TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Chrome will aggressively throttle background tabs

811 pointsby callumlockeover 8 years ago

58 comments

artursapekover 8 years ago
I run a real time charting platform for Bitcoin traders (like those using BitMEX) and the app does a lot of updating&#x2F;refreshing. I recently learned of the visibilitychange API and managed to make huge improvements in the app&#x27;s performance when running in the background - on the order of ~75% reduction in CPU usage when running in the background. [1]<p><pre><code> var doVisualUpdates = true; document.addEventListener(&#x27;visibilitychange&#x27;, function(){ doVisualUpdates = !document.hidden; }); </code></pre> Basically, you can use this to determine if your tab is running &quot;in the background&quot; and avoid redrawing&#x2F;refreshing components to show updates that won&#x27;t ever be seen.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;cryptowat_ch&#x2F;status&#x2F;817502626896089090" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;cryptowat_ch&#x2F;status&#x2F;817502626896089090</a>
评论 #13474118 未加载
评论 #13476341 未加载
评论 #13480418 未加载
评论 #13474474 未加载
评论 #13493486 未加载
评论 #13474207 未加载
评论 #13481101 未加载
评论 #13480566 未加载
评论 #13476351 未加载
altiminover 8 years ago
Hi, this is Alexander. I&#x27;m an engineer on Chromium team working on scheduling and on background tab throttling in particular.<p>Firstly, I want to make clear that we are not shipping this in Chrome 56. We have enabled throttling as an experiment in beta channel to measure impact and collect feedback from web devs. We will aim to ship it in Chrome 57, subject to further feedback.<p>In response to concerns voiced we will disable aggressive throttling when active websocket connection is present. Tabs playing audio are already unthrottled.<p>We will also consider more signals to use in exempting a page from this throttling: metatag, pinned tabs, permission to show notifications from user. Please leave a comment in the bug (crbug.com&#x2F;650594) if you have other suggestions.<p>Looking forward to your feedback, Alexander.
评论 #13473906 未加载
评论 #13473879 未加载
评论 #13474026 未加载
评论 #13473726 未加载
评论 #13480288 未加载
评论 #13473881 未加载
评论 #13474165 未加载
评论 #13473846 未加载
评论 #13474475 未加载
评论 #13473811 未加载
评论 #13476611 未加载
评论 #13476444 未加载
评论 #13478649 未加载
评论 #13478624 未加载
评论 #13474171 未加载
评论 #13476054 未加载
评论 #13473843 未加载
mcescalanteover 8 years ago
It&#x27;s awesome to see Chrome trying to improve performance for people with many tabs open, which is many of us.<p>I use a LOT of tabs, and the best plugin has been The Great Suspender. Highly recommend it for anyone who wants memory &amp; CPU back and keeps many tabs&#x2F;windows open at once: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;chrome.google.com&#x2F;webstore&#x2F;detail&#x2F;the-great-suspender&#x2F;klbibkeccnjlkjkiokjodocebajanakg" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;chrome.google.com&#x2F;webstore&#x2F;detail&#x2F;the-great-suspende...</a>
评论 #13473152 未加载
评论 #13473487 未加载
评论 #13472550 未加载
评论 #13472907 未加载
评论 #13473522 未加载
评论 #13473700 未加载
评论 #13473661 未加载
评论 #13473090 未加载
评论 #13472644 未加载
lucb1eover 8 years ago
I like the change as a general idea but there obviously needs to be a manual override. Like, I don&#x27;t want websites to access my camera without permission but obviously I want to allow <i>some</i> websites to do that. A similar permission could be used here and is perfectly backwards compatible:<p>1. a tab exceeds its quota and throttling kicks in;<p>2. you visit the tab to check why it stopped working;<p>3. you get a permission pop up (like all others) once you visit the tab again, asking you whether you want to allow it unlimited resource usage, noting that it&#x27;ll decrease battery life of your device.
