Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

feinicks · 02/09/2008 04:13 AM

Senseito Sakura Wrote:
ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:
Senseito Sakura Wrote:
ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:^ Oh okay, another multi-process thing.  Personally, I'm not that excited about it, though it could work well in the future, and if they manage to keep the memory usage of each individual process down...

Thanks :P

They made a point of much more efficient memory usage as well, and how existing browsers a particularly inefficient in the way they function. That new Javascript Engine is exciting as well.

I wonder how much faster this thing will go.
Those sorts of claims are just fluff in my book - anyone can say that.  By design, a multi-process application will ALWAYS consume more RAM than a single process one (assuming equal efficiency).  Additionally, since everything is handled independently, each process will have to have multiple threads...
Hope the JS engine isn't like Opera's (breaks half the internet - not really, but you get the idea)...

Probably will be very good on future CPUs with craploads of cores...
Though I'm interested to see if Firefox goes a multi-process path. (To be honest, Firefox x64 already runs fairly fast)

Being open source though, I'm interested to see how Chrome will develop.

Yeah I get you. Wee'll have to see it for ourselves.

They practically stuffed it in competitors faces...  because they are Google, they have made a testing platform to test thousands of sites, and automatic form filling and such - double you tee eff - they said it was 23% Compatible and now its practically perfect and that they had fun fixing it up lawlz.

I'm a bit hesitant about the Tab Home Page... I wouldn't like to see people using shared computers opening a tab with a page containing 9 windows of sites most visited recently.. it COULD be inadequate, it COULD work.

Where is this Beta they speak of anyway XD

coming tomorrow

ZiNgA BuRgA · 02/09/2008 05:11 AM

feinicks Wrote:Sandbox is related to security as in it will follow a user-centric permission-based read-write process. The point being that any tab that is opened is sort of a separate application process, with its inherent security parameters and individual features.

Well, kinda moot for Windows. Can see a slight purpose for Linux, possibly, but can't see a great deal of use, since webpages shouldn't need to access files anyway, so really, you should just stick all the processes under the same limited user account.

feinicks Wrote:Also, individual process would mean that every tab is alloted certain memory. Not the shared memory. This will help maintain browser speed over extended use.

The difference is that the OS manages the memory, rather than the application...

feinicks Wrote:FF (or other tabbed browsers) fragment the memory and each new tab is placed in one fragment. This sharing is fine for sometime, but causes accumulation of old data over a period of time (as explained in the Google comic, as well). But all that one needs to do for that is get rid of non-essential cookies and temp files.

I really don't think fragmentation is Firefox's main issue. Probably just devs forgetting to deallocate used memory. Either case, having processes that die after a while plugs both issues.

feinicks Wrote:2> The second issue, as they have said is that sandbox is vulnerable because of plugins having higher permissions than the browser. Chrome's security is still pretty traditional, in terms of phising and sPa/\/\, although it seems very advanced with Malware. The vulnerability in plugins could potentially break the security of the browser...

Somewhat moot too - if you get some malware/exploited that manages to execute code, then it doesn't really matter how you structure the browser - the system's compromised...

Kuu · 02/09/2008 05:25 AM

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:
feinicks Wrote:2> The second issue, as they have said is that sandbox is vulnerable because of plugins having higher permissions than the browser. Chrome's security is still pretty traditional, in terms of phising and sPa/\/\, although it seems very advanced with Malware. The vulnerability in plugins could potentially break the security of the browser...
Somewhat moot too - if you get some malware/exploited that manages to execute code, then it doesn't really matter how you structure the browser - the system's compromised...

You forget that Google has access to one of the biggest databases ever created that when combined with their servers can hit every malware site and blacklist it in under an hour of it's creation..

The great thing in Chrome unlike Firefox is Chrome has it's own built-in process manager. You can see what tabs and what plug-ins are taking the most memory and slowing down the tab you are viewing, then end that processes without affecting the rest of your tabs because of the sandbox.

ZiNgA BuRgA · 02/09/2008 05:38 AM

Kuu Wrote:You forget that Google has access to one of the biggest databases ever created that when combined with their servers can hit every malware site and blacklist it in under an hour of it's creation..

That's a point. I recall Firefox's anti-phishing uses Google's DB though. Either case, it could be made into a plugin where Firefox uses Google's DB... :P

Kuu Wrote:The great thing in Chrome unlike Firefox is Chrome has it's own built-in process manager. You can see what tabs and what plug-ins are taking the most memory and slowing down the tab you are viewing, then end that processes without affecting the rest of your tabs because of the sandbox.

It does? Haven't read it all, but sounds interesting that way. Personally don't think the average user is going to care too much about process priority, but if you're browsing a usually laggy site, I guess you could stick in a rule.
Well, I hope it's an end to those "rickroll" sites XD

feinicks · 02/09/2008 06:57 AM

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:
Kuu Wrote:The great thing in Chrome unlike Firefox is Chrome has it's own built-in process manager. You can see what tabs and what plug-ins are taking the most memory and slowing down the tab you are viewing, then end that processes without affecting the rest of your tabs because of the sandbox.
It does? Haven't read it all, but sounds interesting that way. Personally don't think the average user is going to care too much about process priority, but if you're browsing a usually laggy site, I guess you could stick in a rule.
Well, I hope it's an end to those "rickroll" sites XD

Yea.. that is one feature that I'm looking to test real-time. This will display even the plug-in information. Apparently Google is telling that if the browser can't catch the rogue program, the you do it yourself!

J'adore le paissons · 02/09/2008 07:35 AM

i mite try it... :P

PSPkiller · 02/09/2008 07:50 AM

after reading through the comic it does sound quite interesting, especially the sandbox and the process manager.

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Personally don't think the average user is going to care too much about process priority, but if you're browsing a usually laggy site, I guess you could stick in a rule.
Well, I hope it's an end to those "rickroll" sites XD

^For that reason exactly!

Now all i need to do is go down to the local computer shop, buy a wifi adapter, hack it for extended range, locate it as close to the front of my house as possible and leech (read: borrow) my neighbours wifi. My dad doesn't trust me with the internet in my room, meaning i have to acquire it through other methods. its a shame there isn't a version for the psp to replace its chocolatety browser...

Threaded Mode \| Linear Mode Google's web browser
Author	Message