So instead of using Flotato’s launcher, you can just make your own. To make a new Flotato app, you literally duplicate the Flotato app in the Mac’s Finder and rename that copy. Selecting the app in your Applications folder will open it, allow you to log in, and then launch a window for you to interact with. Once you select that, Flotato will then launch an app for that option in your Applications folder. Launching the Mac app for the first time will show you a range of web apps you can launch just by clicking the “get” option. Flotato is a lightweight and easy to use, and it’s designed to relieve some of the stress off your browser.įlotato takes a web app and separates it from the tab, creating its own separate floating window. That includes things like Twitter, Instagram, and maybe even Slack or other services. This is an interesting way to use web apps on your Mac, the type of app you might traditionally use in your web browser. It’s a quick and easy way to use web apps on your Mac without having to rely on a bunch of tabs in your web browser of choice.ĭieter Bohn at The Verge has a nice look at an app called Flotato. ![]() Operating systems like Windows, which are light on threads but heavy on processes would benefit from this the most.If you find yourself using a lot of tabs in Safari, Chrome, or Firefox, but have been looking for a potentially better option, a new app might do the trick. While I'm not going to go out of my way to run benchmarks, it's plain to see from Brave's results that Safari will lose to Chrome the moment users tweak the process model to be less paranoid.Īlso, if you don't care for security, there's always the option to go for a single process model and let multithreading do all the work, like the good old days. WebKit2 as used by Safari is far less paranoid by default and does not do isolation per site instance. Running with -process-per-site -disable-site-isolation-trials causes far less RAM to be used overall (see. Chrome has three possible split process models and the most paranoid is used by default to help mitigate Spectre/Meltdown vulnerabilities. However, even Brave's comparison doesn't reflect reality. In reality, the Safari favours casual users and Chrome favours power users in a default configuration, as demonstrated by the Brave team in their comparisons (see. because (s)he doesn't even know what processes to measure RAM usage against, (s)he didn't include all the processes involved, which is why the RAM use looked so low. Per his findings, Chrome used 290MB of RAM per open tab, while Safari only used 12MB of RAM per open tab. Both browsers, according to Just, were free of any extensions, and this specific test was conducted on his actual MacBook Pro, not a virtual machine. With 54 tabs open, Just found that Google Chrome used 24x more RAM per tab compared to Safari. The two-tab test was only the start, however. Under that test, Just found that Chrome reached 1GB of RAM usage, while Safari used only 80MB of RAM. In the first round of testing, Just simulated a typical browsing pattern of opening Twitter, scrolling around, and then opening a new tab with Gmail and composing an email. The first test was conducted on a virtual machine, and the second on a 2019 16-inch MacBook Pro with 32GB of RAM. In a blog post, Morten Just outlines that he put both browsers to the test in two scenarios on the latest version of macOS. Under normal and lightweight web browsing, Google Chrome uses 10x more RAM than Safari on macOS Big Sur, according to a test conducted by Flotato creator Morten Just (via iMore).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |