| |||||||||||||
Why I didn't stop using FirefoxWhy I didn't stop using FirefoxPosted Feb 9, 2012 17:47 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: Why I didn't stop using Firefox by sorpigal Parent article: Tracking users
Serious use just needs serious system. On my desktop with 16 cores and 32GB of RAM Chromium flies even with 300 tabs. Now, if I need 2000 tabs…, yes Firefox is better here, but I think I only ever needed this once for the last year.
(Log in to post comments)
Why I didn't stop using Firefox Posted Feb 10, 2012 12:59 UTC (Fri) by sorpigal (subscriber, #36106) [Link]
Don't you find physically managing so many tabs problematic in Chromium?
The UI stalling behavior doesn't seem to be dependant on hitting RAM or CPU bottlenecks, since when it happens I still have idle and under-used cores, and ram is not close to full. As I understand it, Chrome stops giving you "one tab per process" once you pass a certain number of tabs and I'm guessing that's where the problem comes from.
My test system is smaller than yours: 8 cores and 8G RAM, but that ought to be sufficient out to at least 100 tabs.
Why I didn't stop using Firefox Posted Feb 10, 2012 13:52 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] I rarely keep them all in one window. It's easy to move tabs around in Chrome thus I group them in windows thematically and then spread windows over virtual desktops.
Why I didn't stop using Firefox Posted Feb 14, 2012 13:28 UTC (Tue) by sorpigal (subscriber, #36106) [Link]
That explains your success. When I say 100 tabs, I mean per window. Tab title width becomes useless in chrome very quickly, though there are extensions which can make it behave like Firefox.
|
|||||||||||||