Does the 34 and 20 represent the number of tabs? If so, this is not a fair comparison, what with FF having 50% more open. But even if that number doesn’t represent tabs, I am sure there can be websites that would put them much closer in performance.
Right now I have Chrome on my work machine. It has a 14 (again, not sure if those are active tabs or not) and it is eating 1.17 GB on my work machine. On my home FF (24) is eating 1.60 GB of RAM. FF is clearly using more RAM in each case, but it isn’t slowing my desktop down any more than Chrome is on my work machine. I’d like for it to improve, but rather use something other than Google’s tools on every single machine I use, I guess.
The number in parentheses is the number of processes that the application is performing. Win’s task manager groups these under the parent app so you don’t have to scroll through every “sub” in order to end a task. if you hit the “>” to the left of the app it will give you the expanded view and you will see the list.
Yes, more or less. I think some other extensions can take up processes too.
I actually have enough RAM and I’m glad that the RAM is being used to load all the stuff instead of the pagefile. It’s my fault that I’m not closing stuff, not the browser’s for not guessing what I’m going to re-load.
If you ask people, I think they’ll just say that their main browser is like that. And that’ll apply to all of them, so it’s a user problem.
I remember these talks from a very long time ago. Very long time, when Opera had its own engine and before. I think the gaps have shrunk a lot, especially now that Internet Exploder is gone.
I’ve been maining Firefox for over a year now and this has been the case for me as well - it’s such a resource hog. Which is fine, I’ve dealt with it, but I wish it didn’t use so much battery life.
All of them are memory hungry, the point is how dynamic they are in their “hunger” and “excretion”.
Does the 34 and 20 represent the number of tabs? If so, this is not a fair comparison, what with FF having 50% more open. But even if that number doesn’t represent tabs, I am sure there can be websites that would put them much closer in performance.
Right now I have Chrome on my work machine. It has a 14 (again, not sure if those are active tabs or not) and it is eating 1.17 GB on my work machine. On my home FF (24) is eating 1.60 GB of RAM. FF is clearly using more RAM in each case, but it isn’t slowing my desktop down any more than Chrome is on my work machine. I’d like for it to improve, but rather use something other than Google’s tools on every single machine I use, I guess.
The number in parentheses is the number of processes that the application is performing. Win’s task manager groups these under the parent app so you don’t have to scroll through every “sub” in order to end a task. if you hit the “>” to the left of the app it will give you the expanded view and you will see the list.
Yes, more or less. I think some other extensions can take up processes too.
I actually have enough RAM and I’m glad that the RAM is being used to load all the stuff instead of the pagefile. It’s my fault that I’m not closing stuff, not the browser’s for not guessing what I’m going to re-load.
If you ask people, I think they’ll just say that their main browser is like that. And that’ll apply to all of them, so it’s a user problem.
I remember these talks from a very long time ago. Very long time, when Opera had its own engine and before. I think the gaps have shrunk a lot, especially now that Internet Exploder is gone.
I’ve been maining Firefox for over a year now and this has been the case for me as well - it’s such a resource hog. Which is fine, I’ve dealt with it, but I wish it didn’t use so much battery life.