Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Reproduces Google's Battery Life Test To Show Edge Beats Chrome (venturebeat.com)
Earlier this year, Microsoft said that its Edge browser was more power efficient than Google's Chrome, a claim that Google refuted with its own findings. But the debate isn't over. An anonymous reader writes: Microsoft is at it again -- touting Edge as the most battery-efficient browser on Windows 10. The company has rerun its battery tests from the previous quarter using the latest versions of the major browsers, open-sourced its lab test on GitHub, and published the full methodology. But this time, Microsoft says it also replicated one of Google's tests to show that Edge lasts longer than Chrome, Firefox, and Opera.
Does it matter how well Microsoft's web browser performs?
Or instead of resorting to logical fallacies you could look at the published information to determine if they are right. You know, by reading the released methodology and looking at the published lab test code.
Hum... so the browser with the most limited set of features requires less power... go figure..
A test specified, run and controlled by a party with a huge vested interested. And one that has been convicted for criminal behavior twice. Yep, that inspires confidence.
While I share your concern when it comes to Microsoft, the test has been Open Sourced. Please point at the bad part. Explain also why you trust Google.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Say what you will about M$FT or IE or whatever, but Edge is surprisingly fast and efficient.
I bought a tiny $80 Windows 10 tablet with around 2gb of ram and a minuscule atom processor, and Chrome will choke at just about everything (especially gmail). Edge opens quickly, browses quickly, and utilizes very little memory.
Not shilling for Edge or Microsoft by any means, but for what its worth, they definitely improved their web browser pretty substantially.
Of course it has better battery life, it has no features and doesn't work with many sites.
I know. I don't trust google either.
Battery life isn't the be all and end all browser test. For me - on mutliple systems - Edge just stalls and stops randomly at the most annoying times - even if I've only got 2 or 3 tabs open. Chrome pretty much never does this.
What good is extra battery life if I spend 20-50% more time in the browser waiting on it to do something?
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Great. It's a bit like being the top dog in the dump.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The power of un-documented API calls! I assume Microsoft has a patent on this process.
Microsoft products generally perform well under the hood. The problem is the other stuff. The interface shows the signs of design by committee, and applications are configured in such a way as to manipulate us into using other Microsoft products and services. That is what we hate, because both of these interrupt the process of work, and replace it with the process of working-around-Microsoft.
Alternative Right.
Unless your browser supports some kind of adblocking it is going to lose a battery life test.
I say "bravo!" for the Chrome team. Their results are significantly better than the prior test.
in the last test, Edge lasted 70% longer than Chrome. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
in this test, four months later, the laptop with Edge lasted only 11% longer than Chrome. If I were the Edge team, I'd be watching my back and not crowing so loudly.
Note that they only tested on Windows 10, because Edge only runs on Windows 10.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
When you have access to your competitor's source code. Microsoft should belly-up and release their's, then it will be a truly equal playing field. Oh, and they would have to port Edge to (Android) Linux where these tiny power consumption differences might actually matter.
Isn't the whole thing missing the point?
I mean, really, when's the last time you were concerned about which browser to use because you only had 6 hours of battery left if you used Chrome to surf, instead of 7 if you used Edge? And, if you're on battery for that long, odds are you're binge-watching a series on Netflix while camping or something, and you will be far more concerned with the battery performance of your wireless connection and the video rendering engine, rather than the browser.
Far far more important than differences in browser energy consumption is the performance of your battery manager and whether or not your laptop battery is performing like new, bricked like so many get after a couple of years, or bulging out and threatening to catch fire like it's a 2006 MacBookPro.
I honestly don't care what Microsoft can show regarding Edge. I'm not going to use it.
First, because Chrome has a track record of complying with standards. Microsoft IE does not. Chrome has become the de facto standard at this point. Most developers that I've talked to in the past couple of years have prioritized testing on Chrome. If you want your website to work, use Chrome. (there's some nice irony here) Second, when they had the dominant browser, it was a disaster. I'm not looking to return to those days. In fact, Microsoft has shown a patter of screwing their partners and their customers, and I have no interest in providing them with any more influence or power than I'm forced to. Also, Chrome has a community of developers making various extensions. I don't use a lot of extensions, but if you're making your decision based on functionality, Chrome is probably the best choice. Finally, I can log into Chrome with my gmail account, and my settings and extensions sync to whatever device I use. Whether I'm using a Mac, Windows 7 machine, Windows 10 machine, Chromebook, Android phone, or iPad, I sign in with my gmail account, and I get all my stuff set up automatically.
Microsoft should just admit defeat, and stop trying to make their own browser. Create a metro-themed fork of Chrome if you have to, but stop trying to make Edge happen. It's not going to happen.
Edge just isn't very good. I've tried a couple of times to use it, but it's like some really awkward late alpha early beta project. It's also easily broken, which is why we basically abandoned in at my office.
Unreliable software from Microsoft? It cannot be!
One of the reasons Chrome uses more power (and more memory) is because it forks a separate process for each tab you have open. That is, each tab is a separate complete instance of Chrome running in its own memory. This makes it tougher for a browser exploit on one site to access memory info on another site you have open in another tab. And it means if one site freezes or crashes, it doesn't take down all the other tabs you have open. It also dramatically increases the memory footprint and power consumption. (This is also the reason I switched from Firefox to Chrome - I got tired of losing my other tabs when one tab hug or crashed.)
Does Edge offer the same protection? Or are we comparing apples to oranges?
Let's hope the Chrome team makes some improvements to turn this around.
That's really how all this should go.
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
Isn't the whole thing missing the point?
I mean, really, when's the last time you were concerned about which browser to use because you only had 6 hours of battery left if you used Chrome to surf, instead of 7 if you used Edge?
Um, no. In previous Chrome builds (<53) it would spin laptop fans endlessly even when nothing was going on and use at least 50% CPU, at close to max freq. Battery life was significantly worsened just by having Chrome open. So when was the last time I was concerned about battery life due to which browser? A couple of months ago it was a real problem. Now they're close enough that Chrome is usable, because it's so much better as a browser and only a little worse on the battery.
Explain also why you trust Google.
Who says I do? All other things being equal, I never trust any company when it claims that its junk is much better than the competitor's. This is about a particularly despicable company, not about another not yet quite as particularly despicable.
Isn't "Best Battery Life!" a euphemism for "Runs Slow as Shit"?
Microsoft tweaks the OS to give the impression Edge uses the battery more efficiently and this gets translated into industry-leading efficiency? A better test would be to compare browsers on another Operating System.
Microsoft Edge now gets even more out of your battery
I'm not surprised that the linked YouTube video's comments are disabled. I really wanted to see the dumpster fire 'fans' were going to light there.
Edge can beg all it wants, those happy with Chrome, Firefox, Opera are going to stay happy with those browsers. I would hope and expect that marketing, PR, and advertising are going to make little difference.
Edge is kludgy to use. It doesn't share bookmarks with my Mac or my iPad or my Android Phone. The "extension" story is all but nonexistent (there appear to be a total of 13 of them). In return, what does it offer? Performance is about the same, and battery might be a little better according to the benchmarks.
When I am on my Windows 10 gaming machine, I use Chrome exclusively. I don't trust Google at all anymore, but at least I used to. Microsoft has never been worthy of trust.
- Vincit qui patitur.
Let's not forget, Edge is managing to outperform Chrome, apparently, even while spending significant resources ratting out its users in every way Microsoft can conceive of.
This is indeed a major accomplishment!
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Given that most of Edge is actually integrated into Windows 10 OS. What you run as the Edge app is basically a wrapper, whereas Chorme is far more self-contained.
If they'd have also factored in the power wastage of Windows 10 OS because of that, the results would have been much different.
Edge is super efficient, because nobody uses it, and nobody supports it. It accounts for 0% of the battery usage on my windows tablet.
How many thousands of times does Microsoft testing have to be disproven? They alter the test to meet the results they want all the time. Does anyone really trust them anymore?
