Two tabs open

>Two tabs open
>Literally 10 fucking instances of chrome running
Explain this fucking horseshit.

Are you on Windows where creating a process/thread is unnecessarily a heavy operation?

No? Then what's the problem?

extensions and gui run in their own process

I meant give ACCEPTABLE explanations. Not fucking stupid ones.

It's botnet processes and you already know it, why the fuck are you asking?

Just because you're too fucking stupid to understand why giving different elements their own processes instead of putting them all under one does not mean it's not acceptable. It just means you have no idea how a PC operates. Fuck off you dense cunt, you don't belong on Sup Forums

Enlighten me, user, how does a PC operate?

On a normal operating system there should basically be no overhead.

See, even my phone takes 0Mb to run 100 threads.

Oh I didn't say I didn't understand. I'm saying your fucking excuse is nonsense and unacceptably sloppy programming.

Chrome a shit.

>Disgusting phoneposter
Burn them all.

Sorry, processes not threads. Threads are even more lightweight. You can create them by calling clone(2).

Further confirming the point that doesn't understand shit.

Your OS can't handle processes.

you're an idiot. go back to Sup Forums

moar threads = moar granularity

It runs extensions, tabs n shit separately so if something gets infected or some shit it can just trash it without affecting the other ones.

>install chrome
>install 100 addons/extensions
>bitch when it decides that each addon needs it's own process so when it crashes you don't have to kill the entire application

firefox fags will defend this

But Firefox doesn't take a shit when you run add-ons at all and runs cooler. Back when FF first came out, I used to do massive research and have like 12 windows and 200 tabs open at a time and never have any problems. Ah, those were the days, back when software and the internet still worked. Back before Google sought to destroy every molecule of both in order to consume everything like a giant gangrenous vagina.

It's called L U A K I T with router based botnet website blocking and a computer acting as a firewall pleb

There's nothing to explain, they're trying to not make it obvious how much ram that shit ass browser uses up.

fuck off, retard

It's called multi-threading and using your CPU resources sensibly. Honestly this shit is as bad as "why does X use Y amount of RAM" - because that's what it's there for, pleb.

>multi-process architecture and tab isolation are "sloppy programming"

how did you manage to post a thread if you're this retarded

It counts the instances in base 2. Elementary computer stuff.

It computes the computable. Now GTFO non computer knower.

opening up tech to plebs has really fucked everything up

1 process for your tabs and 9 for telemetry.

I agree with you but your argument is weak. The memory use of a function is the memory all the instructions take up (miniscule), and the sum of all the stack objects allocated. Ignoring the heap because it's dynamic, I'd imagine some of Chrome's functions would allocate quite a bit of shit on the stack because it's honestly better practice and safer.

Your example is a little bullshit. Yes, invocation itself is trivial because all you do is move the stack pointer, but the memory use is totally dependant on the function. Try allocating a 8192 x 8192 array of longs in your main, fork 100 processes and watch your phone shit itself

what is threading?

Something that uses a lot more memory, apparently.

oh good so my 12-core cpu is perfect for running 2 tabs in chrome

...

>12 windows and 200 tabs open at a time
FireFox user here. I do this all the time. I dont use Chromium much, but are you suggesting it will not do this as well?

Ive been looking for replacements for FireFox...

>"why does X use Y amount of RAM" - because that's what it's there for
oh god, youre retarded

firefox became malignant too so there is no hope other than using outdated firefox clones

>when FF first came out
uhhh so like 15 years ago?
>12 windows and 200 tabs open
>never have any problems
except, you know, the millions of memory leaks and how it would consume 6gb after 24 hours

google USED to be good about said leaks, not anymore, desu. comodo is probably the best browser alternative right now, which says a lot :\

This has to be bait. No one is this computer illiterate.

Copy on Write my friend. Modern operating systems have it.

How do you think the botnet sends your private data to Google without additional processes?

I'm on a Chromebook and it's the same thing. Google can't even create an OS designed to run nothing BUT Chrome without it being heavy as shit.

