Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

IE8 Beats Other Browsers In Laptop Battery Life

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the not-without-windows-it-doesn't dept.

Chrome 263

WARM3CH writes "AnandTech tested a laptop with an AMD CPU, a laptop with an Intel CPU, and a netbook to compare battery life while running Internet Explorer 8, Opera 10, Firefox 3.5, Safari 4, and Chrome. They tested on simple web pages and flash-infested ones. IE8 had the best battery life on both laptops (followed by FF + AdBlock), and Safari had the worst battery life. On the netbook, Chrome was slightly ahead of IE8. The report concludes: 'Overall, Internet Explorer and Firefox + AdBlock consistently place near the top, with Chrome following closely behind. Opera 10 Beta 3 didn't do as well as Opera 9.6.4, and in a couple quick tests, it doesn't appear that the final release of Opera 10 changes the situation at all. Opera in general — version 9 or 10 — looks like it doesn't do as well as the other major browsers. Safari is at the back, by a large margin, on all three test notebooks. We suspect that Safari 4 does better under OS X, however, so the poor Windows result probably won't matter to most Safari users.'"

cancel ×

263 comments

Marketing Tag: Get infected faster... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29407863)

with IE8

No no no! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29407889)

Infections last longer with IE8. Read the summary if not the article. Sheesh!

So in theory (4, Insightful)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#29407871)

IE8 + adblock would give even better results!

Seriously though, how can you browse the web *without* adblock? I've shoulder surfed people doing it, and I'd rather eat my own hand.

Re:So in theory (3, Insightful)

GF678 (1453005) | more than 4 years ago | (#29407935)

Seriously though, how can you browse the web *without* adblock? I've shoulder surfed people doing it, and I'd rather eat my own hand.

You can't have a problem when you don't know any better.

Re:So in theory (4, Insightful)

Swizec (978239) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408085)

Seriously though, how can you browse the web *without* adblock? I've shoulder surfed people doing it, and I'd rather eat my own hand.

You can't have a problem when you don't know any better.

It's also not a problem if you simply don't browse anywhere there's too many ads. See ads you don't like? Just close the fucking website, it's a worthless piece of shit anyway if it puts ads first and content later.

Re:So in theory (1)

Deltaspectre (796409) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408437)

I would have worded it a little bit differently, but this is my attitude as well.

Re:So in theory (0, Troll)

mR.bRiGhTsId3 (1196765) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408339)

You don't have a problem when you have powers of focus greater than a mental midget and an easy going attitude. Sure, its harsh, but its really not that hard to tune out the ads. The only ones that bug me are the pop-overs with floating boxes that you generally can't do anything about. They displease me, so I don't go to those sites. Amusingly, the only times I ever see ads such as those are when following links from slashdot.

Re:So in theory (3, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408019)

I really wouldn't switch to IE 8 for this, or many other reasons that it might supposedly be better. It's 7 minutes longer than FF with adblock, or 4% longer. Not nearly enough difference to justify using a program that doesn't work the way that I like, not to mention one that presents such a major target for malware.

Re:So in theory (2, Interesting)

Rewind (138843) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408111)

I don't really think it is all that bad. I use Firefox on my Windows desktop, Firefox on my Slackware desktop, and Safari on my MacBook Pro, neither have any additional plugins or anything like adblock. Just the default pop up blockers. Depends on where you browse I guess.

Re:So in theory (3, Interesting)

sgant (178166) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408139)

I have to agree. I'm on a Macbook Pro now and using Snow Leopard with it's 64-bit Safari. Everyone is saying how fast and quick Safari is...along with Chrome, but the simple fact is both of these browsers don't have Adblock so they're actually SLOWER than Firefox with Adblock because they all have to load in those ads.

Maybe Safari and Chrome are fast on a test....but in real world situations without adblock, they're slow.

Re:So in theory (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29408525)

Really? Loading less content is faster than loading more content???

Tell me, how did you figure that out???

Re:So in theory (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408631)

There is an ad blocking extensions for Chrome but it runs in the background and is not configurable, and the occasional false positives break some sites. My preferred method of ad blocking until a proper solution comes out is a HOSTS list.

Re:So in theory (1)

morari (1080535) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408671)

I always assumed that Safari was pretty well ignored even on the Mac. I mean, Firefox [i]is[/i] available on just about any platform that you'd want.

