Phone= 13

Lappy= 6

  • daggermoon@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Why did tabs replace bookmarks? Do you not value your RAM? No, I don’t care how many gigabytes of RAM you have, it doesn’t invalidate my point. I have lots of RAM too.

    • hexagonwin@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      i think modern browsers (at least firefox) doesn’t keep background tabs all active in memory. my friend has like 200 tabs but memory usage isn’t that huge.

  • Dave@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    My phone tells me I have ∞ open.

    I’m not sure how to easily count on my computer (firefox), I have vertical tabs on, I have to scroll, and many of the tabs are in collapsed groups…

    And before you ask, yes all the tabs are important and necessary.

  • BassTurd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    6 days ago

    I have a tab group on my desktop with tools to maintain my Plex server. I think there are 4 tabs in it. That’s collapsed, but there. Then I’ll have the one tab I’m actually using, often a second tab on another monitor streaming music or video.

    0 tabs on phone.

    0 tabs on laptop.

    Reading through these comments… There’s a lot of psychos in here. Some of y’all have hundreds of tabs open. Why?

  • Krzd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 days ago

    Phone: 71 (largely grouped, maybe 20 “independent” ones)
    Desktop: ~700, spit into 6 windows, and grouped inside those windows, Vivaldi is a life saver if you’re hording

  • TootSweet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Only 29.

    Well, 30 now that I opened this thread in a new tab.

    But yeah. That’s on the low side compared to usual for me.

    (Firefox on a Raspberry Pi 4.)

      • TootSweet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        My experience is that the performance of videos depends a lot on how much of the screen the video takes up. More so than on the quality setting (480p, 720p, 1080p). Usually when I want to watch a video, I limit it to about 1/4 of the area of my 1920x1080 screen. But YouTube is pretty watchable. I don’t think even when you select something like 720p@60fps or whatever that it ever actually gets up to 60fps, and sometimes the parts that don’t compress as well drop a few frames (strobing in particular does that), but it’s really not bad if you’re ok with not doing full-screen.

        Also, it depends where the video is hosted. If the JS is really light on the page, it’s way more performant. If the JS is really heavy, I sometimes have to wait tens of seconds for it to render the first frame.

        • eldavi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 minutes ago

          Exactly, the stack necessary to play videos in your browser is no joke and I’ve always used it as a litmus test.

          It’s not fool proof – as you pointed out – it’s probably the closest thing to a litmus test there is

      • TootSweet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        My experience is that it has more to do with what’s loaded in the tab than how many tabs are open. One tab can cause everything to run at like 1fps if it’s bloated. (“Graphic design is my passion” kind of pages with tons of animations, usually.) But 100 Lemmy-UI tabs is no problem at all.