|
I would catch the thing on fire confusing it so into an never ending wtf loop. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry I am not programmed to respond in that area.
|
|
|
|
|
Utterly bs...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Motherboard: The more difficult the task, the higher the cognitive load and chances for errors to be made
It's rather the tight schedule that causes to raise a stress level or to deliver defective software. 
Wonde Tadesse
modified 24-May-16 23:49pm.
|
|
|
|
|
A few months back, Mozilla developer Eric Rahm tested multiple browser and OS configurations[^] to compare memory usage rates. The short version is that FF used about half the ram of Chrome on Windows and Linux; on OSX it still edged out Chrome, but both were crushed by Safari.
In the medium term some of the memory advantage FF has will go away when it adopts a limited version of multi-process (content will be separated from top level browser components; but to limit memory use they're not planning to go to separate context processes for each tab - at least initially). The current schedule has them planning to start enabling it for users without extensions or accessibility features enabled following the August release. A release date for the rest of us (with an extension whitelist) is still TBD; but at least a few releases farther down the pipeline.
EDIT: From the comments, the comparison is with multiprocess FF enabled; when the tests were done that resulted in a 10-20% memory usage increase.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
I have never worried about the memory and gone, "ooh that's just taking to much up, I must change browser".
I'm curious to know what is Chrome doing with all that extra memory, is it doing a bunch of fancy caching, pre-rendering, pre-loading, pre-compiling etc. etc. ?
|
|
|
|
|
Chrome is probably scanning your system and sending everything to Google to improve your their browsing experience.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
It's probably the overhead from having a separate process for each tab. This is a feature in that it means one tab going rogue can't freeze up the whole browser, take it down by crashing, and the process isolation makes it harder to exploit browser bugs (to win prizes at pwn2own or a bonus at the nsa). The price is that it uses a lot more memory. If you poke around the rest of Rahm's site, cranking the number of content processes up in FF bumps the amount of memory it uses up a lot while the tabs are still open. (Once the tests get to the point of closing all the tabs and shotgunning most of the child processes the situation reverses; but keeping a ton of tabs open for the entire session is probably more common than opening them, closing them all, and then opening a new large set of tabs without restarting the browser entirely.)
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
both Chrome and FF will happily eat up well over 1GB of RAM if I leave them open on my PC over night
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure I would notice 1GB of RAM used on my system, but I often leave Chrome open for WEEKS (sometimes maybe months) at a time with 15-20 tabs open. If your RAM usage keeps increasing, then I would check your plugins, but if it stabilizes at 1GB, then I wouldn't worry.
|
|
|
|
|
from the article:
[-- I opened the browser, and saw a lean, minimalist user interface with cool, gray icons on the toolbar.
...
Turns out, the good folks at Mozilla took their shrinking market share to heart and fought back with one of the most notably improved products I have seen in recent memory. --]
I'll have to check it out. At times Chrome seems to be a resource (disk access) hog.
EDIT - CAVEAT CLICKTOR (let the clicker beware) -- I've been informed that to read the entire article you have to provide an email.  I didn't know because I'd already done that.
Why I switched back to Firefox | Computerworld[^]
modified 23-May-16 10:19am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I concur. I agree with this post because... (to see my reasons you must first send me a million dollars).
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting. I signed up a long time ago so the article just shows up. I didn't know others couldn't see it. Can you see any of computerworld.com or is it all blocked unless you are an insider? Just curious.
Also you can use <USERNAME>@mailinator.com
Have you seen Mailinator[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Hahaha.... I didn't know it showed up that way. ComputerWorld is a good magazine...too bad they have turned to such things.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: Hahaha.... I didn't know it showed up that way. ComputerWorld iswas a good magazine...too bad they have turned to such things.
FTFY 
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
use <USERNAME>@mailinator.com and sign up, then you can read it all
Have you seen mailinator.com? It's actually quite cool.
|
|
|
|
|
And signal, however indirectly, that I consider what they're doing acceptable? Not happening. They can Elephant Off And Die In A Fire first. 
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Everything you do, even your use of this site (CP), is ruled by marketing and advertising.
You cannot escape.... 
|
|
|
|
|
I never switched as I have customized mine over the years for downloaders and other addons, and with a cute background. I do test with Chrome and IE, and occasionally Safari, but I always preferred FF for desk and laptop applications. It is worth giving it a test spin if you're interested.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the addt'l info from real user. 
I used it quite a bit in the past then it began performing oddly (disk access) and I gave it up.
|
|
|
|
|
One additional factoid. The biggest thing I do not like is that every week or two, I tend to need to kill the process as either it doesn't garbage collect effectively or I have too many open and active tabs.
|
|
|
|
|
jgakenhe wrote: every week or two, I tend to need to kill the process as either it doesn't garbage collect effectively or I have too many open and active tabs.
That's my experience with Chrome too.
|
|
|
|
|
"The rising cash holdings of U.S. corporations is increasingly in the hands of a few U.S. companies, with just five tech firms having grabbed a third of it. And nearly three-quarters of cash held by non-financial U.S. companies is stashed overseas, outside the long arm of Uncle Sam."
yep, Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet/Google, Cisco, and Oracle.
A third of cash is owned by 5 U.S. companies[^]
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
