@Tokoloko Vivaldi does not refer to tab "groups," but rather to tab "stacks." "Stack" was the original term when the function was invented in the old iteration of the Opera browser over a decade ago, by some of the same developers who are building Vivaldi now. So they refer to it by its original name, "stack." Builders of browsers who stole the idea for the function changed the name to "group."
@Joolz RAM usage is a problem of modern web.
Too large and complex websites means large RAM consumption.
Also browsers are optimized for people, who do not know how to do anything except for browsing.
So they don't need extra RAM, but need speed.
And this is not limited to Chromium.
I was not able to open more than 1(!) tab in 1GB RAM virtual machine with Firefox installed without activated swapping.
I cannot run the snapshot for some unknown reason on any computer
C:\Vivaldi Snap directory
Has worked forever before!!!
Either my method is wrong or the download is perhaps corrupt
Help anyone....thank you
@Gwen-Dragon said in USA Today loading fix – Vivaldi Browser snapshot 2009.3:
@bc3tech You should visit the Snapshot blog for information.
Read this! 😉
Windows autoupdate disabled as some users are losing the install on upgrade
Server can not send a newer version than 2001.3, because devs do not want to breaks users Snapshot installation.
Download installer by hand and install if you are brave enough.
Thank you - I only noticed because the automation I've written to pick up new versions was breaking, so I don't pay too much attention to the formal announcements.
@npro Teehee, i strongly endorse/support/concur. 😊
I have stubbornly persisted on & off for the past few days to go through most of my large suite of regular fav sites, one by one tuning uBO to them. In most cases i was pleasantly surprised that i seemed able to control these sites nearly as well as with uM ... but there's now three of my favs that simply refuse to work as well in uBO as they do in uM. The granular matrix component control available in uM is simply superb.
Then, once i was done, i decided to take a sticky-beak at the comparative resource consumption. I assumed they would be more or less the same, hence i was pretty surprised to discover that as well as its surgically-precise tuning control [or more likely, exactly because of it], uM wiped the floor with uBO. Whilst i'm not, anyone running on limited hardware should like this uM advantage.
Though it's taken a fair bit of effort & a lot of time to reach this point, i'm actually pleased to have done it, because now i have a renewed quantified rationale to explain to myself, anytime in future that i start wondering anew why am i using uM rather than uBO.
There is only one thing for which uBO would be a better choice in Vivaldi than uM, for anybody who likes using a UI Zoom < 100% ... uBO's UI seems not to break as badly as uM's UI does.
@MattSolo45 Hi, What other user's have stated is true concerning the site's associated with the 'parent' site: https://www.usatoday.com . In the defense of the developer's of the browser, they normally do issue a 'fix' for an issue when more than one user has the same issue. In my mind once they determine where the problem is I feel confident something will get done about it. As I've stated previously, I think what puzzles me the most is that other chromium based browser's load the site's in question correctly.
When will the segment heap be supported? It's only a description of the manifest file, so support it with the following snapshot don't you?