttle background tabs

#241

It's awesome to see Chrome trying to improve performance for people with many tabs open, which is many of us. I use a LOT of tabs, and the best plugin has been The Great Suspender. Highly recommend it for anyone who wants memory & CPU back and keeps many tabs/windows open at once: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/the-great-suspende...

I meet many tab hoarders (always open a new one, never close any, ending up with hundrets), but just can't wrap my head around it! I hate having more than 6-7 simultaneously open because it gets increasingly harder to keep an overview of what you're doing. The same applies for IDE tabs or windows. Too much of them and finding the right one becomes increasingly hard, and losing the thread more likely.

I don't know about others. But for me it's a kind of lack of organization combined with poor technical implementation of UX. As I do things, whether they are reading, researching, task completion, etc. tabs start accumulating and the lack of any kind of management functionality in Chrome makes it rather difficult to clear out the dormant tabs without manually going through every single one.

Firefox tried using ... I forget what they called it and renamed it to ... some kind of grouping of tabs. But I think there would be an opportunity for some smart grouping by, e.g., time, i.e., tabs opened within certain periods of time are somehow visually grouped, or type, i.e., using some google foo to classify the URL to differentiate between things like food, news, dev/coding, scientific related tabs.

I'm just saying, it is annoying and boring as hell looking at dozens of tabs that are all gray because they are so contracted. There needs to be a better UI solution.

Re: Chrome will aggressively throttle background tabs

#243
> Unfortunately, this implementation is ignoring the new reality: the browser is no longer just a reading device; it is the world's largest application platform.

This is why browsers really need to focus more on letting web pages be applications. On mobile, you can "add to home screen" for a web page and that's expected behavior. That needs to be forefront on the desktop as well.

I have over half a dozen SSB applications using Epichrome on the Mac, but that requires a level of technical expertise (finding and downloading a third-party program, finding icons to use, knowing that this capability exists in the first place, and so on) that you can't expect from average computer users. (Epichrome is great btw.)

Re: Chrome will aggressively throttle background tabs

#245

I would like to see Chrome utilize what I think is the right solution for loading background tabs; I would like it to let you (when you want to) rather than OPEN a background tab, only ENQUEUE a background tab -- opening it only when that tab becomes active, meanwhile keeping a barebones tab with that URL in the tabs menu until you actually make it active or it becomes active the way any other tab would, at which poi…

[deleted]

Re: Chrome will aggressively throttle background tabs

#246
post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd use Pinning a lot more if it didn't shrink the tab down to its Favicon size. Wish it would also prevent you from closing the tab.

FYI: You can still close the tab, just not by clicking the (no longer visible) X. This may not fit your use case, but then again it might (I can't remember the last time I closed a tab by clicking instead of with ctrl+w).

he is saying that he wishing pinning tabs _prevented_ the tab from being closed (as opera does). I have closed pinned tabs my mistake before (ctrl+w too many times) and I agree.

Re: Chrome will aggressively throttle background tabs

#247
post #20

I like the change as a general idea but there obviously needs to be a manual override. Like, I don't want websites to access my camera without permission but obviously I want to allow some websites to do that. A similar permission could be used here and is perfectly backwards compatible: 1. a tab exceeds its quota and throttling kicks in; 2. you visit the tab to check why it stopped working; 3. you get a permission p…

Far enough down this road, we're just reimplementing 'renice'.

... which may actually be the right solution.

Re: Chrome will aggressively throttle background tabs

#248
I would like to see Chrome utilize what I think is the right solution for loading background tabs; I would like it to let you (when you want to) rather than OPEN a background tab, only ENQUEUE a background tab -- opening it only when that tab becomes active, meanwhile keeping it in the status of an "enqueued" (i.e. barebones) tab with that URL in the tabs menu until you actually make it active or it becomes active the way any other tab would, at which point it loads - in other words a lighter kind of background tab that does not load at all until it becomes active.[1]

If this were implemented then finally I could open 120 tabs in a window for a detailed query (and they're not all loaded, there's zero overhead), then after 11 minutes of reading a few of those tabs, closing the ones I've read and having others load in their place if they weren't already loaded, be left with 87 unopened tabs with which I could close, since I've learned everything there is to know about that subject and I don't feel the need to read the rest anymore: I feel I've found the answer.

As it stands I can become an expert in any subject accessible in a day or two, in twenty minutes - unless, as sometimes happens, Chrome gets in my way. I can do it by opening them in background tabs today - but Chrome will both slow down and also be at high risk of crashing completely, not just in the window I'm in but all windows. Because at the moment even the 99th background tab, which I want to open so as to potentially glance at, actively, fully loads even if I close that window before I ever want to glance at it.

