Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Edge Beats Chrome By Over Three Hours In New Battery Usage Test (bleepingcomputer.com)
An anonymous reader writes: With the launch of the Windows 10 Creators Update and Edge 40 (EdgeHTML 15), Microsoft has released a new battery usage test that, naturally, trashes the company's competition. This new test shows that Edge uses less power than both Chrome 57 and Firefox 52, and is bound to draw a response from its competition, especially Google, who doesn't like it when Microsoft takes a jab at Chrome's efficiency. The same thing happened last year, in June, when a similar test showcasing Edge's longer battery life was met with responses from both Google and Opera.
The most recent tests were performed for the launch of Windows 10 Creators Update. Two tests were carried out until a laptop's battery gave out. For each browser, a minimum of 16 iterations were recorded per test. The first test measured normal browsing performance and the second ran a looped Vimeo fullscreen video. In the normal browsing performance test, Microsoft claims Edge used 31% less power than Chrome 57, and 44% less power than Firefox 52. In the second test, Edge played a looped Vimeo video in fullscreen for 751 minutes (12:31:08), while Chrome lasted 557 minutes (9:17:03) and Firefox for only 424 minutes (7:04:19). That's a whopping three hours over Chrome, and five hours above Firefox.
The most recent tests were performed for the launch of Windows 10 Creators Update. Two tests were carried out until a laptop's battery gave out. For each browser, a minimum of 16 iterations were recorded per test. The first test measured normal browsing performance and the second ran a looped Vimeo fullscreen video. In the normal browsing performance test, Microsoft claims Edge used 31% less power than Chrome 57, and 44% less power than Firefox 52. In the second test, Edge played a looped Vimeo video in fullscreen for 751 minutes (12:31:08), while Chrome lasted 557 minutes (9:17:03) and Firefox for only 424 minutes (7:04:19). That's a whopping three hours over Chrome, and five hours above Firefox.
Nobody believes you, MS. And even if it were true, Edge sucks so fucking bad that I'd rather have a shorter battery life and a decent browser than that worthless piece of shit browser you've produced.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Didn't we last month some story about MsDev IDE taking one full core to implement the blinking cursor? They probably tuned the code for this specific test.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Even Microsoft's spyware isn't as pervasive as Google's - Chrome sucks EVERYTHING.
Just goes to show even an evil monopoly can't hold its own against an overgrown ad agency so bloated it has its own jumbo jet.
I haven't been a big fan of Microsoft, but it's hard to argue with statistics like these. It's pretty clear that Edge is far superior. Denying that Edge is a superior browser is a bit like denying that humans are causing global warming. The facts are clear that Edge is better.
Since I never use Edge, I guess it'll never use the battery.
Edge is an incomplete browser by modern standards. Of course I'd expect it to not require as much resources (and the power they require) as a full spec web browser. If anything this is just MS highlighting the fact that their browser is incomplete as a feature.
Let me know how much power it uses when it can actually act like a normal browser. If it uses less power than the other browsers available at that time, then I'll be impressed.
So I can now spend 3 hours more using a browser that's unusable.
I kinda fail to see the benefit.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
NOBODY WAS USING IT.
the edge machine was infected with viruses that don't use much power!
love is just extroverted narcissism
Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
You're in luck, Madame Power Broker! Instead of Linux and gcc, you can use BSD and clang. Berkeley and Illinois, two of the gayest universities in the world, have given you the freedom you need to not give back anything to anyone. So you can continue your feminist agenda of stealing the life savings from poor men and sending all men to prison where they belong.
Microsoft is claiming to have developed a worthwhile browser, but their own battery tests hardly constitute extraordinary evidence.
I'm sure the test was perfectly fair and they didn't do anything like ensure Chrome was loading and running flash on a video loop while their own used HTML5 and refused to autoplay. No way Microsoft would be that underhanded.
I guess the test protocol doesn't include a debugging session (> 30 secondes to get to the debug console in Edge) nor the time (and battery) lost switching from Edge to IE and back (and finally to get back to chrome) to get the things done.
