Is Chrome going the same way of Firefox?

Forums › Desktop computing › Is Chrome going the same way of Firefox?

1 | 2

gzt

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#778066 11-Mar-2013 16:10

Klathman: Or maybe not. I'm game to try updates so installed the beta channel and the memory usage is extremely similar.

Great when 8 tabs including Rdio playing music uses less memory than Chrome with just the memory counter.

Both Dev and Canary are ahead of Beta. Canary will run side by side with whatever channel you have installed.

If you want the issue fixed then consider taking the time to report it to the Chromium project. It's not that hard.

bfginger

1330 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 191

#778151 11-Mar-2013 18:32

Chrome is only fast if you're a light user. Open a heap of tabs and it can perform much, much worse than Firefox. The Chrome UI doesn't really work properly with large numbers of tabs open.

zANavAShi

119 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 17

#778214 11-Mar-2013 21:39

freitasm: I have a "problem" in principle when apps and people think that throwing more resources at something is better than actually finding what's going on.

+1 to that!

I've had five tabs open all day + the one I just opened to make this reply = 181Mb RAM and I'm using the latest firefox in Lubuntu 12.10 on a dell mini 9 netbook here right now.

I remember the day when I started using firefox because it used under 25mb RAM, as opposed to about 60Mb used by IE at the time.

I'm out of my mind right now... please leave a message after the shriek...

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152
Inactive user

#778310 12-Mar-2013 07:57

bfginger: Chrome is only fast if you're a light user. Open a heap of tabs and it can perform much, much worse than Firefox. The Chrome UI doesn't really work properly with large numbers of tabs open.

Do you have anything to back that up other than anecdotal evidence from your computer experience? I have upwards of a dozen tabs *minimum* open at any one time while using Chrome and it never breaks or slows down at all. In fact, the only real issues I have ever encountered have been when it comes to certain insecure plugins.

Dairyxox

1595 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 455

#778315 12-Mar-2013 08:12

Chromium is open source, so its fairly easy to find out what 'going on' if your savvy. Im not sure anyone develops programs anymore with the expectation that they're going to get leaner code & leaner resource usage over time while expanding functionality & features.

I find chrome is a bit of a dog on older computers with 512mb ram, but then IE & firefox are not any better (IE is better at memory usage, but still slow). I remember when youtube worked fine on a P4 2.4ghz, now its almost impossible. Maybe opera is the way? I heard they're going to webkit now too though.

gzt

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#778316 12-Mar-2013 08:13

Lol. On first look I thought bfginger's post was blatant trolling. There was a reason users migrated from FX to Chrome.

But.. I have not used FX regularly for some time and maybe the current Chrome build is less than optimal in this area.

Has anyone here taken the time to create a report in the Chromium project yet?

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

gzt

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#778318 12-Mar-2013 08:16

Dairyxox: Maybe opera is the way? I heard they're going to webkit now too though.

Just because an issue exists in Chrome does not mean an issue in webkit is the cause. Chrome is not just a skin etc etc etc.

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#778487 12-Mar-2013 12:45

Is there actually a performance problem in practice where you are running out of physical memory?

Because.. if your computer has spare memory and program uses more of it for caching to prevent disk access it's actually a good thing.

Looking solely at how much MB of memory used doesn't tell you anything useful.

Everyone made the same mistake (looking at used memory) when changing from WinXP to Vista, Win7, Win8... oh noes I have less free memory, it's by design so more stuff is cached in memory for faster access making better use of your computers ram.

DravidDavid

1907 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 305

#778554 12-Mar-2013 14:32

I think the amount of memory any application uses directly corrosponds with how much is available. Windows 7 uses about 5GB out of the 16GB available on my desktop. Yet my laptop with 4GB of RAM runs it perfectly fine too.

I have no idea how Windows works it all out though, or sorts it out on the fly.
As above, with 16GB of DDR3 memory at 2Ghz, I really don't care how much memory stuff uses.

1 | 2