Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Says Edge is Still More Power Efficient than Chrome and Firefox (neowin.net)

An anonymous reader quotes Neowin: Every time Microsoft releases a Windows 10 feature update, it runs some efficiency tests to prove that its Edge browser is significantly faster than the competition, which includes Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome. Then the company posts the detailed results on its Windows blog and YouTube channel, boasting about the power efficiency of its browser. Even though the company still has run battery tests, it has remained strangely silent about them, posting about it on GitHub only. While many thought that Microsoft's silence on the matter was due to Edge finally losing to the competition, it appears that this is not the case.

As spotted by Paul Thurrott, Microsoft has indeed run efficiency tests for Edge in Windows 10 version 1809, pitting it against the likes of Firefox and Chrome. Through these tests, the company has concluded that Edge lasts 24% longer than Chrome and a massive 94% longer than Firefox on average.

"While Edge appears to have won these efficiency tests easily as well, it is likely that the company did not decide to promote this achievement -- as it has always done previously -- because of the planned abandonment of EdgeHTML in favor of Chromium," the article concludes.

"It will be very interesting to see if Microsoft Edge is able to maintain its battery advantage once the switch to Chromium is complete."

90 comments

  1. If only... by bblb · · Score: 4, Funny

    If only it worked as well in the real world as it apparently does in tests.

    1. Re:If only... by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't this be the truth. I like the concept of Edge. A small little browser with out all the crud. Unfortunately, there are still to many little annoying bugs.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    2. Re:If only... by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      A small little browser with out all the crud.

      Yeah, I don't like CSS, either. Oh, wait!

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:If only... by Leslie43 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Unfortunately, there are still to many little annoying bugs.

      Windows 10 is not a bug, it's a feature!

    4. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know Edge wouldn't be power efficient for me personally.
      All of the websites I frequent contain DIV tags.

    5. Re:If only... by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

      It makes it even more power efficient since you don't use it.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    6. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A small little browser with out all the crud.

      And without all the useful features that other browsers have had for a decade.

      Being "faster" is meaningless if the browser is broken and useless.

      Longer battery life is meaningless if you are using a computer that doesn't run on batteries.

    7. Re:If only... by KiloByte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah. They bash Firefox as "slow" while it's the only browser among these three that can discard a meaningful part of ads and tracking. _All_ people I care about see no ads (either by being tech-minded on their own, or by having someone set it up for them), so a realistic test should have no ads and trackers included.

      And those cause more than 90% of slowness.

      Right now (family home), I'm sitting on a 32-bit Pentium4 with an ancient monitor, while the good monitor and 4294967296 SoCs sit unused (long story...), and Firefox works pretty adequately. Also got a super-restricted new laptop (Thinkpad T480) with me -- Chrome on it is _slower_ than Firefox on the P4.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    8. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Firefox without extensions fails in blocking ads. See for yourself here.

    9. Re: If only... by drewsup · · Score: 1

      My windows 8.1 phone runs fast, of course I cant actually DO much with it other than make calls, ( apps unsupported, internet explorer cant be upgraded) but it runs fast, so there's that... Is this the same thing Microsoft ? Because like your phones, your browser has been left in the dust. If it wasn't for Office, and old IE dependent programs left out there, MS would be in the dustbin of history...

    10. Re:If only... by Deathlizard · · Score: 3, Informative

      To be fair I haven't run into game ending flaws in rendering using Edge recently, but that not the reason I don't use it. The main reason why I use Firefox (and Chrome) over Edge is it's user interface. Edge's interface is broken, idiot designed and needs to die in a fire.

      For example. I use a lot of bookmarks. The way I use them is I add the bookmarks toolbar, create a folder (IE: news, weather, games, etc) and then bookmark each site in the respected folder and sort them top to bottom from most to least used. Chrome, Firefox, even IE does this correctly while Edge still struggles to do this right. At first you couldn't even put a folder in the bar, then you could but couldn't sort them. Then you could sort then but the sync would sort them backwards, or worse duplicate them. Then sync stopped working altogether. then it would cut off long names, ETC

      On top of all that, they even got clicking on the folders wrong. In Chrome and Firefox, you click on a folder, the folder opens, and then you can just highlight other folders to see their contents. in Edge (and IE) you click on a folder and then have to double click the next folder (one click to close the one you were in. Another click to open the one you're currently on) to open it, which slows you down and is infuriating. This simple UI adjustment would make Edge almost on par with it's peers in usability and ease of use.

      This is just one of many stupid decisions they made to the user interface. I haven't even started on History management, extension issues and other UI things. To be fair some of them have been fixed over time (like importing and exporting bookmarks from other browsers since you'll be doing that a lot because sync is broken and using extensions with inprivate browsing) but there's still a lot to be desired.

      Simply put, If they would fix the interface issues instead of focusing on idiotic useless features like "I CAN DRAW ON THE SCREEN!!" they might have been a little more competitive.

    11. Re:If only... by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      So add an extension. Problem solved. Not everything needs to be (or should be) in the core.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:If only... by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Of course it's more power efficient, it's a zombie, they require no energy at all to keep moving.

    13. Re:If only... by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Not everything needs to be (or should be) in the core.

      But... but... how would you use Pocket, Snippets or Reader Mode?

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    14. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only it worked as well in the real world as it apparently does in tests.

      Not working is what makes it so power efficient.

  2. a test to microsoft's specs, no doubt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    probably spent a couple million dollars in engineering time to find the perfect specs and conditions, which absolutely no one in the 'real world' uses, where edge 'won'... hell, who's to say the test conditions were even equal or fair otherwise... this is microsoft, not exactly the most honest and transparent corporation to exist. show me some recreatable test results from an independent testing body that says edge is twice as energy efficient.

  3. Strange... by beheaderaswp · · Score: 1, Interesting

    After all these years I have a hard time understanding why "browser wars" are still a thing.

    We've got plenty of options and more perhaps coming.

    --
    Another consultant who stuck it out.

    "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
    1. Re:Strange... by Anrego · · Score: 1

      Right.
      I mean people having strong preferences is fair. The web browser gets a lot of use, and minor things can make a big difference in experience.
      But who cares what everyone else is using. We're (at least mostly) past the point where it really matters. As long as no one gets enough market share where they can just start making shit up again like in the good ol' ie6 days, it shouldn't matter.

    2. Re:Strange... by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      There have been three major options... IE/Edge (they are just different versions of the same engine, and I have personally seen them share bugs), Chrome, and Firefox. With Edge gone that may downgrade the engine to rarely used (since IE and any IE/Edge reskins can still use it), leaving us with just Chrome and Firefox. Easier for web developers as well as malware developers: a double-edged sword.

    3. Re:Strange... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sites dependent on browser-specific extensions that cannot function properly using pure W3C HTML. Even HTML5 supports pure HTML usage. And, still exists so sites can work when Active Scripting such as JavaScript has been disabled. Sites should fail validation and not require an change to a vendor-specific browser, especially when their browser favors their sites. Browsers should display BIG BOLD EXCEPTIONS for sites that fail validation.

    4. Re:Strange... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "IE/Edge (they are just different versions of the same engine, and I have personally seen them share bugs)"

      Yes, good point! Windows 7 SP1 64-bit Home Premium, open IE 11 even just to about:blank, press F12... the default document mode is Edge with additional options of 10,9,8,7, and 5 (6 is missing). IE11 was therefore already the start of Edge.

    5. Re:Strange... by ArhcAngel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're looking at the war from the wrong direction. History showed us what happens when a strong player in the market decides to implement special features without a standards bodies blessing. Web sites start using the feature making all other browsers behave badly on their site. Which drives users to the browser that works on the site. There are companies literally still using IE 6 because their mission critical intranet application will not work on any other browser. Fast forward to today. Google is the dominant player and Chrome is full of new features that have not been submitted to a W3C or any other standards group. Google is hoping to further edge out (pun intended) the competition. The war is for market share and there are real dollars on the line.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    6. Re:Strange... by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      Said the one guy in the thread who doesn't know what Chromium is.

