I use a few browsers and I have to say I am not a fan of Firefox Quantum at all. What Opera and Firefox old/Pale Moon have in common is that they are not using multi process I suggest ask the guys over at Vivaldi browser forum - most of them will agree that if they compare Opera Classic with Vivaldi - Vivaldi is more frustrating to use for heavy tab users Perhaps not in your case, but Chrome's handling of things because of the multi process architecture makes in most cases that difference. But compared in pure out of the box state without any add-ons installed and no other modifications done and depending how many tabs you have open, Firefox will win in most cases against Chrome memory efficiency wise And i am pretty sure of that In the end it also depends how many add-ons you have installed. I dont like chrome because it offers no user friendly options and palemoon is the final outpost in terms of customisation.Firefox has got an issue with cookie extensions at the moment. Moonraker all due respect but those are tests performed on YOUR machine and that is irrelevant to say my computer for instance.Those links which you kindly provided are irrelevant as those tests are done on other computers but not mine.My experience is different and i found firefox using more memory than chrome but to be fair to firefox that would be the nature of multi-process or whatever it is they term it. Seems also Quantum Firefox is less RAM hungry than Chrome The downside is that that system is rather memory heavy. The benefit is if one tab crashes, the others stay most of the time stable.
Actually that IS trueĬhrome/Chromium opens up for every single add-on or opened tab an extra process which consumes memory.
Chromium/Chrome without add-ons - Pale Moon without add-ons - Chromium can't open as many tabs as Pale Moon before running out of memory. I have tested various Chromium browsers in the past - and used for a while in the past instead of Pale Moon Brave or Vivaldi.Īnd one thing all of them have in common. I have a session running at home on Pale Moon with as a whole 300 tabs - activated are for daily usage around 100 - so, in terms of raw tab opening, Chrome/Chromium runs out faster on memory than Pale Moon. The best way is to just try them all on your system and then come to a reasonable conclusion. Moonraker wrote:erm sajadi your statement is not entirely correct and which operating system config would you be opening 100 tabs on exactly.?.it may be heavy on your system but not perhaps on others as there are literally thousands of different configs out there so your statement cannot really hold weight.On my linux system i have tried several browsers and palemoon and chrome would be the more memory efficient but that is going by my computer and should not be considered a sweeeping fact.
0 kommentar(er)
