3 ms·
This is why I love Hacker News. Similarly, if anyone has any comments to pass on to the Chrome team, I can oblige; although comment is welcome on our mailing li
by jlees 16y ago
This is why I love Hacker News. Similarly, if anyone has any comments to pass on to the Chrome team, I can oblige; although comment is welcome on our mailing lists too, of course. And.. fight!
- niyazpk 16y agoA small pet-peeve: The downloads window calculates the speed in a non-intuitive way. I understand you display the average speed over a time so that the speed does not fluctuate too much, but the time is too long. (Or are you using the total elapsed time to calculate this?) For example, say I am downloading at 100KBps. Even if for some reason my download stopped (due to some connection issues) the speed displayed will not immediately go down to 0. Instead it will take a very long time to gradually go down to 0. I am not sure if it will ever reach zero. Obviously this can be corrected by using a smaller time frame say 1 minute to calculate the speed of download.
- jlees 16y agoI'll look into this, I can see how it'd be annoying and confusing. Thanks for bringing it up.
- Zak 16y agoOn Linux, Chrome is very memory-hungry. I'm using 1.2gb for 20 tabs on a fresh startup/tab restore, and it sometimes leaks like crazy, using as much as 2gb in a single process. The leaks seem slightly mitigated in the 7.x betas, but static usage is exceptionally high.
- dflock 16y agoYeah, this. I'm a web developer and a heavy Chromium user and I caught myself pondering a memory upgrade for my 8Gb desktop the other day, just for Chromium.
- dflock 16y agoObviously this is just an examples of _the_ classical trade off, but still...
- jlees 16y agoThis is something we're actively working on, you'll be glad to hear. After all, if we're launching an OS that's Chrome-on-Linux with huge memory leaks, we're screwed. ;)