Looks like it uses system webviews instead of bundling a copy of Chromium? This to me seems like the real headlining feature, but strangely I had to dig pretty deep to find it: https://tauri.studio/en/docs/getting-started/technical-detai...
I kind of wonder why it took this long for someone to try this approach. It just makes a whole lot more sense on the surface.
Interesting thing I just thought about: since users don't get to choose their system webview, I wonder if this has the potential to broaden browser diversity a little bit?
A major benefit of Electron is that you can develop against a single browser and runtime version and don't have to deal with all the small but time consuming compatibility quirks.
On Windows the default webview engine is still not the new Chromium but old Edge (WebView2 has to be installed separately), Safari has a fair amount of issues and gtk-webkit can be very quirky as well.
This is not so significant if your app has a web version and you have to deal with it anyway , but thereare a fair amount of Electron only apps. Or even with a web version, the desktop app often has special features not present on the web.
But webviews are as much a moving target as browsers and often behave differently from the regular browser version in a myriad of ways, so you need an even bigger testing matrix.
Webviews are also hard to properly secure and don't provide the extensive APIs of Electron, which you often have to bake yourself in a wrapper written in, eg, Rust or C++.
I say all this as someone who hates how resource hungry Electron apps are and groans each time about yet another one on my machine, but I understand why it is so popular.
> don't have to deal with all the small but time consuming compatibility quirks
> Webviews are also a moving target so you need a big testing matrix
I say this as a front-end web app dev who would most likely be affected by this kind of shift: it might be slightly less convenient, but I wholeheartedly think it's worth doing, on several levels.
People built web apps 15 years ago in the dumpster-fire that was web standards at the time (and frankly, web tooling too). Browsers, even the good ones, didn't update themselves automatically. Most of the world was still on IE which was actively hostile to web standards for the sake of lock-in (and users weren't even on the same version of IE!). There was nothing like Babel to smooth over the rough edges, there were no polyfills. And even the standards that existed, when you got the opportunity to use them, mostly sucked.
I think, given all that, we can deal with supporting recent-ish Chromium and the latest Safari, if it means bolstering web diversity and saving an order of magnitude in RAM and storage.
Also: a lot of our "Electron" apps are essentially Electron frontends to the existing web frontend.
For example, Slack-the-Electron-app and Slack-the-web-app are fundamentally identical, aside from likely some platform integration features and so on. That means that, likely, a lot of these Electron apps would already work in, for example, a Safari or Edge webview, since the web version has to anyway. I sincerely doubt that they're taking the time to strip out that compatibility, since the only reason to do so would be efficiency and if you're using Electron that's not a priority.
IOW, for many applications, there's a near-100% chance that everything would function with little to no extra work, and for most of the rest it would likely take very little.
That's fine for someone who already keeps current with front-end stuff, but someone who is a desktop app developer is more likely to just go native than try to make a desktop app that tracks 3+ browser engines of wildly varying versions (luckily 7 is out of support now, but it still might be desired to support for some desktop apps in which case now you have IE to deal with). Electron gives the promise of total code re-use across platforms which is what makes web technologies more suitable for desktop apps.
I run three browsers on my desktop, because the number of things that don't work properly in anything except recent Chrome is enough that I keep encountering issues, I don't want to use Chrome for my regular browsing, and both Safari and Firefox have issues on some sites.
On my tablet, a number of current websites don't run even on Chrome, because the tablet isn't particularly new, so it doesn't have current Chrome. It's still great hardware in perfect condition though, everything that does run on it is perfectly smooth and so on, and I still use it. Youtube in particular is fine. Literally the only reason to buy a new one would be to satisfy the software treadmill.
My old phone didn't run Chrome (or Safari). It had Firefox. The only reason I switched to a newer phone, using Android, was because of sites that gradually didn't run well on Firefox any more. That was annoying, having to ditch a perfectly great phone and replace it with something better for the web but worse for other things.
I have a Macbook Pro at home. I'm pretty happy with it, it's still a fine machine, I use it for work every day. It runs the latest Safari that's safe to run on it, but that's not the latest Safari, because it would have problems running the most recent OS.
This brave new world of "I'm sure we'll be fine supporting recentish Chrome and latest Safari" is a world of exclusion. I don't like the memory usage of Electron, but I prefer it to applications that are a bit broken!
