Comment by 🚀 stack
Re: "Hi, I'm trying out Lagrange and geminispace in general. I…"
2558x1415x4=14,478,280... Add a texture with fonts, and it's still better than 40x less than 700MB... even with a few thousand bookmarks and buffered gemini pages.
2025-12-15 · 5 months ago
4 Later Comments ↓
I would not simply disrespect font textures like that, but yeah I don't see either why screen size should matter that much. I played around resizing the window back and forth like mad, and the VRAM usage kept increasing untill 3Gish (87%ish) amd then the resizing started lagging a bit, so seems like someone somewhere is delaying releasing video memory untill it become unavoidable... I was wondering why dmc5 started lagging recently, makes sense now.
Also the whole point of a GPU is that you don't need a screen buffer...
🦔 partasiili [OP] · Dec 16 at 11:02:
Okay yeah, I see now from about:debug that Lagrange's total memory usage is a measly 0.371 MB, but according to the OS it's using (or has reserved? I don't know how MacOS memory management works) 181,7MB. This is after freshly launching Lagrange with a few tabs open, all text. I guess my OS is being wonky, then?
Re: GPU discussion, this is an old iMac with a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M, 512 MB VRAM. I don't know how to check if Lagrange is using that.
On my Linux box Firefox uses gigabytes. I think latest thinking is that unused memory is wasted memory and it's the coder's privilege and responsibility to come up with some way to use it all up.
Original Post
Hi, I'm trying out Lagrange and geminispace in general. I love the sleek minimalism and snappiness of Lagrange, but then I had a look at the Activity Monitor (on MacOS 10.15)... and Lagrange is using more memory (700mb) than Firefox (500mb), which is crazy. Is this normal? I would expect the 'smolweb' be, well, smol in memory consumption as well.