News, tips, advice, support for Windows, Office, PCs & more. Tech help. No bull. We're community supported by donations from our Plus Members, and proud of it
Home icon Home icon Home icon Email icon RSS icon
  • Patch Lady – Chrome is out…what’s in?

    Posted on Susan Bradley Comment on the AskWoody Lounge

    Home Forums AskWoody blog Patch Lady – Chrome is out…what’s in?

    This topic contains 47 replies, has 24 voices, and was last updated by  wavy 2 weeks ago.

    • Author
      Posts
    • #1933255 Reply

      Susan Bradley
      AskWoody MVP

      Have you noticed this too?  Chrome sucks RAM like…. well it reminds me of what my Dad says about one of his cars — it can’t pass a gas station.  Bo
      [See the full post at: Patch Lady – Chrome is out…what’s in?]

      Susan Bradley Patch Lady

      6 users thanked author for this post.
    • #1933337 Reply

      anonymous

      I switched back to Firefox a couple months ago. Last time I used it regularly was in 2012 I think. But it just kept getting slower, and Google Chrome kept getting faster. So I naturally switched. Then in 2017 they announced Firefox Quantum, however I stuck with Chrome, but when it was announced that Chrome was ditching ad blockers, I decided to switch back to Firefox. My only regret is not switching sooner. I’ve fallen in love with Firefox again, and don’t miss Chrome one bit. I feel very confident in recommending Firefox over Chrome once again.

      6 users thanked author for this post.
      • #1934354 Reply

        Ascaris
        AskWoody_MVP

        In my latest test, I pitted Firefox 68.0.2 against Waterfox 56.2.13, both the current versions as I write this.  I used my Dell G3 laptop, with its i7-8750H hex-core (HT on) CPU, 16GB of RAM, nVidia GTX1050ti GPU, and NVMe SSD, is my fastest PC overall for decently parallelizable workloads.  In previous tests, I’ve found that testing on my slow PC (the one named “Swift”) nets the same relative results, just with lower numbers.  I’m running Linux for the test now, but I have previously tested Linux and Windows versions of Firefox and Waterfox on the same machine and found that they perform the same.

        As the goal of the test was to determine browser speed as I would see it, I tested both of them with the full complement of extensions that I would usually use.  Most of them are the same on both browsers, as Waterfox works nicely with most Webextensions addons (which are the only kind that work in Firefox proper).

        I used Browserbench.org’s example of SpeeDOMeter 2.0, which was the same benchmark Mozilla used to make the “twice as fast as Firefox was before” claim about Firefox Quantum.  I’ve used this one a few times to chart Firefox’s movement relative to Waterfox 56, which being based on the last Mozilla build prior to Quantum, is relatively static in performance.

        In the past, Firefox has maintained a slight edge in performance over Waterfox, but it was on the order of 7 percent or so.  Mozilla had told us that the legacy addons were holding back the speed, and that was why (among other reasons) the old addons had to go.

        So here we are, two years down the road.  Both browsers stand ready to duel!

        The results were interesting.

        Firefox 68.0.2 scored 50.2, plus or minus 1.3.  That was with OpenGL compositing; using WebRender, the score dropped to 49.7, plus or minus 1.9).

        Waterfox 56.2.13 scored 50.1, plus or minus 1.2, for a statistical tie.  That result also used OpenGL.  Waterfox 56 doesn’t have the ability to use WebRender.

        Two years later, there is zero performance benefit (in this benchmark) to having gotten rid of the classic addons.  This is the first test I have done that showed no performance benefit for Firefox proper.  Firefox evidently could have kept the classic addon APIs and still had Firefox be “Quantum” fast, and the stability and security advantages of the Webextensions, for those who prize that more than infinite customizability, could be realized by having a switch to turn on or off the classic addons, as they had in the first few builds of Quantum Firefox.

        It’s only one benchmark, but it’s the one Mozilla chose to show off how great Quantum was.

         

        Group "L" (KDE Neon User Edition 5.16.5).

        3 users thanked author for this post.
    • #1933391 Reply

      OscarCP
      AskWoody Plus

      Unfortunately, the site Susan, in her comment, has given a link to for further information demands to allow adds to be displayed before one can read the article. That is a big no-no for me. So I didn’t get the information there.

      What I wanted to find out was: exactly what, in actual number of bytes, does “sucks RAM like…” means. I happen to have a 750 GB HD, with some 300 GB still free after more than 8 years since I bought my current Windows 7 Pro x64 PC with an I-7 , 4 quads, 8 virtual processors’ CPU, and 8 GB of RAM. Haven’t noticed anything out of the ordinary when using Chrome, which I do for some sites, including the one for Prime Amazon videos. Should I have noticed anything?

