BTW, most of what is needed to calculate this (memory 'cost' of scripts, CSS, graphics) is available via "Inspect element" on the context-menu. I think the total memory (approximately) for a given webpage is available from the task manager. So it should be a matter of some simple math, given that data.
On Sep 15, 2:21 pm, Fx <[email protected]> wrote: > I've long felt that HTML is an inefficient means of communicating > content. Add to that the overhead of Flash-based ads, Javascript, > CSS, etc. and I start to wonder exactly how much of my bandwidth is > used to view 'actual' content, and how much of it is for the > extraneous fluff -- page rendering code, scripts, the ads (which > admittedly generate the revenue to pay for the content, or at least > the website showing the content), etc. > > I've noticed a marked improvement in Chrome's performance once I > turned off Flash and started using a bookmarklet to zap away scripts, > plugins, event handlers, and other extraneous stuff. To be sure, > Chrome's Javascript engine is fast, but it's even faster not running > the scripts in the first place! ;-) > > What I think might be useful is if Chrome reported a breakdown of the > 'cost' of the various elements of a webpage, and summarizing the > 'efficiency' of a page. By efficiency, I mean the memory needed by the > 'content' divided by the total memory needed for the webpage. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Discussion mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-discuss -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
