Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 

gzt

10310 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1582


  Reply # 778066 11-Mar-2013 16:10
Send private message

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.

934 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 39


  Reply # 778151 11-Mar-2013 18:32
Send private message

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. 

 
 
 
 


119 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 17


  Reply # 778214 11-Mar-2013 21:39
Send private message

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.

1332 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152
Inactive user


  Reply # 778310 12-Mar-2013 07:57
Send private message

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.

1433 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 375


  Reply # 778315 12-Mar-2013 08:12
Send private message

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

10310 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1582


  Reply # 778316 12-Mar-2013 08:13
Send private message

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?

gzt

10310 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1582


  Reply # 778318 12-Mar-2013 08:16
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.

8027 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 387

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 778487 12-Mar-2013 12:45
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.

1889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 316


  Reply # 778554 12-Mar-2013 14:32
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.





Sometimes what you don't get is a blessing in disguise!

1 | 2 
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Geekzone Live »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.