# Great Job, Google Chrome



## TheGreatCrusader (Jan 3, 2010)

Remember how Google Chrome uses that fancy 'one process for one tab' thing that they were braging about and how it would stop memory leakages and wouldn't crash?







Works like a charm. I have 8 tabs open.


----------



## SnowFox (Jan 3, 2010)

Hahaha I'm impressed.

taskkill /im chrome.exe /f

Works like a charm.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 3, 2010)

I've yet to crash FF, or any tab of FF - And the tabbed browsing on FF is much quicker, to me, than Chrome. That's what counts to me.


----------



## Sabre (Jan 3, 2010)

For me, Firefox tends to crash alot, whilst Chrome is flawless for me.


----------



## Captain Spyro (Jan 4, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I've yet to crash FF, or any tab of FF - And the tabbed browsing on FF is much quicker, to me, than Chrome. That's what counts to me.





Sabre said:


> For me, Firefox tends to crash alot, whilst Chrome is flawless for me.



Use Opera. It has yet to fail me.

But seriously, one browser isn't going to work the same on different computers. FireFox was always fine for me, but Opera is super smooth and works well for what I need.

Safari is nice, but have never tried Chrome yet.


----------



## spectrechino (Jan 4, 2010)

personally, i wuv me some FF :3


----------



## Aden (Jan 4, 2010)

Hi Joey


----------



## Adelio Altomar (Jan 4, 2010)

Chrome has been acting up a lot lately for me. Probably some virus or shit. It never did this when I first installed it. Surely is faster and better than IE, that's for sure. 

Also, fuck Fire Fox.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 4, 2010)

Honestly, I find FF to be incredibly slow, both in initial load time (Chrome is nigh-instantaneous) and most particularly in page loads - Loading a page in one tab freezes the whole interface (including other tabs) while that page renders, whereas Chrome doesn't do that. Also, a Chrome instance is executed for each plugin (Flash, etc) and each Extension (Adblock, etc) that's running, which means it can add up over time. However, the actual memory usage for those plugin/extension instances is much lower - As can be seen in your screenshot.

The whole idea behind separating the processes wasn't for memory leaks and stuff, to begin with - It was for stability and security. One tab can't read the contents of another, which is something that in some cases can be and has been exploited in Firefox and other single-process browsers.

All the same, Opera is the most responsive browser out there. Too bad I hate the interface. Chrome runs a close second.

@Adello Altomar: Probably not a virus - They constantly update the browser, so...

Oh yeah, and OP? Who actually uses Napster any more? And you might wanna turn off the Avast Web Shield - 80MB!


----------



## TheGreatCrusader (Jan 4, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Oh yeah, and OP? Who actually uses Napster any more? And you might wanna turn off the Avast Web Shield - 80MB!


$15 a month for all of the music I want and can download? It's worth it. And, I have the virus protection on high because I'm a bit paranoid with my computer.



> Hi Joey


Hi Aden


----------



## Runefox (Jan 4, 2010)

The Web scanner is unnecessary since files are scanned on-access anyway. I guess if you use Internet Explorer you might want to keep it on, but otherwise, you're probably just wasting resources.


----------



## Hir (Jan 4, 2010)

I found Chrome too flashy and slow, Firefox works great for me.


----------



## Nebuk (Jan 5, 2010)

I used to use Opera a lot and fell in love with it, but recently I've been cheating on it with Chrome. I don't think I'm going back. The only thing I miss is creating custom searches (Example: typing in the URL field 'w apple pie' to search Wikipedia for apple pie.)


----------



## Vaelarsa (Jan 5, 2010)

Lol, wtf?

In my browser experience, Firefox has been the best overall.
Internet Explorer allows too much scripting shit in, which can compromise the fuck out of your computer.
Opera is too slow.
Chrome is faster, but no adblocking.

Firefox is slower and more of a memory hog than Chrome, but better overall because of the features.


----------



## Aden (Jan 5, 2010)

Vaelarsa said:


> Opera is too slow.



wat


----------



## Vaelarsa (Jan 5, 2010)

Aden said:


> wat


Seriously.
It's slow as shit on my computer.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 5, 2010)

> Chrome is faster, but no adblocking.


While it may not actually block the ads from being downloaded, there are several ad-blocking extensions available for Chrome that hide/remove them from the page.

This is a recent development - It basically puts Chrome on top for me in general. There's a huge assortment of extensions available, and you're not required to restart or anything to enable/disable/add/remove them.

About all I use Firefox for now is as an FTP client (FireFTP's pretty great) and for testing during web development.


----------



## TheGreatCrusader (Jan 5, 2010)

AdTwart doesn't block the ads, it only stops displaying them once the page is fully loaded because Chrome doesn't allow extensions to remove page elements. You're still loading the ads and seeing them, you're just not seeing them once the page is loaded.

Also, I figured out my problem. Extensions use A LOT of memory.






Google made it so that each extension runs in it's own process. Even the ones that are just idling are taking up 6k.


----------



## Duality Jack (Jan 5, 2010)

Firefox or Konquerer for me


----------



## Runefox (Jan 5, 2010)

@TheGreatCrusader: I believe I said pretty much all of what you just said. 