Also, to be honest, I've been looking at memory usage. Electron uses much less than any of the three big browsers. You may know that Chrome famously starts a new process for each tab, and Safari does too. Firefox isn't far behind. As a result, the memory saved by running a new page in an already running browser compared with Electron isn't as much as it was long ago, back in the days when tabs shared memory. This is visible with Safari, as the website name shows up in the system utility for viewing process memory.
I know, that feels wrong somehow, but it's true.
Finally, when using a system WebView, will that save memory if it's opening a separate instance of the system's browser? It must be separate in some ways, if opening an application that uses a WebView doesn't open all your saved tabs from last time the browser was open. (And it's a horrible experience if opening an application does open all the other tabs.)
> Most of the world was still on IE which was actively hostile to web standards for the sake of lock-in (and users weren't even on the same version of IE!)
More like: A lot of corporate users mandated a specific version of IE and wouldn't allow anything else to be installed.
> Webviews are also a moving target so you need a big testing matrix.
Even worse, an OS update after you ship your app can spontaneously break it on end user's machines without you knowing or being able to do anything about it.
At least with the web, when new browser versions come out, you can fix your site since users essentially "install" it every time they refresh the page. But an installed app that runs on top of a spontaneously updated framework is the worst of both worlds.
It's not hard to silently auto-update an Electron app's internals; I assume the same is true for Tauri
Need a docker for electron
But why would the system webview be less resource hungry? If it runs in an own process instance, the only memory you safe is (maybe) the executable code (i.e. maybe 100MB max).
Or you would need some common runtime which is shared across the OS, and somehow use IPC to it. Then you can potentially save some more memory. But I don't think this exists. And I'm also not sure how much you really would save.
The advantage of using the system webview is that you can update this component, in case there are any vulnerabilities or so.
100 MB / app is significant, especially on laptops.
Slack used to use so much memory on Linux that I couldn't afford to run the desktop app and ran it inside a Firefox tab for years... seems to have gotten better somehow.
Dynamically loaded system libraries use shared memory. You can load it once for the entire system.
They’re not inherently more efficient (other than the reduced application size), but Safari and Edge are both more resource-efficient than Chrome.
> don't have to deal with all the small but time consuming compatibility quirks.
Good, then developers might start to develop against standards instead of handpicked browsers. Or if they use a future (unstable) standard that is their own headache (as opposed to user’s; which are subsequently in practice forced to use chromium derived browser).
An app developed against a single browser (as opposed to the web standard) should be considered what it is, an ugly hack, and developers that do it should only do it for their own private apps never to be published until it is standard compliant.
This is about desktop and not web development though. I agree that pages available on the web should be standard compliant and work with all browsers.
On the desktop you are developing against a runtime that the developer of the app gets to choose, so why not choose one that has less potential for quirks?
People have been trying the WebView approach for years. (Projects include: Quark, Electrino, DeskGap, Revery, and Neutralino.)
Historically, it worked terribly on Windows.
On Windows, if you used the OS WebView, your Windows 7 users would be forced to use IE11 to run your app, even if they had a newer/better browser installed locally. On Windows 10, you'd get whatever random version of Edge was installed, or the new Chromium-based Edge.
In 2021, we're in a new era for Windows WebViews, thanks to Microsoft shipping WebView2 at the end of 2020, which ensures that the OS-provided WebView will be a modern version of Chromium. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/webview2/ Tauri supports WebView2 and I bet it will work a lot better than historical approaches.
Support is still pretty dicey on other platforms, though. macOS doesn't have anything like WebView2, so if you want to support a five-year-old version of macOS (which isn't that old in desktop terms), you'll be forced to support and test your app on a five-year-old version of Safari. (The user might have upgraded to a two-year-old version of Safari, but they might not, if they prefer Firefox or Chrome, and that's now your problem.)
The easiest and best way to improve the user's experience on old OS versions is to provide your own copy of Chromium, like Electron does.
At that point, if you've shipped an Electron app for macOS and Linux, maybe you just wanna ship an Electron app for Windows and call it a day?
Having said that, if you can keep your OS-version support matrix tight, Tauri might work OK for you.
Fortunately MacOS users upgrade very quickly. High Serria which is slowly waning at 7% came out in 2017. Compared to windows where twice as many (16%) at still using Windows 7 and won't be able to download the Webview2 update which Microsoft kindly provides.
Really depends on your market I guess and how much legacy webview browser support you need.