    7. Re:Strange... by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      No, one less coming. Browser development is way out of the realm of open source hackers. CSS and JavaScript are complicated, and that's ignoring optimization. Mozilla has fought this for years, and they were funded by Google all that time (clown shoes). Big money is where it's at now.

    8. Re:Strange... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just spent some time browsing the Mozilla public Bugzilla (at bugzilla.mozilla.org) and the number of NEW state bugs that are even years old and UNASSIGNED shows a very mismanaged development cycle, IMNSHO. Yes, I know, much of it is volunteer work, while Microsoft and Google are for-profit corporations. And, browser is an enterprise-level project complexity, not just a coding one-off and done. Anyway, something reported as far back as Firefox 9 and NEW state (for multiple years without significant interim comments!) may be eventually fixed in something like Firefox 85 but... did they ever test it was reproducible in Firefox 9 before resolving as Not Reproducible when they finally get around to testing it for the first time in Firefox 85? Several major changes would have occurred, but the resolution would be FIXED by a clearly traceable increment of changes, not just no longer reproducible.

    9. Re:Strange... by StormReaver · · Score: 2

      Browser development is way out of the realm of open source hackers.

      That is very amusing, considering that Blink, the rendering engine in Chromium, is descended from Webkit, which is descended from KHTML, which is the rendering engine created by Open Source hackers for KDE's Konqueror Web browser.

      Blink is Open Source, so a skilled Open Source hacker could have a working Web browser running in a weekend if he really wanted to. Its rendering accuracy would rival Chrome and Firefox right out of the gate, so said hacker's job would be the usability of the Web browser rather than the nuts and bolts of getting pages to render right.

      One common renderer usable by anyone for anything is what we Web developers have been clamoring for in the last twenty five years.

    10. Re:Strange... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google is the dominant player and Chrome is full of new features that have not been submitted to a W3C

      Citation needed.
      Protip, the industry ditched W3C because they sucked. WHATWG is the only one that matters.
      If we still listened to the retards st W3C, we'd be on XHTML2 and the web would still be an insecure shitheap.
      At least now most of the features W3C created have been locked down by default and pretty much all of their shit terminology has been changed from optional to mandatory.
      Fuck W3C. Monolithic piece of shit community where nothing got done. They never listened to any of the web community at large and what they actually needed. WHATWG did.

      Making layouts has never been easier in websites. No more hacky bugs to get pixel-perfect layouts.
      No more abusing tables. No more stupid float abuse. No clear fixes. 3 separate ways to make good, proper layouts.
      Embedding content of various kinds has never been easier or as flexible. OBJECT system was an absolute shit attempt to make EMBED better.
      Native templating makes dynamic websites possible without JS. (although sadly many sites do not use it because JS is "da winnar")
      Iframes have been secured, one of the worst things from abuse point of view.
      Modal Window spam has been fixed. Pop-up spam has mostly been fixed. (truth be told, pop-up windows should be banned from any non-localhost / extension domain, period, there is no need for it)
      Many other great things.
      Plugins have almost entirely been phased out due to buggy, unfixed shit. All their usefulness has been replicated inside native JS features for the most part.
      The only real dickpunch is it isn't as easy to make a single, compact native version of an SWF file without massive inflations to file size. The highest density I've been able to compress binary data without breaking JS parsers is base91. I tried embedding binary in various ways, but this worked best without going over the top and hyper-optimizing with unicode and bitshifting nonsense.

      I don't even like Google, I even got banned from their Google Group for upsetting poor little Ben's feelings over the sidebar API, but don't make shit up.

    11. Re:Strange... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The ability to still control a browser, OS and block all ads and tracking.
      Thats what's its an OS and browser apart from "renting" as OS for "free" as a user.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    12. Re:Strange... by markdavis · · Score: 1, Informative

      >"After all these years I have a hard time understanding why "browser wars" are still a thing. We've got plenty of options and more perhaps coming."

      No we don't. We had four major browsers: IE, Firefox, Chrome/Chromium, and Safari. Everything else is now barely noise on a graph. Of those 4, only TWO are multiplatform (Firefox, Chrome) and open source (Firefox, Chromium). And only one (Firefox) is open development, browser-only company, open-source, and multiplatform.