       

      Windows 7 Professional, SP1, x64 Group B & macOS + Linux (Mint) => Win7 Group W + Mac&Lx

      • #1933397 Reply

        b
        AskWoody Plus

        Unfortunately, the site Susan, in her comment, has given a link to for further information demands to allow adds to be displayed before one can read the article. That is a big no-no for me. So I didn’t get the information there.

        Click “Continue with Adblocker” and all will be revealed.

        Knuckle dragger Cannon fodder Chump Daft glutton Idiot Crazy/Ignorant Toxic drinker Blockhead Unwashed mass Seeker/Sucker "Ancient/Obsolete" (Group ASAP) Win10 v.1903

        • #1934264 Reply

          Tom-R
          AskWoody Plus

          Click “Continue with Adblocker” and all will be revealed.

          Or, better yet, use Firefox with NoScript and Adblock Plus.  With that combination you can click on Susan’s link to the TechRadar article; and you’ll never even see that pop-up window … or any of the ads.

          Incidentally, for comparison, I opened the same link to that article using Firefox with those two extensions, and then later using Chrome with no extensions.   Firefox displays the full article (minus all the ads and other extraneous stuff of course) in just a few seconds.

          Chrome (loading up the full web page with all the ads and other unrelated clutter) takes almost a minute to fully display everything.   And while I’m waiting for the page to finish loading, Chrome will periodically throw up its own pop-up message that the web page is unresponsive — and asking if I want to wait or not.

          Choosing between Chrome and Firefox for me is pretty much a no-brainer.  Life’s too short to be sitting around waiting for web pages to load in Chrome.

          • #1934298 Reply

            OscarCP
            AskWoody Plus

            Tom-R: Thanks for passing on that information about NoScript. Worth keeping in mind.

            I do use AdBlock Plus in all the browsers, except for IE 11, which I no longer use. These browsers are: Chrome and Waterfox. One thing that happens to slow down greatly a browser is having to open a page full of adds, some moving and some static, but all with high resolution pictures. Even Chrome might get a bit faster if you used an add blocker in it. Worth a try?

            Windows 7 Professional, SP1, x64 Group B & macOS + Linux (Mint) => Win7 Group W + Mac&Lx

          • #1934347 Reply

            Ascaris
            AskWoody_MVP

            (quoting b)

            Click “Continue with Adblocker” and all will be revealed.

            Using uBlock Origin and uMatrix in Waterfox, there was no such option presented… there was merely a “disable adblock” page with nothing else on it (no buttons or links).

            I had recently switched to uMatrix for its greater granularity of control compared to NoScript… but…

            Or, better yet, use Firefox with NoScript and Adblock Plus. With that combination you can click on Susan’s link to the TechRadar article; and you’ll never even see that pop-up window … or any of the ads.

            After reading this, I decided to give NoScript another shot.  I enabled NoScript and disabled uMatrix, and tried again. The article just came up as you said, with no adblock naywall appearing. Interesting… I will have to see what one’s doing that the other isn’t.

            Inside the actual article, once I could read it:

            Whilst many of Google’s recent changes to Chrome have annoyed users, Mozilla’s changes to Firefox have been met with broadly positive reactions from its community

            We must be looking at different neighborhoods within the Firefox community.  The one I’m in has been busting Mozilla’s chops for several years for trying so hard to be Chrome, which for those of us who use Firefox because it’s Firefox, is a serious downgrade.  I’m not trying to denigrate Mozilla… I’m trying to wake them up!  If I wanted what Chrome has to offer, I would be using Chrome.  Their market share has been in freefall for the same length of time that they’ve been trying to be Chrome, yet they persist.

            For at least five or so years, ever since the horrible Chrome-like Australis UI was inflicted upon the Firefox users, each new version of Firefox (they come frequently, as Mozilla also copied Chrome’s fast release schedule) arriving has been a lot like receiving Windows updates… hunker down and get ready to be exasperated at what they did to us this time.  It seems that every new version lops off more important features, generally with no other justification than that Chrome also happens to be lacking in that area, so it must be a good idea not to have that feature.  Most notably, that included (with v57) the defining feature that made Firefox “Firefox”, its powerful addon API, with Firefox instead adopting Webextensions, based on (you guessed it) the Chrome addons.

