Slashdot Mirror
Chrome Should Get 'Extremely Fast' at Loading a Whole Lot of Web Pages (cnet.com)
Chrome is going to get a big speed boost -- at least for web pages you've recently visited. CNET: With a feature called bfcache -- backward-forward cache -- Google's web browser will store a website's state as you navigate to a new page. If you then go back to that page, Chrome will reconstitute it rapidly instead of having to reconstruct it from scratch. Then, if you retrace your steps forward again, Chrome will likewise rapidly pull that web page out of its memory cache. The speed boost doesn't help when visiting new websites. But this kind of navigation is very common: Going back accounts for 19 percent of pages viewed on Chrome for Android and 10 percent on Chrome for personal computers, Google said. With bfcache, that becomes "extremely fast."
before everyone became concerned with "expiring pages" and made it so you couldn't go back without re-posting data. Then they made it so you couldn't even view the page source without reposting data.
So, we're going back to what we had 10 years ago?
As always, Chrome continues to be the fattest memory hog of all browsers, and it only "wins" in synthetic benchmarks, which mean very little in real-world usage cases.
I keep wondering why people are so keen on giving up their internet secrets to Google, while their spyware slowly eats up all their RAM.
As usual, someone else is insisting on what the users REALLY want. The financial models don't really make it possible to do otherwise, eh?
Let me put it this way: If you had the option to donate $10 toward the implementation of this feature, would you? What feature do you actually want instead? Wouldn't it be nice if someone cared enough to ask?
ADSAuPR, atAJG.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I'm a little confused here. WebKit has had a back-forward cache for as long as I can remember, and Chrome forked off of that. How is this not already part of Chrome?
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Not too smart. Ghostery is owned by advertisers (evidon).
Firefox does throttle CPU in background tabs. For a very long time APIs like setTimeout have been throttled aggressively.
There has been quite recent work on using OS APIs to reduce the priority of processes running background tabs: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...
https://www.slashgear.com/brave-new-browser-wants-to-profit-from-every-site-you-visit-21423879/
Hey, just curious, do you not watch today's television programs too?
But this kind of navigation is very common:
Not for me. When I'm viewing a page that has multiple sub-pages of interest, I tend to open a new tab for those sub pages. For example, one tab for the /. main page and a new tab for each article I read -- similarly for actual news sites. :-) Don't really know why I would want to go back and forth within a single tab.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Thanks for your insight. To make it easier on us in the future can you please list in alphabetical order all the things you don't use so we don't accidentally bother you again?
Seconded.
This was one of the major reasons why I used Opera.
Other two being tabs (long before any other browser) and zoom (same).
Due to your brevity, I'm not sure if you were deliberately being insightful or it was some sort of joke. However, it is true that the economic model is driving the behaviors, but only indirectly in this case through the google's invasive ad business. Even from that perspective there are other options for new features that make much more sense than this.
If the user is dissatisfied with the speed, they can buy a faster Internet connection or a faster computer or both. Much more than $10 in such cases.
Error in the original Subject. Last part should have been "Me neither."
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Yes, I've been trying to do this since 1985 and my DeLorean is running out of dilithium crystals. My obnoxious son chides me with these words:
'You are old, father William,' the young man said,
'And your hair has become very white;
And yet you incessantly stand on your head -
Do you think, at your age, it is right?' . . .
...omphaloskepsis often...
Personally, I wish Chrome would compress multiple back arrow operations in your browser and jump straight back to the desired page in history. It would save a lot of reload time.
-Bob-
Yea but the revolutionary breakthrough here is that Google found a way to patent it so now nobody else can do it anymore without paying them royalties.
I...thought they did this already.
I have a better proposal. If I am on a web site with a login, and I take so long to enter an awesome post that I am auto logged out behind the scene, preserve the blather from the vaporized long text box somewhere...anywhere...so I can recover it. Back + login = clean form thanks fer nuthin'.
In short, if I had an human assistant and said, oops, see I was logged out, put that text back in thanks, then they would do it.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Only Alt-Right people would do such a thing.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
A way to increase font sizes without breaking page layouts on poorly programmed sites.
Reusing data you already have can be much quicker than waiting for the speed of light (or at least the speed of internet) to reload content from remote servers.
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
The only reason to open tabs is to have them do something.
That or to keep an HTML document loaded on your laptop so that you can read it while you are away from Internet access.
How well does Pi-hole work when a tracker uses randomized hostnames within a particular domain? Or randomized hostnames within each publisher's domain? I know APK's solution breaks in such cases.
Firefox added this long ago, so hitting the back button went from fast (reload assets from disk and ram caches) to instant. I think this didn't last for long because it's all too easily defeated by the presence of any HTML5 and/or Javascript garbage.
Perhaps Google's new feature will be able to be disrupted by a single script or ad picture etc. that invalidates the page and force a full re-render, except google will hand optimize its own sites/applications and Google AMP.
