3 ms·
IE9 support is already in a sad state. Many new websites already look in IE9 as bad as in IE6. Chrome should spawns less processes (hold some more tabs in one
by frik 11y ago
IE9 support is already in a sad state. Many new websites already look in IE9 as bad as in IE6.
Chrome should spawns less processes (hold some more tabs in one process). IE spawns less processes than Chrome and therefor is less of a memory hog.
Firefox finally needs a proper multi-process implementation. Even the latest Developer edition just uses two processes (firefox.exe and plugin-container.exe) - I just tried it again with a new profile. Good luck keeping 100 tabs open (with "open" I mean "in memory"). If one tab crashes... you switch back to IE/Chrome. In the current state Firefox is great for development, but not for my daily web usage.
- robgibbons 11y agoI'm kind of sick of hearing complaints about Chrome's multiple processes being somehow a bad thing. You want fewer processes in Chrome, then you go on to complain about Firefox's crashed tabs. Do you understand that's one of the benefits of having multiple processes? If one process crashes, it very rarely effects the performance of any other processes. It's not keeping all of your eggs in one basket. It provides better security as well. So I'm at a loss as to why so few people can appreciate it. Considering these benefits, memory usage is totally reasonable.
- frik 11y agoAre you answering my comment? You wrote your own unrelated rant. I only wrote about it would be great if you could configure Chrome's process spawning logic. IE does it in an more intelligent way to consume less memory by spawning a bit less processes (a trade off, as if one tab crashes more tabs have to be reloaded). But giving a power user (who have 100+ tabs open) a choice would be great.
- icebraining 11y agoIt's not the default yet, but you can already enable multi-process in Firefox by toggling the "browser.tabs.remote" option in about:config. It should ship as the default this year.