|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
I don't like FF anyway.. | by Bonzo | 2005-08-16 01:02:41 |
|
Do you have the in-memory cache enabled, though? (n/t) | by LionsPhil | 2005-08-16 01:12:46 |
|
Probably.. | by Bonzo | 2005-08-16 01:14:32 |
|
As a comparison, | by Ravenlock | 2005-08-16 01:47:47 |
|
Opera with 12 Tabs open: | by Control | 2005-08-16 01:53:37 |
|
Well, there ya go. | by Ravenlock | 2005-08-16 02:16:04 |
|
Phil? I would wonder... | by Ravenlock | 2005-08-16 02:20:12 |
| Pass. |
by LionsPhil |
2005-08-16 02:45:52 |
I did some informal testing on this a while back, but I can't remember the results and I don't have time to repeat it right now. (I *do* remember IE kicking everything's ass in this area, actually, when allowed to share a process like its competition.)
I think that even with memory caching off (which means in the same sense as on-disk caching), Opera will still keep in-memory parsed copies of pages in the back/forward history of each tab, which is part of why it's so nippy (I think recent CVS Firefox has picked up this trick), so that may be a factor.
My copy of Opera running on my Gentoo box here at work right now is using ~82MB (if I've got my ps arguments right), but then it's got two windows open, one with five tabs, one with sixteen, each with plenty of back/forward history, pages with plenty of graphics, and memory caching turned on, limited to 60MB. (The maximum -- given that this is a 1GB box, it's a bit of a pain that I can't stick an arbitrary integer in there. Hmm, bugreport...) |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Yeah, I imagine back/forward copies... | by Ravenlock | 2005-08-16 02:56:01 |
|
Or computer-experienced. | by LionsPhil | 2005-08-16 03:07:13 |
|
Well, now, that's the promise of a great thing ;-) | by Ravenlock | 2005-08-16 03:16:05 |
|
Actually, | by LionsPhil | 2005-08-16 06:00:05 |
|
Erm... you say tomayto, | by Ravenlock | 2005-08-16 06:35:52 |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
