Surely it's a major design flaw in IE7/8 when...

Forum for anything else which doesn't fit in the above forums. Site feedback, random talk, whatever, are welcome.
Post Reply
marzsyndrome
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 6:01 am

Surely it's a major design flaw in IE7/8 when...

Post by marzsyndrome » Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:19 am

...each tab has its own process take up memory?

I mean, multiple IEXPLORE.EXE instances? Might as well just do real old-school IE and stick to individual windows. Multiple processes kinda defeats one of the key points of tabbed browsing (to clutter up the memory a lot less than usual).

No clue if IE9 will fix this. It's a bastard move by MS though to disown XP support for it.

User avatar
5eraph
Site Admin
Posts: 4619
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:38 pm
Location: Riverview, MI USA

Post by 5eraph » Wed Sep 08, 2010 7:21 am

Google's Chrome browser was first to use a separate process for each tab. Microsoft followed suit to help prevent a single tab from crashing the entire browser. In this context, separate processes are a huge benefit—especially when considering how unstable some ActiveX controls like Flash can be. Tab isolation also has security benefits; one tab cannot interfere with any other.

Expect IE9 to use multiple processes as well for the same reasons.

marzsyndrome
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 6:01 am

Post by marzsyndrome » Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:52 am

Interesting. So I wonder what Firefox's/Opera's excuse/reasoning behind their "one process for the browser" method is? :wink:

User avatar
dumpydooby
Posts: 530
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 6:09 am

Post by dumpydooby » Wed Sep 08, 2010 2:29 pm

I'm pretty sure Firefox 4 will use separate processes. I know one of the biggest complaints the Firefox guys have gotten is that it lacks memory management, and the dev team has said that they'll focus on that with v4.


Can anyone who has tested the beta confirm this?

User avatar
5eraph
Site Admin
Posts: 4619
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:38 pm
Location: Riverview, MI USA

Post by 5eraph » Wed Sep 08, 2010 7:37 pm

Firefox has already implemented something similar for its plugins. I don't know if they'll continue the trend by isolating tabs at some point.

User avatar
mooms
Posts: 792
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:29 pm
Location: France

Post by mooms » Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:39 pm

Yes, since Fx 3.6.x (5 or 6 i think) the plugins are executed in a separate process.

View of the task manger, currently playing a video on Youtube with Fx 3.6.9:

Image


I'm not sure about tabs isolation in Fx4, i think it will be in the next major release.

yumeyao
Moderator
Posts: 1718
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 9:24 pm
Location: Taiyuan, Shanxi, PR China

Post by yumeyao » Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:49 pm

Chrome has a switch to change the process schema, dunno if IE8 has one.
Image
My work list(Hosted by dumpydooby)

User avatar
RyanVM
Site Admin
Posts: 5189
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by RyanVM » Wed Sep 08, 2010 11:26 pm

I'm pretty sure that the Firefox plan is to have separate content and chrome processes for Gecko 2.0 in the mobile realm, but not on the desktop. I don't believe they're intending to do one process per tab like IE/Chrome, though. Firefox 4.0 will only have OOPP like 3.6.x currently has.
Get up to $200 off on hosting from the same people who host this website!
http://www.ryanvm.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2357

User avatar
Kelsenellenelvian
Moderator
Posts: 4383
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 8:32 pm
Location: Pocatello, ID
Contact:

Post by Kelsenellenelvian » Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:57 am

marzsyndrome wrote: No clue if IE9 will fix this. It's a bastard move by MS though to disown XP support for it.
I must say, marzsyndrome you seem to have quit a chip on your shoulder.

Why should MS support a OS that doesn't even make them money anymore? We ALL need to look into the future. I don't want to start an OS or Member flame war here but we do need to admit that xp is quite old and getting older by the day. I don't blame MS one bit for not giving us IE9 for XP. They are about the money and DID extend XP's support cycle for one hell of a long time.

User avatar
5eraph
Site Admin
Posts: 4619
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:38 pm
Location: Riverview, MI USA

Post by 5eraph » Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:46 am

[offtopic rant]

I won't begrudge Microsoft's desire to improve its software and prosper by those improvements. I just wish they hadn't crammed so much DRM into the newer OSes. I won't migrate from XPx64 on my current machine until the OS no longer supports the hardware and software I want to use. DirectX, Internet Explorer and eye candy upgrades do not offset the DRM issue enough for me to want to switch.

