Chrome

Ghoulish Delight · 09-02-2008, 02:00 PM

I've downloaded Google's new toy, Chrome. It's their entry into the web browser world. Their big claim to fame on it is that they're launching a new process for every tab with the theory that a single unstable page, such as a flash animation with a memory leak gone amok, won't bring down the entire browser.

It's a good theory, as long as they keep the per-process overhead in check. A very informal test on my part shows that Chrome, with 8 tabs open, is using about 60% more memory than Firefox with the same 8 tabs. Not a good start.

Moonliner · 09-02-2008, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I've downloaded Google's new toy, Chrome. It's their entry into the web browser world. Their big claim to fame on it is that they're launching a new process for every tab with the theory that a single unstable page, such as a flash animation with a memory leak gone amok, won't bring down the entire browser.

It's a good theory, as long as they keep the per-process overhead in check. A very informal test on my part shows that Chrome, with 8 tabs open, is using about 60% more memory than Firefox with the same 8 tabs. Not a good start.

Try the beta of IE8. Early reports are that it uses ridiculous amounts of memory.

Ghoulish Delight · 09-02-2008, 02:12 PM

I'm not really looking at Chrome as a competitor to IE. I've already long ditched IE. I'm more interested in how it compares to Firefox.

And I know this is a first beta release, so it's not going to be anywhere near ideal yet. But the per-page process launching is their main differentiater, so they'd better get it rock solid eventually.

Ghoulish Delight · 09-02-2008, 02:18 PM

Oh hey, turns out the way I was opening tabs wasn't even actually spawning new processes. If I do it such that it actually takes advantage of the new process feature, the memory factor grows from ~160% to ~200%+. Yikes.

Alex · 09-02-2008, 02:20 PM

Other than lacking elegance, are you generally running sufficiently tight on resources that this would be a problem?

Ghoulish Delight · 09-02-2008, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

Other than lacking elegance, are you generally running sufficiently tight on resources that this would be a problem?

Generally no, but if they're trying to tout memory management as a selling point, using more than double the memory isn't the best place to start.

Alex · 09-02-2008, 02:24 PM

Oh, didn't know they were touting that.

I'm going to hope they fail regardless. I don't need the added headache of another major browser to consider for testing and design.

Ghoulish Delight · 09-02-2008, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

Oh, didn't know they were touting that.

I'm going to hope they fail regardless. I don't need the added headache of another major browser to consider for testing and design.

I read one opinion that thinks it'll drive web developers to better practices. Not only is it going to spawn individual processes per page, but it will supposedly have its own process manager (I don't think that's implemented yet, but I could just be missing it). So you'll be able to immediately, from within the browser, spot and kill memory-hog/leaking pages. The writer of that opinion is hopeful that it will lead to people being more careful about their java and other in-page apps since the browser will now be calling them out to the user.

I don't think the average user is going to be savvy enough for that to be much of a factor.

Alex · 09-02-2008, 02:41 PM

I agree, and so long as we have to develop and test for IE and Mozilla/Firefox, nothing is going to be optimized to Chrome.

BarTopDancer · 09-02-2008, 02:47 PM

We only develop our internal and external software for IE, which completely sucks for Mac users.

We even had a couple brainiacs send us code to make our end user facing page work with FF.

I am looking forward to playing with Chrome, but my primary computer is on its last legs and I don't want to risk epic failure until school is done.

09-02-2008, 02:00 PM	#1
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	Chrome I've downloaded Google's new toy, Chrome. It's their entry into the web browser world. Their big claim to fame on it is that they're launching a new process for every tab with the theory that a single unstable page, such as a flash animation with a memory leak gone amok, won't bring down the entire browser. It's a good theory, as long as they keep the per-process overhead in check. A very informal test on my part shows that Chrome, with 8 tabs open, is using about 60% more memory than Firefox with the same 8 tabs. Not a good start. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

09-02-2008, 02:12 PM	#3
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	I'm not really looking at Chrome as a competitor to IE. I've already long ditched IE. I'm more interested in how it compares to Firefox. And I know this is a first beta release, so it's not going to be anywhere near ideal yet. But the per-page process launching is their main differentiater, so they'd better get it rock solid eventually. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

09-02-2008, 02:18 PM	#4
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	Oh hey, turns out the way I was opening tabs wasn't even actually spawning new processes. If I do it such that it actually takes advantage of the new process feature, the memory factor grows from ~160% to ~200%+. Yikes. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

09-02-2008, 02:20 PM	#5
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Other than lacking elegance, are you generally running sufficiently tight on resources that this would be a problem?
	Submit to Quotes

09-02-2008, 02:24 PM	#7
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Oh, didn't know they were touting that. I'm going to hope they fail regardless. I don't need the added headache of another major browser to consider for testing and design.
	Submit to Quotes

09-02-2008, 02:41 PM	#9
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I agree, and so long as we have to develop and test for IE and Mozilla/Firefox, nothing is going to be optimized to Chrome.
	Submit to Quotes

09-02-2008, 02:47 PM	#10
BarTopDancer Prepping... Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Here, there, everywhere Posts: 11,405	We only develop our internal and external software for IE, which completely sucks for Mac users. We even had a couple brainiacs send us code to make our end user facing page work with FF. I am looking forward to playing with Chrome, but my primary computer is on its last legs and I don't want to risk epic failure until school is done. __________________ Spork is the new MacGyver Postcards From My Edge
	Submit to Quotes