            Mozilla seems to be trying hard to alienate every last Firefox die-hard out there while trying to court those users who are already happy with Chrome (and least likely to switch) by making a browser that is as indistinguishable from Chrome as possible.  I see a lot of people saying they are considering going back to Firefox, but those of us that never left the Firefox ecosystem (and I include Waterfox within that) are finding it increasingly hard to find a reason to prefer Firefox to any one of the de-googled Chromium variants out there.  It’s still an improvement on Chrome, but for how long?

             

            Group "L" (KDE Neon User Edition 5.16.5).

            1 user thanked author for this post.
            • #1934475 Reply

              OscarCP
              AskWoody Plus

              Ascaris: I agree with you entirely about Firefox, which I stopped using years ago for the same reasons (and then, several years earlier than that and before its present gradual mutation to Chrome Lite, there was the “babel” translation service add-on that took over one’s home page and needed some fiddling to get rid of, but Mozilla never owned up to sending it along with the browser and its updates, although they most certainly were). But about Waterfox: in my experience (and I still have both and keep them up to date), is much nicer than FF to use, at least for what I need a browser: doing, sometimes pretty extensive, Web searches for information, streaming Netflix and Amazon videos and downloading really long YouTube classical music ones, reading the news, visiting sites like Woody’s to see what’s up, checking my bank account… usually with the add blocker on, except for sites I support.

              Windows 7 Professional, SP1, x64 Group B & macOS + Linux (Mint) => Win7 Group W + Mac&Lx

            • #1938509 Reply

              anonymous

              Try Pale Moon Project…

              https://www.palemoon.org/

              Just like Classic Firefox. It even has plug-ins support if you still need Flash or Java and old extensions (e.g. my favorite, TAB MIX PLUS).

              1 user thanked author for this post.
      • #1933403 Reply

        Elly
        AskWoody MVP

        TechRadar asks that you disable ad blocking software, or pay $.99 for a week of unlimited views… but also offers, below those two choices, to let you continue reading as is…

        That gets readers thinking about the value of the information, but still allows choice.

        Win 7 Home, 64 bit, Group B

        • #1934302 Reply

          OscarCP
          AskWoody Plus

          Elly, I completely agree. That is why I do not block adds at several sites I often visit, because either these are useful and, or particularly interesting to me. When there were adds at Woody’s, I had it whitelisted in the add blocker. However, I was (and still am) not planning to visit TechRadar again any time soon, but only wanted to see what was in that particular article (which I found very unimpressive, by the way– and if that is a fair sample of the quality of TechRadar’s articles… ) I felt the idea of modifying my settings, just to be allowed to read on, or pay $99 and subscribe, as the pop up said to choose, was quite a bit more than my interest in the whole thing warranted.

          It turned out that one could read on, somehow, but at the time that did not work right away, so I just closed the page and moved on. Then I went back, followed b’s advice, and read it anyway.

          Windows 7 Professional, SP1, x64 Group B & macOS + Linux (Mint) => Win7 Group W + Mac&Lx

      • #1941716 Reply

        wavy
        AskWoody Plus

        Why not just allow the ads ? Sites NEED revenue to pay the server/isp bills?

        🍻

        Just because you don't know where you are going doesn't mean any road will get you there.
    • #1933430 Reply

      bbearren
      AskWoody MVP

      I’m negative to all things Google, and I’ve never used Chrome.  I used IE pre-Windows 10, then Edge, until Microsoft announced they were going to gut Edge and wrap it around Chromium.  I immediately switched to Firefox, and haven’t looked back.  It was a shallow and swift learning curve, and I’m enjoying it.

      Create a fresh drive image before making system changes, in case you need to start over!
      "The problem is not the problem. The problem is your attitude about the problem. Savvy?"—Captain Jack Sparrow
      "When you're troubleshooting, start with the simple and proceed to the complex."—M.O. Johns

      "Experience is what you get when you're looking for something else."—Sir Thomas Robert Deware

      1 user thanked author for this post.
    • #1933457 Reply

      b
      AskWoody Plus

      Chrome is out…what’s in?

      The author of the Chrome sucks RAM article found his Chrome alternative in the last two paragraphs:

      Hands on with the next Microsoft Edge, Microsoft’s revamped Chromium-based browser

      Microsoft Edge Insider Download Channels

      Microsoft are optimizing: Have feedback on the memory/CPU usage on Edge? We’re Listening!

      Knuckle dragger Cannon fodder Chump Daft glutton Idiot Crazy/Ignorant Toxic drinker Blockhead Unwashed mass Seeker/Sucker "Ancient/Obsolete" (Group ASAP) Win10 v.1903

    • #1933600 Reply

      MrJimPhelps
      AskWoody_MVP

      now that Microsoft has made a version of Edge that runs on the Chromium browser (which Chrome runs on), it seems like Microsoft might have made a worthy Chrome replacement

      It would amuse me to no end if Edge overtook Google Chrome!