I wish they fought instead about whose browser protects the user's privacy best. But being Google and Microsoft (which is trying to become Google) I guess that's not their top priority.
than a small nightlight, but I'd rather use it to read.
7 hours of a streaming video, Who does this with their browser on battery.
How about something realistic like actual page rendering with or without ads
occasional youtube video, you know like real people browse the internet not just camp out at a coffee shop and watch a whole season of Game of Thrones
Not to mention what video are they streaming, is there DRM, what quality, is it netflix like 90% of streaming video is it youtube
This video is hot garbage I dont care what their test code is if you show this and this is what people are supposed to believe back it up better
I use Edge every now and then, and beside the extension/addon support that is still a bit in its infancy, it's a *great* browser.
This is my "real life" experience, and keep in mind that I'm biased towards Firefox as my browser of choice - but I like to try to keep an open mind and test things out.
1) It feels faster than Chrome or Firefox, as in its responsive.
2) It uses as little energy as them or less, as in my laptop run out of battery later (be it because edge is partially loaded all the time or not, I don't know)
3) Everything that's modern works. This is not Explorer.
4) I hate the bing integration, but you can turn that off.
5) Dev tools don't seem as nice as Firefox or Chrome.
At the end of the day I still use Firefox, though I run Edge every now and then when I need smth quick ;-) (and I use Chrome for Chrome apps mainly)
So yeah, Edge is, in fact, a great browser IMO - and if it wasn't Microsoft behind it I guess me and others would migrate to it. Shows that both performance and reputation go a long way, in particular, performance matters more than it seems.
But would someone think of the poor prostates?
*snaps rubber glove* All right sir, this will only take a moment. Just try to relax...
Ignoring all the pros and cons about improvements in Edge's functionality, there is one very simple reason why I will never use it. Well, apart from not using Windows 10. I still remember what Microsoft did with IE6, and I will never give them the chance to do it again.
They simply can't be trusted. Windows 10 is strong evidence that they haven't learned a damn thing.
Battery life and Speed are not lipstick on a pig. Edge Browser is a pig. Period. I do use it, for one purpose, Netflix. Other than that it is useless.
Do people still use MS products?
Just went to a good sized tech conference, 95% Mac laptops and 5% Lenovo/Dell running Ubuntu. Even the Macs had VMs of Ubuntu for dev and test.
Anyone really want to use Windows unless forced to?
who gives a fuck? I get it we don't want our batteries drained unnecessarily. But really. Low power laptops get in theory 10hrs battery life. Say crappy browser (or reality) x cuts it down to 5hrs. How often are you going to both be using your laptop for 5hrs straight and be 5hrs away from power? If you go camping then does it matter if half way through the first day it dies or 5hrs in? If you care you'll have found a way to charge your battery while away, so it is only saving you a 1hr trip to the plug once a day by doubling your battery life.
Sure trans-oceanic flights might need more but other than executives and sales dwebs who goes on vacation more than 2-3 times a year? I'm sorry I'm not willing to chose which tech to invest in (because it is mac or low powered "ultra books" fanboys that toot this sort of BS too) for the 12hrs say 6 times (there and back) I might fly across the ocean. Use what you like. If it doesn't give you what you need in battery life invest $40-100 in a spare battery or battery pack and carry it with you those 3 times you need it. For the ~5% of the population that are both using tech and often farther than 5hrs away from the plug: let them buy special tech rather than everyone pick a crappy browser "just in case".
I only care about battery life when travelling on a plane, which is exactly when I'm not using a web browser.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
This is easy:
- Whenever you run Chrome, you're also running Edge core parts in the background.
- Whenever you run Edge, it may be the only browser process in the system.
Now guess which one of the two setups is going to eat more battery.
Microsoft Edge could make my laptop last a decade, and give me an orgasm every time I use it and I still wouldn't use a Microsoft browser with the web.
It think it's a valid analogy. Notepad is a super dumbed down word processor, and likewise Edge is a dumbed down browser.
