Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Says Edge Browser Is More Power-Efficient Than Chrome (windows.com)
An anonymous reader writes: It's no secret that Google's Chrome browser eats up a considerable amount of memory (and by extension, battery). On Monday, Microsoft announced that its Edge browser has succeeded on that front. Citing several tests, Microsoft claims Edge browser is a better choice for portable device owners. The company took four identical laptops running Windows 10 to see which of the four most popular browsers would be most efficient when it comes to battery life. Interestingly, Chrome was the first to kill the laptop in the video streaming test at 4 hours and 19 minutes. Firefox closely followed its rival at 5 hours and 9 minutes, while Opera (running on the same tech as Chrome) managed to hit 6 hours and 18 minutes. In Microsoft's tests, it was found that Edge was best of the bunch when it came to enjoying a video online, lasting for 7 hours and 22 minutes. That's worked out to be 70% longer than Chrome.In a blog post, Microsoft wrote: "We designed Microsoft Edge from the ground up to prioritize power efficiency and deliver more battery life, without any special battery saving mode or changes to the default settings. Our testing and data show that you can simply browse longer with Microsoft Edge than with Chrome, Firefox, or Opera on Windows 10 devices."
Anything is more power efficient than chrome
Stop trying to make "Edge" happen. It's not going to happen.
And Lynx was the most power-efficient of them all.
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
"Microsoft Says Edge Browser Is More Power-Efficient Than Chrome"
But then almost anything is more power-efficient than Windows. So Chrome on Linux probably beats Edge on Windows hands down. Propaganda is largely a matter of choosing what you want to emphasize and being carefully not to mention anything else.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
It's no secret that Google's Chrome browser sips a considerable amount of battery. On Monday, Microsoft announced that its Edge browser has succeeded on that front.
What, the front of "sipping" "considerable amounts of battery"? More nonsensical word salad brought to you by the new Slashdot editorial staff, who are apparently even more illiterate than their predecessors.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Maybe it's faster when comparing to stock Chrome, but I'd bet that you throw an Adblocker on Chrome and it blows Edge's socks off in real-world usage. Since there are no add-ons for Edge, it's dead in the water.
It doesn't make any sense to me that people block ads in the browser. What's wrong with privoxy? As a bonus, it will block ads everywhere, including Skype.
Let an independent party run these so-called tests.
Hey Microsoft! My browser PoopTastic ran video for 9 hours straight! I ran the tests myself. No, you can't see how I did it, shut up.
Not that I can compare it but my lumia 950 is always running dry, despite being on power saver from 100% and background data etc off. Let's just have a quick look at battery usage over last 24 hours.
System 57.1%
Display 38.3%
Seems high but ok
Apps (top 3)
Edge 86.5%
Groove music (also shit) 4.1%
File explorer 2.8%
It's not even as if I'm a heavy. About average I'd say maybe less and I only ever really keep a maximum of six tabs open, but still edge drinks up that power and doesn't have anything to show for it.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Wax on, wax off
The very first thing I do on my Win10 machines is to use Edge to go to the Chrome download page. Then I turn it off, unpin it, never open it again and set Chrome as my default browser. About 2 minutes in from Chrome startup, it starts using more and more power than Edge ever will on that machine. I can safely say it has now used north of 100kWh than Edge on those machines. And will happily increase.
They pick a bench mark test, run it, profile the code, and optimize it to beat the test. Sort of like how car companies tout a huge EPA MPG and then weasel out saying your mileage might vary. The real test would be to record normal browsing habits or a large cross section of people, and then repeat exactly the same mouse clicks and key board input to various browsers and then check the battery endurance.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
If my wife leaves open her Edge browser the CPU is at a constant 50% usage. Edge just eats CPU-time while Chrome stays dormant...
Does it run Linux?
How often does anyone care about getting 7 hours of streaming video, vs 4 hours of steaming video? Generally, if my laptop can get through 2 full movies, I don't really care if it can get through 3.
At just over 4 hours, Chrome is maybe a little marginal. Firefox is perfectly fine, and Edge is better, but I don't know that I'd ever watch 7 hours of streaming video all at once without being near a power outlet.
Just think how much more efficient it could be if it didn't have to drag all that telemetry baggage with it all the time!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"Microsoft Says Edge Browser Is More Power-Efficient Than Chrome"
Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy motherfucker.
They weren't even browsing. They were playing a video. They tested the power consumption of the -video player- and claimed it was great test of the -browser-. Why did they release this test? Probably because the ones that involved browsing showed Edge to be a major loser.
I don't care of gives me the ability to poop gold bullion. I'm never going to use it. It's a Windows-only browser that was written by Microsoft, and not only that it's only available for Windows 10.