I didn't think it was possible to make a browser worse than Microsoft Internet Explorer, but somehow Microsoft was able to do just that with Edge. I use Firefox exclusively, but I have to deal with a variety of browsers when dealing with clients' computers. Edge is by far the worst in my experience. Chrome has gone downhill too. I am concerned that Firefox will suffer also when version 57 comes out.
Ignoring MS history, their Internet Explorer:Edge is at the "edge" of supporting many standards and probably far from supporting as many as the other browsers meaning it does far less work. Besides their advantageous knowledge of their own OS and not needing any portable cross platform code... such as being able to decode video playback thru their OS in ways the others may not do.
I frankly don't care, I will never go back to a corporate controlled browser and support that nightmare again... Including google - it's only a matter of time before they get worse and abuse their dominance. Some people think google's turned towards the dark side already. Boards of directors are not permanent.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I mainly use Linux, but I occasionally use a Surface Pro 4 for testing web sites. This means I use Chrome, Firefox, Edge and Opera on the same system for long periods of time.
I can't talk about exact numbers, but what's described in the summary is similar to what I've experienced.
Firefox will drain the battery the quickest, without a doubt. There have long been rumors that it's a slow, inefficient browser, and I think this is true.
Chrome and Opera (which is pretty much Chrome these days) are about the same. I can test with them much longer than I can with Firefox, but usually not as long as I can test with Edge.
Edge drains the battery the slowest, but I wouldn't say that it's that far ahead of Chrome and Opera.
What I find really strange is the difference between Edge/Chrome/Opera and Firefox. I don't know why Firefox is so much less efficient than the others. I don't think it's a problem with my Firefox installation, because I usually test with one profile that has no addons installed, and another profile that has common ad blockers installed. Both last about the same amount of time.
Clearly there's a big difference between what Edge/Chrome/Opera are doing, and what Firefox is doing. Maybe Firefox uses slower, inefficient JavaScript code for its XUL UI, while Edge/Chrome/Opera all use more native UIs written mainly in efficient C++, or something along those lines?
I'm not sure if I'll even keep testing with Firefox. Its share of the market is only about 5% now, which puts it well below a lot of mobile browsers. I think I'll have to focus more of my testing efforts on those browsers, and less on Firefox.
IANAL but the information that I see contradicts with what I have read at other dozens of reliable sites:
-- Part of this license states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available.
Only true if you are going to distribute kernel outside the company. As long as you use within the company, you don't need to make source code available to anyone.
-- any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released:
This is simply not true even if you are doing a commercial release, let alone internal usage of compiled code
No doubt, credit where credit is due and my hats off to MS in their browsers efficiency, however, it still doesn't change the fact that Microsoft's browser will always be seen as inferior like IE. I guess (sadly) the same as many people see Firefox as always bloated and inefficient compared to Chrome.
MS will no doubt use this to their advantage in ads as much as possible, but I don't think it will change the browser war - until perhaps they (like Google) also spend billions in advertising Edge all over the world in train stations to newspapers to billboards... all over the world! :)
But good news for the rest of us, hopefully it will force competition and hopefully get (especially) Mozilla to create a more efficient browser!
Ah... ah... bullshit.
That I will be subject to the poor performance of Edge for that much longer... So, is more battery life really a good thing in this instance? (of course, that's presuming that Microsoft didn't cook the numbers. Nah, they'd never do something like that...)
I think the answer is obvious: the developers for the competing browsers know what they are doing and the Firefox ones don't. Firefox never cared about performance. They DID care about worthless, egotistical things like developing their own slow webdev frameworks that only worked with their browser, and that NOBODY adopted. "Grand" (in their own mind) stuff, not pedestrian things like memory usage or not crashing. Firefox "architects" have less talent than the competition -- less "engineering" ability.
Edge just has a lot of buffers
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
In real world, any gain in battery life made by using Edge is more than lost for not having an ad blocker.