I could tell the difference even on my desktop PC, to which I have attached a ten dollar LED watt/volt meter. That's informative even when the desktop gadget with the processor states is obscured...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So, yeah, my Chrome will do this (fans) but only when I'm on a Reddit page full of animated GIFs... if you computer is always doing this, maybe you should close your Reddit window once in awhile?
Isn't the whole thing missing the point?
I mean, really, when's the last time you were concerned about which browser to use because you only had 6 hours of battery left if you used Chrome to surf, instead of 7 if you used Edge?
Um, no. In previous Chrome builds (<53) it would spin laptop fans endlessly even when nothing was going on and use at least 50% CPU, at close to max freq. Battery life was significantly worsened just by having Chrome open. So when was the last time I was concerned about battery life due to which browser? A couple of months ago it was a real problem. Now they're close enough that Chrome is usable, because it's so much better as a browser and only a little worse on the battery.
For that, one would need to take a look at the windows source code too, right? Could you please send us the appropiate github/codeplex link?
Thanks in advance.
Adblock can't do (or do as well) 16 things hosts do 4 speed, security & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. bad sites (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnet C&C servers
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnet C&C servers
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnet C&C servers
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned/downed dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam payloads
9.) Protect vs. phish payloads
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get past dns blocks
12.) Keep off dns request logs
13.) Speed up 2 ways (adblocks & hardcodes)
14.) Work on anything webbound multiplatform.
15.) Ez data edit
16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu/ram/I-O use
APK
P.S.=> Ab+ does less vs. hosts less efficiently (a 128-151mb memory hog http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...)
ClarityRay defeats it
Ab+'s bribed not to work by default http://www.businessinsider.com...
AdBlock's SLOWER: http://superuser.com/questions...
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?...
Ads rob speed, security (malvertising) & privacy (tracking).
Hosts add speed (hardcodes/adblocks), security (bad sites/poisoned dns), reliability (dns down), & anonymity (dns requestlogs/trackers) natively.
Works vs. caps & PUSH ads.
Avg. page = big as Doom http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... & ads = 40% of it.
Hosts != ClarityRay blockable (vs. souled-out to admen inferior wasteful redundant slow usermode addons)
Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus (slows you) + less security issues/complexity.
Compliments firewalls (blocking less used IP addys vs. hosts blocking more used domains) & DNS (lightens dns load).
Gets data via 10 security sites.
APK
P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/... (Verified by Malwarebytes' S. Burn "seen the code & it's safe" http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... )
This needs more attention. In all likelyhood Microsoft fudging the numbers. They've done such things extensively in the past and there is zero reason to believe they aren't still doing them. For all we know Microsoft could have some code in the Win32/64 API's that stick arbitrary cpu cycling loops in when the application found to be running is from a competitor. The fact that Google and Mozilla are able to build competitive browsers that work using publicly documented API's is actually still really impressive. Mozilla, in particular, should be commended for committing to maintain an independent open source browser on every platform (well except for iOS because Apple doesn't allow it).
He's not talking about the browser/OS code, you twat. He's talking about the code that automates the tests and thus makes the whole endeavor repeatable.
FFS, buy yourself a clue
UBlock can't do these as well as (or @ all) hosts do 4 speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. bad sites (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnet C&C's
3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnet C&C's
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnet C&C's
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam payloads
9.) Protect vs. phish payloads
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get past dns blocks
12.) Keep off dns request logs
13.) Speed up 2 ways (adblocks/hardcodes)
14.) Work on anything webbound multiplatform.
15.) Ez data edit
16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu/ram/I-O use
17.) UBlock now uses hosts (no DNS benefits vs. dns issues) - poor imitation = "sincerest form of flattery"
Hosts = native vs. illogically "Bolting on 'MoAr'" & not ClarityRay blockable like addons.
APK
P.S.=> Hosts (1st resolver) do MORE w/ less in fast kernelmode & before slow usermode addons
Hosts ~3mb vs. UBlock = 64MB -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...