Chrome has always been o huge memory hog for me, far more than other browsers I use. I used to have Chromium on my LiveUSBs, but I've long since switched back to Firefox (the default browser) because Chromium barely worked on my old laptop.
And same here Travis—probably the biggest reason I'm still using Chrome for the most part (besides the apps) is that the Firefox UI keeps lagging. In middle school we were encourages to use Firefox (because somehow the tech guys managed to make a bunch of important school pages not work in WebKit), but I still stuck with Safari (they were Macs) because loading up Firefox, then loading pages, was just painful with Fx3.5.
I think it was Fx5 that spread out the initial loading so the wait time before browsing actually became reasonable, but I still find Firefox to hang a lot more often than Google Chrome.
gbl08ma wrote:
FF may not be a memory hog anymore, but IMO (and being a Linux user) I feel it is more sluggish than Chrome. It also renders certain things, mostly fonts with CSS effects, in a strange way (see the headings of my URL shortener website with both Chrome and Firefox, for instance) - but I admit, this is just my personal opinion.
I haven't been watching the benchmarks, but I think a few versions back (around Fx13) Firefox basically caught up to Chrome in raw page loading speed. The difference is that Chrome has some extra features like DNS pre-fetching (where it does DNS lookups for your favorite sites beforehand) and pre-loading web pages (where it starts downloading and loading a page before you even hit Enter) that really makes Chrome feel fast. gbl08ma wrote:
Chrome(ium) uses a lot of memory, but in a computer with 8GB RAM I prefer speed over reduced RAM usage.
That's basically my verdict now. If I can run Chrome, I run Chrome.
Google seems to feel that way too from what I've seen. There's Chrome the memory hog, but there are also things like the mobile website for Google Plus, which doesn't even load in Mobile Safari anymore because it requires so much mem. Seems like Google is pushing something like "a better UI at all costs," no matter how much memory it would require. Again, it sure feels good. gbl08ma wrote:
I'm all in for the WebKit rendering engine, because as I said already, there are tiny details on Gecko's rendering which I don't like.
From what I've seen it's usually Gecko that does it right, according to spec, and WebKit the one that's toying with alternate implementations that seem to make more sense. Almost playing a Microsoft card here.
By the way, Kllrnohj (or someone else who knows), when would a script start stealing memory like that? Just wondering, since I've never really looked at memory usage in JS before.