Favours vendor in a shocking twist.
...Didn't they integrate some browser into an earlier version of their operating system at some point in the past, and get sued over it?
I wonder what happens if you integrate a running virtualized piece of software, loaded "into the OS" at all times, to remove the conceptual difference between "normal" and "excessive" power usage...?
Oh, and they just set the "new official industry standard for battery usage measurement"; one you must comply with in order to have their "certification".
Ima shut up now. Ahh, mem'ries.
Because the average user will automatically use the crappy Edge browser less. The only thing it's good for is for navigating to download Chrome.
It doesn't matter if Edge is more battery efficient if it's less time efficient to use it. The extra laptop run time till be lost in having to spend more time to do the same tasks because of lack of add-ons/familiarity with the software. Not to mention that would cost me real world time I could be doing stuff besides the activity that required web browsing to start with.
Is this Edge the same Edge that was completely embarrassed at the last Pwn2own contest, while Chrome was virtually impossible to hack?
I remember a dirty trick Microsoft used to do to show how efficient was IE at RAM usage. They used to load IE's libraries at boot, so when you actually started IE, it would add only very little RAM usage. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft actually detects if you start Chrome and and whenever Chrome is running, Microsoft starts an independent background thread that kills the CPU. I would like to see a test between Edge and Chrome done on a third party operating system. That would be relevant, not this PR garbage.
What the news!
Yes! By completely fucking off on security, we've extended run time by three full hours!
Too bad it only takes someone 15 seconds to break in and corn-hole your device (by accident) or 5 seconds (if they're actually trying).
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
So did Edge get served with the h264 mp4 and the rest VP9, of course without any VP9 acceleration?
Clearly they wouldn't put out these numbers if they were last. Probably best to wait for an independent source for a real test.
...and maybe I'll use it. Not until.
How does Edge and other browsers do on standards compliance tests? Who cares how long it works if it doesn't work correctly?
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Absolute bullshit.
How should Microsoft approach this assuming it were true? Imagine a universe where Edge really was substantially more battery efficient than Chrome. What could Microsoft do to convince Slashdot that it were the fact?
Run tests? "Of course Microsoft won, it was rigged."
Run tests and publish the data? "It has to be bias. Microsoft ran the tests, and of course they would rig it."
Pay a company to run the tests? "It has to be faked. Whoever pays the piper calls the tune, and they took Microsoft's 30 pieces of silver."
So what could they do?
I don't like Edge that much and use Chrome the most and Firefox and Edge much less. But in my experience if all your concerned about is battery life then use Edge. Really there is no real argument against Edge except personal preference. Edge as a browser is perfectly fine for browsing web. It lacks a lot of extensions and advanced features. But for basic browsing and battery savings, why not use Edge at those times when battery life is important. Used to do the same on my Mac's when Safari was so much better with battery life than Chrome. Chrome for all its positives has always had issues with battery life. This is simply the negative effect of design and function.
hire a lawyer who is sober
This new test shows that Edge uses less power than both Chrome 57 and Firefox 52 _combined_
total bullshit.
No MS Troll who's entire career has been spent developing on windoze would know how to or why the kernel should be modified, much less have the chops to do so. Defragging "some stuff"? WTF?
"We were informed by a lawyer...". Bullshit.
Everything by this troll is uninformed marketing drivel. It seems like some shitty essay posted by a marketing droid out of Redmond or some other anti-Libre outfit.
Only I can judge you.
But remember too that MS have rights to internals of the OS that others do not have, and can also pick what machine to use in case there's oddities in the MS ACPI implementation that they can gain yet more advantage with.
Moreover, we don;t know what Edge has on normally but for this test MS turned off.
LoL
Only I can judge you.
They forgot to mention that during the test Edge was compromised repeatedly by remote code exploits and the funds from their bank accounts were drained.
