Sorry to realize that Vivaldi is just a variant of the memory consuming Chrome :(



  • I am sorry to realize that Vivaldi is just a variant of the memory consuming Chrome :( Using above 300 MB just to show this community side in one tab (only this tab open). Guess it's back to old original Opera. Maybe give Firefox a try - but don't know if it's any better? Was hoping it was a new version of the original Opera...


  • Moderator

    Vivaldi has no technology like Opera 12. It is a Chromium bases browser with a user interface similar old Opera features.

    Opera 12 uses 180MB, Vivaldi 230MB on this page.
    Vivaldi uses a process per tab and extension, making the browser more stable. Yes, that uses about 45 MB per tab.

    Sorry to say, but if you dislike this fact or have not enough RAM you shoud switch to other browser.



  • I never understood why people get obsessed over memory use. What's the point of modern hardware with at least 4 Gbytes of RAM if most if it lying idle?



  • And the same goes for Firefox I assume?
    Seems to I'm stuck with Opera 12 - not being updated, so a security risk…

    Regarding memory...
    Try using your browser as I do, with 20-40 or more open tab's.
    Opera 12 uses 200-600Mb.
    Chrome Gigabytes... - causing memory swapping and poor performance :(
    (32bit OS has 4GB memory limit, appr. 3GB for app. use).



  • @Gwen-Dragon:

    Vivaldi has no technology like Opera 12. It is a Chromium bases browser with a user interface similar old Opera features.

    Opera 12 uses 180MB, Vivaldi 230MB on this page.
    Vivaldi uses a process per tab and extension, making the browser more stable. Yes, that uses about 45 MB per tab.

    Sorry to say, but if you dislike this fact or have not enough RAM you shoud switch to other browser.

    Opera is the most stable and fast browser I have ever used!
    It can easy handle 100 or more pages/tabs - just turn off all animation and unneeded javascript.
    To bad it was broken after v.12 with all the useful stuffs gone. :(

    Chrome crashes and stop working because of memory full - long before that.
    I guess the same goes for Vivaldi as it is a Chrome copy - unfortunately.


  • Moderator

    @wisk Stay with Opera 12 if you are happy. Or use Otter.

    All newer browsers like Firefox, Iron/Chromium, Chrome, Edge are not optimized for many tabs liek Opera 12 was. Such optimizations like Opera 12 costs time and money.



  • Then there is only skin differences?
    "Just pick one - they are all the same?"



  • @Pesala:

    I never understood why people get obsessed over memory use. What's the point of modern hardware with at least 4 Gbytes of RAM if most if it lying idle?

    And that is the reason to produce HW resources hungry software? (I'm thinking it in general) Because we have a lot of RAM? I not agree with that opinion. Imagine you use 10-15+ apps and every will take uselessly 500+MB. Suddenly 8GB ist not enough (if you need to virtualize 2+ PCs).



  • Memory is there to be used. Free RAM is doing nothing at all to improve performance. Vivaldi doesn't necessarily waste RAM — code in RAM is available for quick access. If the code is constantly flushed to use less RAM it only has to be loaded back from disk when needed. Using a separate process for each Tab and each Extension makes the browser more stable. Opera 12.17 often crashes when one tab encounters a problem.

    If your system is not powerful enough to cope with forty tabs then don't open tabs until you need to read them.

    • Twenty's plenty
    • Thirty's dirty
    • Forty's naughty



  • @Pesala:

    I never understood why people get obsessed over memory use. What's the point of modern hardware with at least 4 Gbytes of RAM if most if it lying idle?

    Why I got "obsessed" over memory use? That's pretty simple. Because I need to be able to use more apps at once, not just a browser. I also use quite a lot of tabs (a habit I learned in the decade or so of using Opera). This means that out of my 8 gigs of RAM (yes, I plan on upgrading, but I still think 8 gigs of RAM is pretty decent), 4-5 GBs of it is easily claimed by Vivaldi/Chrome/Opera. Add the RAM used by the OS itself and I'm looking at something like 1-2 gigs of available RAM only. And honestly, that's really not that much to work with.

    Meanwhile, Firefox in a similar configuration and with the very same tabs only takes up under 2 GBs of RAM, leaving quite enough for other apps to use.

    And don't get me even started on trying to browse the web on my 2GB laptop. It got to the point now where just opening 4-5 tabs (an absolute minimum) more or less consumes all of my available memory there. Forget about having the browser open while using some other app (which is often not a choice, but a simple work necessity).

    Also, over the years, I've grown to hate the whole "free RAM is wasted RAM" saying people like to throw around when talking about memory usage. It's an ugly generalization, nothing more. It reminds me of that stupid "set your pagefile size to double your RAM size" recommendation that started back when the average RAM size was 256 or so MB, but got ingrained so strongly into people's minds that many still swear by it nowadays, decades later, when we have 8 or more gigs of RAM and the memory usage map is entirely different than what it was back then. Yes, there's no real reason to not make your app use the RAM it has available IF it makes sense and if the app can use it effectively. BUT it certainly doesn't mean that any app that gobbles all of your RAM is using it efficiently, is not wasting it, and that it will release the RAM to other apps when needed, nor that there's no need of optimization of the memory usage. Blink-based browsers, sadly, tend to be on the badly optimized memory-hungry side of things more often than not.

    Better and faster hardware should never be an excuse for ignoring optimization.



  • I have to disagree that using RAM is a problem, at least as long as use of RAM is below 80%. My SSD has a limited number of write cycles, my RAM has no limits, so I prefer RAM use. I know that not everyone has 16G as I have, but if browser could check free RAM and use more RAM than SSD when there still is much free RAM, that is an advantage in my view.



  • They can't actually use Opera's codebase, obviously. And there's just no time or resource to make a new layout engine. A Gecko-based browser might be better performance-wise, but Firefox is itself very customizable.

    For now, I'd say the intermediate solution is to have multiple browsers installed. Most sites I go to are still perfectly functional under Opera 12, so it's not like there's pressure to switch for now.



  • @RRR13:

    Am I the only one who understands what Case is saying?!
    Do ALL of you people actually use your PCs ONLY for browsing?!

    Of course not, but with half a dozen other programs open, Opera 12.17 is using more than any of them (close to 1 Gbyte) while Vivaldi is using much less even with several process running. Total RAM use is running at 35% so as said before, unless it approaches 80% it is not an issue. 65% of my RAM is busy do nothing. I don't care if Vivaldi uses another 2 of my 8 Gbytes.

    If you want to run many applications at once, and you keep running out of RAM, either buy more RAM or open fewer tabs. Close your browser sometimes — don't leave it running for days or weeks.

    Everything is Amazing, but Nobody's Happy
    Attachments:


  • Moderator

    I sympathize with both sides. We're stuck with Blink it looks like, and it's useless to whine for a single-process engine. On my desktop, the issue is moot, because I have plenty of memory.

    On the other hand, there HAS to be a way to better-optimize Vivaldi's memory usage, given that for instance the machine I have to work on today is maxed out at 3Gb of RAM - it will not take more - and using Vivaldi as economically as possible, keeping only the bare minimum of tabs open, it still runs me completely out of memory. I know that given time, the team can do better.



  • @Pesala:

    Of course not, but with half a dozen other programs open, Opera 12.17 is using more than any of them (close to 1 Gbyte) while Vivaldi is using much less even with several process running.

    Yes, the thing with the good old Opera is that it tends to take up a noticeable amount of RAM as soon as you start it, even if you only have a few tabs open. In that situation, Blink-based browser might actually take up less memory. It will very much depend on what tabs you have open, but it might happen.

    However, once you start opening some more tabs, this will change pretty quickly, as the old Opera was very efficient when it came to handling a lot of tabs at once. That's why Opera users often tend to have tens, sometimes even hundreds of tabs open at once - it wasn't really a problem for Opera. It was meant to be used like that and it was very well optimized in that regard.

