5 ms·
Would be nifty if they only did that partial scaling when there's little memory available.
by smallnix 1mo ago
Would be nifty if they only did that partial scaling when there's little memory available.
- gutechh 1mo agoahah, yeah surprising considering how Chrome is RAM hungry, 20mb isn't that much of a win. On another end when trying to reproduce the glitch, it was quite hard! basically invisible on photos and not all icons were affected. So it does work very well. It was kind of our fault to use a jpg for an icon ahah.
- kristianp 1mo agoI assumed Chrome is memory hungry due to the JavaScript VM, but there's probably many optimisations that trade memory for speed. (Unlike this one).
- adzm 1mo agoIt's not a matter of memory but speed; the difference is drastic since memory is slow (well compared to cpu cache)