
Ask HN: Can someone suggest an open source lightweight alternative to Chrome? - jessehorne
I run a 2012-ish Macbook Pro which has 8gb of ram. I noticed today that Chrome takes up at least a couple of those gigs throughout the day. I&#x27;m looking for suggestions for alternatives, preferably extremely lightweight (memory efficient) and open-source. Would love to hear what the community is using.
======
Y_Y
Memory use isn't real though, especially with OSX and Chrome. It is just
eating up what's available as an optimisation, not taking only what it needs.

Also, get Firefox.

~~~
saagarjha
It is not, but Chrome’s resource usage is.

------
jmnicolas
I use Firefox but it's a memory hog too. To be fair, websites are the memory
hogs imo.

Sadly I don't think you can have the full web experience without sacrificing a
couple gigs of ram if you have several tabs open at once.

I know it's not open source but on a Macbook I would expect Safari to be the
lightest browser.

If you really want open and still like Chrome, you could try ungoogled
chromium here : [https://chromium.woolyss.com/](https://chromium.woolyss.com/)

~~~
haffi112
For Firefox I am using an extension called auto tab discard
([https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/auto-tab-
disc...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/auto-tab-discard/)).
It will suspend tabs from memory that have not been opened for a given time
but you can easily open them again by pressing the tab. You can also whitelist
some domains to prevent them from being suspended.

Give it a try. There is also the great suspender for Chrome.

~~~
jmnicolas
Contrary to OP, my problem with a browser (or Electron app) consuming a lot of
RAM is philosophical not material : I have 16G at home and 32G at work so it's
more than enough to accommodate any gluttonous browser.

------
sydd
I'd use FF with an ad blocker like uBlock Origin, ads can hog tons of
resources. Here are some other tips too [https://support.mozilla.org/en-
US/kb/firefox-uses-too-much-m...](https://support.mozilla.org/en-
US/kb/firefox-uses-too-much-memory-or-cpu-resources)

~~~
quicklime
I’m also using Firefox, but instead of ublock origin I’m using an extension
called “Disable JavaScript” combined with the out of the box tracking
protection (in strict mode). On my laptop with 4G of RAM, this works fairly
well.

For the vast majority of news websites, running without js is a huge
improvement to both performance and user experience. It even gets around a lot
of paywalls.

I don’t think the sites that run slowly would be helped by a “lightweight”
browser, since it’s not the browser itself that’s slowing things down, but the
website. The only way to fix this is to remove those features from the
website, whether that’s by disabling them, or using a browser that doesn’t
support those features (eg a text-only browser).

~~~
lavignegagnon
I discovered this only months ago, but you can configure uBlock Origin to
disable javascript, block remote fonts, and/or large media files (check "I am
an advanced user" in the settings).

One extension to rule them all!

~~~
genpfault
Can Origin whitelist specific fonts? Google's bugtrackers & Android docs are
an absolute trainwreck without whatever wonky Webfont they're using.

~~~
adamhearn
Off the top of my head I know you can reenable specific things such as
JavaScript for individual web pages. Probably the same is possible with fonts.

------
ulfw
Why wouldn't you use Safari on it? When it comes to being optimised for the
Mac, that's where it's at. You're on a closed sourced OS, webkit is open.

~~~
rochak
But how would you configure Safari to block ads?

~~~
ulfw
You'd install Ad-Guard from Safari Extensions

------
spanhandler
I tried a few lightweight Linux browsers on a 2GB low-clocked Celeron machine
a while back ("hacked", older-model Asus Chromebox). Chief candidates were
Surf, Qutebrowser, and Midori.

The best on the performance/ui-jank scale was Surf, by a long shot. In fact it
was best on both counts. I can't remember which was which but one of the three
was noticeably _much_ heavier than the other two, taking a long time to load
and sometimes having slow paints, and the other had a lot of weird UI issues
that might have been ironed out by running under an all-the-bells-and-whistles
DE (KDE or Gnome) which tend to helpfully fix all the UI problems they
introduce, but if you're really resource-constrained there's no way you can
afford to run either of those (especially Gnome).

Surf's very shortcut-focused in its UI so there's a bit of memorization
needed, and you may want to compile it with a few patches for convenience, but
its performance and rendering were, in the field of low-resource browsers,
outstanding.

[reads post more carefully] Oh you're on Mac and have 8GB of memory? Just use
Safari, it makes way, way better use of resources than Chrome or Firefox.
Seriously, it's _way_ better, at the cost of having worse extensions, but
you're gonna give those up on any other low-resource option anyway. Also stop
using the webapp versions of crapware like Gmail if you're going to leave it
open all the time—use native mail clients or the "basic HTML" version. Keep
your "webapps" in their own windows and close them when not in use, they all
eat shitloads of memory for no good reason, no matter the browser.

------
nisa
I can recommend the great suspender extension:
[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/the-great-
suspende...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/the-great-
suspender/klbibkeccnjlkjkiokjodocebajanakg)

after a few minutes inactive tabs gets killed - works for me very well - you
can also exclude sites.

