Modern browsers eating memory and accessing memory usage for browsers - Developers

I've been using Google Chrome for over two years and have found it to be the best browser, particularly for its simplistic interface and the means in which it organizes web history. However, I have noticed that it uses far more memory than it did initially (e.g. 3 rows with 7-8 tabs will slow down my system which comprises of 3GB RAM, a 500GB 7200 RPM HDD and an AMD Phenom II 710 (triple core CPU)). And Firefox was worse, and even worse than that was IE -- so my last choice seemed to be Opera, but that couldn't peak Chrome either. I know Flash eats 300mb almost instantly and occupies about 30-40% of CPU time but even if I close that, the browser can still be notoriously slow. I know some may argue that I'm probably using too many tabs (sometimes exceeding 30), but what I don't understand is that how can my system run high-end games/apps (e.g. Crysis ultra-high, 8x AA at a high resolution) with far more stability than a web browser! What is it with web browsers that gives them an exception for running slower? Lastly, is it possible to access the overall memory usage of a browser via some JS interface for if one desired to have a page that would have its elements reacting to the overall memory consumption of that browser/system (i.e. such that a page could be consistently smooth and pertinent as features diminish in response to an increase of memory compared against the total available memory)? Thanks!

Web browsers today are faster than they ever have been. The conditions they operate under are not at all analogous to your computer playing high-end video games. Making features disappear on a web page because someone's computer is using more resources would be an absolutely horrible idea. No one would know why it was happening or have control over things disappearing, and that's nothing but bad for users.

[QUOTE=KmartSqrl;33752724]Web browsers today are faster than they ever have been. The conditions they operate under are not at all analogous to your computer playing high-end video games. Making features disappear on a web page because someone's computer is using more resources would be an absolutely horrible idea. No one would know why it was happening or have control over things disappearing, and that's nothing but bad for users.[/QUOTE] I've found IE to be worse than it has ever been (slower startup and overall use), Firefox to be slower than before and Flash in Chrome to be quite frequently excruciatingly slow (and Chrome too to be quite a memory hog compared to how it was last year) - I've also noticed this for several other systems too. Why do pages use a lot of memory? Is their consumption similar to medium/large segments of average desktop apps? And I thought it might be useful to perpetuate page stability and one could also use some means of notifying the user the reason for superficial page features being reduced.

I used chrome from the start I loved that shit, but until 2 months ago I couldn't take it anymore. Firefox 9 and uninstalled chrome. Best thing I ever did. All my extensions are still here, did the pipelining hack and Im good to go, Only thing I miss was that epic chrome inspector but firebug will do. Also IE10 looks like its caught up pretty close, fewer CSS hacks than we have ever had to do. a bit more canvas love and dart preparation and I might just start taking it into concentration when developing webpages

[QUOTE=lkymky;34089756]dart preparation[/QUOTE] dart is a joke

Never seen any issues like this with Chrome, RAM usage is reasonably high but that doesn't cause any stability issues/slowdowns. IMO more likely shit in your Winblows (assumed) install slowing things down.

I also use Chrome, and yes, it indeed uses lots of RAM, however, it runs smoothly for me just as Fizzadar said. Well, one of the reason could be that I have 6GB of RAM, but then again, RAM is very cheap nowadays so why not get more?

I was just now browsing Last.FM, Steam (two tabs) and Twitter API docs, the PHP function reference (3 tabs), plus my Youtube homepage and Gmail and Chrome was barely using 100mb of memory total. Last I used Firefox (which was admittedly at the first 'full' release of 4) it used a nice 270mb of RAM just opening up with Google and only Adblock installed. IE9 and Opera I've never had open long enough to look at their memory usage.

[QUOTE=swift and shift;34090492]dart is a joke[/QUOTE] Say it isn't so! Whats wrong with it?

Just loaded up exactly the same webpages in three browsers, here are the results. [img]http://www.adamncasey.co.uk/upload/image/3675/d/o/[/img]

[QUOTE=Dotmister;34095478]Just loaded up exactly the same webpages in three browsers, here are the results. [img]http://www.adamncasey.co.uk/upload/image/3675/d/o/[/img][/QUOTE] Looks like Chrome wins, it has the highest mem...oh wait

[img]http://puu.sh/cTWD[/img] Looks like Chrome uses more than others, but I also have tons of extensions running in the background and all that.