You can use adblock with IE (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29408155)

Install privoxy, configure it as proxy, configure it to block ads. Problem solved. And it's not really all that difficult, either. Ans is useful for other things (using TOR, etc.) too.

Re:So in theory (1)

Khuffie (818093) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408235)

I generally just avoid websites that have annoying ads. If they really value their ads over their content, I don't really care about their content. I generally like how Opera does it. Ads are allowed by default, and if you see an annoying you can just right click and block it!

Re:So in theory (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408313)

noscript/flashblock to prevent flash ads, and i don't really care about image/text ads as ill just ignore them.

Re:So in theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29408373)

I, for one, am not easily distracted by shiny things and surfing without adblock is not a problem

Re:So in theory (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408409)

Seriously though, how can you browse the web *without* adblock?

Well.... I know you had IE in mind, but I browse the web quite happily with Firefox running Flashblock and image.animation_mode set to once (via about:config).

Re:So in theory (2, Interesting)

ivucica (1001089) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408473)

I have this fascinating ability that adblock users apparently lack: it's called "Ignore Irrelevance". You see, while those ads may be there ... I don't really see them. They are there if I concentrate hard enough to notice them ... but otherwise, they're not really there.

Probably explains how I can surf without adblock.

And, oh yeah, I occasionally like to support the site I'm visiting when I notice something actually interesting.

Re:So in theory (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408599)

I also have the ability to ignore irrelevant bullshit. Despite that ability, I use AdBlock Plus. It makes a tremendous difference in the SPEED that a page loads at.

Even with my lame DSL, it can take several seconds for a page to load without ADP. Several l - o - o - o - n - n -n - g seconds. Turning on ADP means the very same page reloads about as fast as I can hit ctrl-F5. Needless to say, I install ADP on everything I own, and so do the kids. I didn't have to TEACH them - they saw the results for themselves.

Re:So in theory (1)

frecky (1095067) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408475)

Maybe you are using Host file [mvps.org] ?

I for one... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29407877)

I for one welcome our new battery life saving overl-... wait... what?

The real conclusion (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29407885)

Flash is a pig, no matter what browser you use.

Re:The real conclusion (2, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#29407931)

Not to mention that Flash under anything else than IE + Windows runs like a slug.

Re:The real conclusion (5, Interesting)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408499)

And that is why IE8 has the best battery life - the IE version of the Flash player is hardware accelerated.

Re:The real conclusion (5, Insightful)

AndreR (814444) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408059)

But the thing is, IE processing pages with ads and flash was *more* efficient and less demanding on the CPU than Firefox processing pages with no ads at all.

That comes to me as quite a shock, given that Flash is, in fact, a pig.

Re:The real conclusion (4, Insightful)

Arterion (941661) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408145)

Kindof. It may just mean that the flash plugin for IE is less battery intensive than the flash plugin for FF.

We'd have to no-flash, flash-only, and a mix to figure it out. The tests here didn't.

This can't turn into a comparison of Microsoft vs Mozilla... it's probably more like a comparison of Adobe programmers on different teams.

Re:The real conclusion (1)

AndreR (814444) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408207)

I agree, a performance comparison on flash plugins would help shed some light on these results.

Flash performance varies considerably from OS to OS, but I haven't heard much of a variance from browser to browser within the same OS, so I did assume that they would be more or less on par.

Yeah right (5, Funny)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#29407891)

It's all about wget on single user mode.

Re:Yeah right (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29407921)

RMS, is that you?

Bad Headline (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29407899)

Nothing beats Links or Lynx when it comes it this.

Did they have total control? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29407903)

Did they have total control over exactly what ads appeared on the sites they visited (obviously excluding any of the tests running adblockers)? If not, then that introduces a decent variable right there. I give very little credence to tests like this one due to pretty obvious flaws in their methodology.

2% difference... big deal. (5, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#29407909)

The difference is within background noise - as are all these stupid tests.

Re:2% difference... big deal. (0, Flamebait)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 4 years ago | (#29407927)

Yeah, fuck this test if IE won!

Re:2% difference... big deal. (4, Insightful)

adolf (21054) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408239)

No, really. It's a meaningless number.

There's no control in this experiment (and, no, I don't mean "control group.") The fact that they were flogging away at public, and probably dynamic (read: inconsistent) websites totally invalidates the entire comparison.