评论 #13472954 未加载
评论 #13472579 未加载
评论 #13472590 未加载
评论 #13472688 未加载
评论 #13473669 未加载
评论 #13474397 未加载
评论 #13473292 未加载
dumbmatterover 8 years ago
What are we supposed to do about stuff this? Like I wrote a video game <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;play.basketball-gm.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;play.basketball-gm.com&#x2F;</a> that lets you open multiple tabs for viewing multiple screens even while simulation is occurring in another tab. But Chrome recently stopped running the simulation if it&#x27;s in a background tab. Putting my simulation code in a Shared Worker would be nice, except Safari and IE will never support it and it seems likely to be deprecated soon. Service Workers kill anything that takes over 30 seconds, so no long running processing allowed. What do I do? Go back to writing desktop apps that nobody will install?
评论 #13472839 未加载
评论 #13472464 未加载
评论 #13472446 未加载
评论 #13472428 未加载
评论 #13473162 未加载
评论 #13472437 未加载
评论 #13472412 未加载
评论 #13472484 未加载
评论 #13472742 未加载
评论 #13473799 未加载
评论 #13474429 未加载
评论 #13473720 未加载
评论 #13472549 未加载
评论 #13474137 未加载
drinkjuiceover 8 years ago
How about displaying more info about the &quot;weight&quot; of a page, when it comes to downloaded assets, cookies &#x2F; local storage, RAM and CPU usage? I know there are ass backwards and fugly ways to see all of that, but why can&#x27;t I see a list of all open tabs, with columns of such info which I get to define and sort as I please? Why not have the option to that info pop up when hovering over a tab, and to show notification icons for certain thresholds, user definable with sensible defaults? There&#x27;s a lot of things browsers should be doing. So what if 100 people don&#x27;t care; the one person that does become more aware of what is going on more than makes up for it. *<p>And just let us allow tabs to grab all the resources they want on a opt-in basis. Why not?<p>* Before anyone brings up the inevitable economic argument - it wouldn&#x27;t take a lot of man hours to do these things, I dare say it would just take one or two persons who are capable to be willing and <i>allowed</i> to do them. And compared to all sorts of things that browsers vendors made and get scrapped, you at least know tabs will always use ram, CPU and load assets over the network, so it&#x27;s not ever going to be completely useless.
评论 #13473518 未加载
评论 #13472777 未加载
评论 #13472957 未加载
nialv7over 8 years ago
This is of course a really good thing, but I feel this is not enough.<p>The browser has increasingly become universal platform. On the one hand, this means applications written for browsers are automatically cross platform. But this also makes the browsers more and more complicated. Even the simplest webpage takes a significant hit in resource usage.<p>Maybe we need some sort of &quot;reduced web&quot;. A browser that only supports the essential features to display webpages. No WebGL, canvas, notification, WebRTC, locations, WebMIDI, or WebUSB (seriously!). And I don&#x27;t mean just disable these features, but rather design the browser without them. Then we could do most of our browsing in the minimal browser, and only fire up chrome for the more demanding web apps.
评论 #13479034 未加载
steegoover 8 years ago
Personally speaking (That means I&#x27;m speaking for myself), I could absolutely care less about the plight of the developer who wants their page to run stuff in the background.<p>If you really think I should be running something in the background, you should ask Chrome for that permission so Chrome can ask me. If I say yes, then feel free, but no website should have this for free.
评论 #13475255 未加载
vdnkhover 8 years ago
This is going to destroy HLS playback in a background tab. Playing back HLS with JS is already a very cpu intensive, time-dependent process and we&#x27;ve already struggled with the current background tab throttling - a delay like this will all but kill playback or make it stutter to the point you&#x27;ll wish it&#x27;s dead instead. I commend Chrome for driving web standards but they&#x27;ve been a huge bully recently.
评论 #13472791 未加载
overcastover 8 years ago
Can we aggressively throttle memory usage? Why does it require 300-500MB of ram PER TAB?