Microsoft already demonstrated with Internet Explorer, that they will happily turn the internet into a filthy Windows-centric cesspool the second they are given the opportunity. The last thing we want to do is give them the opportunity to try again. The fact that it only works on Windows 10 (which is another nightmare for reasons already well stated by many) whose adoption rate is basically grinding to a halt, means that it is basically irrelevant.
... because Edge only runs on Windows so, being unable to run on those operating systems, we could say it uses zero energy.
I apologize for the lack of a signature.
The article says that in addition to the lab tests, they computed average power consumption in mW for Edge, Chrome, Firefox using telemetry from millions of Windows 10 devices around the world.
I hate Microsoft but good for them! Chrome is a CPU pig. So is Firefox. Even a simple page can chew up many megabytes, and even when you are looking at a static page that is doing nothing these pigs are grinding away the CPU doing God knows what.
Wouldn't CPU time be more important than memory usage when considering power consumption? In fact you could argue that higher memory usage means more cache and less disk access. Really, though, either of these mean very little when the display is often the biggest consumer of battery power.
If I wanted efficient, I wouldn't be browsing the web. Not the web of today anyway. A web rendering engine needs to be
1) secure,
2) correct,
3) complete,
4) tolerant,
5) fast,
and
6) efficient.
In that order.
Interestingly, Chrome was the first to kill the laptop in the video streaming test at 4 hours and 19 minutes. Firefox closely followed its rival at 5 hours and 9 minutes, while Opera (running on the same tech as Chrome) managed to hit 6 hours and 18 minutes. In Microsoft's tests, it was found that Edge was best of the bunch when it came to enjoying a video online, lasting for 7 hours and 22 minutes.
Was this an HTML5 video, or was it playing in Flash player or some other plugin? It doesn't seem to say in the article, unless I missed it (I only skimmed), but I'm thinking that would make a big difference.
Oh no... it's the future.
In my experience, functionality trumps cpu cycle efficiency. Also, MS's test are likely rigged in favor of their browser. (like in most other industries to be fair). It's curious how notice the Vivaldi browser wasn't included in these benchmarks, which is the fastest browser I've tried to date. MS seems so desperate to be relevant in a tech sector they have been consistently losing ground on for YEARS, first to Firefox, then to chrome. Even with a rigged OS favoring Edge/Bing, MS can't seem to shake the shadow of Google or Mozilla. Their investors should be demanding that they shop in this futile battle, and try something that is actually groundbreaking where they MIGHT have a chance to dominate if they get in before some smart 3rd university student get's in on the action. :D
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
I'll be over here, also not using windows 10 either.
Microsoft announced that its Edge browser has succeeded on that front
What? It succeeded Chrome?
If Microsoft is crowing only about power usage, it is an implicit admission that the Edge browser really sucks at everything else, like browsing, its main purpose in life.
Personally, I am wondering how the results would stack up with Opera thrown in with the power saving mode turned on.
The article points out that Edge does pretty darn well without the need for any power saving mode. Like, ok, but perhaps it makes sense to have a full featured, powerful browser (which Opera is becoming again, though for a long time that was really questionable) with the ability to flip a switch that reduces the "power" (reducing activity of background tabs, wake CPU less often, pause unused extensions, etc) and increases battery life. Also there's the built in ad-blocker, which I'd think would substantially reduce power consumption.
Please re-run the test.
It's likely more power-efficient than Chrome.
For the first two minutes before it gets infected by malware.
Mostly isn't justified.
I've been a chrome user for a long time. Recently i reinstalled windows 10 and thought well why don't i just give edge a chance until it drives me nuts and i switch back to chrome.
There was 1 and only 1 major issue using edge, google services don't work well at all, it almost seems like they're engineered to fail on edge. Some sites don't even allow you access if you are using edge ( inbox for example)
Edge is an under-powered browser.
Go home Nadella, you're drunk.
Edge sucks, and I like Microsoft.
If Microsoft ported Edge to Linux and OS X, it would absolutely destroy Firefox, in my opinion. Firefox is already barely relevant. The latest stats show Firefox only has 6% to 7% of the browser market, and it has been losing users for a long time.
Many of the remaining Firefox users are using it on Linux or OS X. They aren't using FIrefox because they want to use Firefox; they're using it just because it isn't Chrome, and Firefox is really the only other option they have. Many of these users aren't happy Firefox users, either. They're disgusted by how Firefox's UI has been trashed, how so much unwanted functionality has been forced on them (Hello, Pocket, and even embedded ads!), and how Firefox still feels so much slower than Chrome.
Edge would provide them the modern, fast, efficient, non-Chrome browser they've wanted for so long. Even if it lures away only half of the remaining Firefox users, that would render Firefox almost totally irrelevant. Once a browser gets down to 2% or 3%, web developers just don't care about it. When major sites no longer work with such a browser the users move on to a different browser that does work.