Or really how much you'd need to add polyfills like `@babel/preset-env` to keep the JS equal.
We use the WebView approach for Kreya, though not with Tauri. We had some occassional issues with Chromium/Safari differences, but otherwise it works fine.
We use WebView2 on Windows, Safari on macOS and WebKit2GTK on Linux. Not shipping a whole Chromium installation on each install and update reduces the installer and on-disk size a lot!
I see issues here!
> Apple Silicon (M1) is not yet supported.
And on Linux,
> you may install Kreya by downloading the tarball. Note that both libgtk-3 and libwebkit2gtk-4.0 dependencies are required. Install them manually if they aren't present on your system.
libwebkit2gtk is, itself, _an embedded browser_, 44MB installed size, plus dependencies.
It's convenient that you can make Snapcraft install it for you, but that's not really different from making Snapcraft install Electron and running that.
> I kind of wonder why it took this long for someone to try this approach. It just makes a whole lot more sense on the surface.
Like other replies have mentioned, it's not a new idea
DeskGap uses the native OS Webviews. https://github.com/patr0nus/DeskGap/
Electrino (4 years old) was an experiment where they forked Electron and removed Chromium to replace it with the native OS Web views. https://github.com/pojala/electrino
Quark is a fork of Electrino: https://github.com/jscherer92/Quark
There's also a way of building desktop GUIs using Deno, which uses Deno Webview, which is a binding for the same webview library that Tauri uses.
Also wxWidgets/wxWebView and pywebview
Webviews don't work because they solve very different problems.
System webviews will always have different features, break things, and are entirely uncontrollable by the software distributor. This means your software will not be resilient to the future.
You cannot access the JS engine the same as you can V8 in most webviews. This means you can't interop with C libraries without some performance destroying hack like copying everything into the JS space through sockets.
Electron develops patches that make chromium more performant and feature ready for desktop.
Electron conjoins the chromium and node v8 event loop to take advantage of libuv - again a performance improvement.
The decision of webviews and electron is based on what you're trying to do. If it's simple html/JS that's pretty much self contained then sure.
It's been a minute since I attempted it on Windows, but transparency of borders and borderless windows with the webview on Windows was next to impossible. It's one of the reasons we used Electron. I'm curious to know if they've solved that, but can't find my mention of it.
If you cared about performance, would you really be using Electron?
Yes. Why not? HTML/CSS great (from the development POV) for UI, and I can always write the performance critical code in C and linked them to the electron HTML/CSS frontend.
This kind of makes me think... is there room for a much more stripped down version of Chromium that is suitable for lower memory footprint? Or is this impossible?
It looks like Tauri uses system webviews, which use a lot less memory, but the burden is then on the developer to make sure that they build essentially 3 (maybe more) UI's on platforms that might change under their feet. That's why the Electron approach is simpler - it trades of performance for uniformity of experience across the major platforms.
But I'm wondering if it really has to be this way. Do modern browsers really need 2G of RAM in order to send and receive messages in a chat box (looking at you, Slack).
"is this impossible?"
Possible, see Sciter.JS : https://github.com/c-smile/sciter-js-sdk
10 times more compact than Tauri, 20 times less than Electron.JS
Yet it has Rust API ( https://github.com/sciter-sdk/rust-sciter ), that if someone need "Made with Rust" label :)
And it works even on Windows 2000, do you remember that thing? See: https://sciter.com/necromancing-sciter-on-windows-2000/
Too bad it's kickstarter campaign to make it open source failed.
I like Sciter for the possibilities, but it needs better compatibility with web standards. Being able to port an existing application that uses React -for example- and have it just run would be the cat's meow.
Needing to rewrite with other UI/JS frameworks to account for quirks gives me pause.
It depends on what application you have in mind.
React needs web browser compatibility layer to work in Sciter.JS as React was designed strictly for browsers.
For that matter: PReact ( https://preactjs.com/ ) works out of the box already, see : https://github.com/c-smile/sciter-js-sdk/tree/main/samples/p... ;
MithrilJS ( https://mithril.js.org/ ) works as it is also.
SvelteJS works as it is with Sciter.JS too.
Also Sciter.JS has its own native implementation of JSX ( it's built in JS core of Sciter.JS) and also DOM extended by native element.patch(vdom) that makes "reactivity" to work in Sciter.JS with native speed.
Yet quite a lot of UI components are natively built-in. For example:
sciter is a really wonderful piece of software. it's performance has been really impressive when I was benching it against qt
> the burden is then on the developer to make sure that they build essentially 3 (maybe more) UI's on platforms that might change under their feet
Is this really different from the current state of web development? Front-end developers have to test against Chrome, Firefox, and Safari, at a minimum. For apps that are basically installable websites (like Slack, which has a perfectly functional webapp) this doesn't seem like that far of a stretch.
> Front-end developers have to test against Chrome, Firefox, and Safari, at a minimum.
Do many companies actually do this though? I've only ever been with companies that test against Chrome. The one time at FF bug was found, that company told that client to switch to Chrome.
I know there was a kerfuffle about Airbnb and Groupon only doing Chrome as well.
Maybe in theory all platforms are considered, but in practice many companies just do one and the others mostly just work.
Yes, absolutely. Every company that I've ever worked at had a list of officially supported browsers that included Chrome, FireFox, Safari and Edge/IE. QA engineers would make sure to rotate through various browsers while testing, and for crucial features would run through every scenario in every supported browser's oldest and newest supported versions.
Most companies today use frameworks that have good cross-compatibility so it tends to just work. In my opinion though, a responsible web developer is going to test on multiple browsers at the very least.
Safari is huge. Doing Chrome only is suicide. Thankfully, cross browser compatibility is much easier these days, specially if you don’t use flex or grid.
In a previous company we had to do FF and Chrome. Not IE though, which was a big time saver. QA ran all their test cases on the latest stable of both FF and Chrome, and features would not be deployed to prod if they didn't work on both browsers.
And in recent years this has gotten much easier. Cross browser support used to be a pain in the ass.
Now most of the time changes aren’t even needed. Besides maybe the odd Firefox or Safari thing.
Funnily enough in my experience it's usually Chrome and Safari that do weird things, which as a Firefox user always gets me dinged on PR reviews :p
Not much different but enough to be dangerous. Older Windows use Trident, 10 still uses EdgeHTML, many people are stuck with old Androids that don't have up to date engines (not sure if Android is a target, wasn't easy to find in their website), and webviews have access to the system in ways a website doesn't (like reading files or using the camera without having to ask for permission or being allowed to issue requests to arbitrary domains).
But we know from web statistics that these are very few people and shrinking every year.
Have you seen how Sciter.JS has been developing https://github.com/c-smile/sciter-js-sdk
There are a few working examples, and they have dramatically lower memory footprint and are quicker to start than full fat browsers.
I've performed a couple experiments remaking Electron apps using Sciter.
My first target was https://github.com/AkashRajpurohit/clipper, a neat little clipboard manager. The owner was gratious enough to officially list my project under the "Clones" section of his readme =D The result was a 6mb file, compared to the original 165mb Electron app.
The second attempt was https://github.com/girkovarpa/temps-lite, an aesthetically-pleasing weather app which was motivated largely by the fact that the original was broken and abandoned yet still had people who wanted to use it. According to the open issues and forks trying to resurrect it, anyway. The file size savings were similar to the former, and they start virtually instantly. Unlike the Electron apps which have a bit of delay and then a blank window before they finish starting up.
> is there room for a much more stripped down version of Chromium that is suitable for lower memory footprint?
That's basically the history of Flutter. The initial goal was something like "Web: The Good Parts" and the results of that experiment led them to where they are now.
I mean, where are they now? Promising or DoA? I fear touching it because of it being a Google project (killedbygoogle.com)
We're pretty bought into Flutter. No cross platform toolkit is perfect but Flutter is miles ahead of everything else. For a not very scientific analysis: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=...
They’re putting a lot of resources behind and it actually is thriving. They have a real financial interest as there’s pretty thorough firebase support. It’s also reviving their Dart language.
As someone that’s using it, it is improving very quickly. Web support is getting quite good.
I think the desktop seriously needs a production, RAM and developer friendly breakthrough that isn't Electron.
Tauri may be it, but the desktop SO needs this moment, I don't want to see 50 years on and Electron is still being used.
I'm really hoping Flutter or Kotlin Desktop have a breakthrough here soon. Personally, I'm rooting for Flutter, but I'll take what I can get.
There's React Native for Windows/macOS, though if you don't like Electron I doubt that's very appealing either.
I've had some nice experiences using PyInstaller to create desktop apps.