评论 #13472435 未加载
评论 #13472523 未加载
评论 #13475579 未加载
dirkgover 8 years ago
Why can&#x27;t Chrome add &#x27;reload tabs only when focused&#x27; ??!!!<p>A simple, trivial feature that&#x27;s in every browser on Earth, except bloody Chrome.<p>Its been requested pretty much forever and Chrome takes a perverse delight in ignoring the most requested features, because of course they know better than their users.<p>other examples - multi row tabs, customizable fonts, and actually giving a damn about memory usage.<p>Chrome is a memory hog and instead of optimizing that, the solution is to kill background tabs. This is very similar to Android&#x27;s logic - instead of trying to fix rampant &#x27;Android system&#x27; and &#x27;Play services&#x27; wakelocks which cause massive battery drain, the fix was to forcefully suspend apps via Doze, which of course ignores the real problem entirely.
jwilkover 8 years ago
Archived copy that doesn&#x27;t require JS:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.fo&#x2F;3ph1z" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.fo&#x2F;3ph1z</a>
评论 #13472748 未加载
评论 #13473087 未加载
评论 #13472583 未加载
tbrockover 8 years ago
This is great. Remember that most people will benefit from this change and I love that Google is being aggressive about it.<p>If your backgrounded browser app needs 100% of the CPU, you&#x27;ve made a mistake.
JoeCoder_over 8 years ago
Why not have a &quot;this page would like to perform work in the background [allow|block]&quot; notification?
评论 #13472687 未加载
评论 #13472649 未加载
Aardwolfover 8 years ago
Pretty annoying if you want a game to continue running in the background :&#x2F;
评论 #13472615 未加载
评论 #13472903 未加载
评论 #13472544 未加载
niftichover 8 years ago
The Intent to Ship [1] writes that all six platforms will be affected (Windows, Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, Android, and Android WebView). Yet how does this affect Chrome OS background tabs, which <i>&quot;work entirely in the background and run even after you close the Chrome browser&quot;</i>? [2]<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;groups.google.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;chromium.org&#x2F;forum&#x2F;#!msg&#x2F;blink-dev&#x2F;XRqy8mIOWps&#x2F;LvBUbWbxAQAJ" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;groups.google.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;chromium.org&#x2F;forum&#x2F;#!msg&#x2F;blink-d...</a> [2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;support.google.com&#x2F;chrome&#x2F;answer&#x2F;1184722?hl=en" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;support.google.com&#x2F;chrome&#x2F;answer&#x2F;1184722?hl=en</a>
nraynaudover 8 years ago
That&#x27;s a pain in the butt, I wrote a cnc toolpath computer and I don&#x27;t want the computation to stop while you browse reddit
ogigover 8 years ago
Can&#x27;t we use serviceWorkers to workaround this? That&#x27;s what they were created for.<p>I have a webaudio side project that works nicely even on the background using serviceWorkers for timing. I&#x27;m hoping it will be the same on 56.