Seriously, I snorted my coffee when I read that. Well played.
No Ublock Origin == not using Edge.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and benchmarks." --- Jon "Maddog" Hall, Atlanta, GA, 1999
Finding God in a Dog
You'd probably spend less time on the Internet if you're forced to use Edge ;-)
(IE 11 on my first gen Surface RT is constantly crashing, even if a MS browser is better now than the others they'd have to pay me to give it a fair try)
Does Edge have a decent adblocker to block all that cpu-munching JavaScript ads? No? Then any power savings are theoretical only
How about focusing on making edge more standards-compliant instead of worrying about battery?
We designed Microsoft Edge from the ground up...
No you didn't. This is just IE.
So you just want us to take your word for it
Our testing and data show that you can simply browse longer with Microsoft Edge than with Chrome, Firefox, or Opera on Windows 10 devices.
Probably your data just shows that it FEELS that way, but whatevs.
First sentence of summary is a MASSIVE FAIL. Using RAM is not what wastes power. Using CPU wastes power.
MS says a lot of things.
I won' t use either Chrome or Edge because I think it's a conflict of interest for a web browser developer to also be in the user tracking, behavioral marketing, advertising and search businesses. A web browser needs to balance the interests of users and content providers.
feces may be darker than chocolate but that does not mean I'll eat it.
The power saved by using Edge is complete negated by the power wasted trying to get standard code to work in Edge.
Rumor has it IE kept Al Gore at night with all the electricity wasted by developers trying to get their web apps working in IE.
I'm sure that it is lots more efficient. Total power used worldwide: 0uW, since nobody uses it.
Oops -- sorry, there's a developer at Microsoft who just got in: it's now 4uW, 'cause he's running two tabs: the MS Internal Job Transfer page and trying to download Chrome, & also has up two Edge debugging tabs trying to figure out why the first two tabs aren't working.
It's sad: if it gets 'em working, he should stay. If not, well .... isn't that the problem?
a considerable amount of memory (and by extension, battery)
Wait, what?
That's like saying Popeye has better eyesight than a blind person.
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
Lol...... how can the two even be compared. Edge is for Windows, whereas Chrome works on _ALL_ major platforms.
--Also don't miss the bit "In Microsoft's tests, it was found that Edge was best", oh so it's not even an independent test? It's Microsoft, a company that will install Windows 10 automatically overnight while you sleep, without so much as asking you a single question, now we're supposed to believe these claims? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice.... nope. MS has ZERO credibility left, I'd take all of this with a 50lb bag of salt(and another for backup). I wouldn't be surprised at all, if they ran PRIME95 in the background while "testing" Chrome.
Looks like someone is just hungry for attention, piss off Microsoft.
..than Chrome, and that's saying a lot.
I doesn't care
But it's also slower than chrome. So no go for me.
Does anyone know how to debug the above combination?
Chrome+Privoxy+Amazon works.
Edge + Privoxy + Amazon stalls / fails, even if Privoxy is in "bypass"
Edge + Privoxy + OtherWebsites works
Edge + Amazon (taking the Proxy out on the internet options page) works.
Just is very weird.
Multiplatform 4 any webbound app APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...
Less power/cpu/ram + IO vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus (slows you) + less security issues. Compliments firewalls (w/ layered drivers blocking less used IP addys vs. hosts blocking more used domains) & DNS (lighten dns load). 10 security sites supply data.
Ads rob speed, security (malvertising), privacy (tracking) + anonymity.
Hosts add speed (hardcodes/adblocks), security (bad sites/poisoned dns), reliability (dns down), & anonymity (dns requestlogs/trackers) natively. Hosts != ClarityRay blockable (vs. souled-out to admen inferior wasteful redundant slow usermode addons)
Works vs. caps & HTTP PUSH ads w/ firewalls.
Avg. webpage = big as Doom http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... & ads = 40% of the size.
APK
P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/... (Verified by Malwarebytes' S. Burn "I've seen the code & it's safe" http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... )
You install a spyware browser on a spyware os because it saves battery life?
How many Microsoft employees commented on this. Slashdot is sold the fuck out.
Super energy efficient while it waits over and over for you to close the update to Windows 10 nag every other minute. Go Linux!
I applaud the power efficiency gains. However, "security" and "Microsoft" don't simultaneously appear very often. Standards, well, given their track record, I hope they've spent a lot of time on that. And then there's the lack of support across platforms. Competition among browsers seems to be a good thing, so maybe Edge will help overall even for those (me, most likely) who won't use it.
Notice it's tested doing a passive activity—watching video. MS obviously thinks the web is all about consuming media. Just because that's the heaviest use doesn't mean it's the most important. Frequency does not equal importance.
Most people are perfectly willing to burn battery power on the things they want to do.
