I'm on 7-32, but suspect the answer is more Chrome-specific than
Windows-specific, hence the crosspost.

I use relatively up-to-date Chrome. (Meaning: I usually let it update
when it says it has one, but don't always restart it when it says that's
needed.)

Is there any way - ideally a setting, but an add-on if it has to be - to
stop the tabs other than the active tab doing anything? Other than
closing them, that is.

I sometimes find there's a lot of disc activity (to the extent of almost
stopping the PC), and when I look at resource monitor, it's usually
chrome processes that are doing the majority of the disc accesses. When
I use Chrome's own task manager (shift-esc when Chrome has focus, or
it's under "More tools") which lets me see which PIDs are related to
which tabs, they're often tabs I have open (obviously) but am not
looking at, sometimes haven't for ages.

You could ask why I have them open if I'm not looking at them, but
that's beside the point, I think. I find it easier to have a tab open
and go back to it than to open a new one, and dig out a bookmark for it.
(Plus, Chrome seems to keep a history for each tab, which is useful.)
Yes, I appreciate that, if tabs other than the one I'm looking at were
paused, they'd take longer to open again when I went back to them; I'd
accept that, or at least would like to have the opportunity to _try_ it
and see if it _is_ a real problem.

(They're not usually taking significant _CPU_ time - just disc
accessing.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

As Groucho Marx said, "I cannot say that I do not disagree with you."

On 12/19/2021 5:18 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> I'm on 7-32, but suspect the answer is more Chrome-specific than
> Windows-specific, hence the crosspost.
>
> I use relatively up-to-date Chrome. (Meaning: I usually let it update
> when it says it has one, but don't always restart it when it says that's
> needed.)
>
> Is there any way - ideally a setting, but an add-on if it has to be - to
> stop the tabs other than the active tab doing anything? Other than
> closing them, that is.
>
> I sometimes find there's a lot of disc activity (to the extent of almost
> stopping the PC), and when I look at resource monitor, it's usually
> chrome processes that are doing the majority of the disc accesses. When
> I use Chrome's own task manager (shift-esc when Chrome has focus, or
> it's under "More tools") which lets me see which PIDs are related to
> which tabs, they're often tabs I have open (obviously) but am not
> looking at, sometimes haven't for ages.
>
> You could ask why I have them open if I'm not looking at them, but
> that's beside the point, I think. I find it easier to have a tab open
> and go back to it than to open a new one, and dig out a bookmark for it.
> (Plus, Chrome seems to keep a history for each tab, which is useful.)
> Yes, I appreciate that, if tabs other than the one I'm looking at were
> paused, they'd take longer to open again when I went back to them; I'd
> accept that, or at least would like to have the opportunity to _try_ it
> and see if it _is_ a real problem.
>
> (They're not usually taking significant _CPU_ time - just disc accessing.)

Have you tried this? I don't use it so I can't comment on how well it
works or how configurable it is.

The Great Suspender aims to reduce Chrome's memory and GPU footprint by
suspending tabs after a custom period of inactivity.
https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2015/09/tab-discarding

Tab Suspender
Automatically suspend, park, hibernate inactive tabs and save up to 80%
of memory, reduce load on your device, battery and heat.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tab-suspender/fiabciakcmgepblmdkmemdbbkilneeeh

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

| I sometimes find there's a lot of disc activity (to the extent of almost
| stopping the PC), and when I look at resource monitor, it's usually
| chrome processes that are doing the majority of the disc accesses.

I don't know if this helps, but in Firefox I set
accessibility.blockautorefresh
to true. That prevents pages reloading, which they do for various
reasons. News sites often reload every few minutes, even if you're
busy reading the page. Some wiseguys set it to reload constantly
if they don't like your looks -- wrong browser, script disabled, etc.

The other thing I do is to manually stop all pages. If the activity
indicator doesn't stop quickly then I stop it. Usually that's not a
problem. But a few sites, like reddit, sometimes keep in load mode.

Also, do you use NoScript or something similar? I assume you
can get it for Chrome but I've never used Chrome, so I'm not certain.
With a partial script block you get much improved privacy and security,
and you can simply block all the sources that are not needed for
the webpage. A HOSTS file can also serve that purpose.

| You could ask why I have them open if I'm not looking at them, but
| that's beside the point, I think.

I find it odd that people say this so much. "I've had my third
malware this week. And don't tell me how to be careful. That's
not what I'm asking." ... "How do I avoid falling into holes. And
don't tell me to watch where I'm walking. I've already decided
that I'm not going to do that."

On 12/19/2021 6:18 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> I'm on 7-32, but suspect the answer is more Chrome-specific than
> Windows-specific, hence the crosspost.
>
> I use relatively up-to-date Chrome.

Please don't take offense at the following. I say it only because it
illustrates a point I often make.

You are someone here whose opinions I always respect. We don't agree on
everything, but we often agree. But you use Chrome, which to me is one
the worst browsers available. As far as I'm concerned, the only browser
worse than Chrome is Edge. I greatly prefer FireFox to any browser I've
ever tried.

I'll say it again. We are all different. We work in different ways, have
different likes and dislikes, and what's best for one of us isn't
necessarily best for another. If you like Chrome, that's fine with me.

> (Meaning: I usually let it update
> when it says it has one, but don't always restart it when it says that's
> needed.)
>
> Is there any way - ideally a setting, but an add-on if it has to be - to
> stop the tabs other than the active tab doing anything? Other than
> closing them, that is.

"Ken Blake" <Ken@invalidinvalid.com> wrote

| But you use Chrome, which to me is one
| the worst browsers available. As far as I'm concerned, the only browser
| worse than Chrome is Edge. I greatly prefer FireFox to any browser I've
| ever tried.
|

I don't understand people who use Chrome, either. But
when asked they usually say it seems to support more
websites. The majority of people are Google customers,
with gmail and such. So it seems that Google have managed
to pull off a Microsoft: Like IE in the 90s, Google have
made sites that break in anything but Chrome, which makes
people think Chrome is better, or at least easier. As a result,
Chrome has become almost a monopoly browser.

On 12/20/2021 11:17 AM, Mayayana wrote:
> "Ken Blake" <Ken@invalidinvalid.com> wrote
>
> | But you use Chrome, which to me is one
> | the worst browsers available. As far as I'm concerned, the only browser
> | worse than Chrome is Edge. I greatly prefer FireFox to any browser I've
> | ever tried.
> |
>
> I don't understand people who use Chrome, either. But
> when asked they usually say it seems to support more
> websites.

Not my experience at all.

> The majority of people are Google customers,
> with gmail and such.

I use Gmail as a secondary e-mail address, but I use it in my e-mail
program, never on the Gmail web site.

I also use Google news. I never have any problem using FireFox with it.

> So it seems that Google have managed
> to pull off a Microsoft: Like IE in the 90s, Google have
> made sites that break in anything but Chrome,

Perhaps, but I don't remember ever running into any.

> which makes
> people think Chrome is better, or at least easier. As a result,
> Chrome has become almost a monopoly browser.

I know it's very popular, but I never understand why.

Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "Ken Blake" <Ken@invalidinvalid.com> wrote
>
> | But you use Chrome, which to me is one
> | the worst browsers available. As far as I'm concerned, the only browser
> | worse than Chrome is Edge. I greatly prefer FireFox to any browser I've
> | ever tried.
>
> I don't understand people who use Chrome, either. But
> when asked they usually say it seems to support more
> websites. The majority of people are Google customers,
> with gmail and such. So it seems that Google have managed
> to pull off a Microsoft: Like IE in the 90s, Google have
> made sites that break in anything but Chrome, which makes
> people think Chrome is better, or at least easier. As a result,
> Chrome has become almost a monopoly browser.

I can think of a few other reasons why Chrome is so popular. It was
the first (and still is the only?) commercial alternative to IE. When it
was introduced, is was very fast and lightweight. For quite some time,
it has been much more advertized than for example Firefox.

FWIW, I used IE until sites started to fail with IE. Then I used
(fast/lightweight) Chrome for those sites. Over time, more and more
sites failed with IE, so now I use Chrome for most sites. I have Firefox
(I had Netscape even before I used Windows), but I hardly ever use it.
(Having to use Thunderbird is bad enough, so why use two Mozilla
contraptions if you can prevent it? :-))

For me, a browser is just a tool, not something to get religious
about. YMMV/YMWV.

"Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote

| FWIW, I used IE until sites started to fail with IE. Then I used
| (fast/lightweight) Chrome for those sites. Over time, more and more
| sites failed with IE, so now I use Chrome for most sites. I have Firefox
| (I had Netscape even before I used Windows), but I hardly ever use it.
| (Having to use Thunderbird is bad enough, so why use two Mozilla
| contraptions if you can prevent it? :-))
|

So you do find that Chrome generally works better? Is that
what you mean by commercial? Mozilla made $1/2 billion this
year. They're officially non-profit, but...

| For me, a browser is just a tool, not something to get religious
| about. YMMV/YMWV.