评论 #13472801 未加载
评论 #13473802 未加载
评论 #13473146 未加载
评论 #13472885 未加载
xg15over 8 years ago
Seems to me this is still just an intent-to-implement, i.e., the discussion about the feasibillity of the feature and the exact implementation details is still very much ongoing. It might be useful to contribute to the discussion at [1]. An outline about the implementation details is given in [2].<p>The dev team also acknowledges this is a breaking change for the web and considers it an &quot;intervention&quot; according to [3]. This admittedly doesn&#x27;t mean much, but at least gives some basic standard of procedure that sites can follow to keep impact on a minimum.<p>Also noteable is this bit from the current discussion: <i>We mitigate this by only throttling timer tasks; other tasks such as loading tasks will continue to run unthrottled.</i><p>Sounds to me as if this could mean that IO events are not effected. So sites that currently poll for notifications in the background might work around the throttle but using long polling or web socket push instead.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;groups.google.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;chromium.org&#x2F;forum&#x2F;#!topic&#x2F;blink-dev&#x2F;-dmrNAFHd-4&#x2F;discussion" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;groups.google.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;chromium.org&#x2F;forum&#x2F;#!topic&#x2F;blink...</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;docs.google.com&#x2F;document&#x2F;d&#x2F;1vCUeGfr2xzZ67SFt2yZjNeaIcXGp2Td6KHN7bI02ySo&#x2F;edit#heading=h.fu3qclnznmk5" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;docs.google.com&#x2F;document&#x2F;d&#x2F;1vCUeGfr2xzZ67SFt2yZjNeaI...</a>
r1chover 8 years ago
This is probably a good thing in the long run. Timer-based callbacks can generally be replaced by events, which only trigger when there is actually work to be done. Many JS timers I&#x27;ve seen are needlessly busy-polling.<p>Whether this implementation affects just timer callbacks or all background processing (eg websocket data events) is a bit ambiguous - this blog post seems to suggest major apps like Slack and Discord will break, but surely they are using websockets and not continuously polling for new data.
khcover 8 years ago
There was an firefox extension that did this as well, but it&#x27;s been discontinued: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;palant&#x2F;suspendbackgroundtabs" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;palant&#x2F;suspendbackgroundtabs</a><p>I wrote my own script that does this: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;kahing&#x2F;bin&#x2F;blob&#x2F;master&#x2F;throttle" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;kahing&#x2F;bin&#x2F;blob&#x2F;master&#x2F;throttle</a>
cabalamatover 8 years ago
&gt; Popular applications like Slack and Discord, as well as our own application (BitMEX, a Bitcoin trading site) will be hugely and adversely affected by this.<p>Good, if web apps will become less reliant on doing everything in the server, so I will be able to open up multiple tabs without slowing down a computer.<p>Finally, a reason to move to Chrome! (Currently a Firefox user)
andre3000over 8 years ago
About time. I have been using extensions such as one-tab to prevent background tabs from draining memory.
评论 #13472434 未加载
jankotekover 8 years ago
I am surprised nobody mentioned battery saving mode in Opera. It throttles background tabs similar way, but not so aggressively.<p>This will be great thing. Right now my Chrome eats about 10% of CPU, mostly Skype, Slack, Calendar... With Opera it is bellow 1% and I get much better battery life.
评论 #13475649 未加载
kbdover 8 years ago
&gt; Unfortunately, this implementation is ignoring the new reality: the browser is no longer just a reading device; it is the world&#x27;s largest application platform.<p>This is why browsers really need to focus more on letting web pages be applications. On mobile, you can &quot;add to home screen&quot; for a web page and that&#x27;s expected behavior. That needs to be forefront on the desktop as well.<p>I have over half a dozen SSB applications using Epichrome on the Mac, but that requires a level of technical expertise (finding and downloading a third-party program, finding icons to use, knowing that this capability exists in the first place, and so on) that you can&#x27;t expect from average computer users. (Epichrome is great btw.)
gwbas1cover 8 years ago
Honestly, we have to come to terms with what browsers are good for, and what they aren&#x27;t good for.<p>For a lot of the situations that I see complaints about; I wonder if they really should have written traditional thick applications instead of a browser application.
jrockwayover 8 years ago
Seems like Edge also plans to do this: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;WICG&#x2F;interventions&#x2F;issues&#x2F;34" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;WICG&#x2F;interventions&#x2F;issues&#x2F;34</a>
divanvisagieover 8 years ago
Love how the one commenter already found a workaround:<p>Olivier TilleJanuary 24, 2017 at 8:28 AM<p>&gt;That shouldn&#x27;t be a problem as apparently &quot;tabs with audio are always considered foregrounded&quot;. Source: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;groups.google.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;chromium.org&#x2F;forum&#x2F;#!topic&#x2F;blink-dev&#x2F;-dmrNAFHd-4&#x2F;discussion" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;groups.google.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;chromium.org&#x2F;forum&#x2F;#!topic&#x2F;blink...</a><p>UnknownJanuary 24, 2017 at 8:53 AM<p>&gt;And there&#x27;s your workaround. Loop a 1 second null audio file for as long as you need to (please don&#x27;t).
