Do tablets benefit from huge amounts of ram?

[pcslookout]

4GB to browse the web = result of bloated software practices. We need to ask why we are loading up 150 MB of flash ads just to read a 3 kilobyte paragraph of text... and PAYING for the bandwidth to load someone elses crap. The web is getting out of hand in that regard.

I honestly had a more pleasurable time browsing the web on dial up back in the day. It may have only been 3 kbps but pages loaded rather quickly when they weren't freezing and crippling the browser while downloading and starting playback of 500 MB of flash videos and add banners and generally trying to load everything in the world EXCEPT the article content you are actually interested in, stealing focus, getting in the way, etc.

You have a problem with your computer you never need 4 GB of ram just to browse the web sorry.

 

[groberts101]

LOL.. you obviously don't open up as many browser tabs all at once as some others do.

 

[Nothinman]

You have a problem with your computer you never need 4 GB of ram just to browse the web sorry.

Chrome alone is using ~2.3G on this PC right now.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I sometimes wish my Android tablet had 2GB of RAM so the browser wouldn't close when I load it up with tabs.

 

[pcslookout]

Chrome alone is using ~2.3G on this PC right now.

That is not 4 GB and chrome wastes memory for having each one in a separate process.

Even if it could use 4 GB it won't because it is a 32 bit application.


No one needs 4 GB to browse the internet.

 

[Nothinman]

That is not 4 GB and chrome wastes memory for having each one in a separate process.

Even if it could use 4 GB it won't because it is a 32 bit application.


No one needs 4 GB to browse the internet.

It was just an example, I'm also running Flashblock so there's no Flash ads which would likely take the RSS up higher. And having each tab in a separate process doesn't waste that much memory. Most of the processes are able to be shared, it's not like there's 30 instances of the JS interpreter and such.

No, you don't need 4G to browse, but it's not exactly hard to get close to or pass that mark. And I'm using the 64-bit version of Chrome, so yes it definitely could go >4G if necessary.

And now that I think about it, since each tab is it's own process even the 32-bit version could get above 4G since that limit is per-process. Each tab would be stuck at 2G of VM, but the grand total of all of them could very easily break 4G.

$ file /opt/google/chrome/chrome
/opt/google/chrome/chrome: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.15, BuildID[sha1]=0x7963d9606d614783d835478409cedf7933a79222, stripped

 

[Veliko]

It was just an example, I'm also running Flashblock so there's no Flash ads which would likely take the RSS up higher. And having each tab in a separate process doesn't waste that much memory. Most of the processes are able to be shared, it's not like there's 30 instances of the JS interpreter and such.

No, you don't need 4G to browse, but it's not exactly hard to get close to or pass that mark. And I'm using the 64-bit version of Chrome, so yes it definitely could go >4G if necessary.

Most people would find it incredibly hard to get even close to 4GB whilst browsing the Internet. You would have to open so many tabs that it would render the browser mostly useless.

 

[pcslookout]

It was just an example, I'm also running Flashblock so there's no Flash ads which would likely take the RSS up higher. And having each tab in a separate process doesn't waste that much memory. Most of the processes are able to be shared, it's not like there's 30 instances of the JS interpreter and such.

No, you don't need 4G to browse, but it's not exactly hard to get close to or pass that mark. And I'm using the 64-bit version of Chrome, so yes it definitely could go >4G if necessary.

And now that I think about it, since each tab is it's own process even the 32-bit version could get above 4G since that limit is per-process. Each tab would be stuck at 2G of VM, but the grand total of all of them could very easily break 4G.

$ file /opt/google/chrome/chrome
/opt/google/chrome/chrome: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.15, BuildID[sha1]=0x7963d9606d614783d835478409cedf7933a79222, stripped

Wouldn't that make it better to have a laptop then ?

 

[taltamir]

chrome wastes memory for having each one in a separate process.

Chrome uses a very small amount of memory doing that and it isn't a waste, it provides a very robust protection against memory leaks. And helps with crashes and with sandboxing. Furthermore it gives chrome 100% scaling on multiple cores, for much more then 2 or 4 cores.

 

[pcslookout]

Chrome uses a very small amount of memory doing that and it isn't a waste, it provides a very robust protection against memory leaks. And helps with crashes and with sandboxing. Furthermore it gives chrome 100% scaling on multiple cores, for much more then 2 or 4 cores.

That makes no difference and no one cares. Otherwise Chrome would be used more. Internet Explorer did this way before Chrome did.

 

[Nothinman]

Wouldn't that make it better to have a laptop then ?

For other reasons right now, yes. But eventually they'll get Android and iOS to a point where you can have a browser with multiple Windows each having a dozen or more tabs running well and easy to manage. Dolphin seems close, but still has to deal with the gimped multitasking in Android.

That makes no difference and no one cares. Otherwise Chrome would be used more. Internet Explorer did this way before Chrome did.

Actually, it makes a noticeable difference and lots of people care. Simply for the fact that one plugin crashing only takes out that tab at worst instead of the whole browser. And I'd say that most people would be willing to trade the minimal memory usage for multiple processes for the performance and scalability benefits if they actually had them explained to them.