Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-11 > #18476

Re: memory usage vs fan usage

From VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH>
Newsgroups alt.comp.os.windows-11
Subject Re: memory usage vs fan usage
Date 2025-04-17 20:07 -0500
Organization Usenet Elder
Message-ID <oneh2506x7uc.dlg@v.nguard.lh> (permalink)
References <m6cgr0Fa4thU1@mid.individual.net> <e0soeyu4gp7i$.dlg@v.nguard.lh> <m6d96qFdrguU1@mid.individual.net>

Show all headers | View raw

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
> 
>> As far as memory compression goes, it might has some value on low-end
>> computers.  See the following about that wonderful OS "feature".
>> 
>> https://www.makeuseof.com/windows-memory-compression-guide/
> 
> Yes, that was the article I read to find how to turn it off.  did you 
> spot the true/false error?

No.  I just ran get-mmagent to see the current setting, and expected
True meant on and False meant off.  When I used "disable-mmagent -mc",
the setting changed from True to False.  However, perhaps a reboot is
needed to actually effect the change to the Memory Manager.  Not a
critical feature for me, so eventually I'll get around rebooting the
desktop for some other reason which would then effect this change.

> I have a probably 150-200 tabs open, but nowadays they unload in the 
> background much better than they used to.

Supposedly having inactive tabs reduces their memory footprint to help
keep reduce Firefox's memory consumption.  MS Edge has sleeping tabs,
too, so perhaps all Chromium variants have the feature.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/unload-inactive-tabs-save-system-memory-firefox
https://firefox-source-docs.mozilla.org/browser/tabunloader/ (*)

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/edge/learning-center/how-to-enable-disable-sleeping-tabs-in-microsoft-edge

Apparently some folks don't like the hesitation on awakening a sleeping
tab, especially on mobile platforms, and more so for users having LOTS
of tabs open at once, so they disable the feature.  

For Firefox, you have to dive into the advanced editor (about:config) to
change browser.tabs.unloadOnLowMemory from the default of True to False.
You go to about:unloads to see which tabs are inactive (sleeping).  I'm
not the type to open dozens, or hundreds, or tab to leave them loaded,
plus I don't leave the web browser running when I'm not using it, and I
have 64 GB of RAM, so highly unlikely I would hit a threshold for the
tabs.unloadOnLowMemory trigger.  Plus, I don't load dozens or hundreds
of tabs to bounce between them at a high rate.  I load a tab, I read a
tab, and likely if done then I close the tab.

For Edge (and perhaps other Chromium variants, no having to dig into
some advanced editor.  Under System and Performance in Settings, toggle
the "Save resources with sleeping tabs" option.

I'm sure mobile users would be more interested in sleeping tabs where
both power and memory consumption get reduced for inactive tabs.  On my
Android phone, Firefox has no about:config advanced editor (Mozilla took
it away as they consider their users to be boobs that should not have
access to a gun to shoot themselves in their collective feet); however,
I don't load tons of tabs, so sleeping tabs is something I give a gnat's
fart about.  In fact, I use Firefox Android's Quit menu to actually
unload the web browser rather than leave it running in the background,
plus I configured it, like Firefox Desktop, to purge all its locally
cached data on its exit, so I need to exit Firefox for that option to be
effected.

Back to alt.comp.os.windows-11 | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-17 15:16 +0100
  Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-17 12:09 -0400
    Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-17 19:57 +0100
      Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-18 03:15 -0400
  Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-17 11:59 -0500
    Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-17 19:40 +0100
      Re: memory usage vs fan usage Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-04-19 12:04 +0000
        Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-19 13:36 +0100
          Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-19 09:25 -0400
          Re: memory usage vs fan usage Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-04-19 14:54 +0000
            Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-19 16:16 +0100
            Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-24 08:17 +0100
              Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-24 05:14 -0500
                Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-24 11:30 +0100
                Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-24 09:08 -0400
                Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-24 20:59 -0500
                Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-25 07:40 +0100
                Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-25 19:13 +0100
                Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-25 22:29 -0500
                Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-26 10:31 +0100
                Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-26 15:05 -0500
        Re: memory usage vs fan usage "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-19 14:36 +0200
          Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-19 13:56 +0100
          Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-19 09:28 -0400
  Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-17 15:07 -0500
    Re: memory usage vs fan usage "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-17 22:25 +0200
      Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-17 19:30 -0500
        Re: memory usage vs fan usage "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-18 14:09 +0200
          Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-18 11:13 -0500
            Re: memory usage vs fan usage "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-18 21:33 +0200
    Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-17 22:12 +0100
      Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-17 20:07 -0500
      Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-18 05:24 -0400
        Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-18 12:08 +0100
          Re: memory usage vs fan usage Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-04-18 18:09 +0000
            Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-18 19:36 +0100
  Re: memory usage vs fan usage "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-17 22:29 +0200
    Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-17 22:17 +0100
      Re: memory usage vs fan usage "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-18 02:19 +0200
      Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-18 05:52 -0400

csiph-web