If Anand wanted to take it seriously, they should have eliminated more variables. If they'd set up a dedicated, light-weight web server running in a controlled minimalist environment (bare Slackware+Apache, perhaps?) somewhere on a dedicated LAN, that would have been be a good start. They might even have used a RAM disk to ensure consistent access times to the data being served.

Hell: They should have even measured the battery voltage both before and after the tests, to eliminate (or at least quantify) any incongruity in the charging circuit's behavior. And they should've made sure to rotate their testing, so as to average it out as the battery ages (which it quite measurably will in these relatively-abusive full-charge - full-discharge tests).

But they didn't do these things. And it might seem like I'm splitting hairs here, but the results are close enough that hairs must be split.

Meanwhile, I think battery life while browsing is an interesting and very practical metric which is often overlooked these days. I applaud them for attempting and documenting such a feat, which I'm sure was relatively time-consuming, and I admonish them for doing a piss-poor job of it.

(And, no: I don't care which browser "wins." I have most of the tested browsers installed on my own laptop, and for me, it would be instructive to know which one will conserve battery life best in times when I know I'll be without power for a long period of time.)

Re:2% difference... big deal. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29408577)

Actually, what you said sounds right but is complete BS (except that they did a poor job gathering the data). There's no need to do any of that. What they needed to do was make sure to randomize all their variables (which order of sites they visit, which order of browsers they test etc). Then run it multiple times. This is far easier in this scenario than controlling a lot of variables (& far more representative of real-world since in your scenario you're significantly changing the environment by how long the network card is active, how quickly the data is fetched on typical websites etc).

Then, having done this, run the tests multiple times. Like 5-10 would be a good start. This was their main mistake. They noted variation at 3% & then ran their tests twice and claimed that somehow they were within 1% indicating a significant lack of understanding of statistics. What the multiple tests give them is an average with a confidence interval - typically, one would use a 95% confidence interval (two standard deviations) and then graph the results displaying the errors bars which allows us to see whether or not there's a lot of variability in the results and whether or not the bars overlap significantly. Single numbers are useless metrics.

I am not a statistician, so perhaps someone who is can point out the mistakes in my methodology and how to improve it.

Re:2% difference... big deal. (3, Insightful)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408249)

No, seriously, who cares?

If you get 2 hours of battery time, this gains you about 2 minutes and half.

For 5 hours of battery time you get 6 minutes extra.

If you really want to extend battery time, turning down the screen brightness by a notch will probably have more effect.

Re:2% difference... big deal. (1)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408283)

Lolz. Ur FunnIE!

Seriously though... GP here has a point. There's going to be some variance here. And this comparison of "browsers" is misleading, and possibly stupid. I find it very hard to believe that the browser itself is responsible for much... if anything. Looking at the article, the biggest determining factor in battery life is indeed... Flash itself.

Considering there is a big difference in the flash plugin between browsers on the same platform... How about running this test with [*gasp*] no flash plugin at all? I want to see what happens then.

Re:2% difference... big deal. (1)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408333)

No, fuck this test if the results are not statistically significant.

The testing methods aren't well explained either and the method used could bias the results. If the same laptop is used for every browser test, the browsers which are tested last will be at a disadvantage due to battery usage. Probably minor, but something that must be accounted for. Their method of simply reloading three tabs doesn't necessarily test normal internet usage either. It just indicates which browser eats the least amount of energy when it refreshes the same three tabs over and over. They only take one sample for each browser for each test machine. If they were to do multiple tests for each browser, and it turns out that the results varied by several minutes, this could completely change the outcome.

The OP is right. This test is crap.

Re:2% difference... big deal. (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408491)

Funny that this was modded flamebait. Even though there's a really good chance that if FF had come out on top, GP post wouldn't have been made....

Re:2% difference... big deal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29408611)

The submitter managed to forget to mention the test on the netbook that IE8 didn't win. Thus committing the very sin you accuse the OP of making in an alternative dimension without any proof what so ever.

Re:2% difference... big deal. (1)

molarmass192 (608071) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408243)

I'd say that the difference is about how many page loads completed and how fast. IE8 is the slowest of all the browsers compared, so if less page loads completed, then it would probably use less power. I can make my battery last far longer if I only load 6 pages a minute as opposed to 10. The fact that the results essentially lists the browsers from slowest to fastest belies that hidden truth.