It feels cathartic to make claims like this, but they completely fall apart once you scratch beneath the surface rather than just vainly trolling about for shits and giggles. Browser developers routinely end up shuffling around, and traded between other top tech companies. Many Opera employees ended up at Mozilla, many Mozilla employees went to Google (sometimes back again), and so on.
The net result isn't an exodus of talent from Mozilla, either. The problem is that Mozilla aren't a vast empire like Google, Microsoft, or Apple. Heck, they weren't even as big as Opera way back when. They have a limited workforce of people competing against well-oiled giant machines. That wasn't so when Firefox 1.0 came out. They could compete back then. Now they struggle to do so.
And the reason for that isn't really because of the popular theories that we like to bandy about, but simply because people don't *care* about web browsers or the web, when you get down to it. We're not patient enough to use Firefox when Chrome will do. And we don't care about the consequences, even when they bite us in the ass and we whine about it on Slashdot.
Firefox devs aren't the problem. Firefox management isn't even the problem. The problem is that they tried to compete in the wrong places, assuming that people cared more about the things they were working on than we really did. And now that they're finally hunkering down and just making what we claim we want, we don't care anymore. We don't have to anymore. We have Chrome, Safari, and even Edge now, let alone some other semi-contenders.
Now that we have choice again, we don't give two shits about browsers and the ideals therein. And we'll deflect all of our own guilt onto Mozilla as we watch the web crumble around us, because they're an easy target and we're too entitled to take responsibility. Far better to just go with the flow and call them incompetent.
I don't use Edge, and I'm a Chrome user myself, but this is good. Google needs some competition because let's be honest, Chrome is a damn resource whore.
It wouldn't hurt if Google gave Chrome a "battery optimized" mode.
Although Microsoft claims that the three browsers are being tested on "the same Vimeo video" I'm betting that the three browsers are being served different versions of said video. This kind of test is entirely dependant on CODEC selection and video resolution, both of which affect hardware-based decoding and battery efficiency. To be a valid test the browsers should be playing back the same video file from local media.
MS Edge is a fast, lean, and efficient browser. When I play around with underpowered WinTabs, Edge consistently has smoother browsing (load times, scrolling, etc.) all around, when compared to Chrome and FF. It simply uses less RAM and CPU compared to the competition. Therefore, it's not surprising that it fares better with battery life comparisons. If they made even more improvements lately compared to the last time I played with Edge, I congratulate them for a job well done. Edge is indeed much more efficient than their competition, and as a web/software developer, that makes me appreciate their efforts on that front.
HOWEVER, that does not excuse their crappy security model. Anyone that's watched recent hacking events should know that Edge is the laughing stock of the bunch when it comes to vulnerabilities. Some of it comes with being the younger browser of the bunch. But that shouldn't really be an excuse in this day and age. I can't trust a browser that is so full of holes.
I'd appreciate if MS focused more on closing gaping security holes than a few more % on arbitrary benchmarks that become meaningless because the target audience is too afraid to use the product anymore.
Luckily for us, neither one has actual privacy, so it doesn't matter what the battery life is.
Real world tests don't tend to just use browsers, actually.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
This should be the expected result... should being the key word. Edge is running on Microsft's OS, they should be able to make their browser perform better in their own OS. The fact that Chrome and Firefox were able to make theirs so much better on somebody else's environment for so long should be the biggest slap in the face to Microsoft.
My windows 10 laptop with edge browser gets close to 100% better battery life. I never turn the piece of shit on, but that's another story.
Three hours longer that I have to use Edge for...
I have been using the web since Mosaic was the only browser in existence. FF burned its loyal users over the years (this is not recent) by ignoring bug reports of massive memory usage and crashing. They were hostile to their users' priorities and thought their users would never leave because the only alternative was the crummy IE browser. Well, the FF people frittered away their lead and then a browser came along in Chrome that performed as the users had always wanted. FF focused on pie in the sky standards that went nowhere before just making sure their browser worked. (Each automatic update never seemed to fix the problems, either.) Now that I have CHOICE, I am supposed to reward MEDIOCRITY? Mozilla foundation got a TON of money and they spend it on "diversity intiatives" instead of fixing their damn browser. They have a LONG history of technical mediocrity.