      Google's hard-core Chrome marketing efforts (and Mozillia necessary overhaul of Firefox) have decimated Firefox (despite its now fantastic performance and modern abilities). And now Microsoft is almost handing their browser to Google.

      Make no mistake thinking you really have choice- I actually came across more than one site now that is NOT programmed to open/neutral standards and have become, essentially, "Chrome only" sites. Yes, flashback time. What is that site? Cox Communications. Now you can't even RESET YOUR ACCOUNT PASSWORD IN FIREFOX OR SAFARI. YOU MUST USE CHROME (and hours on the phone with tech support verified this insanity). And this is my ISP! So if you thought this kind of stuff was in the past (like I did), wake up and smell the new IE6.

      So, no, depending on your needs and platform, your *effective* "choice" is rapidly disappearing.

    13. Re:Strange... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're speaking like a developer.
      As a user, I liked it when nothing moved or new suggestions failed to get hold or were ignored. This meant that stuff like google maps, yahoo mail had to work on shitty old browsers. They worked great on the latest Firefox too.

      My PC with single core CPU, 768MB RAM and SSE but not SSE2 instructions was faster than everything I've used since.

      Also, with asm.js or webgl or crap I was promised Quake in the browser. So, can I play Quake in the browser? Even in rare cases it technically works it will suck anyway by only supporting QWERTY US layout and problems with capturing of mouse/keyboard input or lack thereof. That's a stupid thing to ask, to play Quake or anything similar (racing game, helicopter flight simulator...). I also want it to work in Firefox and Firefox ESR, or even Edge (but not asking for legacy Opera). I don't have Chrome 72. Then, it should work on 1GHz CPU/1GB RAM (even a 800x600 window at 25fps) with no visible garbage collection pauses every second. e.g. AMD C60 is a 1GHz CPU from 2011, that was current around 2013 ; Pentium 4 still is a usable CPU as well (because it has i686 + SSE2 which is the current standard for software, and had good performance at decoding/encoding media). I go to that length, because devs are so overjoyed to get their "awesome" and "great" stuff running on their 4.5GHz CPU, OpenGL 4.5 GPU, 16GB RAM, 1ms Internet latency, SSD and Chrome 73.

    14. Re:Strange... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, by the time I would have tried Konqueror (2007?), I think KDE was abandoning it and going to separate file manager (Dolphin) and browser (Rekonq or some other thing nobody heard of).
      So, even though I was using some multi-user PC with KDE 3.5, I only used Firefox like everyone else and decided not to try this well known file manager/browser that was KDE's signature software since it was going away, just like the explorer.exe/IE5 combo for instance.

      Sorry if I'm making a comparison to mshtml.dll, I don't mean to be insulting :). That was was first "embeddable browser" or "webview" maybe?
      I think Firefox engine (gecko) was usable in other applications early on, but Mozilla did lose track of that quickly so instead Webkit or Chromium are used for embedding.
      That's good for developers surely. You get to see indeed many little browsers on Android that only are about a skin, and a number of browsers on desktop (e.g. arora was a nice and simple one, since discontinued) ; some desktop applications are pretty obviously based on a web browser view such as https://www.smtube.org/ (this one is great, ironically you use it to play youtube video in a real video player like mplayer or vlc etc. so you can play full screen 480p on computers that are too weak to play small window 240p in a browser smoothly)

      One common renderer usable by anyone for anything is what we Web developers have been clamoring for in the last twenty five years.

      But the end game then is, everyone uses Chromium (under absolute Google control). Is that "the Web" anymore? You replaced a protocol or standard with an application.

  4. Put It Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft needs to put down the bong, now.

  5. Who Cares? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A browser that is so dysfunctional that no one uses it, who cares how efficient or fast it is?

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    1. Re:Who Cares? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      One interesting thing to note from the testing methodology though:

      Windows Update was temporarily disabled

      Okay Microsoft, I need to verify your results. How do I disable Windows Update completely?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly my sentiment! Those who understands the underlying OS, Win7 and Win10 to be specific, knows that IE/Edge is running at the background even if you're not using this M$ browser. Case in point, try to nuke your Internet Explorer (the web browser) folder and you'd notice that the 'Safely Remove' feature of Windows is also crippled/DISABLED!!! WTF is this? A browser subroutine being used by the underlying OS? IT SHOULD BE THE OTHER WAY AROUND!!!