soheilover 8 years ago
Each tab should get a certain number of credits to use CPU cycles, like a ticking time bomb when it runs out it should detonate and self-close (or just stops updating.) Perhaps then the browser in the next request to the same URL sends a header notifying the server that its page ran out of credit in x amount of time so the author can optimize it.<p>Another idea is to look at other Chrome users activity pattern in regards to how often a given URL is kept hidden and revisited to determine how much throttling should be done to it, something like an AdBlock list.
amqover 8 years ago
A setting to only allow this when the machine is on battery would be nice.
评论 #13472541 未加载
richardboegliover 8 years ago
This has now been delayed:<p>Unfortunately, our current implementation throttles WebSockets. Because of this we ARE NOT SHIPPING this intervention in M56.<p>The current plan is to disable time-budget background timer throttling for the pages with active connection (websocket, webrtc and server-sent events) and to ship in M57 (subject to further feedback). We will keep you updated with the progress.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=13504385" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=13504385</a>
dsr_over 8 years ago
This sounds a lot like the problem Android had with background tasks.<p>Starting in KitKat, a batching mechanism was introduced, so that apps which declared that they wanted CPU or screen resources in the future didn&#x27;t all have separate timers running, but instead became members of a class that wanted similar things.<p>One of the most effective features of Greenify, a battery-saving app, is to force all apps (or all apps minus a few that you designate) into the batching mechanism.
评论 #13473055 未加载
评论 #13473260 未加载
codedokodeover 8 years ago
They should have done it long time ago. The pages today contain a lot of third-party scripts (advertisement, tracking, etc) and they sometimes can use up to 100% of a CPU core.<p>Mobile browsers are already stopping background pages because otherwise the phone&#x27;s battery would be drained in hours.<p>Unless a background page is doing something useful for user, it should not consume any CPU time.
abaloneover 8 years ago
As a bellweather, OSX has had something called App Nap for some time, which throttles hidden apps apart from certain activities like playing music or downloading. I would imagine it affects Chrome as well as Safari. Have there been any real problems with that in practice?
评论 #13474462 未加载
lstroudover 8 years ago
What if something like a QOS tag were established for the page author to declare their need for a higher priority? The browser would also need to display an icon on tabs that have requested higher priority so that users can close sites that are abusing the privilege.
therealmarvover 8 years ago
I want most aggressive battery savings possible on macOS. AFAIK Safari is doing more aggressive things. We are still a huge step away from Safari battery consumption although I see step by step progress made by Chrome team.
haddrover 8 years ago
I&#x27;d he happy to suspend (and even offload to swap) some tabs from time to time. Too many times I get almost unresponsive tabs where I want to do something but it is just too laggy due to other tabs occupying the cpu.
tarikjnover 8 years ago
I wish Chrome would also allow changing tabs when a page issues an alert notification. Further, there is no reason that alert notifications other than document&#x2F;data saving, should prevent closing a tab.
usernamover 8 years ago
Related: is there a decent FF extension to stop <i>all</i> JS activity in firefox in background tabs?<p>I really don&#x27;t want any JS to be running in background. This <i>includes</i> WebWorkers and ServiceWorkers.
daveheqover 8 years ago
&quot;Browser vendors should be concerned about battery life&quot;... On a desktop or laptop plugged into the wall? Sounds like an incomplete or counter-productive optimization.
AndyKelleyover 8 years ago
The browser is the new OS. Some applications should run in the background, some shouldn&#x27;t. The user should be able to control it. Make it a permission.
