Modern browsers eating memory and accessing memory usage for browsers

[KmartSqrl]

I've always built my computers on carpeted floors with no static protection and I've never broken anything lol

[twenty]

i dont think i've even ever used any kind of anti static device

[lkymky]

I must have bad luck or thuper charged static rugs from hell, Ive done it to about 4 mainboards now.

[livelonger12]

Apologies for the bump, but Chrome seems to have gotten even worse with fewer tabs. Here's a few screenshots describing the situation:

[url]http://imageshack.us/g/638/whatthefuckt.png/[/url]

3gb of RAM should be enough to browse the web without system lock-ups. 1.5gb was sufficient for this, image editing, playing media and other various tasks.

[editline]11th February 2012[/editline]

[QUOTE=commander204;34222773]How is it that you don't have more than 3gb? At todays time 8gb cost 30 euros ( I bought some recently ) you have no excuse to not have more actually.[/QUOTE]

Income/expenses ratio and the derived remainder can be a valid excuse.

[TheDecryptor]

You have 33 tabs open, that's going to use a fair bit of memory, regardless of the browser (Although something like Chrome that opens multiple processes will make it worse)

Web pages today have many more images, much more JS code, etc. Gmail has like 30MB of compiled JS code, a single 512x512 image takes up 1MB of RAM (And pages these days can often use 1024x1024 or more sprite images, etc.)

Edit: I have 26 tabs open in Firefox right now, and that's using 620MB of RAM.

[swift and shift]

[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;34646900]Gmail has like 30MB of compiled JS code[/QUOTE]

wat

[Jelly_]

[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;34646900]Gmail has like 30MB of compiled JS code.[/QUOTE]

Where are you even getting this from?

[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;34646900]A single 512x512 image takes up 1MB of RAM (And pages these days can often use 1024x1024 or more sprite images, etc.)[/QUOTE]

Ugh, no it doesn't.

You're insanely misinformed.

[swift and shift]

[QUOTE=Jelly;34647027]Ugh, no it doesn't.

You're insanely misinformed.[/QUOTE]

There's actually a grain of truth here: a 512x512 image has 262,144 pixels. With 3 bytes per pixel (red, green, blue), that's 768KB to represent the image.

[TheDecryptor]

[QUOTE=Jelly;34647027]Where are you even getting this from?
...
Ugh, no it doesn't.

You're insanely misinformed.[/QUOTE]

I got the number from the "about:nosy" extension for Firefox on my Mac (I rounded up, it claimed there was 27MB of compiled code). It's quite possible it's wrong, but that's what it told me (It's also down to how the browser stores the code, etc.)

And I was talking about a 32bpp image there, should have made that clear (512 x 512 x 4 = 1,048,576 bytes)

Edit: I was going by numbers from a few days ago, went to double check.

[img]http://imgf.tw/291074925.png[/img]

I was off by 10MB, and that's not just compiled code, that's also data the JS script stores in memory :v:

[Octave]

I'm on a netbook with 1gb of RAM and a 1.6gHz intel atom cpu and chrome works fine. I have 13 tabs open including youtube, so flash player, and it's using about 400mb.

[jaybuz]

[QUOTE=livelonger12;34646350]Apologies for the bump, but Chrome seems to have gotten even worse with fewer tabs. Here's a few screenshots describing the situation:

[url]http://imageshack.us/g/638/whatthefuckt.png/[/url]

3gb of RAM should be enough to browse the web without system lock-ups. 1.5gb was sufficient for this, image editing, playing media and other various tasks.

[editline]11th February 2012[/editline]

Income/expenses ratio and the derived remainder can be a valid excuse.[/QUOTE]

If you use that many tabs often, I'd suggest trying another browser. There's no point in complaining if you're not going to try anything else.