Switching to Opera: It's Time to Break up with Chrome and All the RAM It Eats Up

SvenBent said:
Pro tip:

Den read articles about memory usage when the writer does not know the different between private working set. working set and commit size
His "proff" of memory usage usage don't not show real RAM usage. Just memory address which is a hugely different thing.
You can have 9001 process open with 500mbyte Working set each, but not actually use more then maybe 800mbyts of ram.
Click to expand...

Since I switched from Firefox to Vivaldi, I get low memory warning almost daily in Windows, when it was just about never using Firefox.

So I guess the OS doesn't know about it's own memory use either. :rolleyes:
 
jordan12 said:
I prefer firefox over everything else as well. Chrome simply sucks
Click to expand...
Count me in as well. There's no comparing add-ons when it comes to Firefox. And with Speedyfox installed, every other browser feels slow by comparison. No other browser can even touch the level of under-the-hood customization that Firefox has.
 
Snowdog said:
Since I switched from Firefox to Vivaldi, I get low memory warning almost daily in Windows, when it was just about never using Firefox.

So I guess the OS doesn't know about it's own memory use either. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I have no clue of what your point is.
 
d8lock said:
I've been using Waterfox exclusively for the last three or so years and love it.
Click to expand...
Oh crap. I'd completely forgotten about Watefox. Thank you. Just installed it and didn't have to do anything. All my Firefox settings carried over. :)
 
gamerk2 said:
The root problem is the way all browsers are designed. In order to get around old Win32 address limitations (2GB per app), browsers had an unhealthy habit of creating multiple processes, as each PROCESS could individually address up to 2GB. Problem is, there's a lot of duplication you have to do as a part of that, all of which eats up additional RAM. Obviously, this is no longer a concern on x86-64 based platforms.

"Oh, but security". No; there's no technical reason why you can't have the same level of security through proper use of threading. Each tab gets managed by one primary thread. Simple. No reason to duplicate the entire Windows API in memory every time I clock "Add New Tab".
Click to expand...


Doing it via individual threads though does it not prevent one tab from crashing them all...
 
There are two reasons I'll never use Opera;

1) All the garbage they pulled against MS with EU because they couldn't compete.

2) They are owned by the chinese, not only no but hell no. I trust the chinese government far less than I trust ours and I don't trust ours at all.

You could not pay me to use opera.
 
SvenBent said:
I have no clue of what your point is.
Click to expand...

My point is that Chrome based browsers really do use that much more RAM than firefox unless you want to claim, the OS memory warnings are based on faulty understanding as well.
 
I loved Opera. Up until it went to Webkit and it was just a reskin of Chrome to me.

Essentially the Opera devs on the stand alone platform, made a fantastic browser that was superior to everything hands
down.

But those days are gone.
 
kidstechno3 said:
I know I'm going to get shit for this but the Edge browser isn't actually half bad, especially now with extensions. Also does 1080p in Netflix.
Click to expand...

Now if it didn't have so many freaking exploits...
 
As I have an Android phone, it's no brainer to use chrome, so it syncs to my phone.

There are a lot of good explanations as to why Chrome uses so much ram, but not many as to why someone would be using 65 Tabs.

In the end, you pick your poison. I don't care if the government/google has my chrome history- they already do anyways unless you choose not to use google, or something.
 
daglesj said:
I don't get the whole "I have to have 80+ Tabs open!" Like it's some super user status thing.

Just shows to me a messy unorganised mind that loves to wait while 80+ tabs populate when they open a browser and then moan when their machine runs out of ram.

On a bad day I may go to 9-10 tabs. Average is three to four. That's it.
Click to expand...
Good for you(y)
 
jlbenedict said:
I never have understood that either... who the f keeps that many tabs open, and for what purpose.
Click to expand...

I seldom hit 80+ tabs open, but you have to understand that people use the net in different ways. Apparently some people just do one thing at a time, like check the weather and close their browser.

I get almost all my news through the internet, and I like to stay informed on a wide range of subjects, from local news, to world news, technology, science, automotive, health....

So in browsing session aimed at catching up on news, I start with my news aggregators, I scan headlines, and for each one that interests me, I open a tab.

That can easily lead to 20-30 tabs open with interesting news to read. Now I start reading the tabs, if any of them have an interesting link, pop another tab for the queue. So the original 20-30 can grow significantly.

Now you understand one way people end up with large amounts of tabs open.
 