CGamesPlayover 8 years ago
So you get to use 1% CPU, effectively. The timer test seems strange, why was your &quot;simple setInterval&quot; using so much more than 1% CPU?
评论 #13472614 未加载
kruhftover 8 years ago
How appropriate the day after finding the Task Manger in Chrome for the first time yesterday. Finally got my fan to turn off on my laptop.
brian-armstrongover 8 years ago
What if my page has getUserMedia&#x2F;microphone access? Do I still get throttled even if I&#x27;m not playing any sound?
compuguyover 8 years ago
For people (like my parents) who open way to many tabs, this will be a big help. Obviously there are a ton of caveats.
tonylemesmerover 8 years ago
Can&#x27;t they just have an enable &#x2F; disable button with a warning about battery life?
notadocover 8 years ago
All browsers should have an option to do this.<p>As long as you can turn it on and off, no big deal.
Nirvanachanover 8 years ago
Is this feature enabled on the beta channel of Chrome builds?
toodlebunionsover 8 years ago
Sounds good, would be better if it&#x27;s adjustable.
DaveSchmindelover 8 years ago
So long to listening to Spotify ad-free at work...
satyajeet23over 8 years ago
Switched to Safari, happier than ever.
mzzterover 8 years ago
finally~ But I would prefer if background tabs didn&#x27;t pre-load at all.
amerineover 8 years ago
Good.
_Codemonkeyismover 8 years ago
YES!
logicalleeover 8 years ago
I would like to see Chrome utilize what I think is the right solution for loading background tabs; I would like it to let you (when you want to) rather than OPEN a background tab, only ENQUEUE a background tab -- opening it only when that tab becomes active, meanwhile keeping it in the status of an &quot;enqueued&quot; (i.e. barebones) tab with that URL in the tabs menu until you actually make it active or it becomes active the way any other tab would, at which point it loads - in other words a lighter kind of background tab that does not load at all until it becomes active.[1]<p>If this were implemented then finally I could open 120 tabs in a window for a detailed query (and they&#x27;re not all loaded, there&#x27;s zero overhead), then after 11 minutes of reading a few of those tabs, closing the ones I&#x27;ve read and having others load in their place if they weren&#x27;t already loaded, be left with 87 unopened tabs with which I could close, since I&#x27;ve learned everything there is to know about that subject and I don&#x27;t feel the need to read the rest anymore: I feel I&#x27;ve found the answer.<p>As it stands I can become an expert in any subject accessible in a day or two, in twenty minutes - unless, as sometimes happens, Chrome gets in my way. I can do it by opening them in background tabs today - but Chrome will both slow down and also be at high risk of crashing completely, not just in the window I&#x27;m in but all windows. Because at the moment even the 99th background tab, which I want to open so as to potentially glance at, actively, fully loads even if I close that window before I ever want to glance at it.<p>Along the same lines, I strongly feel there needs to be a way (not necessarily the default way) to open private (incognito) windows in a way that opens them privately <i>&quot;Except for crashes&quot;</i> -- meaning that these tabs remain open until <i>I</i> close it, by clicking the X button, not whenever Chrome crashes - which usually happens when it&#x27;s done using all my memory.<p>If you fundamentally <i>disagree</i> that there is a distinction between the user actively exiting and you crashing unexpectedly, then you might as well change the Incognito greeting text to &quot;Pages you view in incognito tabs won’t stick around in your browser’s history, cookie store, or search history after you’ve closed all of your incognito tabs <i>or Chrome crashes unexpectedly</i>&quot;.<p>But that doesn&#x27;t make much sense. So please make the functionality match what was promised to the user, and keep pages open until the user has closed closed all incognito tabs. Not you.<p>I feel that these changes would improve people&#x27;s experiences drastically. Chrome&#x27;s developers surely care about their users and want to give them the best possible experience, and in addition this would get Google more clicks, more traffic, more ads from Google search results, by letting people open more pages with abandon on a lark, or on some thread they want to explore. By letting people keep more pages and searches open or queued for opening.