~~~
haffi112
I can't recommend this enough. Here is an option for Firefox users:
[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/auto-tab-
disc...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/auto-tab-discard/)

------
anderspitman
My dream is that someone will spec out a nice simple subset of modern
HTML/CSS, and folks will start making compatible static sites. A few years of
that and we could have some nice truly lightweight browsers again. Imagine how
fast sites like Wikipedia or YouTube could be if JS wasn't even an option.

~~~
saagarjha
The problem is that nobody is going to migrate unless a major web player
swings a big and likely anticompetitive stick.

~~~
anderspitman
You don't need to migrate. Keep it compatible with current browsers. Users
will reap the benefits of the lightweight sites regardless of what browser
they use. It would sort of be like AMP that way. But over time if you get
enough major sites with compatible versions it would become useful to have a
browser that only speaks the lightweight web, and that's when things could
start to snowball. At no point do you need big companies or browser vendors to
do anything other than not break current HTML/CSS compatibility.

~~~
saagarjha
> It would sort of be like AMP that way.

You may have noticed that this was pretty much exactly what I was talking
about ;) Usability issues aside, nobody fixed their stuff until Google
threatened their SEO.

~~~
anderspitman
Yeah you got me. AMP really is close on a technical level but my blood boils
every time I see a /amp/ url.

~~~
dngray
I've found this extension [https://www.daniel.priv.no/web-
extensions/amp2html.html](https://www.daniel.priv.no/web-
extensions/amp2html.html) rather useful for dealing with that.

It also means I am less likely to share an AMP link.

------
JakeWesorick
Firefox? You can also go to "about:memory" and press "Minimize memory usage"
to free up memory if you're having issues.

~~~
jessehorne
Looking for something that I haven't tried already! Also wasn't aware that
there was "minimize memory usage" functionality.

------
themodelplumber
Not sure if you're running OS X or Linux or something else, but on my 2GB
netbook I've had good results using Falkon and Links. The former plays YouTube
videos just fine, and the latter is more like using a mainstream browser in
reading mode.

[https://www.falkon.org/](https://www.falkon.org/)

[http://links.twibright.com/](http://links.twibright.com/)

~~~
jessehorne
I'm running OS X. I really wanted to try Falkon though!

------
_wldu
Gemini ;)

[https://gemini.circumlunar.space/](https://gemini.circumlunar.space/)

I'm only half way joking.

------
enduku
Give Netsurf ([http://www.netsurf-browser.org/](http://www.netsurf-
browser.org/)) a try. This lightweight browser is a derivative of Presto
engine.

------
axaxs
Brave and Vivaldi are both Chromium based, but perhaps worth a shot.

There's only two other engines left: firefox and webkit. You may want to look
into a webkit based browser?

~~~
basch
ill give Brave a nod as well. Everybody is so offput by its optional ads, they
are missing out on the most efficient, fastest, and best "it just works" ad
blocker out. It's a pleasure to surf the web again after years of
ublock/umatrix and constantly having to tweak the settings for each site I
visited.

Edge has become my backup quick test of "is it something in Brave breaking it"

I have Firefox open at all times as well, but find myself using it the least
of the three.

~~~
skinnymuch
No other reason for Brave? Some don’t want to or care for blocking ads and
others don’t do it at the browser level. Does Brave have anything at that
point?

~~~
basch
It's hard for any browser to be "lightweight" without blocking javascript and
ads. So of the ad blockers, Brave is the lightest weight.

You could turn the ad blocker off, and still get paid to use Brave though, if
you like ads.

~~~
skinnymuch
If ads or other things are already taken care of ourside the browser, doesn’t
that make Brave heavier? It now has redundancy.

------
8ytecoder
Safari is the most efficient in terms of memory and battery for macOS. The
core of safari - WebKit - is open source. The browser itself is not. Firefox
is what I use but it’s only marginally better than chrome.

------
cientifico
I can suggest qutebrowser.

~~~
jessehorne
I checked it out but not really interested in the keyboard-focused controls. I
may try it out when I have more time to learn it.

------
screye
MSFT's edge chromium is not truly open source, but it is the easiest browser
to migrate to from Chrome, and it is far less resource intensive.