      Back to the topic at hand: If you want to go the opposite direction of a RAM hog, use Firefox with the NoScript add-in enabled. Years ago I switched to Firefox / NoScript, because everything else had slowed to a crawl. By browsing with Firefox / NoScript, you can enable only what is necessary, and you will find that your browsing experience is much faster.

      Group "L" (Linux Mint)
      with Windows 8.1 running in a VM
      • #1934349 Reply

        Ascaris
        AskWoody_MVP

        In my most recent test, I found that Chromium used slightly less RAM than the then-current version of Firefox or Waterfox did while all the same sites were open in tabs.  As I recall, it was 1.1 GB for Chromium and 1.2 for the ‘foxes.  I had uBlock Origin in all three.  Disabling the adblocker doubled RAM usage in Firefox!

        Browsers in general are gluttons for RAM.

        Group "L" (KDE Neon User Edition 5.16.5).

    • #1933603 Reply

      anonymous

      Yes, Chrome uses a lot of RAM. But it does so because it’s there to be used. It functions perfectly fine if you have lower RAM, too. I run it on a 3 GB machine, sometimes even with a VM taking up 1 GB of that, leaving me with only 2 GB. And Chrome still runs just fine. The only downside is that it unloads tabs more often.

      That said, it does unload tabs rather indiscriminately, so I replace the built in dicarder with an addon Auto Tab Discard, which gives me the option to set certain sites not to unload. While it is restricted to unloading tabs based on how long they’ve been inactive, I find that works well enough. So I go to chrome:flags and disable the built in tab discarder.

      But that’s largely due to how unloaded tabs can lose your place in videos (and how Gmail is set up with a long loading time that fails Google’s own criteria for pages). If they fixed that, I wouldn’t even need an extension.

      My point is, Chrome works fine with lower memory, and trying to get a lower memory browser isn’t really all that useful. The only reason Firefox can be lower memory is that it limits the number of processes–which means it doesn’t do site isolation as well as Google. You’re trading security for reducing memory usage. Since Chrome degrades gracefully with lower RAM (as described above), I do not find that an acceptable tradeoff.

      In other words, I say to stick with Chrome, and treat the memory issue the non-issue it really is. Chrome will automatically reduce its memory usage when necessary. Idle RAM is useless RAM.

      1 user thanked author for this post.
    • #1933612 Reply

      CADesertRat
      AskWoody Plus

      Hmmm, I use chrome and I’m showing 18% of 32 GB of Memory being used. When I close chrome it goes to approx. 10/11 %. I never thought of that as being a lot of “Ram Sucking”. Maybe I’m wrong. I have never used FireFox since I was always happy with chrome (at least so far).

      Don't take yourself so seriously, no one else does 🙂
      4 Win 10 Pro currently 1809 (3 Desktops, 1 Laptop).

    • #1933625 Reply

      OscarCP
      AskWoody Plus

      Actually, in the article mentioned in Susan’s comment there is no explanation of why Chrome uses too much RAM, or what is meant by too much RAM. All it is written that touches on the overuse of RAM (besides “lots of people say so already on the Web”) is a couple of paragraphs (see below) to the effect that “I open a zillion Chrome screens and this does not work really well for me even when I have 32 GB of RAM”, something, I think, quite irrelevant to people who use Chrome and do not open a lot of screens at the same time. If one ever needed to do that, then one should use a different browser that is compatible, by design, with the kind of very intensive use one intends to make of it. But this does not mean that it is not fit for use by anyone else, period, as the writer states: “Chrome’s resource intensive nature is unacceptable“. Chrome is a tool, and as with every tool, its appropriateness depends on what one wants to do with it. Maybe it is a bloated tool? Well…

      I am not saying Chrome is great, only that this article is not. A more significant issue with Chrome is, in my opinion, the users’ data snooping Google is notorious for and that already preoccupies a considerable number of people, both on the Web and out in the real world.

      As to the article, please read this excerpt, and you shall be the judge:

      These days, Chrome is just as bloated and resource-hungry as its competitors were. There’s a reason why Chrome’s lust for RAM has become such a popular meme on the internet.

      I’m lucky enough to have a PC that boasts 32GB of the stuff. Now, that amount of RAM is – to be honest – overkill for most things I use my PC for. However, after a few hours using Chrome, gigabytes will have been swallowed up by Google’s web browser.

