Thanks for the clarification. However, until apple releases a patch for that (which is probably ios8), I guess we are out of luck either way.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
All iPads I'm angry with Apple, and Disappointed (Safari reloading tabs)
- Thread starter NeoiPad
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thanks for the clarification. However, until apple releases a patch for that (which is probably ios8), I guess we are out of luck either way.
So why having five tabs open in safari need to reload constantly? That would be let day 7-10MB if every tab is about 1.3MB. And let's imagine you have 100MB free at that moment.
So why do they need to reload if there's 100MB free and five tabs take up 10MB of those 100MB? Makes no sense.
It makes sense if you make an assumption there is a BUG somewhere in the software causing the reload.
You are right. It makes no sense. They should load and stay loaded. That's why I claim it is likely a iOS issue, not a lack of RAM issue, not for just a few tabs. We'll see what iOS 7.1 brings.
It's really a bad series of events for the new iOS devices. First people discovered that the new iPad Air and rMini only come with other 1GB of ram. Secondly, people started having issues with Safari crashing and tabs auto refreshing. Finally, the numerous 'LowMemory' log files started showing on our devices. While there are many internet capable devices that have no issues handling web browsing with 1 GB of ram or even less this sequence of events doesn't give one warm fuzzy feelings. I'm sure Apple will straighten this all out in the end.
Read this post, someone sharper than all of us in this thread measured the memory usage of a simple, 0.6MB page. He found that "even this, quite simple page (again, it's 600 kbytes only in size and has almost no Javascript) taxed both Retina iPad 3's very heavily: 80-95Mbyte initial RAM usage and 125...194Mbyte peaks during scrolling.
* No wonder Safari crashes this easily on anything Retina iPad..."That's 300x actual size to RAM usage factor.
So if you loaded 5 tabs each using 100-200MB or RAM, here ya go - Safari starving to death.
---
* Emphasis is mine.
so r u saying this issue can be fix or notRead this post, someone sharper than all of us in this thread measured the memory usage of a simple, 0.6MB page. He found that "even this, quite simple page (again, it's 600 kbytes only in size and has almost no Javascript) taxed both Retina iPad 3's very heavily: 80-95Mbyte initial RAM usage and 125...194Mbyte peaks during scrolling.
That's 300x actual size to RAM usage factor.
So if you loaded 5 tabs each using 100-200MB or RAM, here ya go - Safari starving to death.
---
* Emphasis is mine.
It can be improved, but not solved completely (until Apple implements persistence of RAM used by tabs to disk). With current Apple memory management scheme, tabs HAVE to release memory in memory starvation situation, to let whatever you're doing (launching another app for example) to acually happen.
Read this post, someone sharper than all of us in this thread measured the memory usage of a simple, 0.6MB page. He found that "even this, quite simple page (again, it's 600 kbytes only in size and has almost no Javascript) taxed both Retina iPad 3's very heavily: 80-95Mbyte initial RAM usage and 125...194Mbyte peaks during scrolling.
That's 300x actual size to RAM usage factor.
So if you loaded 5 tabs each using 100-200MB or RAM, here ya go - Safari starving to death.
---
* Emphasis is mine.
Great post you linked there, I figured as much but it's good to see hard numbers on it.
So unless they somehow make a swap partition on the flash disk or add 2 gbs of RAM (would drastically improve the situation) in the next ipad this one is gimped.
Thanks apple.
I'm using safari every single day, usually with 2 tabs open (sometimes more), and I'm not experiencing this king of issue ....
Maybe your is an hardware problem.
This points me into the same direction: hardware fault.
iPad 3 and iPad Air have the same amount of ram, and using the same os and same browser, they have to behave in the same way.
----------
That's just plain false .... I can use at least three tabs without reloading anything ...
Two different CPUs. One 32 bit, the other 64. Two very different experiences lead many to point to the lack of ram on the air, due to the move to 64 bit architecture.
Please understand that web browsers don't work like that, it's not a simple file viewer.
Just because a browser downloads 1MB of resource does not mean it takes up 1MB of memory. Each tab has a separate rendering process, code that converts that 1MB of data into something that you can see, and that takes a lot of memory. For an example, you can have a 5KB CSS file that describes how text, tables, etc are rendered in browser, which could then consume by a factor of 100 or more.
In addition, javascript files can perform additional work without requiring you to download more content because javascript would run on client side. If the javascript tells the browser to create a graphic, the browser is going to consume a lot of memory just doing that alone.
And so on.
