Vivaldi has failed
When I learned about Vivaldi I was very glad that the classic Opera got a worthy successor, so i gave it a try as a secondary browser.Vivaldi had been significantly faster, thanks to multithreading, than Opera and implemented more and more of its features, so I made Vivaldi my primary browser after beta, despite strong disadvantages I hope would be fixed soon. This hope grows incresingly thin, that is why I declare that [b]Vivaldi has failed (at least so far) to meet it stated goal:[/b] that is, to be the browser for power users, who among other things open a lot of tabs. This has been made very hard because of exceccive memory consuptumption or, more likely [b]horrible[/b] memory management. It tends to use all availible RAM (I have 8GB in total), while it should try to use as little as possible. Meanwhile,[u] the old Opera 12 never used more than 2,5 GB even with ca 100 tabs[/u]. One good example of stupidity of Vivaldi's memory management: when it starts it loads only the active tab (which is good idea). But then i(often after Vivaldi is minimized/maximized or I swich to other windows) for no good reason decides to load [u]all[/u] the tabs, including those that had never been active during the session. And it never comes to idea to unload them. Now to makes think worse, Vivaldi crashes 2-3 times before it is able to start. I hope this thread attracts enough attention to get these problems fixed ASAP, because my patience nears to end
It tends to use all availible RAM (I have 8GB in total), while it should try to use as little as possible. Meanwhile, the old Opera 12 never used more than 2,5 GB even with ca 100 tabs.
Well, you need more memory or you need to change your browser. It's as simple as that. 8GB is simply not enought for Blink-based browsers to run so many tabs. I know it sucks, I was there a few months back. Blink is pretty memory hungry (for many different reasons) and there's not much Vivaldi team can do about it. Get another 8GB of RAM, it helps tremendously. Or use a lot less tabs. Or use Firefox (and face plethora of other problems) as it is more memory efficient. As much as I hate to say it, trust me, that's just the reality of it.
Also, it's not true that Opera 12 never used more than 2.5GB of memory. I've been running it around 3GB pretty regularly with not even 100 tabs. It very much depends on what the contents of those tabs actually is.
I hope this thread attracts enough attention to get these problems fixed ASAP, because my patience nears to end
I'm sure the folks from Vivaldi are now truly terrified. That was a pretty unnecessary remark to include.
I don't think power users open hundreds of tabs. I think they know how to manage their work flow better than that. Novice users may open that many because they are too disorganised.
While sessions are not yet implemented one can store a set of tabs in a bookmark or speed dial folder to open them as a group, and stack them to save space on the tab bar.
When I learned about Vivaldi I was very glad that the classic Opera got a worthy successor, so i gave it a try as a secondary browser.Vivaldi had been significantly faster, thanks to multithreading, than Opera and implemented more and more of its features, so I made Vivaldi my primary browser after beta, despite strong disadvantages I hope would be fixed soon. This hope grows incresingly thin, that is why I declare that Vivaldi has failed (at least so far) to meet it stated goal: that is, to be the browser for power users, who among other things open a lot of tabs. This has been made very hard because of exceccive memory consuptumption or, more likely horrible memory management. It tends to use all availible RAM (I have 8GB in total), while it should try to use as little as possible. Meanwhile, the old Opera 12 never used more than 2,5 GB even with ca 100 tabs.
Frankly I can't get the relation between being a power user and letting hundreds of tabs Opened, I've always considered this a misuse of the Opera functions. A misuse that Opera tolerated very well, and practically any other browser doesn't. Vivaldi included.
That said I'm sure you're pretty well aware that the memory consumption comes mostly from the engine and Vivaldi's engine isn't built from scratch but comes from Google.
If you put a Chevrolet engine inside a Smart car, no matter how you tweak the injection that Smart car will never get a 33KM/L performance.
That's all. On cars you have hundreds of choices, on browsers the practical choices can be counted using the fingers of a single hand.