Was out of town for several days, otherwise this would have been modded up some more.
One reason I would stay away from Edge is because of the people handling the development, especially the devs handling bug fixing.
Here is one about Edge being unable to handle a HTTP redirect unless you include the full hostname too (which works on all other browsers): /controller/action you have to redirect to www.webstie.com/controller/action, I even didn’t think that it can be because of this but this was the problem. You can mark it like solved."
"Alexei L. Mar 28, 2017
Hi,
I just fix this bug for Edge, the problem was that because of some rules, while redirect in Edge you cant redirect to
To be fair though, you should see a lot of the bug requests they get. A ton of "MY MOUSE DOESNT WORK!11", "everything slow, wat do i do?!" Some bug requests are pretty funny with absolutely zero way to reproduce them at all, I'm surprised they even allow some of these to be submitted (could simply add a message to the submission form: "Your submission MUST include ways to reproduce the reported bug."
Here is a recent ongoing bug:
"Steven K. 7 hours ago MICROSOFT EDGE TEAM
Martin,
Thanks for the update.
I still have my testing running. The latest non-public developer release testing did not have any noticeable memory or CPU increases yet. It has been about 18 hours. I did notice the latest insider build was using almost double the memory and had higher CPU as compared to the developer build.
I will let the test run for at least 48 hours.
The MS Edge Team"
The latest build using double the memory of the developer build? Wow what did they do? Battery life or not, they keep introducing weird bugs up and down with Edge.
https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/platform/issues/?page=1
Microsoft is desperate to make it seem like their newest browser is better at something, anything, than other browsers.
Also does Edge have ad block? No? Then fuck off, Edge.
Notepad uses less battery than Word.
Who cares about security, and MS siphoning up your user activity?
Edge could be ten times better than all the other browsers, assuming you can trust their metrics at all (which you can't). I wouldn't use it, for the same reason I wouldn't eat the world's most delicious sandwich if it happened to be sitting on top of a giant mound of shit.
Ignoring the Chrome comparisons, comparing Edge to Firefox just isn't a fair fight. Heck, I believe I could come up with a better browser than Firefox.
Caution: Contents under pressure
Say it isn't so, multiple process, constant IPC messages, massive amounts of wasted memory in multiple processes consume more energy. Nahh, really, say it isn't so.
Energy usage is directly related to memory usage: more memory used means more energy required to access it.
We need to get back to writing efficient code again. By that, code that minimized memory and CPU usage, and is not a bloated multi-process pig like Chrome.
This multi-process crap is the biggest pile of crap, it increases complexity by SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE, it takes something that used to be a clean elegant design like WebKit and makes it into the multi-process monster that is completely and totally unintelligible to anyone other that a few core devs. It wasted a massive amount of memory, wastes CPU and wastes energy.
... that any representatives of the Trump campaign organization cooperated with, colluded with, or otherwise worked with any Rus--
Oh, wait, sorry, wrong account. Ahem.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Firefox, Chrome, or any other browser is even remotely competitive with the superior battery life and rendering performance available from Microsoft(r) Edge(tm). I just installed the Windows(r) 10 Creators Update(tm) last night, in fact, and was delighted with all aspects of the newly-enhanced customer experience. My laptop's battery life is the envy of everyone from the Energizer Bunny to Elon Musk. Luddites and dead-enders still running Linux or Windows 7 don't know what they're missing! I was skeptical, don't get me wrong, but I decided to embrace change instead of fighting it. Give it a try, tovarisch, I'm sure you'll agree!
Ive just read a study that indicates that I am the most attractive person on earth. Disclaimer: I initiated and funded the study and also defined the parameters. My wife was the "unbiased," 3rd party participant.
