3 ms·
On a low memory computer I had configured FF to not show images unless I alt-clicked them. Together with not using JavaScript this meant using significantly les
by bjoli 7y ago
On a low memory computer I had configured FF to not show images unless I alt-clicked them. Together with not using JavaScript this meant using significantly less memory. I suspect browsers still have to have raw bitmaps in memory, which for the 2mb jpegs you are fed everywhere quickly adds up...
- chmod775 7y agoThey have to be in memory somewhere. They technically don't have to be kept in RAM if they are uploaded to VRAM though. Assumining RGBA it's just over 8MB for a 1920x1080 image.
- gnode 7y agoImages could be kept compressed until they are painted. Most GPUs support texture compression, so don't need to keep a bitmap for compositing.
- chmod775 7y agoTexture compression is inherently lossy, so it isn't an option. It's also really dependend on your textures and what you want to do with them, you don't want browser to just go give it their best shot at compressing your company logo.