      Yes, I admit that my shoddy tab organisation is partly to blame here. Because of the nature of my job (and the ultra-wide aspect ratio of my monitor), my browser can end up the distressingly high number of open tabs.

      Even so, Chrome’s resource intensive nature is unacceptable. And, while a growing number of available extensions has helped make Chrome a more useful – and versatile – piece of software, it is led to Chrome becoming far too bloated.

      Windows 7 Professional, SP1, x64 Group B & macOS + Linux (Mint) => Win7 Group W + Mac&Lx

      1 user thanked author for this post.
      • #1934407 Reply

        rc primak
        AskWoody_MVP

        The number of open tabs is only part of the equation in Chrome’s RAM usage. Per tab Chrome uses more RAM than Firefox. This is partly due to how video is handled, but it’s also as stated in this thread partly due to greater isolation of processes per tab. Firefox and Chrome both use containers, but Chrome’s container scheme is less RAM-efficient than the one used by Firefox. Overall, there appears to be no security disadvantage or disadvantage to either scheme. There may also be less process unloading when a Chrome tab is in the background than the amount of process unloading Firefox does.

        Even on my Chromebook running Fedora Linux, I have to get to about ten tabs before the system even hesitates due to insufficient RAM and other system resources.

        I see no reason to stop using Chrome as long as it is understood that Google does a lot more tracking than Mozilla does. But this has always been a complaint, and is nothing new.

        -- rc primak

        • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 4 days ago by  rc primak.
        • #1938069 Reply

          anonymous

          There is a rather big security disadvantage: Firefox does not have site isolation. They’re working on it, but expect memory usage to increase if you turn it on.

          The primary way Firefox keeps memory down is simply by limiting the number of open processes, which inherently means you can’t have full site isolation. (If you have too many sites open, then at least one process will have to handle two sites.)

          This is changing. Firefox is working on both site isolation (which will increase memory usage) and tab unloading (which will reduce it). However, currently, Chrome has these features, while Firefox does not.

          That said, I’m hoping that Firefox will implement them better, and force Chrome to go back and fix their tab unloading. If Firefox can just keep track of where videos are, and allow you to easily make an exception for a site that takes a long time to reload, then it will be superior.

          However, I do expect both to use similar levels of memory–i.e. all it currently needs or all it has available, whichever is less.

          1 user thanked author for this post.
    • #1933708 Reply

      anonymous

      I use IE 11 and Firefox. Firefox for online live streaming where IE 11 will not work properly and IE 11 where Firefox has issues. And Firefox has issues with the RAMMB Slider interactive weather satellite website after the latest Firefox update.

      But that may be my fault for going into Firefox’s about:config settings and fully disabling any sorts of Pop Ups as popups are just too annoying and too much of a security risk. I really wish that web developers would not make use of any pop up related HTML5 functionality but that’s sure not going to happen.

      So some websites work fine in IE 11 and other work better in Firefox and I wish that All the weather websites would stop dishing out any satellite content inside of frames as that really messes with proper web page zooming functionality for satellite images or satellite loops. But most of the time I use Firefox as it appears to have less issues than IE 11. Firefox and a Cesium API based weather reconnaissance tracking web page based application appears to use excessive processing cycles currently but that happens with IE 11 as well with that same Cesium API based web page/web application and it’s just that currently Firefox is more affected than IE 11.

      The big question with any software that uses excessive memory is could that be memory leak related or is the application just poorly optimized by nature. But maybe having more than one Internet Browser installed is the way to go in case things are not working properly in one then use the other.

      Web Browsers are little Operating Systems in their own right and I wish that end users where given more control over just how much processing, memory, disk-Read/Write, and disk space resources where allotted to any Internet Browser/Browser Session. Maybe in the future OSs will morph into something more like a Type-1 Hypervisor facility or some sort of Container like environment where Internet Browsers could be relegated into some VM Like OS Instance/Container that’s hardware/hypervisor managed and not much runtime resource permissions granted. And all that erased once the session was closed and an fresh Browser Instance each and every time with no changes getting outside the Hardware managed sandbox.

      • #1934410 Reply

        rc primak
        AskWoody_MVP

        Chrome has never been shown to have any sort of “memory leak”. However, the same cannot be said of popular Chrome and Firefox extensions. Firefox extensions seem to get fewer complaints now that the API is Webextensions, no longer NPAPI.  Some Chrome PPAPI extensions still may have memory leak issues.