Chrome's a RAM hog indeed, but for good reason. Even with the extra RAM usage, it shouldn't have any real effect on modern computers which have plenty of RAM lying around.

Free RAM is wasted RAM

And to think people use ram usage as a point against Firefox. heh

[QUOTE=jaybuz;34136640]And to think people use ram usage as a point against Firefox. heh[/QUOTE] For those of us lacking in ram (3 GB) firefox does a hell of a lot better than chrome. I'm not going to get into an argument on how or why. But plain and simple observation Firefox uses less ram than chrome did.

It's because Chrome caches pages so that you load pages that you use more often, faster. This hogs up memory but makes the browser (generally) faster. And because Chrome makes a new process for every page you open. They did that so that when 1 tab crashes, the rest continue to work. But by making extra processes, it uses some memory to be able to link them in the general process (the one with the most ram usage if you open task manager).

[QUOTE=eternalflamez;34175052]It's because Chrome caches pages so that you load pages that you use more often, faster. This hogs up memory but makes the browser (generally) faster. And because Chrome makes a new process for every page you open. They did that so that when 1 tab crashes, the rest continue to work. But by making extra processes, it uses some memory to be able to link them in the general process (the one with the most ram usage if you open task manager).[/QUOTE] Neither of those points are valid; It caches pages to disk, you can prove this by loading up 5 or 6 tabs at once when you system is experiencing high IO load, all of the tabs will stall with a message (Reading cache...). Also, all browsers do this. Internet Explorer also uses multiple processes. This is also taken into account as best it can in the about:memory screenshot

[QUOTE=Fizzadar;34091075]Never seen any issues like this with Chrome, RAM usage is reasonably high but that doesn't cause any stability issues/slowdowns. IMO more likely shit in your [B]Winblows[/B] (assumed) install slowing things down.[/QUOTE] wow People still say stuff like this?

[QUOTE=BlkDucky;34183726]wow People still say stuff like this?[/QUOTE] Of course!

Install apple to give more ram and shiny boxes

I have better responsibility, lower cpu and memory usage on Opera11 than the Chrome with the same websites on tabs and no addons. I don't need webgl support, and Opera still performs better on my shitty pc than the other alternatives did.

How is it that 3GB is not enough for basic web browsing? The amount of crashes is pathetic. This never happened back in the day of XP, FF2, with 1.5GB of RAM and a single core 3GHz x86 CPU.

IE mastrrace

[QUOTE=livelonger12;34206698]How is it that 3GB is not enough for basic web browsing? The amount of crashes is pathetic. This never happened back in the day of XP, FF2, with 1.5GB of RAM and a single core 3GHz x86 CPU.[/QUOTE] To be fair, web browsing has got a lot more complicated since then. It doesn't help that every single website tries to stand out by embedding autoplaying HTML5 videos / css gradients / shadows etc which don't do much except make the users browsing experience worse.

[QUOTE=livelonger12;34206698]How is it that 3GB is not enough for basic web browsing? The amount of crashes is pathetic. This never happened back in the day of XP, FF2, with 1.5GB of RAM and a single core 3GHz x86 CPU.[/QUOTE]Because times change. We could go back to text-only webpages and 32mb of RAM. The web advances, everything advances, you should too.

[QUOTE=livelonger12;34206698]How is it that 3GB is not enough for basic web browsing? The amount of crashes is pathetic. This never happened back in the day of XP, FF2, with 1.5GB of RAM and a single core 3GHz x86 CPU.[/QUOTE] 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=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] I am very very afraid of opening my case.... My entire apartment is carpeted... lets not get into this... Ill upgrade eventually. I'm poor and have a static phobia.

[QUOTE=lkymky;34242524]I am very very afraid of opening my case.... My entire apartment is carpeted... lets not get into this... Ill upgrade eventually. I'm poor and have a static phobia.[/QUOTE] Touch a metal part of your case or wear a static bracelet or whatever. It's not hard, that's just silly.

[QUOTE=lkymky;34242524]I am very very afraid of opening my case.... My entire apartment is carpeted... lets not get into this... Ill upgrade eventually. I'm poor and have a static phobia.[/QUOTE] Ah yes carpet okay well then I can't give you advice there, wouldn't want to be responsible about anything breaking. Although I built my PC last Saturday and did not wear anything against static electricity and hadn't any problems ( don't have a carpet though )