Firefox 4.0 Beta VS. Other Browsers - by Renzatic
Shadowcat on 14/7/2010 at 08:27
You know, Chrome's "one process per tab" approach sounded kinda nice, until I actually used it. Unfortunately, this approach seems to mean that the OS is far more likely to swap out all the memory used by a tab that has not recently been viewed, and when that happens, attempting to flip through the open tabs becomes a giant PITA, as you must wait for each tab to get swapped back into RAM before it will let you move on to the next one. Massive usability fail.
(I heard that Mozilla were contemplating the multi-process model themselves, and I really hope that it's going to be limited to plugins.)
In general, I'm happy with Firefox. The Session Manager and Bar Tab extensions combine very nicely to ensure that if the browser ever does die, or needs a restart, it's pretty fast and painless. Opera is also good, but I generally sacrifice a bit of performance to get the extra goodies that Firefox offers.
Koki on 14/7/2010 at 09:04
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Nope. Despite its reputation, Firefox actually uses quite a bit less memory than the other browsers.
But I tested it myself and it was 20% :(
Enchantermon on 16/7/2010 at 15:18
Quote Posted by Shadowcat
Massive usability fail.
Eh. I noticed this, but for most tabs it took about 1-2 seconds for the swap to occur. Not particularly annoying.
Renzatic on 22/7/2010 at 05:38
But that's one or two seconds that could be better spent looking up data for spreadsheets. It's a fast paced on-the-go world out there, Enchantermon. Even the slightest delays add up towards huge deficits in productivity by the end of the week.
:mad::mad::mad:
