KeithJohansen wrote:
Since when does Chrome update automatically? I've always had to go and manually update Chrome, as far as I can remember.
You might not be noticing it... I rarely notice when Chrome updates itself (I usually just happen to find new features/layouts) ; but that's a good thing. Having extensions and Chrome automatically keep themselves up-to-date is, as Swivel said, worth having the relatively minor GoogleUpdate.exe run in the background.
schoolhacker wrote:
there is tab restoration i everything these days...
Opera has it
That's not my point: Chrome makes it ridiculously easy to restore multiple sessions, tabs, etc.
rthprog wrote:
KeithJohansen wrote:
Since when does Chrome update automatically? I've always had to go and manually update Chrome, as far as I can remember.
You might not be noticing it... I rarely notice when Chrome updates itself (I usually just happen to find new features/layouts) ; but that's a good thing. Having extensions and Chrome automatically keep themselves up-to-date is, as Swivel said, worth having the relatively minor GoogleUpdate.exe run in the background.
Edit: I take that back. I just viewed "About Google Chrome" and I got a pop-up saying to restart Chrome for changes to take affect. Not bad. Now, if only you didn't have to restart!
I'm perfectly happy restoring tabs I just closed with Ctrl-Shift-T in Firefox, if that's what you mean. I don't generally need to restore more than the previous session's tabs, so the restore-on-next-start feature is perfectly sufficient for me as well.
comicIDIOT wrote:
I just viewed "About Google Chrome" and I got a pop-up saying to restart Chrome for changes to take affect. Not bad. Now, if only you didn't have to restart!
Actually, the next time you open Chrome, it'll update anyways. You can manually update (a bit faster), but just waiting till next launch ain't bad either.
rthprog wrote:
Speaking of which, Chrome's tab-isolation (Shift-Esc) is a solid reason to use Chrome; for people (such as I myself) who regularly have 15+ tabs open, having the entire browser crash is painful.
That really isn't a feature. Advertising that your browser is the best at handling crashes is basically admitting that your browser crashes often enough that you need an awesome way to handle it.
And over the past, oh, year or so. Chrome is the *only* browser that has crashed on me, and it happens far too often, which makes that "feature" a bug as far as I'm concerned.
Kllrnohj wrote:
rthprog wrote:
Speaking of which, Chrome's tab-isolation (Shift-Esc) is a solid reason to use Chrome; for people (such as I myself) who regularly have 15+ tabs open, having the entire browser crash is painful.
That really isn't a feature. Advertising that your browser is the best at handling crashes is basically admitting that your browser crashes often enough that you need an awesome way to handle it.
And over the past, oh, year or so. Chrome is the *only* browser that has crashed on me, and it happens far too often, which makes that "feature" a bug as far as I'm concerned.
Don't know why that is. I've had Firefox crash on me way more often than Chrome ever crashes on me. That's mainly why I've switched to Chrome. That and the fact Chrome doesn't have fragment-bloat like fattyfox does.
Also, Google doesn't rant and rave about how isolated tabs minimizes crash damage like it's the biggest point of the browser. It's there, it's a utile part, but it's not THE BIGGEST point. In fact, I don't think they really even make much reference to it. they mostly talk about its application in memory management and plugin stability.
rthprog wrote:
comicIDIOT wrote:
I just viewed "About Google Chrome" and I got a pop-up saying to restart Chrome for changes to take affect. Not bad. Now, if only you didn't have to restart!
Actually, the next time you open Chrome, it'll update anyways. You can manually update (a bit faster), but just waiting till next launch ain't bad either.
So it could update numerous times before it restarts 
comicIDIOT wrote:
I actually found one of my plugins updated on its own, I don't believe Chrome itself updates automatically but I've never noticed.
Edit: I take that back. I just viewed "About Google Chrome" and I got a pop-up saying to restart Chrome for changes to take affect. Not bad. Now, if only you didn't have to restart!
Indeed it does. And it's definitely not a bad thing, seeing as most of the updates are not drastic. It's nice to be able to open it and have an up-to-date browser.
KermMartian wrote:
I'm perfectly happy restoring tabs I just closed with Ctrl-Shift-T in Firefox, if that's what you mean. I don't generally need to restore more than the previous session's tabs, so the restore-on-next-start feature is perfectly sufficient for me as well.
As am I, although, it's nice to be able to restore a window
I find it very useful, especially if I close a whole window on accident. It's also nice that you can have multiple windows saved under one session. For instance, choosing Exit from the context menu will close all windows and restore them on restart. Instead of having Chrome restore the last window and then choosing the other windows from the 'Recently Closed' list (which is still virtually painless, as it involves minimal steps to restore a whole window of tabs).
