Microsoft joins battery-saving browser bandwagon with Edge claims Microsoft has published new research in which it claims that its Edge browser, bundled with Windows 10, can outperform the competition when it comes to battery life. The lab rats at Redmond set up four identical charged laptops, each using a different browser to stream an identical video. The Laptop running Google Chrome ran …
Edge suspends Flash content on tabs that aren't visible. Chrome doesn't do that by default.
The video tests MS conducted were based around streaming Netflix. I tried to find further info about the tests, but couldn't. However, it wouldn't be worth MS fudging the tests because of the backlash should they be found out. (And in any case, their findings reflect independent results).
Curiously, Netflix is only available in 1080p on Edge and IE on Windows, and on Safari on OSX - all other desktop browsers are 720p, and both HTML 5 and Silverlight are used.
"Edge suspends Flash content on tabs that aren't visible. Chrome doesn't do that by default."
I wonder what effects that script/flash blocking plugins like 'NoScript' would have in Firefox's power consumption... yeah, compare THAT to 'Edge'. TURN ON the crap-blockage, watch Edge be significantly WORSE than the locked-up Firefox. We'll also conclusively show how much ALL THAT WEB-CRAP costs US.
This post has been deleted by its author
No doubt their billions of data points told them which notebook, and specifically what to test.
Of course since I don't have anything left that could run Windows, nor especially Windows 10, and If I had I wouldn't, we don't even get anywhere near the browser selection question. But in the bizarre alternate reality where that might be a choice, "not theirs".
"No doubt their billions of data points told them which notebook, and specifically what to test."
This would be 'business as usual' from Redmond. Consider all of their "independent" performance comparisons (windows vs linux etc.) from a decade ago. And license agreements saying you couldn't publish your own performance tests without "permission". "Rigged Game" is an understatement.
But the fact that all of the tests were (apparently) run under WIN-10-NIC, I'm surprised they had ANY battery life at ALL! I'd also like to see what Micro-shaft *DID* to the Win-10-nic settings to SHUT UP all of the BACKGROUND CRAP that's constantly hitting the internet - you know, 'Sports' 'News' etc. - you have to CAREFULLY TURN THAT ALL OFF to STOP THOSE [CR]APPS from frequently updating themselves. And, it is a LOT of traffic. WIRESHARK it yourself, if you don't believe me..
And, does 'Edge' do that FOR you while it's running (turn off the [CR]app background web updates), via some new undocumented API, to TWEEK ITS OWN STATS in its own favor? I have to wonder...
Now what is it's rating and capabilities when it comes to
>Security features,
>Web page rendering (timing and quality)
>user options and configurability
Seriously how many people are going to put battery life based on browsing before security and configurations features. Congratulations Micro$lop you missed the (bench)mark again
"Seriously how many people are going to put battery life based on browsing before security and configurations features."
The great masses are quite unaware that the browser can be configured beyond changing the starting page, and know nothing about security. Most seem to use whatever browser is the current default - I've seen cases where Chrome was inadvertently installed in place of IE/FF and it didn't bother the user since it imported the bookmarks.
Opera was (still is?) pretty secure and configurable yet its user base was minuscule. Each Chrome update brings plenty of security patches and is only somewhat more configurable than Edge. Chrome is at the moment the most popular browser AFAIK. I think both these points contradict your argument.
You're confusing "people in here" with "most people".
An overwhelming majority of people don't give a second (or even a first) thought to browser security, rendering speed or quality or configuration options.
A similarly large majority would, in fact, answer "google" when asked what browser they use.
Battery life would probably be up there in the top 3 things people *are* concerned about when it comes to tablets, laptops and phones.
"A similarly large majority would, in fact, answer "google" when asked what browser they use."
Quite. Conversation yesterday.
Me: "Type this into the address bar..." <starts reciting URL>
User: <Starts typing into the Google search field.>
Me: "No, I'm giving you an address. You don't have to search for it."
User: "Oh, so I can go straight to it in Google?"
Me: "What? It's nothing to do with Google."
User: <Opens a new tab in Chrome, clicks address bar> "See, Google."
"Ask yourself how easy would it be to for Microsoft to tweak the OS so that certain programs have better or worse power consumption?"
Considering it's Win-10-nic, probably NOT hard at all.
One of the BIG problems I've seen in Win-10-nic [which hasn't been fixed, as I understand it] is how applications tend to SPIN on 100% CPU usage when waiting for one another. Micro-shaft has split up their system into multiple "apps", where "something" waits on the start menu "app", or the cortana "app", or whatever else, to return back some results. You see it during the startup. I've even measured what effect it has overall. You can see the CPU utilization peg at 100% *UNNECESSARILY* for WAY too long, and don't even get me STARTED on "the METRO" games, which are the WORST offenders.
The problem goes back to how 'yield()' and WaitForSingleObject and other API functions actually work, PLUS the effect that "100% CPU" (no idle time) has on CPU frequency throttling, etc. etc.. It is my observation that 100% CPU keeps you at the HIGHEST CPU frequency, which equals MAX POWER CONSUMPTION. If the "apps" (sic) were SMART enough to *NOT* peg out CPU usage (and *I* know of ways to code this PROPERLY, which I use in my OWN code, but they're all writing ".Not" C-pound 'Universal' piles of CRAP so they do it *WRONG*) then the scheduler would detect "not using 100% CPU" and throttle CPU frequency and save power. "All that BACKGROUND CRAP" in Win-10-nic *NATURALLY* disrupts this possibility, *AND* "CPU spinning" [CR]apps completely NUKE it.
So, Micro-shaft would've had to somehow FAKE the CPU throttler into lowering frequency ANYWAY, or else 'work around' the "100% CPU utilization" problem within Edge. And would they *SHARE* that 'work around' solution? heh, I doubt it.
Well, I actually received a cheque from a MS lawsuit once, so I am not exactly a fanboi, but I have to agree with their graphs, since they confirm my own experience. If you want a burning hot lap and a flat battery - run Chrome.
The same effect is true on Windows, Linux and Mac.
"The same effect is true on Windows, Linux and Mac."
Yes, Chrome is running hot and heavy on my laptop running LinuxMint (which had win8 installed for about 10 minutes). However, there is no way to test Edge. So, until MS makes it available for more than one OS, we will never know if this test is because of internal code benefit. (MS has been known to do this! http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf)
"The browser-maker Opera has negated Microsoft’s much-publicised claim that its Windows 10-exclusive Edge browser provides significantly less battery drain than competitors Chrome and Opera – and its own tests put Edge firmly in second place for battery efficiency."
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
