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.
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
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
Does it run Linux?
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.
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.
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 can't easily and quickly whitelist sites.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
I'll be over here, also not using windows 10 either.
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.
Edge is an under-powered browser.
Go home Nadella, you're drunk.
Edge sucks, and I like Microsoft.
Not you again! (:hiss:) Stop spreading your FUD bullshit!
Seriously, I snorted my coffee when I read that. Well played.
No Ublock Origin == not using Edge.
My thoughts exactly. In fact, I'd add that security / compatibility / crash tolerance / performance all completely trump efficiency. In other words, nobody aware of other options is going to care one iota about efficiency if a browser is insecure -or- incompatible -or- crashy -or- slow.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and benchmarks." --- Jon "Maddog" Hall, Atlanta, GA, 1999
Finding God in a Dog
I've heard NetCraft is the place to go.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
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?
You don't develop for browsers. That ship has sailed with IE.
You develop for standards. This is why Firefox will be just fine in ten years, even though they are on their way to make it unbearably annoying to use.
By the way does anyone know how search suggestions for non default search engines are supposed to work when the search field defaults back to the default after each search?
First sentence of summary is a MASSIVE FAIL. Using RAM is not what wastes power. Using CPU wastes power.
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.
We use Firefox, because it's customizable, can open a shit-load of tabs. The constant bitch about Firefox's GUI|Australis by a handful of users - is so a NON-ISSUE. Australis is more customizable than Firefox 4. Full Stop. Any missing "bars" can be added back - easily, incl additional addon-bars (as many as you want), status bar, bookmark bars. You need a bar? Firefox has you covered.
Edge is about as useful as the Windows Store.
If Microsoft ported Edge to Linux and OS X, it would absolutely destroy Firefox, in my opinion.
I'm not so sure, if Outlook for Mac and the rest of the Office suite on Mac is any indication. That shiz is dog-slow on OSX sometimes...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
That's like saying Popeye has better eyesight than a blind person.
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
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 [caniuse.com], and it has been losing users for a long time.
If Microsoft ported Edge to Linux then hell has just frozen over, although I do feel that most Linux users would prefer not using it considering that the Edge browser does what Microsoft wants not what the Linux user wants.
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.
Speak for yourself not everyone is a hater. Personally, I like the minimalistic approach of most web browsers which lets me efficiently use whatever browser is available on Linux and there are plenty available.
In a simple HTML5 test on my Fedora 23 KDE spin machine, out of a score of 555 Firefox got 478, Chrome got 501, Konqueror got 355 and Midori got 356. I could get more browsers but four is good enough. Even after running that test which shows Crome beat Firefox but Firefox was way better for that test than Konqueror or Midori. What does that test mean to me? Well nothing really, if one browser does not display what I want then I will get and/or chose another.
It is no different to me displaying a video. Personally, I normally use VLC (will play the H264 and H265 codecs as well as 10 bit) but there are some videos that are 12 bit which VLC can't display so I choose "mpv Media Player" which will. However, the interface of "mpv" is extremely minimalistic and keyboard driven compared to VLC, but that does not stop me from using it.
Basically, I choose the tools I need to get the job done. If one tool is not pretty but does what I want then I am fine with that.
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
That would only be working if you are stoned beyond belief.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Who's paying you to shill against mozilla?
Uhhh non issue? Is that why its usage numbers are now a bad joke with the numbers like the browser spiraling ever downward?
The great thing about having so many choices is that when a browser company says "You will do it our way, take it or leave it?" we can and obviously have just left it.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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.
Do you forward bugs to the browsers developers then? Or do you have your user do it?
Ya, the summary starts off with quite a whopper. First thing that caught my eye. Nothing hurts your message quite like blundering massively in the first sentence. "By extension, battery" my ass.
One of the main problems with Firefox is they have put in next to zero effort to making it nice for enterprises to deploy and manage. Sure there are third-party group policy templates and you can get special builds from other sites with commercial support etc but Google and MS give you that free and properly maintained.
I like Firefox personally and use it. But I don't deploy it to users as a first or even second choice as that's just going to generate work in maintaining and support calls.
If Mozilla don't get this, that users get familiar with what they use at work and then use that at home they are failing to understand people.
The home user was always very relevant but it's a changing environment. I would be sad to see Firefox end up the shambles that was the demise of Netscape Navigator.
Edge is just not finding a place. It feels kinda beta and is not cohesive in the way you would expect... is there even an Edge for mobile devices? Edge is probably better described by what it isn't than what it is. And that's a dull place of forgotten IE icons burried where you go as a last resort after you try chrome and firefox. Probably for the 5 people left with a Lumia or windows phone but I've yet to see it on Android. Firefox is there, it may be far from the usage of Chrome on Android but at least it's there at all.
Edge and plugins is something they need to sort out fast. No plugins is a death knell for many home users.
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.
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.
A huge share of web browsing is now done on smartphones, tablets and even chromebooks where Firefox is a complete non-starte
Firefox for Android is a non-starter? I've never had any trouble launching it.
Firefox is arguably the best browser available for Android. It certainly sucks, but all the others suck even more. At least some Firefox extensions are supported on Android (we have uBlock, but no uMatrix), compared to the complete absence of them on Chrome.
Even though FF for Android is the best, it really does suck quite a lot. Sadly, the only way to run a decent browser on Android is with a desktop Linux in a chroot, where you can use desktop Chromium or FF.
Perhaps the technology allows it to be more customizable, but there's an awful lot of features and config settings that have been removed in recent versions of Firefox to make sure you can't customize it in ways that make sense.
Firefox lost a whole lot of market share for a reason. I switched to Pale Moon (using Firefox as a backup) a long time ago.
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.
Agreed that Edge lacks that "finished" feeling - the mobile version on W10M is pretty good (certainly better than the mobile IE it replace) but the desktop version just doesn't feel ready. The impression is much more of a pretty good beta version than a finished product. Suffice it to say on my W10 boxes at home I use Chrome instead.
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.
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.