KeithJohansen wrote:
Kllrnohj wrote:
[...]And over the past, oh, year or so. Chrome is the *only* browser that has crashed on me, and it happens far too often, which makes that "feature" a bug as far as I'm concerned.
Don't know why that is. I've had Firefox crash on me way more often than Chrome ever crashes on me. That's mainly why I've switched to Chrome. That and the fact Chrome doesn't have fragment-bloat like fattyfox does.
I think it's been said enough times that Firefox is bloated and still (no matter what you people say) has memory leak problems. I am, however, an advocate for Firefox and always have been, but not against Chrome. 
IMHO, the list goes a little something like this:
- Chrome
- Firefox
- Opera
- Safari
- Internet Explorer
Again, in my opinion. Everyone has their own
But I do believe Chrome is above Firefox. Firefox is a respectable browser but, in the paraphrased words of jpez, "Chrome is ahead of the game".
KeithJohansen wrote:
Also, Google doesn't rant and rave about how isolated tabs minimizes crash damage like it's the biggest point of the browser. It's there, it's a utile part, but it's not THE BIGGEST point. In fact, I don't think they really even make much reference to it. they mostly talk about its application in memory management and plugin stability.
Really? I thought tab isolation and rendering speed were Google's two main selling points for Chrome.
KermMartian wrote:
KeithJohansen wrote:
Also, Google doesn't rant and rave about how isolated tabs minimizes crash damage like it's the biggest point of the browser. It's there, it's a utile part, but it's not THE BIGGEST point. In fact, I don't think they really even make much reference to it. they mostly talk about its application in memory management and plugin stability.
Really? I thought tab isolation and rendering speed were Google's two main selling points for Chrome.
Yes, tab isolation is a big selling point but mostly they talk about it in terms of sandboxing security. That's more or less the main reason everything is isolated. Chrome goes for security, not crash recovery. Crash recovery is just... a fringe benefit really.
swivelgames wrote:
IMHO, the list goes a little something like this:
- Chrome
- Firefox
- Opera
- Safari
- Internet Explorer
Again, in my opinion. Everyone has their own
But I do believe Chrome is above Firefox. Firefox is a respectable browser but, in the paraphrased words of jpez, "Chrome is ahead of the game".
I do believe it should be:
- Chrome
- Firefox
- Opera
- Safari
- Every other browser on the face of the planet
- Internet Explorer
KeithJohansen wrote:
Yes, tab isolation is a big selling point but mostly they talk about it in terms of sandboxing security. That's more or less the main reason everything is isolated. Chrome goes for security, not crash recovery. Crash recovery is just... a fringe benefit really.
No they don't, and it doesn't. In fact, each process can be managing multiple tabs. It is not one process per tab at all. Also, from Chrome's feature list:
Quote:
Tabs and Stability
Chrome is built for stability. If an individual tab freezes or crashes, the other tabs are unaffected.
You can also arrange your tabs however you wish -- quickly and easily.
http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/more/features.html
Again, the feature doesn't do *ANYTHING* for security. It is purely a crash recovery mechanism.
KeithJohansen wrote:
That and the fact Chrome doesn't have fragment-bloat like fattyfox does.
An oft repeated claim on slashdot that nobody ever seems to back up. What "bloat" do you speak of?
swivelgames wrote:
I think it's been said enough times that Firefox is bloated and still (no matter what you people say) has memory leak problems. I am, however, an advocate for Firefox and always have been, but not against Chrome.
Repeating it doesn't make it true. This is a little on the old side, but its the newest I found: http://dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory
Boom! The "bloated" firefox with "memory leak problems" uses *BY FAR* the least amount of RAM. And look at Chrome, that sucker guzzles RAM like its going out of style. It used up to 4 *times* the amount of RAM. While Firefox was content with about 300mb, Chrome was using 1200mb at the same point. Firefox was also the best at recovering memory after its tabs were closed.
Bloated? Not a change
Memory leaks? Not by a longshot.
Quote:
But I do believe Chrome is above Firefox. Firefox is a respectable browser but, in the paraphrased words of jpez, "Chrome is ahead of the game".
Firefox >>> Chrome. Chrome isn't bad, but its extensions are a joke. Most of them are little more than glorified bookmarks.
As for my list:
1. Firefox
2. Chrome
3. Opera
4. Internet Explorer 8
5. Safari
I think I'd probably have the same list of five as you, Kllrnohj. And I definitely agree that the rumors of Firefox's bloat are greatly exaggerated, as you proved in your post.