Re:2% difference... big deal. (2, Insightful)

Eirenarch (1099517) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408477)

Except that IE is not the slowest browser of all. In fact IE is probably the fastest browser in completing a page load and this is why MS picked this comparison when they claimed that IE is the fastest browser. As Mark Twain said "Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please." IE is very slow when running JavaScript but this is something completely different.

Re:2% difference... big deal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29408317)

I would like to see this test done with data cached on a proxy dedicated to this test, so as to eliminate variance in network speed.

Re:2% difference... big deal. (2, Insightful)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408375)

I skimmed the article and couldn't find anything on their method. There is a lot of relevent data that i simply couldn't see
1) Which has the lowest wakeups/bat usage once the page is rendered (some of us still read content instead of loading pages all day)?
2) Which has the lowest wakeups/bat usage on an active page, facebook,gmail,etc?
3) Which uses the least CPU/bat to render pages?
4) is there any difference in CPU/bat usage of flash?

Then there is so much to be asked about the method:
a)Was the environment controlled?
b)as i understand it, using a mouse uses quite a bit of battery, was all the navigation done using keyboard shortcuts?
c)was it scripted? (if so where all scripts equal?)
d)Was this done continuously rendering pages?
e)Does it really matter which lasts the longest if it takes longer to render the pages?/How long did each browser spend rendering pages? (e.g if chrome spend 10% less time rendering pages then you could end up with 13 more mins to actually viewing pages)

Safari is the best because it is from capple (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29407919)

the results must be changed to reflect this!

Battery life test (3, Insightful)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 4 years ago | (#29407925)

So IE8 is more battery friendly? Is that before or after having to install a virus scanner to keep an eye on what IE is doing?

Re:Battery life test (1)

Firkragg14 (992271) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408013)

I don't care whether my browser is power efficient or not i'm still not using it online without virus protection on a windows machine.

Re:Battery life test (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408559)

I don't care whether my browser is power efficient or not i'm still not using it online without virus protection on a windows machine.

It's amazing the things people will put up with, when they're well-trained enough. They'll even adapt to the point where they don't notice the performance hit on nearly everything they do. I've been running antivirus free since I started computing - they use too many resources, and can even do more harm than good -- interfering with normal file operations at bad times, and similar.

I use Windows as my primary desktop; and I run a passive scan monthly or so under linux boot to make sure I didn't do something stupid. So far, the only viruses I've gotten were those I deliberately installed on a VM to take a closer look at.

Viruses are completely , 100% avoidable, without the burden of AV -- just by using a bit of caution and what should be common sense for anybody who savvies computers. .

Re:Battery life test (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29408677)

Indeed.

The sure-fire, rules of avoiding viruses 100% of the time at all cost are simple and easy to understand.

  1. Don't turn on the computer.

done.

Re:Battery life test (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29408629)

i'm still not using ... a windows machine.

Fixed.

Re:Battery life test (1)

GF678 (1453005) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408493)

IE8 in Vista/Windows 7 runs in a sandbox. Firefox doesn't. I'm not going to immediately say that IE8 is now more secure than FF, but I do believe that the security issues of IE6 aren't relevant anymore with the latest versions of IE.

The joke about IE being insecure is going to become as obsolete as the BSOD jokes, although I expect it to still be trotted out at Slashdot for years to come.

Uhh.. whiskey tango foxtrot? (2, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#29407951)

Slow news day, guys? I mean, seriously -- who is going to choose a browser based on how long it'll keep working in a laptop battery life test? And what's the control group for this test, anyway? In the real world, some guy decides he wants some ramen and suddenly my wifi connectivity goes to crap. What if it's really bright in the room and I have to turn the brightness up on the LCD? Well and truly, there's about a hundred things more important than which browser I'm using that affect battery life.

Now, I'm off to make some ramen and make my neighbor scream bloody murder as his high resolution download of some porn star stalls halfway through and he's stuck staring at an incomplete image for the next three minutes exactly. muwaaaaah....

I think... (3, Insightful)

speedtux (1307149) | more than 4 years ago | (#29407953)

Given how far behind technically IE is otherwise, I think this is called "grasping at straws".