Along the same lines, I strongly feel there needs to be a way (not necessarily the default way) to open private (incognito) windows in a way that opens them privately "Except for crashes" -- meaning that these tabs remain open until I close it, by clicking the X button, not whenever Chrome crashes - which usually happens when it's done using all my memory.

If you fundamentally disagree that there is a distinction between the user actively exiting and you crashing unexpectedly, then you might as well change the Incognito greeting text to "Pages you view in incognito tabs won’t stick around in your browser’s history, cookie store, or search history after you’ve closed all of your incognito tabs or Chrome crashes unexpectedly".

But that doesn't make much sense. So please make the functionality match what was promised to the user, and keep pages open until the user has closed closed all incognito tabs. Not you.

I feel that these changes would improve people's experiences drastically. Chrome's developers surely care about their users and want to give them the best possible experience, and in addition this would get Google more clicks, more traffic, more ads from Google search results, by letting people open more pages with abandon on a lark, or on some thread they want to explore. By letting people keep more pages and searches open or queued for opening.

For the second point (about keeping incognito tabs on disk until they are actively closed with an X, at which point deleting them) - this also gives their users what they've just been promised. Whereas, at the moment in Incognito stuff just disappears whenever Chrome decides to crash -- which is often, given that at the moment it aggressively eats memory for any tab anyone might want to follow. This substantially increases the cost of exploring the web by opening background tabs. It makes people really weigh whether they want to open a background tab: it adds friction.

The web is about links. I hope Chrome will start letting people follow more of them and not lose their trail if they don't want to keep it in their history. This would be a positive change for all users, but, especially, the heaviest and most thorough users of the web, who load and visit the most pages. Now they could open even more in a browsing session, without having to think about whether they really want to risk opening another tab. (In terms of resources.)

For all of these reasons, I hope Google will implement enqueued tabs. Separately, at the user's option, I hope tabs status will be kept on disk until the last incognito tab is closed manually by the user (at which point it's scrubbed with random data), so that upon a crash it can be re-opened unless the user presses an X to that window. It would improve the experience of using the web for anyone who wanted it and not deprive users of the reading they worked hard to assemble for themselves. And it would increase the velocity with which users could explore the web.

Thank you.

--

[1] Functionality. Right-click a link, click "enqueue", this should be the same as "open in background tab" except the tab is really kind of like a placeholder, just consisting of a URL. It's not a full background tab that opens, gets its window name, etc - instead, it is not loaded until you actually make the tab active.

Right-clicking the tab bar should give you the option (in addition to normal options) "Close all enqueued tabs", leaving just tabs you've fully normally opened.

Example usage: say I'm searching for an article. I can start by doing some obvious Google searches in a few different tabs. I can go through the results and enqueue each one. Then I can go through the first (when it becomes the active tab, it is loaded) and enqueue any links that might lead to what I want. Then I close the now full-fledged tab when I'm done reading and following links, the next tab becomes active (which might have been an enqueued tab in which case it becomes loaded for the first time) and I can keep doing my search. Eventually I've found the page I'm looking for and can close all of the enqueued pages, or perhaps drag the tab into a new window (as you can today) and then close the old window - disappearing all the enqueued pages but also the normal, fully loaded tabs, per the normal behavior closing a window. (An enqueued tab is just a semi-loaded tab, just a URL that never loads until the tab becomes active. If its window or itself is closed in the way you usually close a tab - by right-clicking and clicking "close tab" or by middle-clicking on it, before it was ever the selected tab, then it simply wouldn't have even loaded a single time.)

This is exactly what I do today: except I have to be careful that Chrome doesn't crash while I do it, because it doesn't do it gracefully. I would like to manually specify whether I want the background tab to be actually loaded.

Re: Chrome will aggressively throttle background tabs

#249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1. I just now found out about it. Tried it, saw the tab reduced to a favicon, and will probably never use it till that's fixed. Especially with how a Gmail Tab blinks when I get a hangout message.

> Especially with how a Gmail Tab blinks when I get a hangout message. The pinned tab for GMail has a blue dot for "attention needed". Though this is suboptimal because I think it represents both IMs and new mail.

Are you sure that's not an extension? On macOS, at least, it's a very subtle gradient color change animation that's hard to notice.

Re: Chrome will aggressively throttle background tabs

#250
post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pinning a tab should disable throttling. Gives user straightforward control over which tabs are important.

Not the greatest solution, considering Pinning isn't documented anywhere and most Chrome users have no idea it exists. Which is a shame, as pinning is probably my favorite browser feature.

Am I the only one who uses pinning as pseudo-bookmarks? I would rather my pinned tabs be throttled more rather than less.
Post reply on HN