Kllrnohj wrote:
KeithJohansen wrote:
Yes, tab isolation is a big selling point but mostly they talk about it in terms of sandboxing security. That's more or less the main reason everything is isolated. Chrome goes for security, not crash recovery. Crash recovery is just... a fringe benefit really.
No they don't, and it doesn't. In fact, each process can be managing multiple tabs. It is not one process per tab at all. Also, from Chrome's feature list:
Quote:
Tabs and Stability
Chrome is built for stability. If an individual tab freezes or crashes, the other tabs are unaffected.
You can also arrange your tabs however you wish -- quickly and easily.
http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/more/features.html
Again, the feature doesn't do *ANYTHING* for security. It is purely a crash recovery mechanism.
Just a minute on Google would have found an official blog post by the Chrome team.
I use to think you did better research 
comicIDIOT wrote:
Just a minute on Google would have found an
official blog post by the Chrome team.
I use to think you did better research
This ^
Also, while Chrome isn't reserved in its memory eating, it's a lot more manageable than Firefox is. With Firefox, as was aforementioned at least a couple of times, you get fragmentation. Fragmentation equals bloating over a long period of time. Furthermore, that 200-300mb of RAM that Fattyfox ends up consuming isn't really consolable without shutting down the browser completely and booting it back up, at least in my experience. With Chrome, as was also aforementioned, most everything gets individual processes (as multiple tabs for the same site usually share the same process). Less fragmentation and when something bloats up, you can kill tabs or plugin processes (Flash ) to bring memory consumption down to size. For people like me who never shut down their browser, Chrome is definitely a much better choice than Firefox.
As for extensions, what else do you need besides Ad Block and Web of Trust and the like? It's an internet browser. It browses the internet. Or are we all propagators of some omnifunctionality variation of Zawinski's Law?
[edited to make more sense because I suck at writing today]
comicIDIOT wrote:
That's for consumers, people who don't develop and don't give enough to be bothered about
sandboxing.
Just a minute on Google would have found an
official blog post by the Chrome team.
No, you're getting confused. Sandboxing has nothing to do with Chrome's use of multiple processes per tab groups. They are two different technologies. Also, sandboxing is by no means unique to Chrome. Hell, IE has been doing it for years now (since Vista iirc).
That blog post even explains that. They are using *WINDOW'S* sandboxing features.
Quote:
I use to think you did better research
My research is fine, thank you very much.
KeithJohansen wrote:
Also, while Chrome isn't reserved in its memory eating, it's a lot more manageable than Firefox is. With Firefox, as was aforementioned at least a couple of times, you get fragmentation. Fragmentation equals bloating over a long period of time. Furthermore, that 200-300mb of RAM that Fattyfox ends up consuming isn't really consolable without shutting down the browser completely and booting it back up, at least in my experience. With Chrome, as was also aforementioned, most everything gets individual processes (as multiple tabs for the same site usually share the same process). Less fragmentation and when something bloats up, you can kill tabs or plugin processes (Flash
) to bring memory consumption down to size. For people like me who
never shut down their browser, Chrome is definitely a much better choice than Firefox.
Unfortunately for your case, you are provably wrong by just about every objective test out there. Right now, I have firefox open with 2 windows for a total of 22 tabs. Its been running for, oh, a week or so. Its gobbling down a ridiculous... 200mb. Let me say that again, 200mb. "fattyfox", as you love to call it, is better at RAM management in every way compared to Chrome.
Again, with respect to RAM usage, Firefox absolutely *DESTROYS* Chrome. That isn't my opinion, it is fact. You are arguing against a tested and verified fact. You are simply running, plain and simple. Move on to another argument - hopefully one that wasn't proven wrong 2 years ago.
It is not fat, it is not bloated, it is anything but. I'm shocked that you honestly still think that something that was fixed with 2.0 is still true. Firefox hasn't been a RAM guzzler for going on 5 years now, at least.
Quote:
As for extensions, what else do you need besides Ad Block and Web of Trust and the like? It's an internet browser. It browses the internet.
Power. Things like Firebug, TamperData, Greesemonkey, etc, etc, etc...
It is an internet browser, so it needs to be ridiculously good. Every minute on my computer is spent with a web browser open. It is far and away the single most important program I use. I don't want some featureless limp-a program to surf the web.
>>They are using *WINDOW'S* sandboxing features.
>>WINDOW'S
Kllrnohj wrote:
comicIDIOT wrote:
That's for consumers, people who don't develop and don't give enough to be bothered about
sandboxing.
Just a minute on Google would have found an
official blog post by the Chrome team.