Re:I think... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29408021)

Yeah, it's nice that M$ finally got around to incorporating that security constrained sandbox with process isolation to ensure that any vulnerability exploited was mitigated. I mean, all of the other browsers have had that for years! That and full 100% CSS 2.1 compliance. Damnit, if only M$ weren't so slow! If only they'd stop wasting their time tossing in non-standard crap like blink, HTML 5 or CSS 3!

Re:I think... (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408315)

Yeah, it's nice that M$ finally got around to incorporating that security constrained sandbox with process isolation to ensure that any vulnerability exploited was mitigated. I mean, all of the other browsers have had that for years!

[citation needed]

I'm aware that Google Chrome implements this, but last time I checked Firefox, Safari, and Opera do not.

And I say this as a Firefox user!

Re:I think... (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408341)

and I just realized that the GP's post whooshed over my head. Whoops.

How about FF + flashblock? (1)

olsmeister (1488789) | more than 4 years ago | (#29407983)

Seems like blocking all unnecessary flash would yield an improvement, rather than just the advertising related crap.

It seems the article also tested a netbook (4, Informative)

joeflies (529536) | more than 4 years ago | (#29407995)

The summary would lead you to believe that they only tested two laptops. However, they also tested a netbook and in this case, "chome 2" (their spelling, not mine), won. Why didn't the submitter didn't mention this test where IE8 didn't win?

Re:It seems the article also tested a netbook (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29408031)

The summary does mention it. Read it again.

Re:It seems the article also tested a netbook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29408095)

You mean this?
"On the netbook Chrome was slightly ahead of IE8"

Re:It seems the article also tested a netbook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29408241)

Yes, he didn't mean not this.

hey lynx users! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29408001)

represent!

Re:hey lynx users! (1)

dmartine40 (1571035) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408109)

I will - just gotta plug this thing in fir-

But what is the justification? (2, Interesting)

physicsphairy (720718) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408005)

*Why* IE 8 gets better battery life than Safari? Is it simply because IE 8 has better, more efficient code? Is it because Safari is spending more processor resources getting me my pages quickly? (in which case perhaps Safari still gives the highest battery measured by numbers of pages visited) Is it because of OS integration (all the tests were run on Windows Vista or XP) in which case isn't IE (a) cheating (b) introducing other tradeoffs (security, etc.)? A virus might ultimately cost me more battery life, so even if my battery life is the solitary end in which I place concern, these other factors are still relevant. It is an interesting report, but given that the results are very close, I think it's hard to draw any substantial conclusions from it (except that viewing ads costs battery life).

Re:But what is the justification? (1)

slyn (1111419) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408173)

It's been my experience using Safari on OS X that Safari performs terribly if you are doing any sort of hard drive I/O, meaning if it is all that you are using, it's going to keep your HDD awake doing god knows what the whole time you're using it. Doing something simple like opening a new tab when logging into WoW takes forever and it's basically the reason why Chrome for mac can't come out soon enough. I'd love to see a similar comparison featuring FF, Chrome, Safari, and Opera on OS X to see if the results are similar.

Re:But what is the justification? (1)

A Friendly Troll (1017492) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408455)

*Why* IE 8 gets better battery life than Safari?

Here's what they did:

"For testing, we load the three sites into tabs on our test web browser, wait 60 seconds, and then reload all three tabs."

And they've only done the test once, without making sure that *all* browsers get the *same* HTML and JS with the *same* CPU-hungry Flash ads.

Make your own conclusion.

Safari on OS X: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29408035)

Yes, you suspect right. On my 2.5 year old MacBook's (13", 2ghz c2d, gma950) battery with over -600- recharge cycles, I still get about 3.5 hours of "wireless productivity" browsing the web - the battery gave me close to 4.5 hours when brand new, and this battery model is only ~65% as capacitive as the new 13" MacBook Pro's integrated thingy.

In other news (1)

Evan Meakyl (762695) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408037)

Chrome beats other browsers by 4% in sound card usage.
Seriously, I don't think the "raw" laptop battery life means something else that what it means...

What would be somehow an interesting test is to measure the number of cycles/instructions a browser needs to:
* load a page.
* render a page.
* animate a page during 1 minutes.
Of course, with parallelism, it surely isn't as simple as that, but at least it would give an hint about the efficiency of your browser. Maybe someone can come with a more interesting test?

