>There is no upside to using more memory. But there is an upside to better security. It'd be great if it was a free lunch but apparently it's not. >Chrome nee

>There is no upside to using more memory. But there is an upside to better security. It'd be great if it was a free lunch but apparently it's not. >Chrome needs to be as efficient as possible. Chrome needs to make its users as happy as possible. Efficiency only matters when it starts affecting user happiness. >Creating an ideal situation to make Chrome fit is disingenuous. Do you know that it's an "ideal" situation rather than typical? I don't either but I also suspect Google wouldn't turn this on if it was going to negatively affect most users because they run the risk of losing market share to Safari/Firefox/Edge. I'm open to evidence to the contrary. >Hopefully in time they find a way to retain safety without furthering to bloat their browser. That's most likely going to be in the Intel/AMDs court.