      Win10 is even worse, it runs the full Edge browser at the background but not being shown in Process List of Task Manager. LOL Talking of shenanigans.

  6. Edgy. On Edge. Over the edge. Edge of reality. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Edge on over here, behbeh!

  7. Looks like Safari is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's getting lost in the dust. I't bleeding profusely, with no hope in sight.

  8. Cue "Roll Safe Meme": by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    Your browser can't use much battery power on laptops...

    ...if no one ever uses it.

  9. If edge is so good by renegade600 · · Score: 1

    why is microsoft building a new edge browser using chromium?

    1. Re:If edge is so good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why is microsoft building a new edge browser using chromium?

      A better question is why is Microsoft even building a browser at all?
      It isn't like they can sell it to anyone.

  10. Is it really more power efficient? by Solandri · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Most of the time I run CCleaner on my laptop, I get a message saying it needs to close Edge to clean its cache files. I don't use Edge. So apparently Microsoft has gamed it so Edge runs in the backround even if you don't use it.

    That makes me wonder about the tests where Edge "beats" other browsers in power consumption. Maybe they were actually measuring the power consumption of Chrome + Edge, vs only Edge.

    1. Re:Is it really more power efficient? by Gruff+2005 · · Score: 2

      You're right about Edge running in the background, after the last update and going through settings I was surprised to see Edge turned on. I know I had it off plus I never use it, why does it need to be running?

    2. Re:Is it really more power efficient? by espenskaufel · · Score: 1

      I would guess Edge is used in a set of UWP apps and Windows UI elements. That is probably why you those results. As these will be the same for both tests, it shouldn't matter for the results (unless memory consumption is measured).

    3. Re: Is it really more power efficient? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't be surprised: Microsoft resets all your settings (and removes manually installed drivers) on every feature update.

    4. Re:Is it really more power efficient? by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're reading too much into it. On Windows 10 UWPs like Edge, the store, Pictures etc don't ever get closed but rather they get suspended. They sit in RAM but are otherwise blocked from executing any task until some external event (e.g. user running the executable) rewakes the process. If the system runs low on memory the suspended processes get dumped.

      This has the effect of only helping initial startup times. These suspended apps don't consume any CPU or power. They only reason they exist at all is because part of superfetch is that it pre-executes these apps so they are ready to go when you need them. Though I wish it wouldn't do it for those apps which are unused.

    5. Re:Is it really more power efficient? by thegarbz · · Score: 0

      Define "running". Look to the right of Edge, see that little green leaf? Then google how Windows 10 suspends processes and how superfetch preloads them.

      The only benefit here is that edge executes faster. It doesn't "run" in the background. In fact a suspended process requires external triggers to wake and can't even wake itself.

    6. Re:Is it really more power efficient? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it is.

      Chrome also runs in the background by default.

      I use Chrome when plugged in, but always use Edge when running on battery power. It's nowhere near as bad as it was 2-3 years ago, but Edge is still better for battery life by enough that I notice.

    7. Re:Is it really more power efficient? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "sit in RAM...don't consume any power"

      B.S. RAM refresh isn't magic pixie dust.

    8. Re: Is it really more power efficient? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why I turn all that shit off. Windows 7 with superfetch turned off.

    9. Re: Is it really more power efficient? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also feel power consumption is important, and thus will never leave my lynx

    10. Re:Is it really more power efficient? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what does RAM do when something isn't sitting in there?

  11. Who cares about battery advantage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While itâ(TM)s often possible to find a criteria where you are better than the competition, who really cares about battery advantage? I think most people will be more interested by rendering speed, privacy control and other features...

    And even if this criteria was worth anything, browser consumption surely is almost meaningless compared to other mobile applications , for example like games that make your processor heating up and drain battery in a blink!

    Edge is fading away: good riddance!