        -- rc primak

        1 user thanked author for this post.
        • #1934478 Reply

          Ascaris
          AskWoody_MVP

          NPAPI is a plugin API, not an extension API.  Webextensions replaces XUL/XPCOM.

          FWIW, most of the extensions I use in Waterfox are Webextensions, but the few that are XUL do a lot of heavy lifting.

          Group "L" (KDE Neon User Edition 5.16.5).

          1 user thanked author for this post.
    • #1934177 Reply

      Used Chrome until I got tired of having to manually flush all the tracking goop a few times a day*; coupla weeks ago switched back to Firefox with two extensions, uBlock** and Adblock Plus. Results:

      Chrome: 547 MB of RAM
      Firefox: 447 MB RAM
      Firefox uses 27% less RAM on my system.

      System stats below. Also keep in mind the more extensions you add, the more RAM it’s going to take up.

      *Firefox has this wonderful little switch in it that blows it all away when you close the browser.

      **Tried NoScript, but had to abandon it-uBlock uses lists, and just about every site you hit needs JavaScript to run properly… whitelisting every site. uBlock seems to have fairly large and correct lists.

      Win7 Pro SP1 64-bit, Dell Latitude E6330, Intel CORE i5 "Ivy Bridge", Group "Wait for the all-clear", Multiple Air-Gapped backup drives in different locations, "Don't check for updates-Full Manual Mode."
      --
      "...All the people, all the time..." (Peter Ustinov ad-lib from "Logan's Run")

      1 user thanked author for this post.
      • #1934271 Reply

        Alex5723
        AskWoody Plus

        Chrome: 547 MB of RAM
        Firefox: 447 MB RAM

        Saving 100MB of RAM on a PC with 8-32GB is insignificant.

        I am staying with Chrome with many extensions on my laptop with 16GB of RAM

        Bypass Paywalls
        Checker Plus for Gmail™
        Extensions Update Notifier
        Google Dictionary (by Google)
        Google Docs Offline
        HTTPS Everywhere
        Imagus
        Magic Actions for YouTube™
        Password Alert
        Password Checkup extension
        Save Image As PNG
        Send from Gmail (by Google)
        uBlock Origin
        uBlock Origin Extra
        UltraSurf Security, Privacy & Unblock VPN (disabled, enabled when needed)
        WOT Web of Trust, Website Reputation

        • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 5 days ago by  Alex5723.
        2 users thanked author for this post.
        • #1934650 Reply

          OK, Alex, you got me there…this old machine has only 4 gigs of hard RAM…and so it matters to me, but not to thee.  🙂

          Win7 Pro SP1 64-bit, Dell Latitude E6330, Intel CORE i5 "Ivy Bridge", Group "Wait for the all-clear", Multiple Air-Gapped backup drives in different locations, "Don't check for updates-Full Manual Mode."
          --
          "...All the people, all the time..." (Peter Ustinov ad-lib from "Logan's Run")

      • #1934411 Reply

        rc primak
        AskWoody_MVP

        Chrome extensions can do the same flushing out of cruft which Firefox can do natively. I use HotCleaner’s Click and Clean. It also gets at some system areas where Local Storage takes place. Very customizable.

        -- rc primak

        1 user thanked author for this post.
    • #1934213 Reply

      hitokage
      AskWoody Lounger

      Browser memory use is based on each web page, and has increased because the amount of stuff web pages are doing – scripts, images/animations, movies, etc. The worst offenders are the web pages that are endless – instead of splitting stuff up onto separate pages, you continually scroll down forever until you reach the end of the content.

      2 users thanked author for this post.
      • #1934257 Reply

        OscarCP
        AskWoody Plus

        I believe that the current much higher resolution (more pixels per png, jpeg, etc.) of the pictures in the Web pages also increases considerably the size of the Internet Temp contents  left behind after a session, compared to what used to be the case some years ago.

        Windows 7 Professional, SP1, x64 Group B & macOS + Linux (Mint) => Win7 Group W + Mac&Lx

        • #1934417 Reply

          rc primak
          AskWoody_MVP

          I’m not sure of the sheer quantities involved. Acceleration and selective fetching of only the elements which are currently needed reduce the use of local storage and temp locations. So we can’t say that just because an element is coded into a page, it is necessarily loaded, stored locally and not released quickly when no longer in use.

          -- rc primak

          • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 4 days ago by  rc primak.
          • #1934466 Reply

            OscarCP
            AskWoody Plus

            I am inclined to imagine that, to see a picture in a Web page, the picture must be downloaded to one’s computer first and is likely to be left there, along with other debris, “for a quick reloading of the page”. I also assume that people that put up ads in Web pages want those adds to be seen and even heard. And the more colorful, animated and noisy the ad, the better. All that has to be downloaded or streamed, as well as the high resolution pictures that illustrate the ads. That must take time and slow down loading the page. I have noticed considerably faster loading and less clutter left behind when I use the ad blocker, compared to when I don’t.

