3 ms·
Your screen likely has gotten better in ways that necessarily use more memory: more pixels, more bit depth means larger pictures, larger font caches (because of
by Someone 5y ago
Your screen likely has gotten better in ways that necessarily use more memory: more pixels, more bit depth means larger pictures, larger font caches (because of larger characters and anti-aliasing), etc.
The pages you look at also have gotten ‘better’ in ways that necessarily use more memory. I don’t think you regularly loaded megabytes of JavaScript.
Finally, your browser usage likely has gotten ‘better’ in ways that necessarily use more memory. I guess you have more tabs open than you ever had in that 64 MiB.
- kragen 5y agoWhile there is something to this, and antialiased fonts and CJKV rendering are particularly beneficial, I mostly don't agree about necessarily using more memory (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30872388 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30872388). We're talking about orders of magnitude more memory than the screen contents. As for JS, on most pages the only benefit of those megabytes of JavaScript is that I need to use uBlock Origin and/or Reader Mode to read what I'm actually interested in, the page jumps around at random while I'm trying to read it, Twitter tries to extort me into logging in, DoubleClick and reCaptcha can fingerprint my GPU, etc. Also, a megabyte of minified JS might reasonably compile down into a megabyte of bytecode or 4 MiB of native code, not 64 MiB or 128 MiB. JS's execution model is kind of inherently memory-hungry, though. 64 MiB is for one tab.