Having worked for Sun Microsystems and Netscape I just assume Microsoft is taking advantage of compiler features, OS features or both that aren't published or available to anyone outside Microsoft. OR parts of Edge are already loaded into the OS, just like the old days, so the OS is slower because of Edge even when you aren't using Edge. When firing up a competitor browser you are loading 100% of the competitor browser, but when using Edge you are only loading the 40% that isn't already loaded, so it looks like it's smaller and faster, but it's not.
"Microsoft Edge Beats Chrome By Over Three Hours In New Battery Usage Test" which wouldn't be suprising seeing as most of the Edge rendering code is embedded into the Operating System.
Chrome is a serious resource hog on the Mac too, even with few or no extensions. Chrome 57 is somewhat improved, but I find myself favoring Safari much more simply because it will not destroy my battery life. Firefox is orders of magnitude worse than all of them. While I don't believe Microsoft's 3 hour number either, it's indisputable that Chrome can't beat Safari or Edge when it comes to battery life, a fact which I appreciate Google finally feeling the pressure to address.
since Mosaic was the only browser in existence.
Minor nitpick, but that's never been the case. You might assume I'm talking about Lynx (which did predate Mosaic, barely) or something similar, but Mosaic wasn't even the first graphical web browser. This is grammar-nazi level nitpicking though... you could have easily said, "I have been using the web since Mosaic was released", and that'd mean the same thing and have the same impact, even if you didn't use it on release day (Mosaic was around for less than 2 years before Netscape Navigator was released, so you must have used it somewhere in that short range of Jan 1993 - end of 1994).
OP is a dirty unwashed troll, and you, sir have been trolled.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Don't delude yourself into thinking that Firefox is any better.
Just look at how much user info Firefox can collect and send to Mozilla and others.
Their page clearly lists various types of identifiers and browsing history that might be sent, including such things as: "IP address", "location", "phone number", "email address", "URLs", "information about visited sites", "terms you type in the Awesome Bar or Search Bar", "website domain", "Google advertising ID", "active URL at time of crash" and "personal information".
In case you don't believe me, let's look at some examples from their page:
"Once per day, Firefox sends the following info to Mozilla when it checks for browser updates: your Firefox version information, language preference, operating system, and version."
"Firefox contacts Mozilla once per day to check for add-on information to check for malicious add-ons. This includes, for example: browser version, OS and version, locale, total number of requests, time of last request, time of day, IP address, and the list of add-ons you have installed."
"Firefox sends Mozilla a monthly request to look up your location at a country level using your IP address."
"Some Mozilla sponsored snippets are interactive and allow you to optionally share your phone number or email address. For example, you can enter your phone number to receive an SMS to install Firefox on Android. Your information is received and handled by our email and mobile marketing vendor."
"This data includes, for example: device hardware, operating system, Firefox version, add-ons (count and type), timing of browser events, rendering, session restores, length of session, how old a profile is, count of crashes, and count of pages."
"Firefox may send metadata, including URLs associated with the downloaded file, to the SafeBrowsing service. "
"Firefox that sends Mozilla usage, performance, and responsiveness statistics about user interface features, memory, and hardware configuration. Your IP address is also collected as a part of a standard web log."
"When Telemetry is enabled, certain short-term experiments may collect information about visited sites."
"Firefox sends to Mozilla data relating to the tiles such as number of clicks, impressions, your IP address, locale information, and tile specific data (e.g., position and size of grid)."
"Firefox sends Mozilla a request once to look up your location at a country level using your IP address."
"Firefox may send the terms you type in the Awesome Bar or Search Bar to your Default Search Engine to retrieve suggestions"
"Firefox may send “Referral Data” such as the website domain"
"Firefox sends Referral Data to our mobile analytics vendor, and also includes a Google advertising ID, IP address, timestamp, country, locale, operating system, and app version."
"Firefox records and sends Referral Data to Mozilla as part of Firefox Health Report. "
"Firefox may use several pieces of data to determine your location, including your operating systems geolocation features, Wi-Fi networks, cell phone towers, or IP address."