    1. Re:Who cares about battery advantage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong about everything.

  12. search: Larken Rose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want to know what is more important than the efficiency wars...
    search: Larken Rose

    Spend an honest week or two introducing yourself to the philosophical space.
    You'll be amazed what you start to learn and how much it makes sense.

  13. Lynx. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Period.

    1. Re: Lynx. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Lynx effect?

  14. Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft has at this point in time told more lies than Mark Zuckerberg and fudged more numbers than Bernie Madoff.

    Who really gives a shit about what Microsoft says, considering their ridiculous "get the facts" campaign, you know the one where a bugfix to a text editor was a "security hole" in "Linux", and the same update in three different distributions were counted as three "security holes" in "Linux", their offer to "upgrade now or tonight" "offer", and their many, many, many other shenanigans?

    Does anyone sane trust anything coming from them?

  15. And... by SurenEnfiajyan · · Score: 1

    yet they want to switch to Chromium engine.

  16. /use/bin/cat is even more efficient by aglider · · Score: 1

    But rendering sucks

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    1. Re: /use/bin/cat is even more efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /bin/cat is more efficient

    2. Re: /use/bin/cat is even more efficient by aglider · · Score: 1

      /bin is a symlink to /usr/bin

      --
      Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    3. Re:/use/bin/cat is even more efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $ printf "GET / HTTP/1.1\n\n" | netcat slashdot.org 80 &> /dev/null
      Seems to render fine, and as a bonus, filters out the useless bits.

    4. Re: /use/bin/cat is even more efficient by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Not on my system ... why would it?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re: /use/bin/cat is even more efficient by aglider · · Score: 1
      --
      Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    6. Re: /use/bin/cat is even more efficient by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      A shame, isn't it?
      Hobbyists messing everything up and calling it "for compatibility sake", wold be funny if it was not so sad.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re: /use/bin/cat is even more efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.freedesktop.org/wi...

      The case for merging is not convincing.

      Shortening the search path is a more convincing argument than the nonsense they put forth. Including the isolation from upstream compatibility bullshit.

  17. It all comes down to... by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 2

    shared library shenanigans that boost Edge performance.
    They will switch to Chromium, remove the shenanigans and we're back to zero.

  18. Why by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    Why does Microsoft always double down on the shitty products it makes instead of admit failure, learn a lesson, and move on? Edge is shitty! It has a crappy UI and overall feel. I am NOT going to use it and there is no convincing me otherwise: I don't even like Chrome. I am a Firefox user. I don't even care if Firefox is marginally less resource efficient if it has a good UI and smooth experience.

  19. I'd say it is incredibly power efficient! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My version of Edge is insanely power efficient... I don't think it's ever used any battery at all because I've never run it!

  20. Does anyone care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even back when Edge had a significant advantage over Chrome and Firefox in battery life. It certainly never resulted in more users for Edge. Users have so many more reasons to use another browser then just good battery life. This is obviously why Microsoft has decided to dump its efficient Edge HTML5 engine and Charkra for Chromium and V8 engines. But the other elephant in the room is the terrible battery life of Firefox especially on Mac OS but also significantly worse on Windows 10 as well. Now this to me is enough to cause users to dump Firefox in numbers large enough to make Firefox a almost niche browser anymore.

    1. Re:Does anyone care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One reason for me is : no Edge on Mac OS and Linux (let alone Windows 7 and 8). No Edge on mobile. How about millions of Android and Mac users that might have been curious to try? Why not run outlook.com webmail on Edge browser, maybe that'll be as good, different or better than gmail on Chrome? Hundreds millions people will never know. I wanted to try Edge, but never did yet, because being able to run it on only one particular computer isn't interesting to me.

  21. You need edge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You need edge, How else would your load a real browser.

  22. Still Sucks Though by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

    I bought my girlfriend a Dell laptop for Christmas. She’s a MS SQL DBA primarily and specifically said no MacBook (I’m a Unix Eng and have a MacBook :) ).

    Anyway, not long after getting her laptop up and configured, we removed MacAfee, it would popup every few minutes insisting she purchase the product, and then after hunting for a few things on the ‘net and having trouble with Edge’s results, asked me which browser I recommended. I had her install chrome even though I use Firefox (I’m used to the development console on firefox).