It also brings some really neat new features, and I find it mind boggling that
Google never brought them to chrome.

I have been using it as my primary for a few months now, and I miss nothing.

disclaimer: I am affiliated with MSFT, but don't know anyone in the browser
team and readily shit on other MSFT efforts that don't quite work.

------
iamwpj
It's no open source, but it is lightweight and good on battery. I use Safari
on MacOS. The shortcomings keep me from expecting too much from my
applications.

------
pyrophane
Unfortunately most of the options that come to mind are not available for
MacOS.

I know this isn't what you asked, but if I wanted to reinvigorate a 2012
Macbook Pro I would look install something like Lubuntu on it, which focuses
on being lightweight, and would run Falkon or Midori.

~~~
jessehorne
Before this Mac, I used Lubuntu exclusively for years. Who knows...I may end
up going back to it soon.

------
bigasscoffee
[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/auto-tab-
discard/j...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/auto-tab-
discard/jhnleheckmknfcgijgkadoemagpecfol?hl=en)

------
jneplokh
As you are on Mac, Safari is your best choice. It is already optimized for it.
I recently switched to it as my main browser, and I doubt I will look back.

Sure it is closed-source (although WebKit is open), but you already use
Apple's OS.

------
XzetaU8
Pale Moon, open-source and very lightweight

[https://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/62312/pale-
moon](https://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/62312/pale-moon)

------
fulafel
Dillo and Netsurf are much smaller than mainstream browsers. But it takes some
dedication to use these as ypu have to forgo many web services that aren't
compatible.

Another option is to use a remote server to run the browser.

------
rcarmo
You should just use Safari. There is nothing more efficient on the Mac, and
it’s been kept up to date as far back as High Sierra (just got an update a
couple of weeks ago on my oldest mini).

------
sesuximo
I use safari on a similar Mac with no problems.

Also this probably isn’t what you want to hear but I also got a headless
desktop recently for all my dev related work... that made my Mac a lot
faster!!

------
bigasscoffee
Auto Tab Discard for ff+chrome kills off old tabs without closing them. This
frees up the resources allocated for that tab, and the page will reload when
you focus on it again.

~~~
bigasscoffee
[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/auto-tab-
discard/j...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/auto-tab-
discard/jhnleheckmknfcgijgkadoemagpecfol?hl=en)

------
seba_dos1
If you want lightweight browsing, use Firefox with NoScript.

------
bishalb
If you are ok with using older versions of Firefox(2014), they are pretty
lightweight and much faster than Chrome or current Firefox.

------
sushshshsh
Dillo if you don't need javascript... hehe

------
altruly
Also, if you run with tons of tabs open, try "The Great Suspender" chrome
extension.

------
NikolaeVarius
Are we really complaining about browsers on a computer with 8gb of RAM?

~~~
forinti
I didn't have any computer with more than 4GB in the house until this year. I
had to buy more RAM because of Firefox and Chrome.

------
magnusmorton
I use Lynx and surf. surf also has no tabs, so that helps too.

~~~
Alex63
+1 for surf. But I use it as part of a broader use of suckless tools, so not
sure how it would feel if you are not using dwm & dmenu.

------
jmercouris
I suggest Nyxt browser, very lightweight and extensible

------
deeblering4
Give Brave a try, it is open source and should perform better than chrome on
your hardware.

Plus it has great inbuilt ad filtering and privacy features.

------
beervirus
Firefox. Block ads. It’ll do fine.

------
rusinov
Safari.

------
shujito
MacOS? what about Safari?

------
knoebber
Emacs - eww

------
anthk
Falkon.

------
jmercouris
I suggest Nyxt, very lightweight

------
sys_64738
lynx or dillo.

------
maps7
getfirefox.com

------
dis-sys
just install another 8GB of RAM, 2012 mbp allows you to do that, more recent
mbp all took that luxury away from users.

------
clscott
You can very easily and inexpensively upgrade this laptop to 16GB of RAM. I
highly recommend you do this, it makes a world of difference.

If you don't already have an SSD in this device I recommend you swap that out
also.

I would like to echo the recommendation for Firefox + uBlock Origin - you will
see big improvements in perceived performance.

(typing this on my 2011 MacBook Pro in FF)

~~~
skunkworker
I agree, though OP is a little ambiguous if this is a 2012 Unibody (which has
USB3 and one of the best old machines) or a 2012 Retina which he would be out
of luck.

I've upgraded multiple 2011/2012 Unibody MBP for friends and family with 16gb
ram and a 512gb ssd for about $150 in the past few years, it makes the machine
feel completely new and "snappy".

