Reading the update and the comments, the guy didn't measure Safari's memory usage correctly, as he didn't include Safari's renderer memory usage. Chrome probably still uses way more, but it makes Safari look abnormally good by comparison.
Indeed, all modern browsers render pages as large tile bitmaps that can then scroll nice and smoothly, and on a decent resolution display that alone is going to push past 80MB. And that's before allocating any memory to decode images and the like.
In fact many web pages are more than 80MB alone. That number is completely unbelievable.
The other point to make is that using RAM isn't bad, it's good. If your system has 32GB of RAM and most of it is unused then you might as well cache a few gigs for your browser.
He is quite clueless. He saw Safari's memory usage not increasing at all when opening new tabs and still did not question his methodology. All because it fit his narrative about how Safari is lighter, because he sells a software that makes websites into apps, so it is whatever memory usage Safari has - minus a bit as from his own admission he just loads a safari based webview with the website as an app, so all the extra safari functionality is not included. Oh, right, what he highlights as the smart part of
If your computer has lots of memory, a modern browser will take it to use as cache, buffers, surfaces, textures, history, compiled js, state, js heap etc. Holding it in memory means stuff like loading & rendering is faster. If memory gets low (aka "memory pressure") the browser will free up this stuff so it can be used by other processes.
Apart from that browsers might be using shared / mapped memory which could make consumption appear larger than it actually is if you're reading the process info wrong
Low RAM usage isn't some magical end goal. You want low RAM usage, you can do that quite easily by stripping out the web standards browsers support, security functionality like sandboxing, or features people come to expect like password management.
And as for the "developer", sorry but there isn't a functional web browser on the market that is able to render in a standards compliant way using only 80MB of RAM. When your numbers look so outrageous instead of publishing your amazing mind blowing result that no
Reading the update and the comments, the guy didn't measure Safari's memory usage correctly, as he didn't include Safari's renderer memory usage. Chrome probably still uses way more, but it makes Safari look abnormally good by comparison.
Indeed, all modern browsers render pages as large tile bitmaps that can then scroll nice and smoothly, and on a decent resolution display that alone is going to push past 80MB. And that's before allocating any memory to decode images and the like.
In fact many web pages are more than 80MB alone. That number is completely unbelievable.
The other point to make is that using RAM isn't bad, it's good. If your system has 32GB of RAM and most of it is unused then you might as well cache a few gigs for your browser.
He is quite clueless. He saw Safari's memory usage not increasing at all when opening new tabs and still did not question his methodology. All because it fit his narrative about how Safari is lighter, because he sells a software that makes websites into apps, so it is whatever memory usage Safari has - minus a bit as from his own admission he just loads a safari based webview with the website as an app, so all the extra safari functionality is not included. Oh, right, what he highlights as the smart part of
Low RAM usage isn't some magical end goal. You want low RAM usage, you can do that quite easily by stripping out the web standards browsers support, security functionality like sandboxing, or features people come to expect like password management.
And as for the "developer", sorry but there isn't a functional web browser on the market that is able to render in a standards compliant way using only 80MB of RAM. When your numbers look so outrageous instead of publishing your amazing mind blowing result that no