Looking for Opera equivalent for Firefox's Tab Mix Plus extension

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by Emh, Sep 9, 2017.

  1. Ar-Pharazon

    Ar-Pharazon Vice Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    ^ yeah, I didn't delve into the results at all. Opera is 3rd or 4th in my progression of browsers.
    For the Chrome add-ons, I googled "tab behavior" and started from there.
     
  2. Emh

    Emh The Doctor Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Location:
    Durham, North Carolina
    Opera has become my primary browser for one primary reason: It uses very little memory and runs quickly with little delay. Even though my new laptop runs on a terabyte solid state drive and 16 gigabyes of memory, Firefox still runs slowly and uses up to 3 gigabytes of memory while running, despite not containing not that many tabs (a dozen or two at most). While not initially the same, Waterfox has become essentially the same as Firefox and Chrome isn't much better. Opera, on the other hand, loads everything quickly, there's hardly any lag, and uses only up 200 megabytes of memory. It blows my mind that Opera is able to same amount of work while using so little memory and I'm left wondering why the others are so damn bloated.

    I've found a few smaller extensions that I've added together that give me some of the control I had with Tab Mix Plus, but it's far from complete or comprehensive. I get the sense that Opera doesn't allow as much control to extension developers as Firefox does and that's perhaps why I can't find a Tab Mix Plus equivalent.
     
  3. Ar-Pharazon

    Ar-Pharazon Vice Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    I noticed Opera does the same thing as Chrome, where it has several instances open in Task Manager.

    Now, I was getting pissed with Firefox because it normally sucked up 1GB+ (not a big concern since I'm running 16GB of RAM), which seems like a lot for 1 app not doing a hell of a lot.

    Pale Moon runs from 400MB to 800MB, so almost as big of a drain.

    I wonder how much memory is being used for Chrome or Opera if you add all those instances up?
     
  4. Emh

    Emh The Doctor Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Location:
    Durham, North Carolina
    Ah, good point, I forgot to look at that. Windows 10's task manager displays the operations differently. It has it split between Apps (i.e. programs) and Background Processes. So I scrolled down under the latter and sure enough, Opera has a long list there. And yet, when I ballpark added them up, it was roughly 1.5 gigabytes which is about half of Firefox's usual total (in my experience) with the same number of tabs and extensions. Further, I don't feel any lag whatsoever with Opera, but I was constantly dealing with Firefox sluggishly loading pages and occasionally becoming unresponsive. Same for Waterfox.

    I don't know what I'm doing with Firefox and Waterfox that causes such a drain or why they're so slow when I have 16 gigabytes of RAM (and I'm not running anything else), but it's an issue nonetheless.
     
  5. Ar-Pharazon

    Ar-Pharazon Vice Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    I think Chrome's number of instances depends on exactly what it's doing process-wise (is it running video on a page, is it doing JS things, etc.). Opera may be the same.

    Maybe splitting them up makes everything run more efficiently regardless of total memory usage?

    Same here with Firefox. I installed 16GB so resource hogs like PhotoShop or PowerDirector would run smoothly and something as simple as a browser still manages to run like crap. I don't get it.
     
  6. Emh

    Emh The Doctor Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Location:
    Durham, North Carolina
    Yeah, I'm thinking the split processes might be part of the difference.

    The weird thing is simple stuff on Facebook, such as hovering over the Like button to wait for the Reaction to pop up or opening the emoji chart, respond slowly in Firefox but work quickly in Opera. And yet, when I run Lightroom, I experience very little problems other than trying to view a high number raw images at once which of course is going to take a little bit of time even with 16 gigabytes of RAM.