For me it's whatever works with the best tweakability and
privacy. By far that's Firefox variants. Nothing else comes
close. A lot of people think Brave is for privacy. So I guess it's
not hard to fool people. Since you use Chrome and not even
allegedly cleaner Chomium I'm guessing you couldn't care less
about privacy.

On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 at 23:34:35, Mike S <mscir@yahoo.com> wrote (my
responses usually follow points raised):
[]
>Have you tried this? I don't use it so I can't comment on how well it
>works or how configurable it is.
>
>The Great Suspender aims to reduce Chrome's memory and GPU footprint by
>suspending tabs after a custom period of inactivity.

That sounded vaguely familiar.

>https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2015/09/tab-discarding

That's an essay about what the Chrome developers are working on in this
area, which included a link to TGS. However, that gave a 404. I then
went into search extensions, and searched for it, and got something like
"has been corrupted - may contain malware", with remove and repair
options. (I. e. I had it already.) The repair button did nothing. I then
Googled it, and found Google have declared it malware since it changed
ownership, and removed all mention of it from the store. I read further
down the page, and found The Great Suspender Original, which claims to
be a fork from an early version of TGS.
>
>Tab Suspender
>Automatically suspend, park, hibernate inactive tabs and save up to 80%
>of memory, reduce load on your device, battery and heat.
>https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tab-suspender/fiabciakcmgepblm
>dkmemdbbkilneeeh
>
Looks pretty much the same as TGS (or now TGSO), but not as good
English. (I don't normally have any worry about that, but am giving TGSO
a try. I've got it set to the default 1 hour at the moment.)
>
Thanks for looking. If I remember, I'll report back.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Abandon hope, all ye who <ENTER> here.

On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 at 08:12:37, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
>
>| I sometimes find there's a lot of disc activity (to the extent of almost
>| stopping the PC), and when I look at resource monitor, it's usually
>| chrome processes that are doing the majority of the disc accesses.
>
> I don't know if this helps, but in Firefox I set
>accessibility.blockautorefresh
>to true. That prevents pages reloading, which they do for various
>reasons. News sites often reload every few minutes, even if you're
>busy reading the page. Some wiseguys set it to reload constantly
>if they don't like your looks -- wrong browser, script disabled, etc.

That would, though, presumably, block autorefresh even on the
currently-open tab. Not that I use many, but I do use Twitter, for
example.
>
> The other thing I do is to manually stop all pages. If the activity
>indicator doesn't stop quickly then I stop it. Usually that's not a
>problem. But a few sites, like reddit, sometimes keep in load mode.

I don't know of a stop button in Chrome. Unless you mean the button that
normally shows the refresh symbol (a sort of three-quarter-circle
arrow), but shows an X while a page is loading. Sadly, that doesn't seem
to tell the truth all the time these days - some pages _are_ doing
something when that button is showing reload (i e. lying, by not showing
an X, that the page has finished loading).
>
> Also, do you use NoScript or something similar? I assume you
>can get it for Chrome but I've never used Chrome, so I'm not certain.

I'm pretty sure you can, or something similar. But I don't think that
would work for the current/not-current tab distinction; there are pages
I _want_ to run their scripts when I actually am looking at them (well,
"want" is overstating: I mean, they don't work with script disabled,
often in a far from obvious manner), so unless it can be invoked only
when the tab ceases to be the current one ...

>With a partial script block you get much improved privacy and security,
>and you can simply block all the sources that are not needed for
>the webpage. A HOSTS file can also serve that purpose.

I am a great believer in a good hosts file, and do have a lot of sources
blocked in there. (Incidentally, "0" doesn't work in 7 like it did in
XP: you have to use "0.0.0.0". Or something like that.)
>
>| You could ask why I have them open if I'm not looking at them, but
>| that's beside the point, I think.
>
> I find it odd that people say this so much. "I've had my third
>malware this week. And don't tell me how to be careful. That's
>not what I'm asking." ... "How do I avoid falling into holes. And
>don't tell me to watch where I'm walking. I've already decided
>that I'm not going to do that."
>
>
I could avoid problems with shoes by not wearing shoes. I could avoid
problems with lots of things by not going online. It'd make having a
computer a lot less useful, though.
>
Or to put it another way, I was trying to avoid the old joke "Doctor, it
hurts when I do this." "Don't do it then." type suggestions.
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Abandon hope, all ye who <ENTER> here.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

| That would, though, presumably, block autorefresh even on the
| currently-open tab. Not that I use many, but I do use Twitter, for
| example.

