3 ms·

Meh, if you're referring to making every tab its own process, I personally don't like that. I'm sure there's performance or stability reasons for Chrome's decis

Meh, if you're referring to making every tab its own process, I personally don't like that. I'm sure there's performance or stability reasons for Chrome's decision, but I also don't really like having 30 different processes open for the one application.

nawitus 14y ago
Why not? I'd say 30 processes is a lot better than 1 process. You also need to take into consideration that the number of cores is increasing pretty quickly. Pretty soon consumers will have 32 cores and whatnot. I'm a Firefox user but really it's the largest weakness Firefox is having. If I open two new tabs simultaneously, the whole browser can freeze for a bit.
- kevincrane 14y ago
  Honestly (and I'm fairly certain this is a bad reason), it's a cleanliness thing. If I use top or the process manager, it gets annoying to scroll through countless variations of 'chrome'. Maybe if the process manager could group those into one heading where I just see "Chrome (30 processes)", I'd feel better about it?
  - nawitus 14y ago
    That's what my "process manager" called pstree on Linux does: ├─firefox───36*[{firefox}]
  - saraid216 14y ago
    My favorite thing about Chrome is that I can open up "View background processes", get a list of which tabs are using up how much memory, and then click-and-kill selectively. But this is an end user experience, rather than a web dev experience.
- subsection1h 14y ago
  Why not? I'd say 30 processes is a lot better than 1 process. 1 process is better than 300 processes, and I sometimes have more than 300 tabs open. (I always have more than 100 tabs open.) If I open two new tabs simultaneously, the whole browser can freeze for a bit. People who prefer one process per tab tend to mention that tabs freeze up their browser, and I believe them, but this never happens to me. Maybe it's because I use NoScript and have all plugins disabled, except for Flash, which I block with Flashblock.

nawitus 14y ago

Why not? I'd say 30 processes is a lot better than 1 process. You also need to take into consideration that the number of cores is increasing pretty quickly. Pretty soon consumers will have 32 cores and whatnot. I'm a Firefox user but really it's the largest weakness Firefox is having. If I open two new tabs simultaneously, the whole browser can freeze for a bit.

kevincrane 14y ago
Honestly (and I'm fairly certain this is a bad reason), it's a cleanliness thing. If I use top or the process manager, it gets annoying to scroll through countless variations of 'chrome'. Maybe if the process manager could group those into one heading where I just see "Chrome (30 processes)", I'd feel better about it?
- nawitus 14y ago
  That's what my "process manager" called pstree on Linux does: ├─firefox───36*[{firefox}]
- saraid216 14y ago
  My favorite thing about Chrome is that I can open up "View background processes", get a list of which tabs are using up how much memory, and then click-and-kill selectively. But this is an end user experience, rather than a web dev experience.
subsection1h 14y ago
Why not? I'd say 30 processes is a lot better than 1 process. 1 process is better than 300 processes, and I sometimes have more than 300 tabs open. (I always have more than 100 tabs open.) If I open two new tabs simultaneously, the whole browser can freeze for a bit. People who prefer one process per tab tend to mention that tabs freeze up their browser, and I believe them, but this never happens to me. Maybe it's because I use NoScript and have all plugins disabled, except for Flash, which I block with Flashblock.