Google Chrome

t31os said:
My firefox is running at 117mb with 5 tabs and 4 extensions running. So you're figures are off.
Click to expand...
My figures are correct (for MY machine!;)) - just checked again and it's at:
Chrome 0.2.149.27 91,564k 94,372k
Firefox 3.0.1 137,408k 120,628k
Opera 9.50 75,572k 117,080k
Chrome has 3 tabs open, Fx 3, Opera 18.
PS. haven't got any Fx plugins apart from Google Toolbar and Free Download Manager.
 
Last edited:
manveruppd said:
My figures are correct (for MY machine!;)) - just checked again and it's at:
Chrome 0.2.149.27 91,564k 94,372k
Firefox 3.0.1 137,408k 120,628k
Opera 9.50 75,572k 117,080k
Chrome has 3 tabs open, Fx 3, Opera 18.
PS. haven't got any Fx plugins apart from Google Toolbar and Free Download Manager.
Click to expand...

Yeah but considering you are trying to install google toobar for firefox in chrome....

I think the more interesting thing is if you take all 3 browsers open up a few tabs and then close them all down to just 1 tab which one will release the memory best?

I like FF3 and it's a nice improvment over FF2 but it can still be hungry for memory and closing tabs doesn't seem to release it.
 
Jumping said:
Yeah but considering you are trying to install google toobar for firefox in chrome....
Click to expand...
Hey, I just typed toolbar.google.com into Chrome's address bar - if Google automatically redirected me to the Fx version that's

I think the more interesting thing is if you take all 3 browsers open up a few tabs and then close them all down to just 1 tab which one will release the memory best?
Click to expand...
That's the next thing I was planning to try, because I noticed that both Fx and Opera swell a lot after a few hours' browsing.

I do realise that memory usage isn't that significant in modern systems, I'm not trying to make a point here, I just thought it was curious that, back when Fx first came out, it was faster and leaner than Opera, and now it's swelled bloatware of nearly IE proportions.
 
Fx is nowhere near IE's bloatware proportions. Chrome, on the other hand, has already surpassed that.

Every test I've seen showed Fx releasing memory once you closed tabs and waited a bit, versus IE just continuing to munch as much RAM as you could throw at it.

Which column were you taking as the app's memory usage - some of the columns can give you misleading numbers. The second link has some suggestions there.
 
tolien said:
Fx is nowhere near IE's bloatware proportions. Chrome, on the other hand, has already surpassed that.

Every test I've seen showed Fx releasing memory once you closed tabs and waited a bit, versus IE just continuing to munch as much RAM as you could throw at it.

Which column were you taking as the app's memory usage - some of the columns can give you misleading numbers. The second link has some suggestions there.
Click to expand...
Why do you think used RAM is a bad thing? Do you have another use for it? Unused RAM is wasted RAM. As long as an application frees up RAM when requested by the OS (which they do), then there is no problem with using a lot of memory. Memory is there to be used - to cache things.

Google Chrome's less memory usage just means (1) No "Undo closed tab" function and (2) No fast/instant reloading of a page you visited within your session.
 
Last edited:
RAM marked as used and trapped within an app's allocation is wasted RAM too, unless you've missed what happens when Windows runs out of RAM because an app's tying it up...

Google Chrome's less memory usage just means (1) No "Undo closed tab" function and (2) No fast/instant reloading of a page you visited within your session.
Click to expand...

The point I'm making is Chrome isn't using less. It's using much more, and doing less, and ironically the same people who said Firefox was "leaky" and "used loads of RAM" are still jumping to it with their eyes closed...
 
tolien said:
Fx is nowhere near IE's bloatware proportions. Chrome, on the other hand, has already surpassed that.

Every test I've seen showed Fx releasing memory once you closed tabs and waited a bit, versus IE just continuing to munch as much RAM as you could throw at it.

Which column were you taking as the app's memory usage - some of the columns can give you misleading numbers. The second link has some suggestions there.
Click to expand...

Hey it was just a quick and dirty test, not meant as a conclusive judgement. I just posted the Private Memory and the Private Virtual Memory columns (and yes, I do realise that you don't get total memory usage by just adding the 2). I don't think what Fx is using is excessive. Whether Chrome's design is more efficient remains to be seen, I haven't tried it with dozens of tabs yet. But with upwards of 20 tabs open Opera is far faster and far more memory efficient than Fx, and that's what I'll be comparing Chrome against.
 
NeilFawcett said:
How long did it take? Hours?
Click to expand...
This is a micro Google project, born out of someone's 20% time. It is not the same as the Windows Vista OS, by any conceivable magnitude at all.

Also, I say again - some fool copy and pasted an EULA from Orkut into Chrome. You wouldn't see this happening w/ Vista.
 
From Process Explorer? It looks like Private Bytes = Task Manager's Commit Size, which AIUI (from the second link I posted) is the useful measure of memory consumption.
I don't disagree - so long as the app isn't doing something stupid (*cough* Firefox 2, storing images uncompressed and decoded in memory *cough*), using more RAM for useful things is good. IE doesn't exactly fly considering the extra RAM it uses though...

How long did it take? Hours?
Click to expand...

How long's Chrome been in development (V8's been in development for 2 years) and no one at Google thought that license term might be an issue, versus the Vista license was public?
 
JimpsEd said:
This is a micro Google project, born out of someone's 20% time. It is not the same as the Windows Vista OS, by any conceivable magnitude at all.

Also, I say again - some fool copy and pasted an EULA from Orkut into Chrome. You wouldn't see this happening w/ Vista.
Click to expand...

No, it would have crashed by now...
 
I don't think I'll be switching to Chrome unless it offers something radically different to today's browsers.

My hope is that FF and Opera are spurred into further improving their browsers to put down their new upstart rival :p
 
tolien said:
From Process Explorer? It looks like Private Bytes = Task Manager's Commit Size, which AIUI (from the second link I posted) is the useful measure of memory consumption.
I don't disagree - so long as the app isn't doing something stupid (*cough* Firefox 2, storing images uncompressed and decoded in memory *cough*), using more RAM for useful things is good. IE doesn't exactly fly considering the extra RAM it uses though...
Click to expand...
Yup, no arguments. I'd rather have stability and speed over a bit of RAM saving though of course if I was still on my Athlon XP with 1GB RAM things would be different. Having said that, I've gotten ff2.0 working on a K6 lappy with 64mb ram and it runs better than IE5!

Chrome is obviously not built for today's PCs, as a lot of people are still using systems like my old one or with even less RAM. It's built for when systems with 2-4GB RAM are the average, and a lot of people will be using multiple web apps simultaneously, making stability and speed far more important than RAM footprint. Opera has the speed and memory efficiency to let you do that whereas Fx really slows down with 20 tabs open, but neither has the stability, and that's what the test for Chrome should be (and I haven't tried it yet).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom