Focus on performance?

  • @Gwen-Dragon said in Focus on performance?:

    Send all other tabs except the current to state "Hibernate background Tabs" by context menu, that saves RAM and CPU.

    When I do this and I only have 2 active tabs after reloading, it still needs ~0.5 seconds to switch between them when using my shortcuts. Presto needs half this time at most, with 100+ tabs open. To test, just activate single key shortcuts, load 10 sites in both browsers and then type "1" multiple times in order to get to a specific tab. In presto, I am easily capable of doing this because the current page is updated basically instantly. In vivaldi, this is hard to do, since there is a lot of delay - and even more when a page is not pre-loaded.

    And yes, maybe this also is due to some extensions (although I only use a handful); but when I need them to get somewhat feature-parity with presto, I think this is only a fair comparison.

    On my current hardware, I am at the moment finally using vivaldi as my primary browser, but responsiveness is still some major criticism that I have.

    And as I mentioned: chromium/chrome is not really much better and never was an option for me, either. So because vivaldi builds upon chromium, it is clear that this is not primarily fault or duty of vivaldi.

  • Moderator

    @jumpsq The slower interaction is caused by Vivaldi as it does not use compiled code for user interface like on Opera or Chromium. The use of JS and CSS with React is slower but gives the devs more flexibility.

  • Ambassador

    Although I cannot confirm an excessive slowness, I think that regarding the functionality that Vivaldi has, which allows a more optimized and faster work, the milliseconds that may take longer to open a page is irrelevant.
    At least it's my personal opinion, in speed, I can't find a notable difference compared to the other browsers I have installed

  • One reason I use Vivaldi is because I found it used much less computer resources than Edge or Chrome, and I just liked its many features which make browsing easier. I use a very modest computer for internet browsing. It has an old i5-2400 with 4 Gbs of Ram. Even with 50+ tabs open each new one only takes a fraction of a second to open. With this amount of use on Edge or Firefox, I am looking at noticeably worse and slower performance. So I find it strange that is your issue. Of course I have never tried using it with 200 tabs open, but I bet it would still out-perform other browsers. I suspect something else is going on. Have you opened your Task Manager to see what else is competing with your computer resources? Maybe antivirus is doing a search and using up your hard drive at the same time?

  • @jamesbeardmore Then we have totaly different view on what is meant by perfectly acceptable 🙂 I had Atom (before I throw away that mistake of HW engineering) with Fedora/Opensuse XFCE which took maybe 100MB of RAM and it was unusable for me. I will repeat, amount of RAM doesn't have any impact on speed of UI.

    @Gwen-Dragon Yeah, thats one thing which can be done, but I don't want to do that if I want to have instant reaction of browser UI. I don't care abut RAM consumption, that's no problem. For example Chromium Edge doesn't have such feature and it doesn't need.

  • @jamesbeardmore said in Focus on performance?:

    I just checked my current running Vivaldi instance, and it occupies just under 5% of that..

    Where are you looking. In Windows task manager Vivaldi is using 589K in 14 processes on my system with just one tab open in each of two windows.

  • @pesala I generally don't use Windows, so I probably got my stats from "top" when I wrote that. It would have listed the Vivaldi binary plus all RAM it had allocated for web pages and extensions, etc. all together. Wow your 589K seems a rather small amount of RAM; I would expect the Vivaldi.exe binary to be at least a couple of MB before it has attempted to render any web pages, which nowadays normally weigh more than 589K themselves!

    @enc0re I define "perfectly-acceptable" as "no noticeable delay between user input and the system's reaction to that input". A psychologist friend of mine said that this equates to about 2 seconds according to some studies - i.e. if there is a 1.5 second wait for a page to load or a dialog to appear, the average user will not be conscious of that wait, and will consider the computer to be "responsive". I deliberately highlighted usage of Vivaldi on my elderly Atom hardware specifically because it is incredibly slow. I don't consider the hardware itself "perfectly adequate" for most tasks anymore; however Vivaldi's performance on it is. And that's what I said in the first place. It's a roundabout way of saying that if you have better hardware and your Vivaldi is sluggish, then you possibly have a problem with your installation because it should be much faster. If it can run fast even on an Atom, it can run fast on your machine.

    @jumpsq When you say Vivaldi is more sluggish than Presto, do you really mean "more sluggish than Opera" (i.e. current versions of Opera)? As far as I'm aware, it's been over 6 years since a Presto-powered browser (i.e. Opera 12) was released. A lot of security vulnerabilities and new standards will have appeared since then!

  • @jamesbeardmore Please tell me about the security flaws in Presto. People come up with that once in a while, but I've never encountered the glimpse of a proof. The problem is compatibility.

  • @jumpsq said in Focus on performance?:

    @jamesbeardmore Please tell me about the security flaws in Presto. People come up with that once in a while, but I've never encountered the glimpse of a proof. The problem is compatibility.

    For openers, no updates have ever been supplied to the Presto engine to mitigate the entire class of side-channel exploits (Meltdown, Spectre, etc). Likewise, no internal provisions against currency mining have ever been patched into Presto. Any 'universal' browser exploits appearing since roughly 2015 or so remain unpatched in Presto. Whether any of these are serious threats against a Presto browser user depends on other security layers/patches in place on a user's system and his browsing habits. The one saving grace of Presto is that it has receded to an extremely minor role in the browsing world, so it represents a very unproductive potential target for concerted attacks.

  • @Blackbird
    I disagree, but that is rather off-topic. Disable JS and you should mostly be fine.

    However, you did not give a single argument as of why a much newer browser should perform worse. Spectre mitigation alone cannot be an answer to that. So what are your posts about? Of course I compare the browser I'd like to migrate to (because I see advantages) with the one I've used for over a decade.

  • @jumpsq And when you disable JavaScript (which disabling indeed is an acknowledged protection mechanism), you will find you've inherently disabled much of the functionality of many, many websites. Please understand, I still use Opera 12 (Presto) for certain kinds of website examinations, analytics, and such (with and without JS disabled), but I no longer use it for casual browsing.

    In my above response to you, I was merely pointing out examples regarding your request for Presto security flaws or risks, not why a newer browser might perform worse. Presto Opera was an excellent single-process browser... but browsers today are largely multi-processed to prevent a multitude of problems with a hiccup in one tab crashing the whole browser, among other things. Presto Opera was designed mainly in 2012 with its last tweaked release early in 2013. In electron-years, that represents a very old design since a lot of things have happened in web protocols (both general and security-wise) since then. One of the compatibility issues Presto Opera has is that it no longer offers all the security protocols offered (or in some cases, demanded) by websites in setting up browser handshaking via https.

  • Ambassador

    On occasion over the (is it 5 already?) years I have noticed the odd version being a resource hog but this was ususually fixed quickly by Vivaldi devs.
    Vivaldi now usually runs between 3% & 8% of system resources on my i5 laptop w/16 GB RAM (latest snapshot).
    I usually do not use the # of tabs you mention, but when I do I hibernate areas where I am not focused and I often use 2 separate windows with dozens of tabs each.
    Also I am finding it works fine on my older hardware... 10 year old stuff (I've gotta purge).

Log in to reply

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