I've long felt that HTML is an inefficient means of communicating content. Add to that the overhead of Flash-based ads, Javascript, CSS, etc. and I start to wonder exactly how much of my bandwidth is used to view 'actual' content, and how much of it is for the extraneous fluff -- page rendering code, scripts, the ads (which admittedly generate the revenue to pay for the content, or at least the website showing the content), etc.
I've noticed a marked improvement in Chrome's performance once I turned off Flash and started using a bookmarklet to zap away scripts, plugins, event handlers, and other extraneous stuff. To be sure, Chrome's Javascript engine is fast, but it's even faster not running the scripts in the first place! ;-) What I think might be useful is if Chrome reported a breakdown of the 'cost' of the various elements of a webpage, and summarizing the 'efficiency' of a page. By efficiency, I mean the memory needed by the 'content' divided by the total memory needed for the webpage. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Discussion mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-discuss -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
