On Dec 11, 2013, at 1:30 AM, objectwerks inc <c...@objectwerks.com> wrote: > On Dec 10, 2013, at 7:57 PM, list boy <i.am.list....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> But then you crash when you hit that ceiling, right? > > No. Of course not. The page may stop functioning but the browser does not > crash (in his hypothetical situation).
Right. We have a similar precedent now when the browser shows an alert saying something like "web pages have stopped responding". In Safari it used to crash the one big process that was responsible for rendering all your web pages -- barely better than simply crashing the app, except Apple could semi-truthfully say "we didn't crash". (It wasn't even that the process crashed. First it would say "you can't proceed unless you essentially allow us to crash that process" -- in other words, it pointed a gun at the process and made *us* pull the trigger.) Now Safari is much nicer and can kill just the processes for the offending tabs, and it tells you first how many web pages it has to kill/reload. For me it's usually 3 or 4 out of the dozens I have open, at most. This is much nicer but the warning does still happen. --Andy > >> On Dec 10, 2013, at 1:36 PM, Andy Lee <ag...@mac.com> wrote: >> >>> Back on the memory topic: if web sites are going to routinely leak massive >>> amounts of memory, regardless of who's to blame, I'd like browsers to let >>> me put a cap on how much memory each tab uses. Kind of like the old days of >>> Classic Mac OS, when we could limit the amount of memory each application >>> could use. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MacOSX-talk mailing list >> MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com >> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk > > _______________________________________________ > MacOSX-talk mailing list > MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk
_______________________________________________ MacOSX-talk mailing list MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk
