SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Firefox has improved its multi-process architecture in order to isolate more content while keeping memory use low:
Firefox 54 launched with a more advanced multi-process architecture than the one we saw implemented in Firefox 48 last year. The improved architecture raises the number of processes enabled by default from two to five, which Mozilla argues is a "just right" compromise between low memory usage on one side and performance and security on the other.
[...] Switching to a simpler extension model allows Firefox to enable multiple processes and also isolate them in sandboxes. Mozilla previously enabled only two processes, one for the UI and one for content, last year, in Firefox 48. This ensured that the browser wouldn't hang as much due to web pages affecting the performance of the browser interface. It also brought partial sandboxing by keeping the content isolated from the browser (as much as possible).
Mozilla is now taking it to the next level by implementing one process for the browser interface and four for content. Why four? The organization believes that this is the "just right" amount of processes to have for the majority of users, and also in terms of optimizing memory usage.
[...] Mozilla ran its own memory usage benchmarks, which showed significant memory usage reduction compared to Chrome:
- Windows 10 — Chrome used 1.77X memory as Firefox (64-bit), and 2.44X as Firefox (32-bit)
- macOS — Chrome used 1.36X memory as Firefox (64-bit)
- Linux — Chrome used 1.42X memory as Firefox (64-bit)
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 15 2017, @05:31PM (3 children)
Yeah, I have to concede that. I have an ancient laptop that only supported 196 meg. Don't ask me how they ever arrived at that number, but that was the limit. It really sucked when I fed it WinXP. It made a half-assed decent Linux machine, but only half assed.
Another laptop that the boys dropped here has some oddball memory, which I can't find cheap. It's really strange, in that one memory bank is half-dead, the other works alright. Removing the half-dead memory isn't an option, because that second bank of memory won't run the machine. Weirder and weirder. No one is going to invest the money to get it running right. Actually, I think I have six different laptops scattered around the house, starting with a 286 that started life as an Army computer. None of them are worth trying to upgrade. :^(
But, new laptops? Order the machine with support for memory, at the least. Best to just buy it with max memory installed, but if you are trying to save a hundred bucks now, at least get a machine that will support the upgrade later.
I sure wish that I had the resources to build my own laptop. Decide on a mainboard, and go from there, just like I do with my main computers. That would be sweet!
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday June 15 2017, @05:56PM (2 children)
I can think of two scenarios:
I ordered my current laptop with 1 GB in 2010 and have since upgraded it to 2 GB, but that's as high as an Inspiron mini 1012 goes. I looked on Dell's website and was surprised that in 2017, companies are still selling laptops with 2 GB and no obvious RAM upgrade option at ordering time, such as this Inspiron 11 3000 [dell.com]. Is Microsoft offering some sort of subsidy on the Windows license for not making a laptop's RAM upgradable?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 15 2017, @11:55PM (1 child)
Wow. At first reading, I thought, "That's a silly question" and almost instantly, I'm thinking, "Well, isn't it?"
TBH, it wouldn't be terribly surprising to learn that MS restricted the memory capacity of some laptops. And, less scrupulous manufacturers may well go along with that idea. Sell those 2 gig machines today, and in a couple years, the newer version of Windows will require double that as minimum. So, they sell a machine today, and in two or three years, MS pushes everyone to upgrade again, which will require yet another new machine.
MS does want to sell a new license to you every two years or so.
(Score: 1) by toddestan on Saturday June 17 2017, @07:09PM
Microsoft does restrict the memory capacity of laptops with their licensing. For lower-end machines, Microsoft offers cheaper Windows licenses so long as the laptop doesn't exceed certain specs. Of course, the manufacturer doesn't have to follow that, but in the cheap laptop market, if an additional $10 of RAM also means an extra $50 for the Windows license... well... not going to happen.
Ever wonder why all the netbooks basically had identical specs no matter who made them, and those specs didn't change for years? That's because of Microsoft's licensing.