Comments on: One reason I don’t like Google Chrome on the Mac http://www.techiteasy.org/2009/11/28/one-reason-i-dont-like-google-chrome-on-the-mac/ A Technology and Business Weblog provided to You by a Global Group of Friends. Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:37:47 +0100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: HARVEY http://www.techiteasy.org/2009/11/28/one-reason-i-dont-like-google-chrome-on-the-mac/#comment-5857 HARVEY Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:18:05 +0000 http://www.techiteasy.org/?p=2423#comment-5857 I know what you mean, I've never seen my cpu so hot (190ºF and fans spinning over 3000rpm!! I'm usually between 110º-140º and that's crazy hot as it is). Is Chrome trying to fry our laptop? I'm surprised I haven't damaged my internals or lap but it smells like new plastic in here! Yikes, I better only open one or two tabs from now on. Thanx for the Chrome Beta limitation tip! I know what you mean,

I’ve never seen my cpu so hot (190ºF and fans spinning over 3000rpm!! I’m usually between 110º-140º and that’s crazy hot as it is). Is Chrome trying to fry our laptop? I’m surprised I haven’t damaged my internals or lap but it smells like new plastic in here! Yikes, I better only open one or two tabs from now on. Thanx for the Chrome Beta limitation tip!

]]> By: Anonymous Coward http://www.techiteasy.org/2009/11/28/one-reason-i-dont-like-google-chrome-on-the-mac/#comment-5281 Anonymous Coward Thu, 10 Dec 2009 04:57:59 +0000 http://www.techiteasy.org/?p=2423#comment-5281 Yep, this is a feature of Chrome and completely intentional. Google has obviously gone out of their way to hide the separate processes from the regular Mac OS X application switcher, and it's not their fault LiteSwitch does crazy stupid voodoo to show these hidden processes. I would say you should wait for LiteSwitch to be updated, but since it's basically obsolete (its whole purpose was to make a HUD-like app switcher, back when OS X didn't have one. Now OS X has one itself) I don't imagine that's going to happen. Maybe time to either give up Chrome or give up LiteSwitch. Yep, this is a feature of Chrome and completely intentional. Google has obviously gone out of their way to hide the separate processes from the regular Mac OS X application switcher, and it's not their fault LiteSwitch does crazy stupid voodoo to show these hidden processes.

I would say you should wait for LiteSwitch to be updated, but since it's basically obsolete (its whole purpose was to make a HUD-like app switcher, back when OS X didn't have one. Now OS X has one itself) I don't imagine that's going to happen. Maybe time to either give up Chrome or give up LiteSwitch.

]]> By: Antonio http://www.techiteasy.org/2009/11/28/one-reason-i-dont-like-google-chrome-on-the-mac/#comment-5280 Antonio Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:20:15 +0000 http://www.techiteasy.org/?p=2423#comment-5280 But that`s how Chrome works! That`s the whole idea behind it! Chrome launches a separate process for each tab and as a result, each tab has it`s own memory allocated and its own processor time gap so all the hyperRich websites do not interfere. And if any of them enters infinite loop or anything you always can shut the tab, without the need to close the browser or without it freezing altogether. it addresses a memory leak issues too. Don`t you read the overviews and descriptions of things you install? The problem of those processes showing up improperly is rather the OS/setup issue, than Chrome`s, I think. But that`s how Chrome works! That`s the whole idea behind it! Chrome launches a separate process for each tab and as a result, each tab has it`s own memory allocated and its own processor time gap so all the hyperRich websites do not interfere. And if any of them enters infinite loop or anything you always can shut the tab, without the need to close the browser or without it freezing altogether. it addresses a memory leak issues too.
Don`t you read the overviews and descriptions of things you install?
The problem of those processes showing up improperly is rather the OS/setup issue, than Chrome`s, I think.

]]> By: leo46 http://www.techiteasy.org/2009/11/28/one-reason-i-dont-like-google-chrome-on-the-mac/#comment-5269 leo46 Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:05:27 +0000 http://www.techiteasy.org/?p=2423#comment-5269 I don't understand your concern. According to what I've understood, it makes the browser able to keep working even if one of the tabs has a problem. Therefore it's somehow better for the whole system, as an unworking tab doesn't prevent the user to keep working with the other tabs. Am I right ? I don't understand your concern. According to what I've understood, it makes the browser able to keep working even if one of the tabs has a problem. Therefore it's somehow better for the whole system, as an unworking tab doesn't prevent the user to keep working with the other tabs. Am I right ?

]]> By: @vincentvw http://www.techiteasy.org/2009/11/28/one-reason-i-dont-like-google-chrome-on-the-mac/#comment-5219 @vincentvw Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:53:57 +0000 http://www.techiteasy.org/?p=2423#comment-5219 just did a google search and couldn't find it. If I do, I'll update my post with it. just did a google search and couldn't find it. If I do, I'll update my post with it.

]]> By: vosester http://www.techiteasy.org/2009/11/28/one-reason-i-dont-like-google-chrome-on-the-mac/#comment-5217 vosester Sat, 28 Nov 2009 06:49:14 +0000 http://www.techiteasy.org/?p=2423#comment-5217 Some has fluffed a plist parameter in the app bundle, theirs an Boolean switch which lets you hide child processes. I don't know enough to fix but I think there should be some documentation over at Apple on how to Fix this. Some has fluffed a plist parameter in the app bundle, theirs an Boolean switch which lets you hide child processes.
I don't know enough to fix but I think there should be some documentation over at Apple on how to Fix this.

]]>