SUB SECOND TRAINS

DeletedUser

Guest
Same speed? Then you must have a really old computer lol, even my craptop loads pages faster on Chrome. :)

Add-ons are worthless and they aren't the aim of Chrome either, they want a slim, easy-acces design without all the fancy stuff that's in reality good for nothing.

The reason that it uses slightly more memory is because it separates the web processes in to different processes rather than keep it one process like traditional browsers. This means that Chrome would indeed be slower for people with little RAM... Why separate it? Well, all process can run simultaneously this way, unlike one by one. If one of the processes freezes, you can simply terminate that process without having to restart your browser. You can then simply reload it by reloading the page(s) where it crashed.

On an other note, I noticed how Chrome easily beats Firefox at javascripting. It takes a few minutes for Firefox to fill in the massrecruitment page for me on a +3mill world, while only a few seconds for Chrome.

Safari has a nice look, but a lot of security flaws, when I used it it was the fastest, but that was a long time ago. Opera is the best for trains due to a few functions, not because it's necessarily faster.
 

DeletedUser1508

Guest

Add-ons are worthless and they aren't the aim of Chrome either, they want a slim, easy-acces design without all the fancy stuff that's in reality good for nothing.

I like my ad blocker on FF... I think it makes pages load a bit faster too.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I like my ad blocker on FF... I think it makes pages load a bit faster too.

True, that can be very useful. Maybe it will be suggested for Chrome, but I'm not sure if they'll be inclined to apply it.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
True, that can be very useful. Maybe it will be suggested for Chrome, but I'm not sure if they'll be inclined to apply it.

I doubt they would considering google do loads of adds for websites.
(talking out my rear end so meh prove me wrong? :D)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I doubt they would considering google do loads of adds for websites.
(talking out my rear end so meh prove me wrong? :D)

Google does have a lot of ads, but additionally they want to go for easy access, which also counts for their O/S, the latter has been received coldly though. I don't think the world is ready yet to live in the cloud alone too. If you have no idea what I'm saying google it! lol.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Same speed? Then you must have a really old computer lol, even my craptop loads pages faster on Chrome. :)

Add-ons are worthless and they aren't the aim of Chrome either, they want a slim, easy-acces design without all the fancy stuff that's in reality good for nothing.

The reason that it uses slightly more memory is because it separates the web processes in to different processes rather than keep it one process like traditional browsers. This means that Chrome would indeed be slower for people with little RAM... Why separate it? Well, all process can run simultaneously this way, unlike one by one. If one of the processes freezes, you can simply terminate that process without having to restart your browser. You can then simply reload it by reloading the page(s) where it crashed.

On an other note, I noticed how Chrome easily beats Firefox at javascripting. It takes a few minutes for Firefox to fill in the massrecruitment page for me on a +3mill world, while only a few seconds for Chrome.

Safari has a nice look, but a lot of security flaws, when I used it it was the fastest, but that was a long time ago. Opera is the best for trains due to a few functions, not because it's necessarily faster.
I would not call an Intel Core 2 Quad (4 core) Q6600 @ 2.4GHz old and slow. Possibly the way the Chrome uses multiple processes has an affect depending on which core they get assigned to.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I doubt Chrome would put them on seperate cores :S. Besides I said that RAM matters more here.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I doubt Chrome would put them on seperate cores :S. Besides I said that RAM matters more here.
Looks like Windows does assign different processes to whichever core is free. Windows probably treats every thread/process that Chrome creates as a completly seperate process so assigns each one to whichever core is free, so possibly Chrome's effectiveness will shrink as the number of cores per CPU goes up. There are alreeady a few CPUs with 6 cores and there was a tech story a couple of weeks ago, Intel had a prototype chip with over 40 cores!
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Perhaps if you could see that those ask for confirmation/correction, you'd understand that they're talking about multiprocessors and not multicores.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Windows sees a cpu core as a separate processor. With Chrome on Vista I find that it's slower than FireFox, even when I have 12 addons active in FireFox
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I tell you what, open up taskmanager and check affinity of all chrome processes, I bet you won't find one that isn't assigned to at least 2 cores.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I tell you what, open up taskmanager and check affinity of all chrome processes, I bet you won't find one that isn't assigned to at least 2 cores.
There's no column in task manager called affinity
 

DeletedUser

Guest
There's no column in task manager called affinity

Column? You have to right clock the chrome.exe process in the process tab.

If affinity doesn't show up, then the problem lies at your computer, not at chrome.
 
Top