• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Chrome is as bad as Firefox

13Gigatons

13Gigatons

Diamond Member
:twisted:

2025.png


Apparently those add-ons are bad for both browsers when it comes to memory usage.
 
So why does browser memory use matter again? I recall modern PC's have way more memory than any browser could ever imagine using.
 
as far as I understand, Chrome is supposed to use more memory. It creates multiple instances of itself for stability.
 
129 MB is not that much considering that most PC's these days have at least 2 GB of RAM. Heck, 178 MB used by firefox is not much.
 
Last edited:
motsm said:
So why does browser memory use matter again? I recall modern PC's have way more memory than any browser could ever imagine using.
Click to expand...

I heard people rave about it and thought I would try it but after only 5 add-ons it already uses as much memory as Firefox:

User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2) Gecko/20100115 Firefox/3.6 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Build ID 20100115144158

Enabled Extensions: [28]
- about:me 0.4.1
- Adblock Plus 1.1.3
- Add to Search Bar 2.0
- Back to Top 5.3.2
- BarTap 1.1
- BetterPrivacy 1.47
- CookieSafe 3.0.5
- DownloadHelper 4.7
- FaviconizeTab 1.0.1
- Fission 1.0.9
- Flagfox 3.3.20
- Forecastbar Enhanced 0.9.6
- goo.gl lite 1.3
- Grab and Drag 2.7.6
- Jetpack 0.7
- LiveClick 0.3.5.0
- Menu Editor 1.2.6
- MR Tech Toolkit 6.0.4
- Organize Search Engines 1.5
- Personal Menu 4.2.1
- QuickDrag 2.0.2.1
- StrataBuddy 0.1.6.9c
- Stylish 1.0.7
- Tab Progress Bar 0.6
- Tabberwocky 1.1
- Toolbar Buttons 0.6.0.8
- URL Tooltip 1.2.1
- YouSticker 0.1.1

Disabled Extensions: [11]
- App Tabs 0.6.2
- Download status 1.6.2
- Download Statusbar 0.9.6.7
- FoxTab 1.3
- Hide Caption 0.7.6.1
- Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant 1.1
- Multi Links 2.0.0.13
- Omnibar 0.6.7.20091104
- StrataGlass 1.0.3
- Tab Mix Plus 0.3.8.3pre.100125
- Tempomail 1.0.10

Total Extensions: 39

Installed Themes: [2]
- Default
- Strata40 0.5.5

Installed Plugins: (14)
- Adobe Acrobat
- Cooliris embedded in a tab
- DivX Player Netscape Plugin
- DivX Web Player
- Java Deployment Toolkit 6.0.160.1
- Java(TM) Platform SE 6 U17
- Microsoft Office 2010
- Mozilla Default Plug-in
- RealPlayer Version Plugin
- RealPlayer(tm) G2 LiveConnect-Enabled Plug-In (32-bit)
- Shockwave Flash
- Shockwave for Director
- Silverlight Plug-In
- Windows Live® Photo Gallery
 
CaptainGoodnight said:
129 MB is not that much considering that most PC's these days have at least 2 GB of RAM. Heck, 178 MB used by firefox is not much.
Click to expand...

Still, is this the best attitude to take toward the situation? Take the memory because you can? I don't get it, people hate bloatware but shrug when web browsers take almost a 1/4 GB of memory up. I don't see how web browsing, of all things, can possibly necessitate the use of so much memory.
 
i figured if any company would know how to interact with the web, it'd be google. i went with chrome when i updated to win7 because i like the GUI better. been fine so far. i can't always say the same about IE8.
 
geno said:
Still, is this the best attitude to take toward the situation? Take the memory because you can? I don't get it, people hate bloatware but shrug when web browsers take almost a 1/4 GB of memory up. I don't see how web browsing, of all things, can possibly necessitate the use of so much memory.
Click to expand...

Bloated compared to what? Browsers 10 years ago?

Note: when looking at program memory allocations, look at actual amount of physical RAM used, not Virtual Memory allocations.

edit: I remember when netscape used about 20 MB of memory. I had a 64 MB machine. In real terms memory usage has gone down.
 