No, you're getting confused. Sandboxing has nothing to do with Chrome's use of multiple processes per tab groups. They are two different technologies. Also, sandboxing is by no means unique to Chrome. Hell, IE has been doing it for years now (since Vista iirc).
That blog post even explains that. They are using *WINDOW'S* sandboxing features.
They are related, sort of. Sandboxing keeps various things from running completely amok and the tab isolation helps kill those various things running amok (eg. bad malware in 1 tab is stuck in that tab, when that tab's process quits the malware dies with it).
Kllrnohj wrote:
KeithJohansen wrote:
Also, while Chrome isn't reserved in its memory eating, it's a lot more manageable than Firefox is. With Firefox, as was aforementioned at least a couple of times, you get fragmentation. Fragmentation equals bloating over a long period of time. Furthermore, that 200-300mb of RAM that Fattyfox ends up consuming isn't really consolable without shutting down the browser completely and booting it back up, at least in my experience. With Chrome, as was also aforementioned, most everything gets individual processes (as multiple tabs for the same site usually share the same process). Less fragmentation and when something bloats up, you can kill tabs or plugin processes (Flash
) to bring memory consumption down to size. For people like me who
never shut down their browser, Chrome is definitely a much better choice than Firefox.
Unfortunately for your case, you are provably wrong by just about every objective test out there. Right now, I have firefox open with 2 windows for a total of 22 tabs. Its been running for, oh, a week or so. Its gobbling down a ridiculous... 200mb. Let me say that again, 200mb. "fattyfox", as you love to call it, is better at RAM management in every way compared to Chrome.
Again, with respect to RAM usage, Firefox absolutely *DESTROYS* Chrome. That isn't my opinion, it is fact. You are arguing against a tested and verified fact. You are simply running, plain and simple. Move on to another argument - hopefully one that wasn't proven wrong 2 years ago.
It is not fat, it is not bloated, it is anything but. I'm shocked that you honestly still think that something that was fixed with 2.0 is still true. Firefox hasn't been a RAM guzzler for going on 5 years now, at least.
Well, then I guess my craptop is to blame for the performance difference between Firefox and Chrome. I'm only speaking from my own experience.
[edit]In fact, it is my laptop that's the root of the problem, now that I remember. I had significantly less RAM during my Firefox days than I have now, my Chrome days. I guess I may as well just redact my entire argument.
Kllrnohj wrote:
Quote:
As for extensions, what else do you need besides Ad Block and Web of Trust and the like? It's an internet browser. It browses the internet.
Power. Things like Firebug, TamperData, Greesemonkey, etc, etc, etc...
It is an internet browser, so it needs to be ridiculously good. Every minute on my computer is spent with a web browser open. It is far and away the single most important program I use. I don't want some featureless limp-a program to surf the web.
Makes sense. I guess I'm just old fashioned (however that works in the digital age XD)
KeithJohansen wrote:
They are related, sort of. Sandboxing keeps various things from running completely amok and the tab isolation helps kill those various things running amok (eg. bad malware in 1 tab is stuck in that tab, when that tab's process quits the malware dies with it).
Sandboxing means that if a tab gets hacked that tab can't then format your C: drive or something crazy. Chrome won't know to kill that tab. Its also no different than just running a single app entirely in the sandbox. Running each tab (really group of tabs) in their own sandbox isn't any more secure than just running the entire browser in the sandbox. Really the later is technically more secure as there isn't an escape route. With Chrome's model the infected process could use the IPC framework Google is using for interprocess communications to infect the main process that isn't in the sandbox, assuming the main process isn't in a sandbox, of course.
Not that it matters. Good security doesn't come from using buzzwords, it comes from implementation. Firefox might not be using Window's sandboxing system but its own, and it could be better. Or it might be using some other approach entirely.
Kllrnohj wrote:
Firefox might not be using Window's sandboxing system but its own, and it could be better. Or it might be using some other approach entirely.
Did you seriously just make the same grammar mistake twice in a row that I previously brought to your attention? SHAME ON YOU 
inb4 mod edit.
Kllrnohj wrote:
No, you're getting confused. Sandboxing has nothing to do with Chrome's use of multiple processes per tab groups. They are two different technologies.
And thus why we've been talking about sandboxing and multiple processes almost indirectly from one another for a few posts now.
Quote:
Also, sandboxing is by no means unique to Chrome. Hell, IE has been doing it for years now (since Vista iirc).
That blog post even explains that. They are using *WINDOW'S* sandboxing features.
Uhhh what now? So what if they're using Windows sandboxing features, I never made a claim they didn't utilize Windows sandbozing features so there is no point of me defending myself by words you're trying to make me eat.
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.
»
Go to Registration page
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