I don't care either way, I'm lucky if I do back/forward among pages and get the same article recommendation I wanted to follow. If I'm not lucky I've lost that dynamically generated link forever. That's why some of us are tab hoarders.
There are also areas of Firefox GUI that lack a scroll bar (but you can scroll with keyboard or scrollwheel or touchpad or tiny arrows). That's not a related issue, but this sucks balls. I never ever know whether I have 50 tabs or 500 tabs unless I recover from a crash or accidentally hit a close button.
Browser caching has been a source of many headaches in our org with regard to CMS's and dynamic web applications. You can put header tags that allegedly turn off caching so users always see the latest, but they don't always work right on all content types (HTML, images, CSS, JavaScript, PDF's, etc.). All browser brands we've tested have at least one caching bug.
If browser makers haven't perfected current caching, then this new fancy-ass caching will probably have even more bugs.
Table-ized A.I.
That's not Google's business model, never has been. Since it's going into Chromium, Google is open sourcing it.
This space intentionally left blank
Now Chrome will take up 80% of my memory rather than 50%
yes, it does... in the past it cached the page, so back would fetch it from cache and was still log faster, specially because network was so slow. Several years ago (maybe 7 or 8 years ago), they started to cache also the already rendered page, so back would not even need to re-rendering most of the cached data
Higuita
Maybe those who are anti Windows 10 due to piracy and pro Chrome may want to go a step further and apply your principles to all products. Not just the ones that think are cool.
http://saveie6.com/
Wasn't this in WebKit (and therefor Chrome) 10 years ago?
https://webkit.org/blog/427/we...
Yes, I understand what a cache is. I even know why additional working memory can improve cache performance, and the new computer I mentioned will probably have more memory for caching. If that was your question, then it is answered. Politely, even though such a question could be regarded as rude.
On the other hand, if you have nothing to say, then perhaps you should say nothing.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Opera Presto (which is to say, versions 7 through 12) had this years ago, though the early versions didn't handle dynamic pages well. It was one of their stronger features, and when they did change it most people wanted the option to put it back the way it was. It doesn't do anything for javascript/HTML benchmarks as it only deals with pages you've seen before, but it helps immensely on workflow.
,,, until you (hopefully) find what you want. With this RAM cache (as Opera called it), returning to the results page is as fast as if you'd just switched tabs, so you don't need to open the links in new tabs (and thus don't use as much memory and CPU).
Best example, you do a search and get a results page, then have to look at the pages in the results to see if they are what you're looking for. So you load one page, then go back to the results page, then load the next
Dnsmasq using an amended hosts file FTW. Point your router DNS to a linux box if necessary. Then all devices covered.
...is a quite dynamic multiplayer online game like slither.io? Saving the states of these kinds of pages will likely introduce bugs.
Hog the memory, memory hog.
That's the bit that's interesting to me. How do they know that going back accounts for 19 or 10 percent of the traffic?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I browse 12 hours a day. Improvements are good, I need more though.
I have 8 cores, 16 threads. 32GB.
Let me tick a box "insane fast mode" I don't care if it uses 24GB memory, I want preemptive tab updating in the background of tabs they know I open 70 times a day.
I also want, since I browse like a drunken master, to not open a tab I already have open. If I have one open already somewhere else just switch that tab in its place. So I'm never on duplicate tabs. (They do this now, poorly)
Well, there are two or three ways of doing this. Storing all the fields, storing final DOM, and never deleting the active page, but just putting it to sleep.
Safari and Firefox has been doing the latter since 2003 or so, but will fall back to one of the others under memory pressure or when the entry is old enough in history, and this is what Google is now implementing 17 years later.
Due to your brevity, I'm not sure if you were deliberately being insightful or it was some sort of joke."
I'll admit that I was going for the chuckle by being so brief but it's a statement of truth.
The average client with a storefront is not going to tell their customers that their computer is outdated and internet connection too slow to purchase their products. It is the developer's duty to provide cost savings to the client by reducing server load and to improve page performance for the customer to aid retention and thereby increase sales. It is the developer's duty to use every available tool in the box to achieve these goals. Such is the nature of modern web development.
I see a pattern with Chrome.. the faster it gets in loading pages with every update slower it makes our computer. Where are they going with this ?
And once again, completely irrelevant. Hosts files have zero to do with caching browser sessions so stop spamming your crap on any discussion about a browser.
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
As if reliably disabling cache in Chrome for development purposes wasn't difficult enough...
Hmm... I feel like there is some confusion about the nature of advertising here. Probably too complicated a topic? One of the dimensions is the old struggle between substance and presentation, and another major dimension involves privacy versus relevance. The more technical dimension of how fast the ads are displayed seems relatively minor to me. There's also an element of propaganda involved, insofar as improved caching is part of it. I frankly believe the liars are more concerned with the number of repetitions than the honest people. The liars know that they need to repeat their lies frequently to give them a greater veneer of truth...