Last edited:
geno said:
Still, is this the best attitude to take toward the situation? Take the memory because you can? I don't get it, people hate bloatware but shrug when web browsers take almost a 1/4 GB of memory up. I don't see how web browsing, of all things, can possibly necessitate the use of so much memory.
Click to expand...
If a browser could be made with similar features to FireFox with X amount of plugins, and have a tiny memory footprint, I think everyone would indeed start complaining more. As it stands now it's never been done, so without a reference point, and without being a programmer, how is anyone supposed to know exactly what is an appropriate amount of memory use?
 
RedSquirrel said:
That's no excuse for crappy coding. I hate when people say that.
Click to expand...
How do you know it's crappy coding when you can't find another browser that does it any better?

I am not saying it is, or isn't anything, but almost everything has to be judged relatively.
 
Why can't Chrome/Firefox & Win7/Vista use the same amount of resources that Mosaic & Win3.1 used 15+ years ago? Seriously guys, why not? *sarcasm*

Lazy programmers? Hahahahahahahahahaha, I needed a good laugh. That's probably the most asinine answer possible.
 
GlacierFreeze said:
Why can't Chrome/Firefox & Win7/Vista use the same amount of resources that Mosaic & Win3.1 used 15+ years ago? Seriously guys, why not? *sarcasm*

Lazy programmers? Hahahahahahahahahaha, I needed a good laugh. That's probably the most asinine answer possible.
Click to expand...

I remember web browsing was pretty smooth with just 256MB RAM on XP 7 years ago and there are plenty of Flash ads back then like now.
 
My problem with Chrome is that it doesn't tile and cascade windows properly. If so many of the innovations are supposed to be about window and tab management, it's an unforgivable sin.
 
StrangerGuy said:
I remember web browsing was pretty smooth with just 256MB RAM on XP 7 years ago and there are plenty of Flash ads back then like now.
Click to expand...

There wasn't nearly as much Flash 7 years ago. 7 years ago it was assumed a large number of people were on 56k, and sites were coded accordingly. Now it's assumed most people have BB, so it takes more memory and bandwidth to view a site.
 
Good grief. People who cram their browsers full of add-ons are just as stupid as people who cram their browsers full of toolbars.

Browser. Light. Fast. Stable.

The add-on craze has been out of hand for years. No fucking wonder your browser eats up memory and is slow as shit, YOU are bloating it.
 
GlacierFreeze said:
Why can't Chrome/Firefox & Win7/Vista use the same amount of resources that Mosaic & Win3.1 used 15+ years ago? Seriously guys, why not? *sarcasm*
Click to expand...

That's a good point though. Today's browsers do exactly the same as they did 15 years ago, display web pages. Sure there's been different technologies like CSS but that's no excuse to use up more resources. I can understand a flash page or other multimedia content taking up more memory, but there's no reason why surfing regular html/css pages should take so much memory, and there's no reason why said memory should not be freed up when leaving the web page. Firefox is bad for not freeing up memory, over time it just grows and grows. Coders need to learn tht each time you use "new" you need to use "delete".
 
My peak working set in Firefox is currently 512mb. That's with 18 tabs open, and it's been up for the last couple of days. There's nothing wrong with Firefox's speed. Anyone whining that things aren't what they used to be needs to get a clue. It's 2010, not 2000. Times change, and things get more bloated. The web looks and performs better than it ever did. If you don't like it, go back to usenet. I'm sure that still has a small footprint, and you can participate in the 37 forums available there....
 
motsm said:
So why does browser memory use matter again? I recall modern PC's have way more memory than any browser could ever imagine using.
Click to expand...

You don't see anything wrong with a browser using 800 MB ram? I have seen firefox AND chrome use well over 500 MB without any plugins. This is with less than 10 tabs open as well.

It just happens if you leave the browser open for days at a time.
 
bignateyk said:
You don't see anything wrong with a browser using 800 MB ram? I have seen firefox AND chrome use well over 500 MB without any plugins. This is with less than 10 tabs open as well.

It just happens if you leave the browser open for days at a time.
Click to expand...

Have you ever gotten an out of memory error? If not, why does it matter? You bought the ram to use. If you don't want to use it, why is it you bought it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top