It does block it, but Firefox will show a bar at the top.
If it's a valid refresh I can allow it. But unfortunately I
don't know enough to know what's going on in your case.
I don't allow most script. I don't allow video to play. So
I don't have anything updating or reloading and don't know
what things might cause that.

I seem to remember there was a problem with Flash
doing that, back when Flash was around. But I also never
installed Flash.

On 12/20/2021 5:05 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 at 23:34:35, Mike S <mscir@yahoo.com> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
> []
>> Have you tried this? I don't use it so I can't comment on how well it works or how configurable it is.
>>
>> The Great Suspender aims to reduce Chrome's memory and GPU footprint by suspending tabs after a custom period of inactivity.
>
> That sounded vaguely familiar.
>
>> https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2015/09/tab-discarding
>
> That's an essay about what the Chrome developers are working on in this area, which included a link to TGS. However, that gave a 404. I then went into search extensions, and searched for it, and got something like "has been corrupted - may contain malware", with remove and repair options. (I. e. I had it already.) The repair button did nothing. I then Googled it, and found Google have declared it malware since it changed ownership, and removed all mention of it from the store. I read further down the page, and found The Great Suspender Original, which claims to be a fork from an early version of TGS.
>>
>> Tab Suspender
>> Automatically suspend, park, hibernate inactive tabs and save up to 80% of memory, reduce load on your device, battery and heat.
>> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tab-suspender/fiabciakcmgepblm
>> dkmemdbbkilneeeh
>>
> Looks pretty much the same as TGS (or now TGSO), but not as good English. (I don't normally have any worry about that, but am giving TGSO a try. I've got it set to the default 1 hour at the moment.)
>>
> Thanks for looking. If I remember, I'll report back.

I thought tab suspending was an active topic of program development.
Having to do with the current abuse problem where
browsers consume large chunks of RAM.

The idea was, if a browser was using all the machine RAM,
the "greedy" tab would be suspended and then restarted,
or something along those lines, to free up RAM and give it
back to the machine.

Programs may already have such an Event Call or a Callback
in the code. Because Windows has the ability to send a
signal that "we're running out of RAM! Please return
discretionary RAM allocations immediately!". And the programs
then choose to respond or don't respond. If RAM is actively
occupied (committed) with good reason, then the program
does nothing. Or a program could do a save to some temp location
to prepare for a crash.

But a couple of browsers, already pretend to have their own Task Manager,
have their own wheelhouse, and steer in whatever direction they
feel like. It is in that environment, that they may decide to
suspend or reset a tab for being naughty.

Mozilla is supposed to have just deployed this.

The problem with it, is not the logic for steering in the
wheelhouse. The problem is with the "lookout" and "spotting the iceberg".
The programs do a poor job of predicting who is naughty
and who is nice. I used some "About:xxx" thing, and one of
my tabs claimed it was using 34KB, when in fact it was up in
the GB at the time. If the browser Task Manager cannot properly
display resource usage, that means the lookout in the ship
is below deck and drunk.

Paul

On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 at 19:59:14, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
>
>| That would, though, presumably, block autorefresh even on the
>| currently-open tab. Not that I use many, but I do use Twitter, for
>| example.
>
> It does block it, but Firefox will show a bar at the top.

Interesting; do you have to have script enabled to see it?

>If it's a valid refresh I can allow it. But unfortunately I
>don't know enough to know what's going on in your case.
>I don't allow most script. I don't allow video to play. So
>I don't have anything updating or reloading and don't know
>what things might cause that.
>
> I seem to remember there was a problem with Flash
>doing that, back when Flash was around. But I also never
>installed Flash.
>
>
So far, since I've loaded "The Great Suspender Original", I've not had
the excessive disc activity (and when I've gone back to tabs not used
for a while, I've seen a "sleeping" symbol and "Refresh or click to
reload". So all seems fine now. (The "sleeping" symbol looks like an
audio cassette to me, but that's just showing my age!)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

There's not an app for that.