If you actually have the best value for a certain customer, then all you need to do is inform the customer about what you have and how much it costs. That's NOT how most advertising works. Rather than making great products, there are just a lot of fuzzy attempts to persuade customers that "good enough" products are actually "superior" and worth high, even exorbitant, prices. In the best cases, some of the products actually are superior, but producing superior products is always much more expensive (and less effective in competition) than flogging good enough.
Of course this is already an effectively dead discussion on Slashdot. There should be some mechanism whereby the lifespan of discussions could be extended. Hmm... Perhaps allow late participants to add special mod points?
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Hmm... I feel like there is some confusion about the nature of advertising here.
I was honestly thinking more about e-commerce sites than sites whose primary source of revenue is advertising. I don't see any disconnect in the logic, however. Page loads faster, consumer browses faster, server loads are lowered, consumer appreciates experience more, consumer uses web site more. Profit????
I'm not following your logic. As long as the competitors offer roughly comparable shopping experiences, then there is no competitive advantage if the browser makes all of the websites look better. Of course the ceteris paribus is never fully the case, and the e-commerce website that has the best programmers has the advantage, but once again without regard to the browser. Actually, improving one particular browser may even upset the competitive balance if certain customers prefer the "wrong" browser, for whatever reason. (Yes, I do prefer Firefox, though I use Safari, Chrome, and even Opera for various purposes. Pretty sure at least one other on one of my smartphones.)
There is actually a lot of research on these UI topics. People do want fast responses, but they can't really measure response times very accurately.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
The answer is obvious: it's because it doesn't make sense for your particular workflow.
For my own workflow, even with three browser windows full screen on three different monitors, I soon end up with so many tabs open, the tabs shrink to where I can't read the page title, and I start to lose my mental map of how to get back to other contexts I've recently visited.
This typically happens when I'm involved in adding a lot of new information to my personal wiki, and while in the process of doing so, various small or medium refactoring projects calve off.
I fork entirely new windows and fill those full of pertinent tabs when this suits the purpose, then close the window entirely when the subtask is complete (I even have an extension which allows me to give the entire window an appropriate working title for the duration).
Other times I fork off tabs by the dozens in the current working window using middle click (middle click works just about anywhere, including drop down history lists, and weird social media overlays, though with a small number of exceptions concerning pages boasting particularly heinous JavaScript, which I preferentially flee once discovering Cthulhu's grubby fingerprints).
Other times it's just better to let tabs stack up in my tab history list.
I pretty much never close a tab without popping down the history stack to see whether I've left a task incomplete. Also, I generally don't navigate backwards page at a time. If there are twenty edit previews stacked up, I use the history list to jump directly across the entire mess.
I actually modified my wiki software to display the symbol  as the first character of every page title opened in edit mode, so that more of the useful title displays, and it's even more obvious what I need to jump across to restore a previously interrupted context.
Workflows are highly idiosyncratic. This is why you need features for all types. Mine is a complex hybrid of about five different major workflow patterns. And I use every one for a good reason, proven by the test of time.
Sometimes while adding new material to my own wiki (often starts with a survey of twenty pertinent articles located in Google search), I decide to annotate my own pages with chunks of leads scraped from pertinent Wikipedia articles. Then I discover that I need to add a handful of related pages to my wiki, so as to keep my topic map precise. Along the way, I discover that one of these Wikipedia pages has a tragically flawed lead, so I stop to fix that, but while I'm fixing that problem I have to confirm that my edit remains valid within the given citation, so I open up the citation, and discover the citation was horrible misused in the first place. So now I have to do another Google search to figure when the citation is salvageable, or if I should just slap in a better cite altogether. But while I'm doing this (now very boring task, if only for five minutes) the idle part of my brain goes "you know what, if you connect X to Y, you might actually get an interesting idea out of it."
Now the whole point of all this intensive notetaking is to generate creative ideas, so even the smallest glimmer of a creative idea is an immediate stop work order, and then I rush off to file that idea appropriately in my wiki, only to discover that it needs to be linked into page previously opened (with unsaved edits) as part of a suspended refactor.
Now I need to be very astute, and unwind exactly enough to capture the new idea, without losing partially finished work from a previous refactor, or complicating my route back so much that I lose the bubble before closing off all the broken edges.
At this point, long stacked edits in a single tab history are a godsend.
I can drop the history list down, middle click from somewhere in its depths to extract a page to edit out of sequence, then back the tab back to
The topic is loading _cached_ pages faster. Basic reading comprehension is required. Also, everyone knows this is you APK, stop pretending to be other people who defend your idiocy.
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
So why are you quoting an article that doesn't have anything to do with this one?
Your claim that blocking ads has anything to do with browser cache and claiming that since they both offer a speed improvement that thy're remotely related. They're not. That's like claiming that, since cars use gasoline, and airplanes use gasoline, that your recipe for maltov cocktails is relevant. It's not. Stop it.
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"