"This report contains technical information for us to improve Firefox including why Firefox crashed, the active URL at time of crash, and the state of computer memory during the crash. The crash report we receive may include personal information."
"Firefox sends information to Mozilla, including the list of add-ons you have installed, Firefox version information, and your IP address."
Some people will try to justify this by saying nonsense like "At least they disclose it!" or "At least some of it can be disabled!", but none of that really matters. What does matter is that this information is being collected and sent to Mozilla in the first place when it shouldn't be.
There's no justifi
>> Microsoft Edge Beats Chrome By Over Three Hours In New Battery Usage Test
Better headline :
"Google Chrome Beats Edge By Over Fifty Percent In New Market Usage Test"
Chrome: ~50%
Edge: ~1,5%
Ouch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
aaaaaaa
"Just Fucking Trust Us" --Satya Nadella
(no: I'm too old. I've seen Microsoft do its thing since it exists. I guess I'll *never* trust them a bit).
It's also copypasta that's at least 10 and maybe 15 years old. Pay no heed to it.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
That's exactly whats relevant, not speed, comply to standards, javascript compatibility... you did it again M$
Don't say that. I promise I will switch to Edge immediately once they reproduce same results on Ubuntu.
Longer battery run time but the great big security hole that is Edge no thank you.
No matter how good Edge is it doesn't change the fact that you must be using Windows 10 to be able to run it...so it's out for me.
It's not a fair comparison if Edge is in effect sacrificing performance - e.g. perhaps the video played smoother and dropped fewer frames on Chrome? We don't know. Could be something as simple as, something in their tests trigger hi-rest timers i.e. timeBeginPeriod to be called on Chrome, e.g.: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/ch... (this was a known issue in Chrome for a long time, and if you read the "fix", it isn't a 100% fix in that Chrome will still active high-res timers in some conditions) ... if Edge say never sets the time period to 1ms but Chrome does then though Chrome might use more power it could be at a benefit of increased performance. If Edge performs as well, and has as responsive a UI, in those same tests, then they have a much stronger case.
Of course, users may want battery life over performance in some cases, e.g. if at a coffee shop or on a plane. If plugged in, I'd want performance over battery life.
Love you man! Keep stinking up the place.
That's all well and good that they have a lower power demand.
It however does not change the fact that Edge is a browser that wants to do everything but can't do any one thing well. The damn thing wants to be my primary PDF viewer and I've yet to have one single PDF file load in it either from a web page or from a local file. I'm also quite annoyed with the fact that it gets all pouty when you want to make something else your primary handler of a function that it wants to have control of. It begged me when I wanted to make Adobe my PDF viewer, and it pleaded when I set Opera as my browser.
And even now, any time I go to a Microsoft page it gives me that sad puppy dog look saying that I should give it another chance.
You know the look. The sad puppy that's all alone in the world...at midnight, in the cold, it's raining, on its birthday, and a larger dog stole his birthday bone.
-- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
Hey Microsoft, even if your testing results are true, they have the same real-world validity as Ford noting the Edsel carried more passengers than a Volkswagen Beetle. In 1959, Edsel was the worst vehicle choice possible, passenger capacity notwithstanding. In 2017, for most of us, Edge remains the worst browser choice possible, battery usage notwithstanding.
Irrelevant, this is a goddamned ad.
That's kinda like trying to sell dog shit by it demonstrating that it has only a third as many calories as pizza.
Maybe Edge did use less battery. Maybe MS's browser, on MS's OS, is able to use some 'awesome' hardware acceleration in its web video playback. Theoretically the video stream could be handed directly to a low-level API with little overhead (using less power). Which sounds awesome to a newbie, until you think about the next step: malicious video streams triggering video driver bugs that can corrupt/overwrite kernel memory, and allow thorough remote exploit ownage.
It does my heart good to see that the true art of trolling still exists.