On 12/20/2021 9:24 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 at 19:59:14, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam>
> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
>> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
>>
>> | That would, though, presumably, block autorefresh even on the
>> | currently-open tab. Not that I use many, but I do use Twitter, for
>> | example.
>>
>>   It does block it, but Firefox will show a bar at the top.
>
> Interesting; do you have to have script enabled to see it?
>
>> If it's a valid refresh I can allow it. But unfortunately I
>> don't know enough to know what's going on in your case.
>> I don't allow most script. I don't allow video to play. So
>> I don't have anything updating or reloading and don't know
>> what things might cause that.
>>
>>  I seem to remember there was a problem with Flash
>> doing that, back when Flash was around. But I also never
>> installed Flash.
>>
>>
> So far, since I've loaded "The Great Suspender Original", I've not had
> the excessive disc activity (and when I've gone back to tabs not used
> for a while, I've seen a "sleeping" symbol and "Refresh or click to
> reload". So all seems fine now. (The "sleeping" symbol looks like an
> audio cassette to me, but that's just showing my age!)

IF you've considered using a different browser, my Opera 82.0.4227.33
has this feature, no details in the settings page though:
> Snooze inactive tabs to save memory
This goes into a _little_ more detail:
Contrary to what we see with the Snooze Tab extensions, you can’t set a
time period in Opera.
Opera takes care of the feature and we don’t know after much time,
inactive abs get snoozed in the browser. (lol)
You’ll be shown a notification at the top when that happens (check the
first screenshot).
https://techdows.com/2021/01/enable-or-disable-tab-snoozing-in-opera-browser.html

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

| > It does block it, but Firefox will show a bar at the top.
| | Interesting; do you have to have script enabled to see it?
| No. In general I dopn't allow any script. It just shows
a bar at the top saying the page wants to reload. I then
have to click "Allow". It also sometimes happens when the
page is redirecting to something like a download page or link.

|
| So far, since I've loaded "The Great Suspender Original", I've not had
| the excessive disc activity

Sounds good. I'd never heard of it. A quick check online
says don't update it beyond v. 7.1.6 because the rights
were sold to a tracking company.

Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote
>
> | FWIW, I used IE until sites started to fail with IE. Then I used
> | (fast/lightweight) Chrome for those sites. Over time, more and more
> | sites failed with IE, so now I use Chrome for most sites. I have Firefox
> | (I had Netscape even before I used Windows), but I hardly ever use it.
> | (Having to use Thunderbird is bad enough, so why use two Mozilla
> | contraptions if you can prevent it? :-))
>
> So you do find that Chrome generally works better?

Sigh! Still/again misinterpreting/misrepresenting what people write.

No, I don't "find that Chrome generally works better". It works, for
me, that's all. There's no "better" (or worse), for me.

> Is that
> what you mean by commercial? Mozilla made $1/2 billion this
> year. They're officially non-profit, but...

I was talking about when Chrome came out. AFAIK at that time Mozilla -
or whoever were developing Firefox - was a quite small outfit, but I
could be wrong.

> | For me, a browser is just a tool, not something to get religious
> | about. YMMV/YMWV.
>
> For me it's whatever works with the best tweakability and
> privacy. By far that's Firefox variants. Nothing else comes
> close. A lot of people think Brave is for privacy. So I guess it's
> not hard to fool people. Since you use Chrome and not even
> allegedly cleaner Chomium I'm guessing you couldn't care less
> about privacy.

Again your usual uncalled for and unfounded condescending obnoxious
pompous twattery.

We've been there several times before: I *do* care about privacy, but
I don't see any ill effects from my use of Google's services. Quite the
contrary, I see proof that they have no clue about who I am, what I do,
etc.. I go by information, facts, etc., not paranoia.

Anyway, I have an Android smartphone, so a non-Google life is just not
possible/practical. Get over it.

Bottom line: Don't act like a jerk.

"Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote

|> Since you use Chrome and not even
| > allegedly cleaner Chomium I'm guessing you couldn't care less
| > about privacy.
| | Again your usual uncalled for and unfounded condescending obnoxious
| pompous twattery.
| | We've been there several times before: I *do* care about privacy, but
| I don't see any ill effects from my use of Google's services. Quite the
| contrary, I see proof that they have no clue about who I am, what I do,
| etc.. I go by information, facts, etc., not paranoia.

That's a good one. OK. Good luck.