React Native is fantastic as a user on macOS and Windows. Personally I think if there’s any hope of winning the Electron crowd over that’s it. I like to develop with stronger typed languages than JS, but there's clearly demand given electron’s popularity.
I feel like this is a monkey's paw wish. I've wanted to see QT and GTK replaced with something better for a long time.
We got Electron, and other browser based toolkits.
SwiftUI is pretty good, if you don't care about Android/Linux/Windows.
Downloaded the demo app for macOS; feels like an alien UI even though effort was clearly made to use system widgets. On the positive side, the app is only 4 MB and consumes 50 MB at runtime, so at least they've succeeded in that important aspect.
If I'm not mistaken, this is just because the CSS styling isn't that good, right? Take Slack (which uses Electron) as an example: it looks almost the same on Windows and Mac, but it looks good — because the styling (through CSS) is good.
You're talking about how the app looks, but GP was talking about how the app feels.
Slack looks nice but feels quite broken. For example, its non native context menus are beautiful, but do not dismiss properly, do not support single-click selection, do not support spacebar to pick, do not support type-select...
When I use Slack I am constantly frustrated that things don't work the way my other Mac apps work.
Is CSS really the major factor in the memory usage of an Electron app?
I wasn't responding to the memory usage portion of the GP's message, but rather to the alien feel.
Its consuming more than that at runtime I believe, you just don't see it because its using webkit in another process? I recall some discussion along those lines.
Same here for Windows. Feels like using a video game UI. Probably is the basic styling, but I'm really liking the file size (2.6MB) and mem usage (app.exe using 2.7MB with the "Desktop App Web Viewer" instance using 22MB) otherwise.
I think most companies that already decided on the electron UX vs dev effort tradeoff will happily trade user resources for a guaranteed, uniform browser version target. It makes a big difference in development and testing.
Yea, but as a user, it's disappointing, and kind of impossible for me to push back on this trend. I can avoid using these apps, but it's an impotent show of protest. It won't make a difference. User experience, native look and feel, and the user's RAM are all being sacrificed on the altar of More Comfortable Developer Experience.
I think a better electron would be an Electron that you can build only with the features you use(i.e I don't use websql, I don't need CORS, web notifications, nfc, bluetooth, hundreds of legacy js and css features, no pdf/print support etc). I'm pretty sure that if you can drop all the stuff you don't use you get better performance/efficiency.
It goes deeper than that. Frickin’ Spotify has a manual toggle for whether or not I want Hardware Acceleration turned on or not. It’s not the only one. I don’t have any way to know which setting doesn’t spin up my laptop fans and burn me. How about just building your app in such a way that I don’t have to manually configure that. We’ve had music players since the 90’s, I don’t see why this is so hard.
The Electron alternative that possibly isn't one.
Electron apps are usually quite heavy because they bundle Chrome. Tauri doesn't and instead relies on webview, which uses a different browser engine dependent on your platform, with all the incompatibilities that come with it.
> Tauri doesn't and instead relies on webview, which uses a different browser engine dependent on your platform, with all the incompatibilities that come with it.
Isn't windows system webview now a chromium fork? This should make incompatibility on the major platforms now much less of an issue.
People act as if they haven’t dealt browser incompatibilities in the past. Just feature-detect/polyfill and move on.
Some people haven't dealt with browser incompatibilities in the past. Not every developer comes from a webapp background, and electron is a platform to develop desktop apps. desktop app developers don't want to deal with polyfills and feature-detection in their platform.
That works for many scripting capabilities, but there’s plenty you can’t polyfill. If you’re stuck with the old MSHTML-based web view (which you will be on all but very recent Windows 10 and even sometimes there), there are various CSS Grid features that you can’t polyfill, and you’ll have a number of weird and annoying SVG sizing and styling issues quite apart from any potential missing features, and a bunch of other things like that—even if you polyfill everything in reach (which, even where possible, may perform terribly).
That updated Webview is, still, not the default on Windows. You have to ship it yourself.
Why doesn't Electron debundle itself into the Runtime vs Application? Much like .Net Runtime. Electron can then be installed in a single spot in the system and all Electron apps pick it up from that spot. You can install bundle the Electron Runtime in the installer (200mb installer is no biggie for a desktop app) but you get all the benefits of consolidating RAM usage across.
Well, the .Net runtime isn't exactly the most successful story from an end user perspective, where you occasionally run into weird problems with mismatched runtimes or missing runtimes or similar.
