Greasy Fork

feedback

I found no difference in the test results. I used other plug-ins to open the mandatory background tab, and then opened the same number of tabs to test whether or not the script was enabled. The result of sending the results regardless of whether or not the script was used, the system occupied the same memory, that is, the script did not seem to reduce the memory footprint.

Your mileage may vary. I had tested on an older version of Chrome.

The script does not have browser-level awareness, and cannot make any direct optimizations. It was originally written to handle browser and system responsiveness when resuming many tabs, such as at startup or when Chrome had crashed. Particularly when custom pages are set, because other addons that use the native Chrome interface often 'lost' those pages.

@"Kai Krause" 说道： Your mileage may vary. I had tested on an older version of Chrome.

The script does not have browser-level awareness, and cannot make any direct optimizations. It was originally written to handle browser and system responsiveness when resuming many tabs, such as at startup or when Chrome had crashed. Particularly when custom pages are set, because other addons that use the native Chrome interface often 'lost' those pages.

So can you write a chrome extension? I went to the market and I didn't find an extension that limits the backend content of the new tag. If you can turn this script into an extension, you should have the ability to limit the backend content of the new tag, so that you can reduce the memory footprint.