            Windows 7 Professional, SP1, x64 Group B & macOS + Linux (Mint) => Win7 Group W + Mac&Lx

            1 user thanked author for this post.
    • #1934381 Reply

      techweenie
      AskWoody Lounger

      This is a silly discussion because unused RAM is wasted RAM.  The whole point of having it is to use it, and the more you have, the more SHOULD be used.  If you think keeping your RAM 90% free at all times makes your computer faster then you are wrong.  How about sharing some articles that educate people on how computers use RAM rather than adding to the confusion and hysteria.  A good example is Android OS.  It always uses most of the available RAM to keep your most used apps feeling nice and snappy.

      4 users thanked author for this post.
      • #1934400 Reply

        joep517
        AskWoody MVP

        It is not entirely silly. It depends on your normal workload. If any program routinely uses an inordinate amount of RAM based on what you are doing then it could be slowing down your PC if your RAM usage is 80% or higher on a regular basis. If your normal RAM use is high then Windows will have to spend time using your swapfile. That definitely will slow down your system. When Windows or any OS has one or more components overloaded it begins spending more time managing requests to do something than actually doing what is requested.

        --Joe

        4 users thanked author for this post.
        • #1934450 Reply

          OscarCP
          AskWoody Plus

          Joep17: What is silly is to try to use a particular browser while insisting on keeping a zillion windows open, each running that particular browser. If that is a problem, go use another browser, don’t rant about how bad the browser is. I doubt that the writer of that article — who acknowledges  that part of his problem is caused by his “sloppy habit” of keeping too many windows open with a browser —  is a typical user of Chrome, or of any browser. Certainly he is nothing like me, that keep, at most and rarely, four windows open with a browser running in all four. And, although I have “only” 16 GB or RAM, I have no problems because of Chrome’s using too much of it.

          By the way, I do use Chrome mostly for accessing some specific sites where it either works better than my other browsers, or it is required to use it, but Waterfox is my browser of choice and I’ve made it the default browser in both my Windows 7 PC and my Mac.

          Windows 7 Professional, SP1, x64 Group B & macOS + Linux (Mint) => Win7 Group W + Mac&Lx

        • #1940106 Reply

          mn–
          AskWoody Lounger

          Sure, the RAM usage is just fine when you’re only running one application at a time.

          But that’s not very useful for the case where you have a browser and then a separate application for mail, then maybe a desktop messaging thing or two, a word processor, and a database application and… and these don’t talk to each other regarding resource use.

          And then on the background but still active, you might have security software, cloud sync tools, printing, … should also count operating system components like desktop graphics and networking stack… and audio.

          So there’s any number of potential sources of memory pressure, and most of them have approximately equal priority.

          It’s possible to run out of memory to such an extent that you lose graphics content, on various versions of Windows including 10 1809 (at least some builds) depending on GPU and drivers. And once a screen goes black from that, don’t know of any other way to recover than rebooting. (Though if you have multiple screens, the primary one seems to be the last to go.)

          • #1941248 Reply

            Paul T
            AskWoody MVP

            I’m running mail, Chrome with lots of tabs, spreadsheet, music, editor and still have 40% of my 8GB free.

            cheers, Paul

    • #1934383 Reply

      johnf
      AskWoody Lounger

      If you’re not interested in pictures/video, etc, and just want text only, there’s options! You can use a Text Only Browser (Lynx), or you can use extensions for Chrome/Firefox that enable the same thing!

      https://merabheja.com/12-text-only-browsers-for-browsing-in-slow-internet-connections/

      You’ll not only get a speed boost, but it’s safer as well!

       

      1 user thanked author for this post.
      • #1934471 Reply

        warrenrumak
        AskWoody Plus

        If you’re not interested in pictures/video, etc, and just want text only, there’s options! You can use a Text Only Browser (Lynx), or you can use extensions for Chrome/Firefox that enable the same thing!

        https://merabheja.com/12-text-only-browsers-for-browsing-in-slow-internet-connections/

        You’ll not only get a speed boost, but it’s safer as well!

         

        But what’s the purpose of “saving” memory? What does it get you?  Intentionally deciding to have a significantly worse browsing experience in order to keep some of your RAM completely unused is not a sensible trade-off.  A RAM chip requires the same amount of electricity whether it’s all being used or not…. so you might as well use all of it.