    Right now, if I open my current set of about 50 tabs (pretty average for me and pretty much below average for a long-time Opera user) in a Blink-based browser, it eats up about 5 GBs of my 8GB of RAM. And we're talking 32bit browsers here - go 64bit and it will be somewhere around 1-2 GBs more, essentially eating up all of my RAM.

    Opera 12.17, with the same set of tabs, is pretty happy with a very reasonable 2.5GB of RAM. And working with those 50 tabs is actually noticeably faster, just because it is so well optimized.

    (However, Firefox still manages to consume even less memory than Opera with the same set of tabs - around 1.2GB - while offering pretty decent performance, even though its UI is certainly not as responsive as Opera's.)

    It's not a Vivaldi-related issue, though, it's a Blink issue. Every Blink-based browser is the same. Partially, that's due to the fact that Blink spawns new process for every single tab you open, so the memory tends to add up. But I can't help but feel like Blink is not exactly well optimized and efficient when it comes to memory usage.

    @Pesala:

    If you want to run many applications at once, and you keep running out of RAM, either buy more RAM or open fewer tabs. Close your browser sometimes — don't leave it running for days or weeks.

    That's an excellent advice. With that attitude, I really hope you're not a software developer. Because the "if that app uses too much RAM, just buy more RAM or open smaller files" is a perfect example of an approach a software developer should not only never adopt, but actually actively avoid.

    (Also, I really don't want to run that many apps at once I don't think. I'm perfectly happy with being able to run four or five apps at once. Not that easy when most of your RAM gets eaten up by just a browser.)

    BTW, what's wrong with leaving an application running for days or even weeks? There really shouldn't be any issues with that, unless your application is leaking memory due to being badly written and/or having bugs…



  • @Case:

    … BTW, what's wrong with leaving an application running for days or even weeks? There really shouldn't be any issues with that, unless your application is leaking memory due to being badly written and/or having bugs...

    Or unless your app uses memory-resident file copies that continually grow like topsy over time (history, cookies, etc)… or uses plug-ins/extensions that can't handle such growing things without bloating... or so many tabs are opened over time that the user can't keep track of all the ones that should have been closed but weren't... or a plug-in like Flash gets invoked in tab after tab but never gets fully shut down in some of them until everything simply gets clogged.



  • Pale Moon is far better than Firefox … for those interested.

    Some of you are making me very sentimental for my old Opera, once again. Opera-Presto was the best--what a crying shame it's not developed anymore!!!!!

    Jon Von Tetschner ... get the Presto engine and run with it ... forget this Chromium or Blink or Stink stuff!



  • @Case:

    Right now, if I open my current set of about 50 tabs (pretty average for me and pretty much below average for a long-time Opera user)

    It may be average for you, but the average user of old Opera used just 20 tabs or fewer. Fifty tabs is not exceptional, but it is well above the average. There was a long-running survey on the old Opera forums. I attach the results from a poll for all browser users At makeuseof.com. As you can see, 64% of users open 15 or fewer tabs and more than 50% of users open 10 or fewer tabs.

    There were also plenty of similar threads on the old Opera forums about memory use, and those who complained the most were running ridiculous numbers of tabs or using out-dated hardware.

    No doubt the memory use will be optimised when Vivaldi gets out of beta, but there will always be issues for users who open tons of tabs and never close the browser. It is a stupid way of working for all of the reasons that Blackbird stated.
    Attachments:



  • ok, why are you guys using that many tabs ? - 50-100 open was referenced.

    are you using them like bookmarks or something? how do you keep track of that many? - just curious.



  • I can't speak for those who constantly have dozens of tabs open, but for myself:

    • generally only a handful of tabs open
    • goes up to 10-30 when browsing a forum (like here…) since I tend to middle-click all the threads with new posts
      (but this will then be worked through until they're all closed again)
    • can go up to 30+ when searching for something in Google, TripAdvisor etc. when again I middle-click all the potentially interesting links before comparing them and whittling down to the handful I'm most interested in.

Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Vivaldi Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.