Granted, it's not that often, but it feels like a lot of apps relying on it just ship their own copies of the runtime. Still saves resources if multiple apps use the same runtime version, but...
If the installer could do this instead..
Check if the app is supported by an existing runtime, if not download it and make it available globally, otherwise use the current runtime and download only the app
It's a simpler experience to just dl the app and install it when it's bundled and less chance of something odd breaking your app for your users. Unbundled you wind up with either a Java situation where you have to get your users to install a particular runtime because you built with a particular one or a MS runtime where every app comes bundled with it's own copy to make sure you have the right one so there's not that big of a savings.
It already is. For example, on Arch Linux, Electron is packaged as a separate binary and the eg. VS Code binary is just a shell script that points electron to the right entrypoint
But most Electron apps prefer to bundle the whole runtime with their app.
#!/bin/bash ELECTRON_RUN_AS_NODE=1 exec electron9 /usr/lib/code/out/cli.js /usr/lib/code/code.js "$@"
That's an interesting point, especially since V8 is already used for running multiple applications that need to be sandboxed from each other. It would probably be a big effort though, and to get any real benefit from it, applications would actually have to start switching to a different fork of electron. But I often have multiple electron applications running at once so this would be pretty nice.
Each Electron application seems to think it's the only one running in a computer. It's the only way, I imagine, they think it's acceptable the amount of resources they need to run.
As a developer shipping executables to MacOS, Windows, and Linux today this is the only assumption I can make. I cannot assume that dependencies exist or are the correct version, I can't assume the user knows that package managers exist or that the dependencies shipped by the package managers are correct, I can't assume anything exists on PATH or LD_LIBRARY_PATH, and I can't even assume that libc or libc++ on a system will work with the executable I compiled on mine.
Meanwhile 16GB of memory is becoming common and 1TB SSDs cost less than $100. So taking up a little bit more space saves me time and money and reduces the cost to ship to my customers. Oh well.
I understand your point, however I still think it's unacceptable to have 1-1.5 GB of RAM consumed by simply two Electron applications running idle.
That's not the baseline though, the baseline RAM consumption for an Electron app is about 100MB. If you have garbage code as input it doesn't matter which stack executes it, you'll have garbage performance output.
Honestly I could try to ignore the memory consumption if at least it was snappy. The few electron apps I use have visible lag when I do something that forces a large redraw.
That's a problem that didn't have with GTK app running on a computer with one order of magnitude less computing power and RAM two decades ago. VS code on the first computer I used to program would probably be unusable (if it even launched), yet we had full fledged IDEs back then. I'm not talking about advanced language server plugins here, just basic usage.
The great side effect of this is that if you avoid all this wasteful crap and keep using old school technology, computers are snappier than ever. My terminal always pops up instantly, nvim fires up faster than I can press return, rg lets me search a huge codebase with barely noticeable latency. My IMAP mail client is faster, more configurable and more ergonomic than any webmail I've seen.
Life is good when you avoid the www.
It isn't your fault that you have to do this, it is that our industry hasn't created enough quality, easy to use, cross platform gui libraries for popular languages, such that the only viable place to turn is to use a whole web browser.
We've had about 60 years and multiple huge attempts at it, and IMHO HTML & CSS _are_ the easy to use cross-platform GUI platform. Nothing else stuck--flash, java swing, qt, etc. were all super capable and promising but failed to gain mass usage. HTML & CSS is the way. Nothing in existence has as much capability, developer usage and talent pool, accessibility and internationalization features, etc. A good GUI system is much more than just getting boxes and text on the screen.
I don't think this is entirely true. Have you tried wxWidgets or even Qt?
In my experience, this is more about resources and economics ("reuse existing code" vs. having to learn something new).
I didn't say I was shipping GUI software ;)
> Meanwhile 16GB of memory
Oh if only that was enough. My Safari is currently using 25.33GB¹ and and it regularly goes over 30.
> 1TB SSDs cost less than $100
Ah, if only it was that easy.
¹ (According to iStat Menus; it's harder to see in Activity Monitor due to the separate processes.)
you can't buy an M1 mac with more than 16GB of memory so it seems like you have bigger problems
16GBs of memory isn’t enough for me anymore. Although that is mostly due to Intellij and the Web at large (my browser).
Get a daily email with the the top stories from Hacker News. No spam, unsubscribe at any time.