Internet Explorer 9

[Bjossi]

http://www.dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory

 

At least in July of 2009 Chrome was a bloated monster in a disguise. I'm trying to find more recent, similar benchmarks without success. I did however read more recently on another forum that Chrome ate memory like a hungry wolf.

 

Minimalism is one thing, but you can not call something bloated from the UI alone. Programming has a lot of doors to reach the same goals, you can uphold certain priorities while writing your code. Obviously Chrome engineers felt it was worth it to sacrifice memory for speed and stability (Each tab being its own thread, for example, which is a bloat feature in a stable program.).

[BTGBullseye]

http://www.dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory

 

At least in July of 2009 Chrome was a bloated monster in a disguise. I'm trying to find more recent, similar benchmarks without success. I did however read more recently on another forum that Chrome ate memory like a hungry wolf.

 

Minimalism is one thing, but you can not call something bloated from the UI alone. Programming has a lot of doors to reach the same goals, you can uphold certain priorities while writing your code. Obviously Chrome engineers felt it was worth it to sacrifice memory for speed and stability (Each tab being its own thread, for example, which is a bloat feature in a stable program.).

That is an extremely old and useless benchmark. Chrome is now on version 10.0.648.205, and I can barely make it go to 250MB on Win7 x64 with 30 tabs of this: http://www.nplay.com/BeGone/

 

Note also, that benchmark was done on a Vista x32 system, which had tons of memory management and allocation problems built into the OS...

 

Each tab being on it's own is not just for unstable programs, it is just a ton less likely to cause errors. I have yet to see any program besides Chrome be called "bloated" for using multiple processes.

[Lord Sinister]

http://www.dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory

 

At least in July of 2009 Chrome was a bloated monster in a disguise. I'm trying to find more recent, similar benchmarks without success. I did however read more recently on another forum that Chrome ate memory like a hungry wolf.

 

Minimalism is one thing, but you can not call something bloated from the UI alone. Programming has a lot of doors to reach the same goals, you can uphold certain priorities while writing your code. Obviously Chrome engineers felt it was worth it to sacrifice memory for speed and stability (Each tab being its own thread, for example, which is a bloat feature in a stable program.).

 

All I can say is it appears to use a lot less memory than Firefox, and when left open for a while doesn't freeze for around 5 seconds every 30 seconds.

[Bjossi]

Each tab being on it's own is not just for unstable programs, it is just a ton less likely to cause errors. I have yet to see any program besides Chrome be called "bloated" for using multiple processes.

 

Yes, because if it does crash there is a chance only one tab will, instead of the entire program. This is unnecessary if the program is stable to begin with. I have never had Firefox crash on me even once since the 3.0 branch started out a good while ago.

 

Firefox uses two main processes, the central task and a plugin-loader. I'm not sure why they switched to that approach, though.

[J.C.]

Well, I found this page http://igamek.com/2011/03/firefox-internet-explorer-chrome-compare/

 

Cold Boot-Up time, Tab Loading time, JavaScript runs per second, DOM/CSS runs per second, Memory Use with no extensions and Memory Use with five extensions comparisons.

 

I'm increasingly using Chrome these days, but I think I should give Opera a try...

[Bjossi]

According to those tests Firefox still has ways to go in JavaScript performance despite 4 being a vast improvement from 3.6. Its memory usage is higher than average at startup but the more tabs you open the less memory each one uses on average. With 30 tabs open in FF 3.6 it used 290 MBs but with just one tab it was at around 70-80 MBs (My own test.).

[BTGBullseye]

Yes, because if it does crash there is a chance only one tab will, instead of the entire program. This is unnecessary if the program is stable to begin with.

Chrome is stable to begin with. I have yet to have any crashes or errors. Multi-process browsing has never been a bad thing to anyone but the uninformed.

[Aldibar]

IE9 beta screwed my flash player up. Even going back to IE8 didn't help. Reinstalling IE9 after it actually came out didn't help. Great job MS. Had to use FF for flashy stuff. oh well.

[Alyxx Thorne]

I uninstalled Internet Explorer long ago.

[Bjossi]

Chrome is stable to begin with. I have yet to have any crashes or errors.

 

Okay.

[Alyxx Thorne]

I stick to foxy.

[Lord Sinister]

I've been using Chrome of late, but had Firefox open in the background just in case. Anyway, I was having an issue downloading something with Chrome so I thought I'd use Firefox. I alt-tabbed back to Firefox and created a new tab, and then it froze. There was nothing I could do to get it out of it, so I loaded the task manager. Firefox 4 was using an insane 2GB memory. I think someone said to me it might be an addon, but I really don't have virtually any addons beyond Noscript and Adblock.

[Alyxx Thorne]

I've been using Chrome of late, but had Firefox open in the background just in case. Anyway, I was having an issue downloading something with Chrome so I thought I'd use Firefox. I alt-tabbed back to Firefox and created a new tab, and then it froze. There was nothing I could do to get it out of it, so I loaded the task manager. Firefox 4 was using an insane 2GB memory. I think someone said to me it might be an addon, but I really don't have virtually any addons beyond Noscript and Adblock.

Sounds like a good old Firefox problem to me...

[Bjossi]

I've been using FF 4 (Managed to make it feel exactly like v3.6.) for a few days now and so far there are zero problems, just pure speed and stability.

[Alyxx Thorne]

I've been using FF 4 (Managed to make it feel exactly like v3.6.) for a few days now and so far there are zero problems, just pure speed and stability.

I don't have problems with v3.6 usually either. Maybe once in a while. Not enough to bother me.

[Bjossi]

I never had any stability issues with 3.6, but man, it is a slow old dog compared to 4.

 

Just wondering, did 3.6 have "Tell websites I do not want to be tracked" in the Advanced tab in Options? Because this is the first time I see this option, and it is unchecked by default. The name suggests a vast improvement of privacy.

[MepsiPax187]

I never had any stability issues with 3.6, but man, it is a slow old dog compared to 4.

this

[Eedo Baba]

Screw internet explorer. I'm never switching from Netscape.

[Alyxx Thorne]

Screw internet explorer. I'm never switching from Netscape.

Oldschool *+rep*

[Bjossi]

You think that's oldschool?