3 ms·
It's going to be interesting to see how the people, ignorant about the additional memory overhead required for a multi-process architecture, will respond to thi
by bitmapbrother 11y ago
It's going to be interesting to see how the people, ignorant about the additional memory overhead required for a multi-process architecture, will respond to this. My guess is that they'll find another single process browser or revert back to the old version after they've thoroughly finished criticizing the new Firefox version for the increased memory bloat.
- nwah1 11y agoThe relevant question is how well Firefox compares to competitors like Chrome (which uses multiple processes). Even despite this new overhead, it wouldn't be surprising if the numbers were very competitive.
- pmontra 11y agoThere will be no more single process browsers left. However RAM is cheap and very useful in general. The more you have the faster your computer seems to run. Obviously if one has already hit the RAM limit of the motherboard and needs more, s/he's out of luck. I had a 4 GB laptop and couldn't expand it anymore. Then I bought one with 16 GB and I can expand it to 32 GB. I looked explicitly for that option, because I was pretty sure that sooner or later 16 GB wouldn't be enough. I rarely hit 12 GB at the moment.
- bitmapbrother 11y agoI absolutely agree with you, but that doesn't stop the people complaining about Chrome memory bloat. The same people that consistently complain about Chrome will now have a new browser to complain about.
- sp332 11y agoYou're probably right about the attitude, but you can disable this feature pretty easily.
- bryanlarsen 11y agoAfter e10s is released, they should probably make a "low memory" build of Firefox available with this flag flipped.