<p>For the second point (about keeping incognito tabs on disk until they are actively closed with an X, at which point deleting them) - this also gives their users what they&#x27;ve just been promised. Whereas, at the moment in Incognito stuff just disappears whenever Chrome decides to crash -- which is often, given that at the moment it aggressively eats memory for any tab anyone might want to follow. This <i>substantially</i> increases the cost of exploring the web by opening background tabs. It makes people really weigh whether they want to open a background tab: it adds friction.<p>The web is about links. I hope Chrome will start letting people follow more of them and not lose their trail if they don&#x27;t want to keep it in their history. This would be a positive change for all users, but, especially, the heaviest and most thorough users of the web, who load and visit the most pages. Now they could open even more in a browsing session, without having to think about whether they really want to risk opening another tab. (In terms of resources.)<p>For all of these reasons, I hope Google will implement enqueued tabs. Separately, at the user&#x27;s option, I hope tabs status will be kept on disk until the last incognito tab is closed manually by the user (at which point it&#x27;s scrubbed with random data), so that upon a crash it can be re-opened unless the user presses an X to <i>that</i> window. It would improve the experience of using the web for anyone who wanted it and not deprive users of the reading they worked hard to assemble for themselves. And it would increase the velocity with which users could explore the web.<p>Thank you.<p>--<p>[1] Functionality. Right-click a link, click &quot;enqueue&quot;, this should be the same as &quot;open in background tab&quot; except the tab is really kind of like a placeholder, just consisting of a URL. It&#x27;s not a full background tab that opens, gets its window name, etc - instead, it is not loaded until you actually make the tab active.<p>Right-clicking the tab bar should give you the option (in addition to normal options) &quot;Close all enqueued tabs&quot;, leaving just tabs you&#x27;ve fully normally opened.<p>Example usage: say I&#x27;m searching for an article. I can start by doing some obvious Google searches in a few different tabs. I can go through the results and enqueue each one. Then I can go through the first (when it becomes the active tab, it is loaded) and enqueue any links that might lead to what I want. Then I close the now full-fledged tab when I&#x27;m done reading and following links, the next tab becomes active (which might have been an enqueued tab in which case it becomes loaded for the first time) and I can keep doing my search. Eventually I&#x27;ve found the page I&#x27;m looking for and can close all of the enqueued pages, or perhaps drag the tab into a new window (as you can today) and then close the old window - disappearing all the enqueued pages but also the normal, fully loaded tabs, per the normal behavior closing a window. (An enqueued tab is just a semi-loaded tab, just a URL that never loads until the tab becomes active. If its window or itself is closed in the way you usually close a tab - by right-clicking and clicking &quot;close tab&quot; or by middle-clicking on it, before it was ever the selected tab, then it simply wouldn&#x27;t have even loaded a single time.)<p>This is exactly what I do today: except I have to be careful that Chrome doesn&#x27;t crash while I do it, because it doesn&#x27;t do it gracefully. I would like to manually specify whether I want the background tab to be actually loaded.
akjainajover 8 years ago
Oh god, please change the title. It&#x27;s about timers, not bandwidth. I was already imagining streaming music from Spotify and having hiccups all day.
评论 #13472568 未加载
评论 #13472682 未加载
评论 #13473429 未加载
mempkoover 8 years ago
This is their plan. Google will charge companies for extra processing time on your own computer.
dingo_batover 8 years ago
Why though? I run Chrome on my decently powered laptop and most of the time I am connected to AC power. I want the machine to run as close to full potential as possible. This is not a mobile phone that needs to preserve battery by killing every background process. It&#x27;s frustrating because no other browser matches chrome in smoothness and bug-free-ness, so I have no option but to tolerate the trademark anti-user behavior from google.<p>Firefox y u sux so much?
评论 #13474481 未加载
评论 #13475949 未加载