Slashdot Mirror
Google Chrome 55 May Use Less Memory (blogspot.com)
Slashdot reader justthinkit writes: Google Chrome is arguably the best browser and the biggest memory hog. Presently. But the Google engineers are hard at work, optimizing the next version of Chrome. Will this be an important, or just another incremental, upgrade?
They're specifically targeting the browser's JavaScript engine, V8, and they've already "analyzed and significantly reduced the memory footprint of several websites that were identified as representative..." (For example, on the mobile New York Times site they've reduced heap memory consumption by about 66%.) Chrome 55 is scheduled for release in December. Any Chrome fans looking forward to testing its performance?
They're specifically targeting the browser's JavaScript engine, V8, and they've already "analyzed and significantly reduced the memory footprint of several websites that were identified as representative..." (For example, on the mobile New York Times site they've reduced heap memory consumption by about 66%.) Chrome 55 is scheduled for release in December. Any Chrome fans looking forward to testing its performance?
it may not
"We used the tool to identify inefficiencies with a number of internal types." That is about the most technically interesting part of the whole article. Would have been nice to have a bit more of what was changed, how, why, ...
I look forward to a better Chrome experience on Android 6. It can be annoying at times. I prefer Opera Mini and will until Chrome, or another browser proves to be faster and with fewer ads.
Indeed. And while it's "arguably the best browser" one might well argue otherwise.
Does the article actually say anything?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
... on linux, then I won't be using it on Linux and would recommend others don't either. Google may think its sandbox code is perfect with no possible exploits but I don't intend to test out the veracity of their naive belief for them on my systems.
Current versions of Google Chrome use 66% or more memory than they should. I guess no one noticed for years. But now the engineers are going to get to work.
How is the sandbox running as root?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Needing root access would mean needing to sudo to run chrome, correct? I don't know what you're doing, but my chrome processes run as user processes, not root processes
Remember to collect your payment from Google, and do not pass Go.
/rant }
Can we get some unbiased reporting, please?
Arguably the best browser, my ass.
{ rant }
1) Chrome sucks at tab management. In today's age of wide-screen monitors, tabs belong on the side of the browser, not the top. Although there are add-ins that try to work around Google's arrogance, they all suck.
2) Chrome was created to help put Google.com in front of user's faces. Why else would Google/Chrome refuse to do DNS lookups for one-word entries in the address bar?
3) The add-in choices are nowhere near as robust as those for Firefox. Thankfully, Pale Moon is keeping that option alive, since Mozilla is killing Firefox by becoming "just another shitty browser."
{
Google Chrome 55 May Use Less Memory
But then again Kate Upton may come by my house tonight looking for a good time. I figure the probability of both being about equal.
It's using V8.
You've heard of the setuid permissions bit, right? You'll find that the sandbox is owned by root with 4755 permissions. You figure out the rest.
Waiting to see if Chrome 55 runs better than Opera
Well it's safe to say that it won't run better than Opera 12, that's for damn sure.
As long as you use object oriented programming, that's exactly how it will have to work. You can't load an object into memory and declare them static. Take any library (eg. jQuery), call a function and it will change the entire library object's internal structure meaning you need to either have several copies in memory or do a memcpy every time you call an object.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Wake me when we know whether it does use less memory, until then, where the fuck is the story?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You could have shared objects that are just copy-on-write.
However, I'm not convinced that loading 10x copies of a javascript library is the "real memory hog." Even if each library is 10MB, that's only 100MB used. What machine can't afford 100MB? (Mobile devices can use optimization tricks for multiple tabs; as the usage pattern on mobile involves a lot less tab-switching, so it's okay if there's a bit more latency there).
chrome's executable is not SUID. Viol8 did not mention SUID, just that they believed chrome to require root in their original post
yeap! Anyone knows why Gello, the default browser for cyanogemod, cant block ADs?
What a polite post!
Is it just me to wonder why browser need gigabytes of memory just to display a webpage? They receive text, format it according to CSS rules, display relatively small sized images, and, yes, execute Javascript. Still, a HUGE webpage is still a tiny amount of data.
Considering that entire operating systems used to run comfortably on systems with 32MB of RAM in yesteryear, and could display all this media, it just astounds me that systems now require 4-8GB to provide a comfortable browsing experience.
Even if Chromes memory footprint has shrunk a little, i'm certain it still uses an obscene amount of RAM relative to what it actually does most the time.
Sure, but do you think that of those 12GB, a meaningful amount of memory is javascript libraries loaded more than once?