I used Opera for quite a while, and it worked well for me. Switched to Vivaldi when Opera got bought out, though.
 
Snowdog said:
My point is that Chrome based browsers really do use that much more RAM than firefox unless you want to claim, the OS memory warnings are based on faulty understanding as well.
Click to expand...

OK.
1: I never said chrome does not use more memory than other browser
2: I see no real empirical information or technical argumentation. With you explanation we could be talking about a 45kb difference that just hit the threshold.
3: If you think that chrome really use that much ram as shown on the picture you are wrong. its not RAM usage that it shown and it would bet he only known process to my knowledge that uses DLL's withouth sharing them

If you want to debate it, please bring some technical argumentation or empirical data. Otherwise i can't use you information as nothing but the usual Forum software fanaticism or self asserting smart ass comments


My point is still that the article is horrible in any technical merits, and its getting worse and worse with this kind of articles on the net where the writer has not real technical clue about what they are talking about
 
You guys are lucky, I prefer to use Internet Explorer, but on both my work computer and my house computer it crashes after ~1GB of memory usage. I actually wish I COULD use several gigabytes of memory. I'm trying to use Edge on Windows 10, but it truly is aweful.
 
NemesisX said:
Oh crap. I'd completely forgotten about Watefox. Thank you. Just installed it and didn't have to do anything. All my Firefox settings carried over. :)
Click to expand...
I used Waterfox for the longest time. but may my paranoid ass recommend to use CyberFox.
its a FireFox Clone that comes inboth amd and intel optimized x64 bits version and with telemetry stuff removed
 
SvenBent said:
OK.
1: I never said chrome does not use more memory than other browser
2: I see no real empirical information or technical argumentation. With you explanation we could be talking about a 45kb difference that just hit the threshold.
Click to expand...

It's not ~45KB. I could easily open double the tabs in Firefox without hitting the limit. Chrome based browsers are memory hogs.
 
Snowdog said:
It's not ~45KB. I could easily open double the tabs in Firefox without hitting the limit. Chrome based browsers are memory hogs.
Click to expand...

Except firefox has threading problems with more then 30-40 tabs open and it pukes and on itself, chrome might be a memory hog but you can get up past 100 tabs open.
 
SvenBent said:
I used Waterfox for the longest time. but may my paranoid ass recommend to use CyberFox.
its a FireFox Clone that comes inboth amd and intel optimized x64 bits version and with telemetry stuff removed
Click to expand...
Waterfox has telemetry stuff removed as well and is also 64-bit.


Shadohh said:
Except firefox has threading problems with more then 30-40 tabs open and it pukes and on itself, chrome might be a memory hog but you can get up past 100 tabs open.
Click to expand...
I will never have 100 tabs open. Or 40 for that matter. o_O
 
NemesisX said:
Waterfox has telemetry stuff removed as well and is also 64-bit.
Click to expand...

I knew it was 64bits (my rason to change to waterfox at the time) but its not AMD/intel optimized.
Ii didnt know that actully started to remove telemetry as well., they didn't when i found cyberfox
 
Last edited:
Geforcepat said:
I'm usually at about 2-3 GB's or so with chrome and 12-22 ish tabs.
Click to expand...
2-3GB of what ? what you typical see in taskmanger is not RAM usage



Shadohh said:
Except firefox has threading problems with more then 30-40 tabs open and it pukes and on itself, chrome might be a memory hog but you can get up past 100 tabs open.
Click to expand...
I can confirm this with emperical data. Opening 120 tabs CyberFox started to crawls and being core speed CPU bottlenekced

https://s21.postimg.org/g4qbek69j/Untitled.png
 
SvenBent said:
I knew it was 64bits (my rason to change to waterfox at the time) but its not AMD/intel optimized.
Ii didnt know that actully started to remove telemetry as well., they didn't when i found cyberfox
Click to expand...
Yeah, they show it as a feature on the main page now. It's definitely matured into a great browser:

Features
Click to expand...
  • Disabled Encrypted Media Extensions (EME)
  • Disabled Web Runtime (deprecated as of 2015)
  • Removed Pocket
  • Removed Telemetry
  • Removed data collection
  • Removed startup profiling
  • Allow running of all 64-Bit NPAPI plugins
  • Allow running of unsigned extensions
  • Removal of Sponsored Tiles on New Tab Page
  • Addition of Duplicate Tab option
  • Locale selector in about:preferences > General
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top