On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 01:14:27, Mike S <mscir@yahoo.com> wrote (my
responses usually follow points raised):
>On 12/20/2021 9:24 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
>> So far, since I've loaded "The Great Suspender Original", I've not
>>had the excessive disc activity (and when I've gone back to tabs not
>>used for a while, I've seen a "sleeping" symbol and "Refresh or click
>>to reload". So all seems fine now. (The "sleeping" symbol looks like
>>an audio cassette to me, but that's just showing my age!)
>
>
>IF you've considered using a different browser, my Opera 82.0.4227.33
>has this feature, no details in the settings page though:
>> Snooze inactive tabs to save memory
>This goes into a _little_ more detail:
>Contrary to what we see with the Snooze Tab extensions, you can’t set
>a time period in Opera.
[]
I rather like the idea of having that tweakable (1 hour is perhaps
proving a bit short for me, and everyone's MWV).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Radio 4 is the civilising influence in this country ... I think it is the most
important institution in this country. - John Humphrys, Radio Times
7-13/06/2003

On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 09:43:14 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
> I greatly prefer FireFox to any browser I've

FYI, your favorite browser calls itself Firefox, not FireFox.

I'm just sayin'.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On 12/22/2021 11:02 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 09:43:14 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
>> I greatly prefer FireFox to any browser I've
>
>
> FYI, your favorite browser calls itself Firefox, not FireFox.
>
> I'm just sayin'.

A minor point, but OK, I'll admit it's my error.

I use Autohotkey and I had it set to insert FireFox when I type ff, but
with your prompting, I just corrected it.

On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 at 21:48:36, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote (my
responses usually follow points raised):
>On 12/20/2021 5:05 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 at 23:34:35, Mike S <mscir@yahoo.com> wrote (my
>>responses usually follow points raised):
[]
>>> https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2015/09/tab-discarding
>> That's an essay about what the Chrome developers are working on in
>>this area, which included a link to TGS. However, that gave a 404. I
>>then went into search extensions, and searched for it, and got
>>something like "has been corrupted - may contain malware", with remove
>>and repair options. (I. e. I had it already.) The repair button did
>>nothing. I then Googled it, and found Google have declared it malware
>>since it changed ownership, and removed all mention of it from the
>>store. I read further down the page, and found The Great Suspender
>>Original, which claims to be a fork from an early version of TGS.
[]
>I thought tab suspending was an active topic of program development.
>Having to do with the current abuse problem where
>browsers consume large chunks of RAM.
>
>The idea was, if a browser was using all the machine RAM,
>the "greedy" tab would be suspended and then restarted,
>or something along those lines, to free up RAM and give it
>back to the machine.

In my case, it was disc activity that was being the killer. Basically, I
have an old laptop with 3G of memory (can't use more than 4G anyway as I
need to run 32 bit to run some old software). This machine would in fact
be fine for most of my needs - other than, web pages these days tend to
be major software suites. I could live with that, if they didn't run
when they aren't the currently-selected tab - but they do. Thus, being
able to suspend them is handy.
[]
>But a couple of browsers, already pretend to have their own Task Manager,
>have their own wheelhouse, and steer in whatever direction they
>feel like. It is in that environment, that they may decide to
>suspend or reset a tab for being naughty.

Chrome does, and it shows the memory footprint for each one - but
unfortunately not disc activity. I can cross-refer from Resource
Monitor, though, though it's tedious. I've found I can "End process"
tabs on it and that doesn't seem to break anything. (I've so far avoided
doing so on the processes that shows as "GPU Process", "Browser",
"Utility: Storage Service", and "Utility: Network Service", rather than
the ones specifically connected to a specific tab or extension, as I'm
not sure what Ending those will do.) But the tab suspender "Original"
seems to be managing that function better than manually killing them.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The advantage with David Attenborough is that people just want to hear him
talk. About anything.
- Kirsty Young (Desert Island Discs presenter), RT 2015/9/25-10/2

On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 08:39:33, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
>
>| > It does block it, but Firefox will show a bar at the top.
>|
>| Interesting; do you have to have script enabled to see it?
>|
> No. In general I dopn't allow any script. It just shows
>a bar at the top saying the page wants to reload. I then
>have to click "Allow". It also sometimes happens when the
>page is redirecting to something like a download page or link.
>
>|
>| So far, since I've loaded "The Great Suspender Original", I've not had
>| the excessive disc activity
>
>Sounds good. I'd never heard of it. A quick check online
>says don't update it beyond v. 7.1.6 because the rights
>were sold to a tracking company.
>
>
I think that's "The Great Suspender"; apparently Chrome/Google warned
about it for a while, then disabled it and removed it from their store.
The one with "Original" on the end of the name apparently is a fork from
an early version, not the one owned by the tracking company. (It
certainly looks like the one I originally installed.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The advantage with David Attenborough is that people just want to hear him
talk. About anything.
- Kirsty Young (Desert Island Discs presenter), RT 2015/9/25-10/2