Chrome, which is usually much lighter than Safari on desktops, can still eat up about 50MB+ per tab on simple websites. Sites like Verge can eat up 100MB and even the empty tab takes about 80MB. Here's a screenshot:
----------
No, they don't. Safari is complied as a 64-bit app on Air, which has a separate 64-bit libraries provided by the 64-bit iOS. It will not work the same way, it should have the same experience but it does not mean it'll be stable in both versions.
64-bit Safari is very leaky and causing a lot of memory issues which are leading to crashes.
iOS 7.1 beta 2 already improved Safari a LOT, with zero crashes for me.
I definitely agree with you ...Really? And I'm supposed to throw hardware at a "JavaScript snippet" that does this? So even if I had 2GB of RAM, there could always be a runaway snippet that uses 1000000x more memory than the page itself and use it all up?
So now I'd need 3GB? Maybe 4GB? But what if the snippet decides to download the entire Library of Congress?
Ok man, whatever.
Safari opened with 3 tabs (MacRumors forum plus two websites rich of images and html5 contents) , Mail and another app on background, I still have more than 300 Mb of free ram available, so no refresh needed.
All this comparison with android is just ridicolus: android needs more ram because is less optimized (it runs on very very different hw, it can't be optimized like iOS).
I definitely hope for a 2 Gb iPad in the future, but I mean that FOR MORE COMPLEX APPS, not for a 10 tabs session of Safari ....
----------
You should have a problem with your iPad then, because on mine I have more or less 500 mb of free ram initially. I have to open 4-5 tabs of heavy contents to drop below 100 mb ....
----------
This change nothing in ram consumption of Safari
Could you post images of your free ram please? Not saying you're a liar but I'm torn over this single issue, its the one thing keeping me from buying an ipad.
This is memory free with all apps closed (it's NOT a fresh reboot. After a reboot is above 500 megs)
This is with App Store in background and safari opened with 4 tabs (this forum plus 3 websites rich of image and contents).
All this whining about memory leaks are simply not true since iPad 3.
----------
This is after a reboot, with App Store running in background for three app updating ...
Are you using iPad 4 as mentioned in your sig? If yes, then there are no known memory leaks for 32-bit Safari. Nobody said anything about memory conditions on pre-A7 devices. It's already been confirmed several times that 64-bit Safari is leaking memory badly that it is causing low memory crashes. This was also confirmed by seeing several dozens of low memory reports related to both Safari and web thread crashes from other apps in Diagnostics area on the iPads.
32-bit Safari != 64-bit Safari (already mentioned a few times) and yes, it's been confirmed even by Anand that Safari took up 30% of more memory on its own. Not every app will eat up more memory but Safari will.
This has been mostly resolved in iOS 7.1 beta 2. Even the thread's OP here just updated his post to confirmed this as well.
I'd like to have any evidence about memory leakage in 64-bit apps, but I'm afraid I have to wait one months when I'm going to buy an iPad Air.
Btw I was arguing about the usual fandroids storming the forum with the well known whining "1 Gb it's not enough" : Apple doesn't need 3 Gb of ram and a 2.2 Ghz quadcore to run iOS ....
Well my iPad experience says a totally different thing and my Lenovo and Asus android tablets are not comparable to it (by far).
I'd like to see if things are going to improve with 7.1
Why is your memory used so high? In the first picture it's in the upper 700 mb range but you still have 500 mb free? Am I misreading it or something?
Other than that that doesn't look so bad, I would still like more but I think I might be able to deal with that.
So high ???
On my MBP after the boot I have a little more than 6 Gb of free ram, out of 8 Gb installed.
The os, and iOS as well, need ram to execute processes ....
Having 5-600 Mb free is not bad at all. IIRC it was like 250 mb of free ram on iPad 2 and iPhone 4.
Ps: if you are speaking about the used memory in the second row, I don't know what the program means. It basically is the sum of all the others.
Last edited:
Thanks for the images and the responses. I think I might get the air to try for myself now.
Still not entirely sure though, I am uneasy about the RAM. Might wait I don't know.
Last edited:
So, in this particular case, each tab ate about 50MB of RAM. You started with no other apps running, Safari is the only one running. Now, imagine you have other apps running and they use 300MB, you have less than 200MB free, you launch Safari and open these 4 tabs. Now you're in memory starvation situation and tabs will be reloading every time you switch between them.
Is Safari the only app you ever run on your iPad? If yes, then loading 4 tabs without recurring reload is possible, but your usage case is a tiny minority of how most people use their devices.