So there isn't any Vivaldi failure there. The coders had basically to chose between Chromium's and Firefox engines and had also to choose if use a native UI and a longer development time or a web based one to hit the target earlier.
In a perfect world Vivaldi had to start to write both the engine and a native UI (one for each supported OS) from scratch
In a perfect world Jon Stephenson von Tetzchner would be richer than Steve Jobs and Bill Gates together, and could hire hundreds of devs, or buy back the Presto engine.
In a perfect world the Vivaldi team could [re]do the 20 years of Opera development in six months.
We aren't in a perfect world.
And Vivaldi is surely succeeding on what promised, better than the above limitation lead to forecast on day one.
Anyone that is fool enough to use a Beta product as their main software, deserves all the problems they find.
Don't complain about something that is not finished. Submit bug reports.
Having 100 tabs open just means you are not being efficient or finishing things, before moving onto something else.
All Chromium based browsers will run a new instance of the browser for every single tab and extension.
This sand-boxing is a design-feature, and there is no way around it.
Vivaldi is never going to be what you want.
It doesn't matter. We are not here to talk human psychology or whatever.
We don't know his usage patterns; we don't know why he uses those exact patterns; we are not here to judge or give sentences; frankly, we shouldn't care.
If we were a car dedicated forum and someone blamed the Vivaldi car because its engine melted after 200Km ran at 100Km/h in second gear, while the Opera car didn't. What the users would say?
That an average engine isn't built to run for hours at 7000 rpms or would respect pilot's human psychology?
While the OP might've been less aggressive, their use case is perfectly valid. There is nothing wrong with having many tabs open. Some people may indeed wish to finish visiting one site before moving to the next, but others juggle many different things at once, or regularly switch between tasks. For example, I regularly have a work-related wiki page open to search for and edit information, a bug tracking system, a scrum tool, sites about development, about specific programming languages, a support forum, etc. Having to close these tabs regularly to combat memory consumption is a loss of productivity when a few minutes later I have to re-open them to check or edit something else.
The other point made in this thread is very valid as well: the engine is to blame, not Vivaldi. Sadly, that same engine is also the reason many people don't use the new Opera. Of course it has a lot to do with the lack of other power user features as well, but abandoning the Presto engine is still the foremost complaint among former Opera users.
So in a sense, while I enjoy many of Vivaldi's features, I too feel that at least one group of users is still left in the cold: the people who want a fast and lightweight browser, capable of running a lot of concurrent tasks.
And no, Firefox is not an alternative.
The use case is indeed perfectly valid, there's no point in saying that people who use lots of tabs are "doing it wrong", are inefficient or anything like that. That's just cheap.
However, there really is no easy solution to this. If you want to run dozens or even hundreds of tabs in Vivaldi, it's gonna cost you RAM and the best way to deal with it is sadly to get more RAM or change your working habits.
Also, when comparing the memory usage of old browsers like Opera 12 with the current ones, one should also bear in mind that the web those old browsers were designed for was quite different than the one we're currently browsing. And Opera 12, before it was discontinued, was starting to struggle quite a bit with the changes the internet was going through at the time. Those browsers were made for a different era.
And if using Firefox, which is indeed significantly less memory hungry than any Blink-based browser (well, as long as you restart it frequently ), is not an option, then the only real option as far as I know is to use current Opera, which, in its current state, is quite similar to Vivaldi as far as general features are concerned (I'd say the existence of Vivaldi pushed Opera quite significantly), and is better optimized - so it's quicker and more memory efficient (within the limits of Blink, of course). That's what I do, honestly - I'm a big fan of Vivaldi, but it still isn't quite where I'd like it to be for it to become my main browser.
While an interesting and certainly correct comment thread, it is not entirely relevant to this forum thread. This is about Vivaldi taking a lot of memory, which the Blink-based Opera does as well (as others have pointed out this is precisely because both are Blink-based). A responsive UI is a must, but is not directly related to the engine's memory usage.