How many Microsoft stories is that today? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29408039)

Is there any real question as to who pays the bills on slashdot any more? What is this, the 10th story covering Microsoft today alone?

No Suprise (1)

Ryukotsusei (1164453) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408043)

Is this really a surprise given than IE is built into the Windows system anyway? Explorer is running in the background no matter what, so when you start up Firefox or any other browser its going to run on top of explorer.

I don't know about battery life, but... (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408065)

On my Toshiba laptop with dual-core 2gz AMD processor and 3GB of RAM running Vista Ultimate, I haven't noticed any battery life differences per se, but I definitely have fewer memory issues with IE8 than I do with Firefox, and its generally much nicer to use than IE 7 was. I use Firefox on my EeePC which runs Windows XP, and I'm certainly not anti-firefox, but I notice it does tend to bog down.

I tried Opera a few months ago, but found that it broke formatting on a lot of sites that I frequent and had a lot of weird features that kept getting in my way. I don't care if saying that I think IE8 is pretty cool isn't the 'popular' opinion, and I sure as hell don't know about battery life issues, but I think its a pretty decent browser either way.

This is a better test. (1)

B5_geek (638928) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408069)

A far better test metric would be CPU/mem/swap usage. If those 3 didn't have a direct relationship to battery life nothing will.

I would like to see the test run using lynx also.

Re:This is a better test. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29408215)

Actually, I suspect it may be due to Firefox's OCD about writing things to its database, and thus keeping the disk from spinning down.

Remember, even though nothing about web browsing should be disk-bound, Firefox has been shown to make it so under not especially exotic conditions.

Re:This is a better test. (2, Funny)

hey! (33014) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408517)

Firefox has been shown to make it so under not especially exotic conditions.

That's why it's number 1.

If replicable this is huge news (1)

KingCatfish (1634667) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408073)

Even with an external battery I've been in situations where a few extra minutes of battery would be helpful. Knowing I can save dozens of minutes by using FF+adblock (or even IE8?) compared to opera or safari is beneficial. The adblocking would be obvious (and I know you can cumbersomely add that into opera) but it doesn't explain IE8.

Too bad (1)

esocid (946821) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408099)

battery life is not the deciding factor in which browser I use. I've also heard that using Windows has better battery life than using any Linux distro. That still won't decide it for me.

Re:Too bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29408143)

I heard if you leave the laptop turned off the battery lasts for months. And it's still an improvement over using Windows!

/. homepage (1)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408123)

Considering that it takes my poor Eee PC up to a minute to render the /. homepage at 100% cpu usage with FF3, I'm not surprised.

Get a pc. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29408125)

Simple. :)

This makes sense - it's better integrated. (2, Insightful)

Sarusa (104047) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408133)

Internet Explorer is 'just' a shell around Explorer - all the components it needs are pretty much there and often locked into memory (which means not swapped out, and disk access is the mindkiller I mean batter killer). I imagine this is sufficient to cover the difference.

Still not giving up my Flashblock+Adblock+Noscript though. Especially on the laptop.

Need real world porn site scenario. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29408141)

All this theoretical stuff is nice and everything, but how about some testing under real world conditions? All this pie-in-the-sky stuff means nothing to me.

requires windows (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29408147)

i wouldn't choose windows in the first place, if i'd be concerned about battery life.

But if you ran ie8... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29408193)

...you'd also be running Windows as your OS. How does running Windows affect battery life?

so what. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29408257)

I'd like to see it in a contest over what really matters - properly rendering valid HTML and executing javascript without throwing up pointless alerts. Then we'll give a crap about battery life.

New IE8 Commercial (5, Funny)

goldmaneye (1374027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408269)

4:00 AM: Intrepid counter-terrorism agent Jack Bauer, gun drawn, kicks open the door to a small flat in a run-down apartment building. The nefarious Evil-Doer turns to face the door, clearly shocked.

Evil-Doer (played by Jerry Seinfeld): Agent Jack Bauer! How can this be? That laptop had three, maybe four minutes of battery life left on it, at most! How could you possibly have downloaded those files in time?!
Jack Bauer: Simple.

Bauer turns to face the camera, which quickly zooms in on his face.

Jack Bauer: I used Internet Explorer 8.

A giant explosion rocks the screen, and a huge Internet Explorer logo appears.