People buy computers---including premium features like battery life---to run what they want. Or they buy accessories after the fact like DC chargers and spare batteries.
At most, this article made me consider Opera as an alternative to Chrome, as it is equally functional and perhaps less demanding.
From a security standpoint, I am fine with almost anything that replaces Internet Explorer. But seriously, everyone who really wants battery life has already paid for it.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8472236/how-does-memory-use-affect-battery-life
You know what's even more efficient that using Microsoft Edge? Not using it.
I've heard that actually improves the web experience a bit too.
MS claims that it is not derived from IE, but has the exact same rendering bugs as IE.
It is a pile of fail, something only MS could achieve.
...is almost as funny as them saying "Secure".
Given it doesn't have an add blocker yet and whenever I open a page with it (mostly) I'm assaulted by 50 video ads running simultaneously, I find that very hard to believe.
Chrome is powerful; Edge is powerless?
Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
Microsoft makes both Surface and Windows, so they simply put in an optimized video playback pathway that only Edge knows how to use. It is easy to game when you control both the hardware and the OS. Safari on Mac OS X has an advantage in playing HTML5 videos over all other browsers on Mac OS X. Chrome, not surprisingly, works the best on a Chromebook.
Linux as an OS is about as impartial as you can get in terms of the playing field when doing browser performance comparisons, so if Microsoft ever releases Edge for Linux, then we can have a fair comparison.
I once had a signature.
Edge is broken everything you need in a browser has been removed. Plus it always defaults you to the built-in search (I am sure hidden Bing) instead of really letting you use what you want, like google as your home page or starting page or search. Microsoft really blew it on this one.
See subject: Can you show us anything you've done? No. I've never seen code by unidentifiable hiding "Anonymous Coward" (you).
APK
P.S.=> If the 2 stupid replies my post received from 2 unidentifiable AC's is the "best ya got"? Give up, losers & face facts: Not a SINGLE ONE of you idiots can ever, EVER, prove me wrong &/or get the better of me (& you KNOW it)... lol! apk
So while the Edge browser currently will use a few microwatts less that other browsers, the Windows OS will happily run the wuauserv at random times, cranking one full CPU core to 100% for hours, forcing the CPU fan to maximum speed, beautifully turning electric energy into useless heat at a very high rate.
This happens kind of randomly both while the user actually tries to get work done and when the computer has been idle for a few minutes. (Who decided that this service is actually more important than letting the user actually use the computer? And yes, you can feel the lag in certain programs when the service kicks in.)
I know the Edge and OS team probably never ever meet or even speak together. But I would say before such huge flaws in the OS has been fixed, the tiny optimizations in the Edge brower which currently has less than 4% market share, doesn't matter.
Sure it's a nice principle to have your application run with as little resource load as possible. But in this case it seems like a premature optimization.
All performance gains on mobile are undone by bloatware and OS updates.
People actually like Microsoft Edge as they got sick of Google Chrome losing its simplicity and lightness and becoming a very large security issue itself thanks to the amazing amount of functionality given to its extensions. Chrome has become a very successful platform for malware, you will notice it once you try to help ordinary end users.
There is a legitimate, non troll thread on MS Insider forums which explains why Microsoft needs to port Edge to the Android if it wants it to succeed. You may need a MS account to view it though.
https://answers.microsoft.com/...
Here is the page in PDF form:
https://dochub.com/ilgazocal/l...
A gang in Microsoft coming from 90s will never allow it to happen though. It is good for open source/free software.
See subject: Got that?? Good... it's about all "your kind", unidentifiable WORMS online, are good for - as you obviously haven't done better than I, nor will you ever (by being an unidentifiable little worm online).
APK
P.S.=> Thanks again though - & for what? Additionally proving that "your kind" can never, EVER, prove me wrong or get the best of me... apk
Kickass torrents on clearnet
https://kat.cr/tails-1-4-1-i386-iso-multilang-tntvillage-t10922671.html
Kickass torrents on .onion (Tor)
http://lsuzvpko6w6hzpnn.onion/tails-1-4-1-i386-iso-multilang-tntvillage-t10922671.html
Run it in a VM as a live cd or boot it up. Every later version is compromised. That is a hard to find .iso since Ed took off.
I'm still angry about the browser in Windows 95. Have they ever apologized for that? I haven't listened to any of their claims about browsers since then and I'm not going to start now.
GM made shitty cars in the 80s and apologized for it in the 00s. I owned a Jeep a few years ago and would consider another GM vehicle.
Domino's made shitty pizza in the 90s and 00s and apologized for it in ~2009. I would consider eating Domino's pizza, although I haven't since the apology.
Microsoft made shitty software in the 80s and 90s and 00s. Recent versions have been substantially less shitty but I won't consider using Microsoft software until they apologize.