What are you talking about?
How is forking a process heavy on ChromeOS? Install Termux and try out my test case from . This is nothing in comparasion to CreateProcess from WinAPI.

firefoxfags how many tabs do you usually have open and how much ram is usually used?
if firefox has been too much of a memory hog for me lately should I turn off multiprocess?

I don't know about ChromIUM, but Chrome absolutely can't do this. It would crash by the time I got to 15 tabs on one window. I can still do much more than that on FF, but newer editions of FF are much less stable than older versions.

>Surely, nobody could ever disagree with google!
Gas the google, Web war now!

>tfw google chrome
>tfw shitty i5 on a Thinkpad
>tfw 19 extensions minimum running at all times
>Visual Studio or Netbeans or Android Studio or Photoshop open in the background
>SSD
>no slowdowns whatsoever
works on my machine
google is god

I'm beginning to think a lot of the problems people have around here are purely because they're attempting to do anything on a thinkpad from 2002. Then getting mad when shit breaks, blaming everyone else but themselves for buying cheap shit.

it will do it but take up 3x the RAM. it also spies on you and has a shit addon ecosystem that means it's less secure than FF.

>but it runs slightly faster!
enjoy those 5ms I guess.

The processes are used for isolation not parallelism dipshit. Your computer is running hundreds of processes even when idle, you don't need a hundred core CPU.

Chrome OS is just Gentoo

>Gentoo
Which is hot garbage

That's clearly not what I mean't. Your fork only spawns lightweight, sleeping processes. Read man fork.

I used to work for a university's CS department's in-house IT department. The vast majority of problems were "GUH MUH COMPUTER SLOW" and the answer was always "It's like eight years old."

I run nightly, and opening 5 tabs takes up 3gb, at least 2 of those tabs is youtube and/or netflix btw

>unacceptably sloppy programming
Yeah it should all be one process that way if one tab crashes or hangs you can just restart the entire browser process

>It's to prevent crashes
>Crashes more than FF anyway

>enjoy those 5ms I guess.
sorry, i did not mean i was considering chromium. i would prefer a firefox fork, or similar.

>Your computer is running hundreds of processes even when idle
maybe your bloated ass operating system is

>more armchair performance analysis from Sup Forums
You're only complaining because you can see the processes in task manager. If Chrome used threads instead of processes, you wouldn't complain, even if it had exactly the same resource usage. Microsoft should just remove the details tab from the task manager so Dunning-Kruger retards don't draw stupid conclusions from it.

Some of the stupidest shit I've ever heard about operating systems has been in threads like these. Like this guy , who thinks multi-process browsers are a conspiracy to hide how much RAM they are using. (But of course, as a computer genius, HE sees through it.) What the fuck? Just stop.

Except, my dear gentlenigger, chrome is less stable and uses more memory.

Maybe true, but Firefox and Edge are multi-process browsers too, which means software engineers more intelligent than you think it's a good paradigm. If Chrome is less stable and uses more memory than these browsers, it's for reasons other than the multi-process model. The only reason you (and others) complain about the multi-process model is that it's something you can see. The actual performance problems and design flaws are more likely to be something you can't inspect with basic tools.

>about the multi-process model is that it's a blatant inefficiency you can see
Correct. Honestly, I'm just complaining about chrome being a downy browser.

>chrome less stable than ff
topkek. The reason I'm using chromium in the first place is because FF would crash at least two times a day.

>is that it's a blatant inefficiency
You don't even know it's an inefficiency at all.

Honestly, Microsoft and other OS vendors should just remove the processes view from their task managers. Users are too stupid to handle this information. A process is just an address space and a security boundary. Applications should be allowed to allocate as many as they like. Software developers shouldn't have to trade it off with the negative press from armchair performance "experts" who think that the number of processes is a useful indicator for how efficient the software is. Task managers should show user-facing applications only, not processes.

Op is a toddler that doesn't understand multithreading.

>>It's to prevent crashes
but that's wrong, retard

>2018
>pajeet programing everywhere

I'm surprised thing run at all.

>but that's wrong, retard
Well no shit.