         

        3 users thanked author for this post.
        • #1938552 Reply

          johnf
          AskWoody Lounger

          I wasn’t talking about saving memory, just getting better performance out of what I have. To switch between Text mode and Graphics mode is just one click on the taskbar, so if I want to watch pretty pictures, or have videos playing in the background while my PC grinds to a halt, I can do that…or just have a snappy browser experience reading text.

          Those of us who are “old school” (using Gopher, FTP, Text Email back) want to get the job done as quickly as possible. While I agree Chrome is a memory hog, it’s become one because we (or the advertisers) are asking for more and more Graphics (or in the advertisers case, trackers). Text mode and Ad Blockers are the response for that.

    • #1934406 Reply

      zasdman
      AskWoody Lounger

      Bottom line if you still have a SATA drive, it’s time to upgrade to SSD.

      This can be a bit confusing to some people as SSD drives can still be SATA drives…

      1 user thanked author for this post.
      • #1934421 Reply

        rc primak
        AskWoody_MVP

        The wording definitely should have been “mechanical hard drive” or “HDD”.

        -- rc primak

    • #1934461 Reply

      Chris B
      AskWoody Plus

      I noticed this kind of behaviour starting a few months ago. Chrome ground to a snail’s pace; all 4 cores of the CPU (i5) maxed to 100% and the RAM (4GB) usage went close to 100%  Admittedly, this PC is nearly 8 years old. I found it only occurred on certain pages and, when I closed those pages, the stats immediately returned to normal, with no apparent RAM leakage. Comically, one of those sites is the TechRadar site that Susan points to.

      I have just replaced my wife’s PC with a new laptop (Win10, i5, 8GB). It exhibits the same boost to CPU initially, but then settles fairly quickly. Why the behaviour under Win 10 is different to Win 7 I don’t understand. Perhaps just attributable to the modern faster hardware.

      I attribute the problem to either the ads or graphics served on offending sites, and have  concluded merely not to use those sites.

      Chris
      Win7 Home Premium 64 bit Group A, moving to Win 10 Pro Group A

    • #1934531 Reply

      anonymous

      I have noticed that, when I launch the Chrome browser, it also launches something called software_reporter_tool.exe, which is supplied and downloaded into AppData Local by Chrome or Google. That executable file is over 13 Mb in size; and sometimes I have seen as many as eight or more instances of it running simultaneously in the task manager processes. Also, right this minute there are ten instances of chrome.exe running in the task manager processes for this laptop running this webpage in the Chrome browser. The software_reporter_tool.exe only runs, however, long enough for it to complete whatever tasks it is performing, and then disappears from the task manager (not from AppData Local). I have no idea why more than one instance is even necessary.

      • #1934570 Reply

        Alex5723
        AskWoody Plus

        instances of chrome.exe running in the task manager

        Google Chrome runs each extension, web app in a sort of sandbox.

        Google Chrome takes advantage of these properties and puts web apps and plug-ins in separate processes from the browser itself. This means that a rendering engine crash in one web app won’t affect the browser or other web apps. It means the OS can run web apps in parallel to increase their responsiveness, and it means the browser itself won’t lock up if a particular web app or plug-in stops responding…

        https://www.howtogeek.com/124218/why-does-chrome-have-so-many-open-processes/

    • #1934597 Reply

      gborn
      AskWoody_MVP

      Due to the RAM thing, I don’t use Google’s Chrome since months anymore (as a poor blogger, my Win7 machine has 4 GB RAM and a SATA HD 😉 …

      Because I’ve open always 10 and more tabs, Chrome eats up to 90 % of my RAM and the machine starts to become unuseable – so I’m forced to kill all Chrome task to free the wasted memory.

      Firefox eats 100 – 200 MB more RAM per Tab compared to Chrome.

      I currently use Iron browser portable – a Google Chrome clone – uses lesser RAM per Tab, compared to Chrome, and don’t have all the Chrome Google related privacy stuff.

      1 user thanked author for this post.
    • #1934642 Reply

      anonymous

      The Chrome habit should be broken anyway.   Resource use aside, it snoops.  If people value their privacy, Chrome (or any google product) is the last browser to use. Ditto IE.

      1 user thanked author for this post.

    Please follow the -Lounge Rules- no personal attacks, no swearing, and politics/religion are relegated to the Rants forum.

    Reply To: Patch Lady – Chrome is out…what’s in?

    You can use BBCodes to format your content.
    Your account can't use Advanced BBCodes, they will be stripped before saving.