Announcer: Internet Explorer 8. Because on the Internet, seconds matter.

IE is designed around Windows, whilst Safari isnt (1)

GrandTeddyBearOfDoom (1483117) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408311)

Obviously this can't be easily verified, but safari is designed around OSX, and probably includes various emulation libraries to replace what is missing in Windows. OSX not only provides the features that Windows Safari needs to emulate, but probably implements them better (basic economics here: Apple would spend far more time and effort on an efficient implemention in OSX than in an efficient emulation of those facilities in Windows.) Thus Windows IE vs Windows Safari isn't a particularly informative comparison (about as useful as OSX IE8, which doesn't exist, vs OSX Safari 4.

good news everyone, (1)

martas (1439879) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408327)

hell just froze over. sin to your heart's content (as long as you don't mind the cold).

Who cares? (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408353)

In my experience all of the browsers listed render HTML and especially JS far faster than IE8. Who needs battery life when you are able to get things done significantly faster? This is becoming more and more true with new JS engines coming out almost monthly and providing significant performance improvements over older version and IE8.

kWh / page load? (1)

etu (300362) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408357)

I hope that the test was done so that it tells how many times you can fetch some page with your battery.

Otherwise, it is natural that IE8 wins. It is no wonder that it does not use battery because it is slower than others.

Of course it does... (4, Funny)

cffrost (885375) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408427)

Any application that you never run saves battery life.

Saving power page after page (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29408433)

[IE8 HTML Rendering Console]
Fetching index.html ... OK
Parsing HTML ...
        ERROR: Unknown tag > Skipping to next tag.
        ERROR: Unknown tag > Skipping to next tag.
        ERROR: Unknown tag > Skipping to next tag.
Parsing ... OK
Visualising Page ... : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Acid3ie8rc1.png [wikimedia.org]

Conclusion:

Yes it took less processing power to skip half of the tags and not render half of the page. And yes IE8 just saved you 0.0001% of your battery while opening this page. If the page is visualised incorrectly you can try an alternative browser. Be advised that other browsers MIGHT NOT SAVE AS MUCH BATTERY AS IE8 DOES!

Irrelevant Test (1)

MBoffin (259181) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408449)

Who the hell cares? It's like saying, "hitting yourself in the head with a brick will get you to sleep faster than counting sheep." Yes, they both get you to sleep, but take a guess which one I'd rather do.

Duh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29408497)

Well of course IE8 gives the longest battery life, it only shows "this website could not be displayed"

Notepad has better battery life than IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29408507)

What is the point beside being microsoft propaganda?
Here a better way to extend battery life!
Don't turn the laptop on, then the battery last even longer and I've never experienced a Windows crash with the power turned off!
What is it compared to running Windows 3.11 and netscape on modern equipment?
Companies are either getting desperate for stories or Micr$oft is started again on the Windows propaganda.
Windows 7 - best OS in the world - says Microsoft , IE 8 the best browser ever - says microsoft, Vista - safest OS in the world - says microsoft, dito dito dito!

Ya know, it's a shame... (1)

WheelDweller (108946) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408543)

That the best browser in this situation comes on the world's most dangerous platform. So many things- PhotoShop, Games, all kinds of apps are only available in the OS that's been show to be taken over by nefarious means more than any other.

There ain't no feature of Windows that makes it ok to lose $30,000 of my life's savings, ya know...

Re:Ya know, it's a shame... (1)

atomic-penguin (100835) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408643)

That the best browser in this situation comes on the world's most dangerous platform.

That's the only platform they tested in this situation, it's not a surprise really.

So many things- PhotoShop, Games, all kinds of apps are only available in the OS that's been show to be taken over by nefarious means more than any other./blockquote>

Photoshop was born on the Mac, there is still a Mac version, equivalent in every way to the Windows version. Many graphic designers still prefer Photoshop and Illustrator on the Mac, for reasons unknown. Personally, I preferred my 3-button USB trackball when I had graphic design class, rather than use a silly 1-button mouse.

So... (1)

zero0ne (1309517) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408623)

How much did they get from MS for this "test"

But it needs windows (1)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 4 years ago | (#29408663)

If you are that concerned about battery life that 2% from changing browser makes a difference then you should really consider using a more lightweight operating system. That would also allow you to run with decent performance on hardware better optimized for low power consumption.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...