Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Save Memory in Google Chrome

one-tab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 298 posts

Re: Show HN: Save Memory in Google Chrome

#241

Post by bherms »

jdietrich wrote: post #79

Memory use seems like a really pointless thing for users to care about. There's a widespread intuition that using RAM is inherently bad and low memory usage is a worthwhile goal, but it doesn't really make sense. The key performance goal is minimising latency, which is best served by using as much RAM as possible without having to swap out. RAM is now fantastically cheap. 16GB of DDR3 costs less than $120 in either D…

I have a macbook air. Can't upgrade the memory. Using less memory is a definite positive for me. Because you're situation is different doesn't mean reducing memory usage is a bad thing for all.

Re: Show HN: Save Memory in Google Chrome

#242

Post by roc »

T-hawk wrote: post #196
roc wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thinking on this more, the cloud-stored cache would wind up eventually being a subset of google's whole-internet-database. From which you could run a pretty awesome search service. Because it wouldn't consist of randomly spidered or submitted noise. It would only be things explicitly identified as useful or interesting . And you could rank by how many people bookmarked it, when the bookmarks happened, who they are, e…

Until the SEO optimizers and bot nets themselves start bookmarking their own spammy noise in this cache too. Then we're back to the usual arms race of trying to identify quality content and providers pointing to other quality content and providers while all the junk vendors are trying to masquerade as quality.

Is there a lot of SEO that relies on 'like' or '+1' spam? Because that's the more apt comparison. Particularly when you consider the implementation of even a trivial 'karma' system.

The very creation of a network of mannequins would seem to run counter to the big goal of most SEO (traffic, now) as the mannequins would require months-to-years of seemingly-valid traffic of build-up to become relevant and then a very slow-and-cautious release of bookmarks to the desired spam to even attempt to avoid detection and thus nullification of all the preceding effort.

And the user-expectation of such a search would be heavily weighted to prior personal activity [1]. So even if mannequins were successfully pumping bookmarks to promote some site that just scraped stack-exchange, if you and I were bookmarking stack-exchange, we should always get the real links bubbling to the top.

[1] Yes, this would raise a lot of the same "echo chamber" concerns that people have with Google search, but if it matches the user expectation, I don't see a problem with it.

Re: Show HN: Save Memory in Google Chrome

#245

Post by ruv »

tomkarlo wrote: post #172
SomeCallMeTim wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have 8gb. There was a time when 1gb was more than enough. Now you're saying I should have 16gb -- and you're right! This is Not A Good Thing. This is people throwing every last feature -- even if it has a pile of 800kb of DLLs/SOs attached -- into every app, with no regard for memory. I find my system thrashing almost daily at this point. I need to upgrade. Two years ago, running predominantly the same software, 4G…

8GB of RAM is about $50 right now. If you have to replace that every $2 years, are you really complaining about the cost of $25 per year on your $1,000 computer system? It's a rounding error. Chrome, in particular, is generally be used for far more tabs (I have like 30 open right now on a MacBook Air) and increasingly complex web sites every year. It's easy to look at memory usage and complain, but the fact is that o…

What are you guys talking about? My main machine has 1.25GB of RAM and is 10 years old.

Sure I don't use it for modern gaming and sure I've delegated tasks to much stronger uni machines a few times in the past but other than the occasional hw problems due to age it still works and is mostly enough...

Re: Show HN: Save Memory in Google Chrome

#246

Post by ubercow13 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #238
ibrahima wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This specific case is not bloat at all though, it's actually you as a user having too much content that you care about. So I don't see why this is relevant at all.

It's not 'boat' per se but it's not caused by the user content. It's caused by chrome's process model. Firefox uses almost an order of magnitude less memory per tab.

It's always had that process model though.

Re: Show HN: Save Memory in Google Chrome

#248

Post by kcbanner »

kintamanimatt wrote: post #148
adventured wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, a hundred tabs is still far beyond a lot. If a hundred tabs is not really a lot, what would be? 250? 1,000?

Whatever the brightline test for "a lot" is, there's no compelling reason each tab should be consuming about 70MB. Under Chrome, each tab runs in its own process, which is certainly a contributing factor. I appreciate this is for stability and security, but it's not the best solution for the problem and has some serious drawbacks, i.e. horrible memory usage.

The fact that it is its own process is a very small contributor to per-tab memory usage.

Re: Show HN: Save Memory in Google Chrome

#249

Post by sciurus »

halviti wrote: post #143
theorique wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

just because I had about a hundred tabs open That is a lot of tabs, though.

I average over a hundred tabs regularly. Although once the favicons disappear, I usually open a new window, or group windows by subject matter. I've tried to alter my browsing habits over the years to ease the load on my computer, but I've just come to accept that I am just one of those people. This tool is either the best thing that's ever happened, or it's about to exacerbate my problem 10 fold.

How is using this tool significantly different than bookmarking then closing all your currently open tabs, which you can easily do now?
Post reply on HN