Perhaps I'll buy Win7 for my next PC build, but not until Win7 SP1 DVDs are available at retail. Microsoft's decision to disallow service pack slipstreams by end users does not agree with me. I have nothing but respect for those that have created a means to do so, but I don't want to use a "duct tape solution" that is unsupported by Microsoft for something as important as a service pack.

There is no need to explain the irony of the previous statement. Most update packs are still relatively simple compared to official service packs, my own included. ;)

[/offtopic rant]
Last edited by 5eraph on Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:54 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Kelsenellenelvian
Moderator
Posts: 4383
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 8:32 pm
Location: Pocatello, ID
Contact:

Post by Kelsenellenelvian » Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:47 am

Amen to the DRM crap. As to the DRM issue though I have used Win7 for the whole time and haven't had any issues with it. I am also admittedly a unsafe, sometimes unsavory :S user :P

Boo to the Win7 comments. Win7 wins!!!

User avatar
5eraph
Site Admin
Posts: 4619
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:38 pm
Location: Riverview, MI USA

Post by 5eraph » Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:56 am

Hopefully I'll agree with you on Win7 when I can afford new hardware to run it on. At this point, I reserve my judgment until I can make an informed opinion. ;)

User avatar
mooms
Posts: 792
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:29 pm
Location: France

Post by mooms » Thu Sep 09, 2010 8:28 am

DRM and more and more online services with zero privacy is also what stops me to upgrade from XP to 7.
Also, i have installed and used on other machines and i still prefer XP for it's weight and i have all my habits on XP since 2002 !
Alteration of the world
Want to thank me ? If you buy something on Banggood with this link, I will earn a little %.

User avatar
vmanda
Posts: 1634
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:25 pm
Location: TM.Romania

Post by vmanda » Thu Sep 09, 2010 10:53 am

Windows XP can have a verry long life even after M$ stop suporting it.

1. because all of us loving it. Even if installing Vista or Win7, to one of hdd partitions,
all of us installing XP to another one.

2. because RVMI and nlite make posible to install xp and run imediatly after install finish,
with all of us tips, tricks and favorites programs allready installed.

3. XP has been released into a period of time when hundred of milions of peoples bought his computers with XP licence on it.
That computers still cover all she needs: internet navigation, movie and music playing, editing some text, messenger, etc.
Even if she buys a second computer, ussualy laptopts, still want to keep the desktops.

4. Almost of time XP is solid as a rock. Can be started with just few services, repaired or removed the viruses, and go back in business.

5. Some or us are desperated to install last update from microsoft.
By time i have seen computers never updated, that worked like a charm for 4-5 years, even more.
So, if she stop suporting xp, what big deal?

6. Many of computer part manufacturers still provide drivers even for win98/win ME.
Only big manufacturers that have some deals with M$, promoting only Vista and Win7, choose to not assure hardware support for xp.
Even if that happens, chip manufactures still provide drivers for his chips, or drivers from another manufactures can be used to suport this hardware.
Last few years, i have used drivers downloaded from http://driverpacks.net/ without even to ask or search for cd with mb drivers, video, etc.
This is a good opportunity to thank to all guys that hard work to do that great job.

So, to conlude, dear XP we wish you to live many, many years !!! all of us love you.

You are the "Michael Jackson" of OS-es. Live or death (by M$ wishes) you make big money ! :)

ccl0
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 1:56 am

Post by ccl0 » Thu Sep 09, 2010 12:45 pm

hmm maybe someone will be able to shoehorn ie9 into xp?

while ie7 and 8 were pretty pitiful, i admit 9 got my interest somewhat. doubtful enough to completely switch over from ff, but maybe include it in my xp builds (if someone ever figures out a way to make it compatible with xp).

it kind of reminds me how when dx10 came out for vista, and m$ released some pc games that -required- you to use vista. to me that seemed a little underhanded thing to do. they were cutting off a pretty large userbase in doing that

User avatar
RyanVM
Site Admin
Posts: 5189
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by RyanVM » Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:26 pm

IE9 requires Direct2D, which is only supported by Vista SP2 + Platform Update and Windows 7.
Get up to $200 off on hosting from the same people who host this website!
http://www.ryanvm.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2357

User avatar
mooms
Posts: 792
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:29 pm
Location: France

Post by mooms » Sat Sep 11, 2010 6:30 am

But it must have a "safe" mode (GDI) if you don't have a dx9 card or no drivers.

Post Reply