			
				Moi said:
			
		

> Also, a Chrome instance is executed for each plugin (Flash, etc) and each Extension (Adblock, etc) that's running, which means it can add up over time. However, the actual memory usage for those plugin/extension instances is much lower - As can be seen in your screenshot.


I should mention, too, that as I understand it, Chrome merely reserves the extra memory for these processes - As system memory usage increases, usage for those processes should decrease. On my system, most of the extraneous processes allocate less than 20MB of RAM, and several are lower than 10MB. I believe separating these into processes again enhance stability (a crashing extension doesn't crash the browser) and security (a site theoretically can't exploit a fault in an extension to access data).



			
				Me said:
			
		

> While it may not actually block the ads from being downloaded, there are several ad-blocking extensions available for Chrome that hide/remove them from the page.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jan 5, 2010)

*laughs* Nice.



Vaelarsa said:


> Chrome is faster, but no adblocking.



Ad-blocking is best not left to the browser anyway - you should be doing that in the hosts file (which works in any OS):

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm


----------



## Wait Wait (Jan 5, 2010)

joey 
that's so cute (also use safari)


----------



## Aurali (Jan 5, 2010)

If it wasn't for a couple missing features, I'd be addicted to Safari 4. 

No seriously ._.


----------



## blaze200 (Jan 5, 2010)

I've stuck to Firefox since it has so many add-on and such.


----------



## Vaelarsa (Jan 5, 2010)

ToeClaws said:


> *laughs* Nice.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks. I used that, and now I can run other browsers and instant messengers without ads.
That's a really useful site.

I used to use something like that called... something-man, but got deleted when I had to clean install Win7.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jan 5, 2010)

Vaelarsa said:


> Thanks. I used that, and now I can run other browsers and instant messengers without ads.
> That's a really useful site.
> 
> I used to use something like that called... something-man, but got deleted when I had to clean install Win7.



You're welcome.   Great thing about doing it that way is that it doesn't just block web-based stuff, it blocks any access attempts to known-bad sites.  They update the hosts file once or twice a month, so check back often to grab a newer one.


----------



## TheGreatCrusader (Jan 5, 2010)

Runefox said:


> @TheGreatCrusader: I believe I said pretty much all of what you just said.


Then it basically ISN'T adblock. What's the point of adblock if it doesn't *block* the ads? They're still loading. They're still wasting megabytes. They still show up, too. They are visible until the page is completely loaded.

Take lulz.net, for instance. A good number of their ads are porn. What's the point of blocking them if they're the first thing that loads, the first thing that you see, and they stay visible for 2-4 seconds.


----------



## Captain Spyro (Jan 5, 2010)

Aurali said:


> If it wasn't for a couple missing features, I'd be addicted to Safari 4.
> 
> No seriously ._.



I wish Safari was my primary browser, but as it isn't entirely compatible with the site that my mother and I do internet banking with, which is quite important, then I go with Opera.

Not to many complaints, but I did like Safari.


----------



## Paskiewicz (Jan 13, 2010)

Wow, Firefox never crash on me.


----------



## Internet Police Chief (Jan 13, 2010)

Firefox has slowly turned shittier and shittier on my PC. Maybe it's just me. It's slow as hell to start, slow to load pages, and eats up memory like a mother fucker.

I use Chrome now, no problems so far. I miss NoScript and Adblock, but I can live without.


----------



## Paskiewicz (Jan 14, 2010)

Baron Von Yiffington said:


> Maybe it's just me.



Or sites. 

FurAffinity shows up more faster than deviantART.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 14, 2010)

Paskiewicz said:


> Or sites.
> 
> FurAffinity shows up more faster than deviantART.



Yes, more faster.

But fuck, DA is laggy as _hell_. I can't open more than a few tabs without getting errors and shit, regardless of the thing I use to get there.


----------



## Paskiewicz (Jan 14, 2010)

I can see why Foxfire hates dA because it hates furries. lol


----------



## Aden (Jan 14, 2010)

Paskiewicz said:


> I can see why Foxfire hates dA because it hates furries. lol



wat

Also, dA hates everyone.


----------



## Paskiewicz (Jan 14, 2010)

Aden said:


> wat
> 
> Also, dA hates everyone.



I was joking. dA is hypocrite and paranoid.


----------



## Internet Police Chief (Jan 14, 2010)

Paskiewicz said:


> more faster




:l


----------



## Paskiewicz (Jan 14, 2010)

Slow on you?


----------



## ChaoticSpark (Jan 17, 2010)

Paskiewicz said:


> I was joking. dA is hypocrite and paranoid.


<br />
<br />

wat

Also;
I use IE8, Chrome, FF, Opera and Safari. Why? Because I can.


----------



## feilen (Jan 17, 2010)

(FF = Chrome = Opera ) > IE

Seriously, they all have advantages and disadvantages and will run faster or slower based on your system layout.

Except IE.


----------



## Paskiewicz (Jan 18, 2010)

ChaoticSpark said:


> <br />
> <br />
> 
> wat
> ...



Good for you. =3

Well, I can't get to IE back because I've used the FF for years.


----------



## Carenath (Jan 18, 2010)

I use too many firefox-specific extensions to even consider switching, including but not limited to:
FoxyProxy
FireBug
Live HTTP Headers
AdBlock Plus
GreaseMonkey
ScreenGrab

Domain Details was ported to Chrome.. but Firebug and others I depend on, have not.


----------

