6 ms·

For me the big difference wasn't the browser itself; it has been excessive javascript that's slowing the browsers. Many media sites are loading 20-30 external s

by nhebb 14y ago

For me the big difference wasn't the browser itself; it has been excessive javascript that's slowing the browsers. Many media sites are loading 20-30 external scripts, and I found that switching back to Firefox with NoScript has made a huge difference in load times and memory usage. The other issue with Chrome was releasing memory. I can close a tab in FF and the memory is recovered.

ubercow13 14y ago
That's weird, shouldn't Chrome be better at releasing memory due to its process model?
- keeperofdakeys 14y ago
  Having individual processes also dramatically increases the overhead of having multiple tabs open.
  - ubercow13 14y ago
    Yes but when they are closed, it should be trivial to reclaim all of the memory a tab was using, unlike with a single-process model?
krichman 14y ago
Installing NoScript freed up like 20% of my CPU time. Now I just need websites to stop failing ungracefully.
- rangibaby 14y ago
  I saw someone recommend this before: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/yesscript/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/yesscript/ I haven't tried it myself, but apparently it's a kind of reverse Noscript (hence the name). "YesScript lets you make a blacklist of sites that aren't allowed to run JavaScript. Use YesScript on sites that annoy you or hog your system resources. One click to the icon in the status bar turns scripts on or off for the current site."
  - cremnob 14y ago
    Would Ghostery accomplish the same thing?
    - rangibaby 14y ago
      I had Ghostery, but didn't like it. It seemed to "talk too much". Noscript can be paranoid (a feature, not a bug) and occasionally stop sites from working even if they are white-listed; I consider having to open a site in another browser sometimes less of a nuisance than having my main browser slowed down by dodgy JS. Two add-ons anthropomorphized in one comment! I guess that's what happens when you spend so much time in front of a screen ;-)
    - angryasian 14y ago
      ghostery does accomplish the same thing, the notifications can be turned off. You can explicitly turn on and off services all the time or in real time.
    - krichman 14y ago
      Ghostery is supposed to help you avoid tracking but is owned by Evidon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidon) so I feel like they have quite the conflict of interest.
  - krichman 14y ago
    I think all sites annoy me and hog my resources :) I like rejecting everything and then temporarily allowing sites that require it if I really think it would be useful.
  - mehrzad 14y ago
    NoScript has a similar feature ironically.
- mhaymo 14y ago
  The "Temporarily allow top-level sites by default" option gets you most of those benefits, while allowing most websites to run just fine without having to explicitly whitelist anything.
reledi 14y ago
> switching back to Firefox with NoScript has made a huge difference I don't understand why you had to switch to Firefox to block JS, that's possible with Chrome as well. Check out NotScripts, for example.

by nhebb 14y ago

ubercow13 14y ago

That's weird, shouldn't Chrome be better at releasing memory due to its process model?

keeperofdakeys 14y ago
Having individual processes also dramatically increases the overhead of having multiple tabs open.
- ubercow13 14y ago
  Yes but when they are closed, it should be trivial to reclaim all of the memory a tab was using, unlike with a single-process model?

krichman 14y ago

Installing NoScript freed up like 20% of my CPU time. Now I just need websites to stop failing ungracefully.

rangibaby 14y ago
I saw someone recommend this before: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/yesscript/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/yesscript/ I haven't tried it myself, but apparently it's a kind of reverse Noscript (hence the name). "YesScript lets you make a blacklist of sites that aren't allowed to run JavaScript. Use YesScript on sites that annoy you or hog your system resources. One click to the icon in the status bar turns scripts on or off for the current site."
- cremnob 14y ago
  Would Ghostery accomplish the same thing?
  - rangibaby 14y ago
    I had Ghostery, but didn't like it. It seemed to "talk too much". Noscript can be paranoid (a feature, not a bug) and occasionally stop sites from working even if they are white-listed; I consider having to open a site in another browser sometimes less of a nuisance than having my main browser slowed down by dodgy JS. Two add-ons anthropomorphized in one comment! I guess that's what happens when you spend so much time in front of a screen ;-)
  - angryasian 14y ago
    ghostery does accomplish the same thing, the notifications can be turned off. You can explicitly turn on and off services all the time or in real time.
  - krichman 14y ago
    Ghostery is supposed to help you avoid tracking but is owned by Evidon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidon) so I feel like they have quite the conflict of interest.
- krichman 14y ago
  I think all sites annoy me and hog my resources :) I like rejecting everything and then temporarily allowing sites that require it if I really think it would be useful.
- mehrzad 14y ago
  NoScript has a similar feature ironically.
mhaymo 14y ago
The "Temporarily allow top-level sites by default" option gets you most of those benefits, while allowing most websites to run just fine without having to explicitly whitelist anything.

reledi 14y ago

> switching back to Firefox with NoScript has made a huge difference I don't understand why you had to switch to Firefox to block JS, that's possible with Chrome as well. Check out NotScripts, for example.