Link Details

surely thereby defeating pretty much the entire point of Chrome?

agreed, but there are also people who want to evaluate chrome and can't afford >500MB only for opening a handful of tabs and browsing the web ;)

I think it's great to be able to have one process per site. When browsing a simple forum I may open 10 pages at once and read them progressively - I don't want 10 Chrome processes for simple forum pages...

but by default, I thought it ran in process per site mode? ie: just like you said...

does it not?

at my PC it worked by default with one process per site; that is, two tabs from dzone (for example) share the same process. I think this way of working is ok for me, given the fact that I usually have a few ajax apps always open in my browser and once in a while one of them gets stuck.
Not that I used it that much, because windows is not the platform I usually use at work nor at home.

Thanks guys for your opinions.

Yes, the process per site mode is the default. I have corrected that in the post.

I have 2 GB RAM in my laptop, but Browsing is not the central activity. I have a firewall, two anti-viruses, keylogger protector,
personal vpn, filemanager, sql server (some times post gre and mysql), Enso ( quicksilver like thing for pc), Skype, pidgin, Jing project, Evernote, Visual Studio, VMWare player running along with the web browser. Since I have a habbit of power browsing with opera (follow the method of open tab in background and when i have selected all the interesting articles, which means opening 50+ tabs and read them one by one) memory usage is very important for me.

I agree it is great to have one process per site. That is why I have 3 different shortcuts, so that I can select the mode that I want to use