    [John]

    --
    Shit better not happen!
  23. I like Edge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember getting a computer and Edge and it was terrible! Fast forward a few years and I got another computer and decided to try Edge again. It isn't bad! Its actually pretty solid, runs well. My only gripe is it insisting on making some Bing homepage with lots of clickbait. I don't understand the hate, Edge works pretty well these days.

  24. irony... by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

    is that they are probably going to lose the power efficiency advantage once they switch to chrome's engine.

    i like the idea of having a barebones light browser that just renders good webpages. kinda like the original phoenix was supposed to do

  25. ms free by NikeHerc · · Score: 1

    Thanks to Ubuntu, I have been free of the influences of microsoft since July 4th of this year. There is no condition or event that could make me reconsider that decision, so I couldn't possibly care about their browser or o.s. or apps or whatever.

    --
    Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
    1. Re:ms free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here....I just switched to Linux Mint 19.1 "Tessa" with the Cinnamon desktop and I couldn't be happier.

      No more Microsoft bloat or updates that crash me off the net. No built-in spyware, and 99.99% of the time updates don't require a reboot.

  26. But what does the fox say ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... about market share?

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  27. What a stupid/arbitrary metric for a fucking ad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a stupid/arbitrary metric for a fucking ad.

  28. I was expecting it. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Last May Microsoft hired a bunch of Volkswagen diesel emission control software developers to work on the Edge browser. So it was just a matter of time before it nailed the benchmarks.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  29. Sure it is. by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

    Microsoft Says Edge is Still More Power Efficient than Chrome and Firefox

    Microsoft has said a LOT of things; doesn't mean it's a good idea to believe them.

    Also... SO? I don't generally choose which app I use based on energy efficiency. If I did, I'd run GNU/Linux in text-only/CLI mode, and browse the web with Lynx. Or maybe I'd use TWM and some incredibly simple, stripped down browser in an X session... like Lynx.

    Hey, Microsoft... is "Edge" more power efficient than Lynx? (Actually, I suppose it could be. I don't know if Lynx is optimized for power efficiency.)

    --
    Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
  30. Screw you microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you deserve to go under, .. hopefully the rest will follow

  31. It's Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Edge draws zero power, because it has zero use, of course it's more power efficient!

    Windows is very power efficient on my computer, because it runs in a virtual machine, where it has no network/disk access, so it's very power efficient, and suspends very quickly.

    In fact, it runs BETTER inside the virtual machine, because I control the network and driver access. Given simple hardware, MSFT performs at an acceptable level.

  32. Microsoft tweaks Windows to make Chrome look bad? by najajomo · · Score: 2

    Edge lasts 24% longer than Chrome and a massive 94% longer than Firefox on average

    Assuming this to be true, that would mean that Edge renders pages more efficiently that the others. If so, the most plausible reason for this would be that Edge is using different API calls than the rest. If so that would mean Microsoft is cheating on this test. It wouldn't be the first time softwares premier software innovator has done so. There even was a name for this back in the day, Microsoft Undocumentation.

  33. It's 99.9% energy efficient... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...because almost no one uses it.

  34. And my Honda Civic uses less gas by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    ...but you're not going to haul sheets of plywood, or kids to a party, or anyone over 50 in the back seat, for that matter.

    Sure, build a browser with less power, and you'll get more efficiency. Good luck with all the broken sites you'll encounter!

  35. For users, the issue is moot - use what works. by az-saguaro · · Score: 1

    I use four browsers.
    I usually open Firefox as my first choice, but I end up using it about equal with Chrome, and together that is more than 95% of my usage.
    I infrequently, but sometimes, open Edge primarily. However, I allow Edge to remain as the OS default browser, so when I click on a link in an email or some other extra-browser origin, it opens in Edge. Thus, I use Edge with some regularity, but only for brief take-a-looks, and if I intend to play around at that website or save pages, I copy the url and open it in Chrome of Firefox.
    I also use Cliqz, built on Firefox, for more sensitive browsing.
    And. once in a blue moon, I use IE last version when pages will not load correctly elsewhere.

