MCBastos wrote: > Beauregard T. Shagnasty told the world: >> The reason I asked is because your half-gigabyte is way far and above >> what I get from a similar number of tabs. If one is checking memory >> used by *tabs*, one does not normally load up a dozen different pages >> filled with images and videos which will skew the results. My testing >> page for this experiment was a simple local page of about 4 KB, opened >> a dozen times and resulting in less than a tenth of your version. > > OK, just to give something reproducible: > > I have a set of tabs I open daily to check my comics. Those are: > <snip> > > 13 pages, all containing images, some of them containing several images, > some of them containing ads and other crap (although NoScript blocks > quite a bit of those). Plus Seamonkey Mail, plus the message editor > (Composer) where I'm writing this very post. > > Windows Task Manager reports 326868 K for Seamonkey plus 27824 K for > plugin-container. > > About:memory gives this: > > Explicit Allocations > 265.52 MB (100.0%) -- explicit > <snip>
Thanks to you and Daniel for the test. This seems to prove that the amount of RAM in use is more-or-less dependent on *what pages* are loaded in the ~12 tabs, and not actually any kind of fault of the browser or the tabs themselves. If one loads pages containing lots of unknown images of various file sizes and other multimedia, the memory usage will be high. Keep in mind, too, that any pages that have that silly Facebook "Like" button, there's another over-a-quarter-megabyte of JavaScript, each. As I said, my test involved a dozen tabs each with a small ~4KB page (no images, only text and links), and the total amount of RAM used by SeaMonkey was ~50MB. I don't see a browser issue here. -- -bts -This space for rent, but the price is high _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