    I have no special allegiance or favoritism to any single browser. just using whatever is convenient at the moment.
    Several interesting observations (to me at least) come from this experience.

    1 - When MS fought and won the browser wars and vanquished Netscape, they had a product that worked and people wanted. I know all of the history and arguments and reasons against Internet Explorer (non-standardized features, poor security, unfair business practices), but for users, it was robustly featured, useful, and dependable. I am not defending MS or IE, but it makes me wonder how MS could sink so low from where they once were, the Gods of internet software, and now they can hardly make a Dick-and-Jane level product lacking in all of the features that made IE compelling in the earlier days.

    2 - Edge is not so entirely awful as many people like to complain about. On the other hand it is terrible in many ways. For instance, you cannot save a webpage from Edge. By using it to open email links and other trivial things, I get to keep an eye on whether it is improving, but not much progress. BUT, now and then there are pages that will not open or render properly on the other browsers but do so perfectly on Edge. One post here wonders if MS is using hidden or non-standard API's, so some pages written for Edge work but trash or crash elsewhere. While such practices, if true, would be disgraceful, it points out that in order to smoothly sail the Internet, having all browsers handy is what you need.

    3 - Edge can excel. On example that affected me this month concerns reading large PDF's. I am working on a manuscript that has about 800 pages and numerous graphics. In pdf format, which is a large file, Adobe Acrobat reader crashes, and others render slowly or choppy. Edge handles monster pdf's with grace and speed. Even if Edge does nothing else well, that alone makes it a worthy tool.

    4 - By the way, I also this week downloaded some huge pdf's from other sites (scans of historical works), each pdf on the order of 1 GB. Firefox uniformly trashed every one of those pdf's when downloading and saving them, corrupted files not reparable with any pdf repair utility. However, Chrome handled every one flawlessly. Likewise Google maps - Chrome does maps well, Firefox chokes. So, even when it comes to Firefox versus Chrome, neither is perfect. This brings us back to the important idea above - having all browsers handy is what you need.

    One post here recounts how MS won the browser wars in part by creating non-standard features that made a lot of web pages unreadable on standards-compliant browsers, and that now Google is doing the same. It would be nice if every company released products that were strictly standards compliant, but if they did so, there would be no distinction between the products, and thus no competition or advancement. As irritating and aggravating as some of the companies and their products and practices are at times, you have to decide if you want to campaign against the crappy this or that product, object on principles, or just accept that all do a good job with some things, and all are dogs in some ways.

    Have all of the browsers installed, and have all accessible from a shortcut, and when one does not render or save a page properly, try the next and then the next if needs be. No single browser can handle the whole internet, regardless what their marketing people say or what each of us thinks about the way things ought to be. Having all three just a click away makes your computing life workable.

  36. fool me once by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    I haven't brought up Edge at all ever. I won't willingly use a Microsoft browser again, except briefly to download an alternative browser. (and Windows 10 still for some odd reason has Internet Explorer, which I keep hearing is obsolete.) Microsoft has proven to my satisfaction in past years that they have no intention of creating a browser that adheres to industry standards, except by the market-speak that "we're Microsoft, whatever we decide to do is an industry standard".

    Fastest browser? I don't care. Firefox is fast enough and it's far more likely to do what I expect. Best battery life? Still don't care. In my workflow, only a small fraction of my time is spent in a browser, and that's usually only to check my work.

    There is always that small urge to try something new, but it's Microsoft -- again, they can't be depended upon to follow standards -- so any time I spend with a Microsoft browser is likely to be a waste.

    It's just not worth it. Sorry Microsoft, you've already shat your bed. Putting on a new comforter doesn't do anything about the smell.

    And I'll tell you what. Windows 10 continually begging me to try Edge instead because it's faster, or please please please try Cortana or try some other feature I have no interest in, only makes me long for the day when the last few Windows-only apps in my workflow finally have viable Linux alternatives, so I can at long last leave Windows and all its whining behind.

    An operating system manages resources and loads applications. I don't want it to be my friend or to help me shop or suggest places I could go on the internet. To the degree it does those things, I feel compelled to find a different operating system.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.