Beta
×

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!

Browser Power Consumption Compared

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the read-it-for-the-pictures dept.

Power 274

theweatherelectric writes "Over on the IE Blog they've posted a power consumption comparison of the five major browsers. They write: 'Power consumption is an important consideration in building a modern browser and one objective of Internet Explorer 9 is to responsibly lead the industry in power requirements. The more efficiently a browser uses power the longer the battery will last in a mobile device, the lower the electricity costs, and the smaller the environment impact. While power might seem like a minor concern, with nearly two billion people now using the Internet the worldwide implications of browser power consumption are significant.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

awesome (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35660796)

wow

Re:awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35661314)

Well yes, but Microsoft has the best tools for developers bar none. It's head and shoulders above the rest, especially for Win Phone 7.

Re:awesome (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661498)

I posted this generic reply to you the Microsoft shill posting in a Microsoft shill discussion because I wanted everyone to see my post.

Now mod me up, motherfuckers.

Re:awesome (2)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661586)

time to trade in your HBGary Astroturf license. this one's failed.

Efficiency Features (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 3 years ago | (#35660806)

At least at this point in my computing; I'm all for low power consumption computers that are small and quiet.

That said, as far as browsers, I run Chrome.

Re:Efficiency Features (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 3 years ago | (#35660840)

Efficiency (is greater than) Features.

Since when could slashdot not show a greater than symbol?

Re:Efficiency Features (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35660908)

It can >

Re:Efficiency Features (3, Informative)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35660914)

Use the HTML entity &gt; to get >, &lt; for <, and so on. Slashdot accepts most common HTML entities [w3schools.com] , but alas—not unicode.

Re:Efficiency Features (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35660922)

Either make a > sign with &gt;, or set your Comment Post Mode to "Extrans".

Re:Special characters (3, Informative)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 3 years ago | (#35660924)

Since when could slashdot not show a greater than symbol?

Um... when did Slashdot support greater-than characters in comments? Try the HTML entity, &gt; (>). You may also be interested in less-than (&lt;) and ampersand (&amp;). Others can be found here [w3schools.com] .

Re:Efficiency Features (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35660846)

Correct function >>> optimization

Remember:

1. Make it work
2. Make it work right
3. Make it work fast

Re:Efficiency Features (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35661134)

1 and 2 are redundant. If it's not working right, it's not working!

Re:Efficiency Features (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35661180)

Not so. I've often driven a car that runs rough, so I'd work on it and make it run smooth. Hence the phrase, "tune up."

Re:Efficiency Features (1)

Garble Snarky (715674) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661232)

1. make it compile
2. make it work
3. make it fast

Can the source be trusted? (2, Interesting)

grapes911 (646574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35660836)

It is on msdn.com. Can we consider this a partial and fair article? I'm asking, not accusing.

Can the std. "Pro-*NIX /. pravda propoganda" be? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35660936)

See subject. You can't trust these "open sores noobs" about any *NIX really, as this site's so full of NIX trolls it's not funny. So, thus, the fact here is, that Your own question can be turned against itself. Especially when asking the NIX fools around here.

Re:Can the source be trusted? (1)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661036)

More specifically, the IE blog. While it's not exactly the mouthpiece of Microsoft PR, every development team is going to be biased toward their own product and show benchmarks that put their work in a positive light.

That said, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if IE9 is slightly more efficient than other browsers on Windows, since the IE devs have closer access to the OS than other teams, Safari brings a truckload of extra libraries to clone OS X, and Opera... is Opera. [youtube.com]

Oh, and what idiot modded the parent "redundant"?

Tail wagging the dog? (3, Funny)

synthesizerpatel (1210598) | more than 3 years ago | (#35660862)

Since they're not the fastest, they're claiming their the most power-friendly.

"We did it on purpose.. see?"

Re:Tail wagging the dog? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35660892)

I commend Microsoft's efforts to lower browser power consumption. It's not just about improving battery life, but being kind to the environment. Great job!

Re:Tail wagging the dog? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35660964)

Did they add in the extra power consumption caused by the requirement to run Windows? I personally get at least an hour less on my dual-boot machine when I boot the Windows partition.

Re:Tail wagging the dog? (4, Informative)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#35660984)

Actually, if you read TFA, on most (75%) of the their own tests, they're beaten by Firefox. One of the bits is particularly embarrassing - IE uses the most power of any browser when rendering about:blank. It seemed a bit unscientific (only four sites, one of which couldn't be run by Opera), but it's a blog, not the New England Journal of HTML Rendering.

Re:Tail wagging the dog? (1)

Xacid (560407) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661252)

about:blank = all white screen. I'm not entirely schooled in the science of LCDs but with CRTs that meant much more energy required to produce that image. Is that a possible reason for the power draw?

Re:Tail wagging the dog? (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661276)

With LCD's, the backlight is always on regardless of what is on screen.

Re:Tail wagging the dog? (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661438)

With LCD's, the backlight is always on regardless of what is on screen.

My netbook (an Acer Aspire One) has a power feature where it can use low lighting and greater gamma values to use less power but present a picture at the same brightness depending on the pixel colors used on the screen. Appears to be a driver function in the AMD graphics provided.

Re:Tail wagging the dog? (3, Informative)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661342)

  1. They did not measure the power consumption of the screen, only the CPU, memory, GPU, GMCH, disk, NIC and "uncore", whatever that last one is. Only time I've heard the term was in reference to clock multipliers on certain Intel processors.
  2. LCD screens use constant power - you'd use as much power displaying all black as all white.

Re:Tail wagging the dog? (2)

taktoa (1995544) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661452)

Uncore is the cache, internal cpu circuitry (other than the actual core), and possibly the chipset.

Re:Tail wagging the dog? (3, Informative)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661374)

LCDs are slightly more efficient at white [scientificamerican.com] ; in an LCD, the backlight is typically white and the pixels determine which colour is let through, so for black the pixels need to block the light coming through. The difference is only just passing statistical significance at 6%.

Note however that this isn't true of AMOLED [wikipedia.org] screens.

Re:Tail wagging the dog? (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661348)

IE uses the most power of any browser when rendering about:blank.

So in other words, IE's idle performance sucks. That's usually an easy thing to fix.

Re:Tail wagging the dog? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35661384)

I think you may want to go and reread TFA.

about:blank System Idle IE9 Chrome 10 Firefox 4 Opera 11 Safari 5
System 10.529 W 10.668 W 10.658 W 10.664 W 11.290 W 11.040 W
Battery Life 5:19 hrs 5:14 hrs 5:15 hrs 5:15 hrs 4:57 hrs 5:04 hrs

It has the best battery life, if you left it on about:blank, according to their chart. The only exception is Opera, who lowered the timer resolution (preventing the CPU from lowering its power state).

Re:Tail wagging the dog? (1)

Ndkchk (893797) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661662)

Actually, if you read more than the last chart of TFA, you see that Opera uses the most power when rendering about:blank. The last chart is pretty misleading if you're making an across-the-board comparison on anything other than the total runtime.

IE wins 3/4 of the tests, with Firefox typically running a close second. It does not win on about:blank, but is about a tenth of a percent off from Chrome there.

You've done better, big talker? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35661078)

See subject.

Re:You've done better, big talker? (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661130)

See subject run.

tags?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35660866)

An article about IE's power consumption has been tagged with chrome and firefox but not internetexplorer?

If you can't compete... (4, Insightful)

MojoRilla (591502) | more than 3 years ago | (#35660870)

If you can't compete on innovation, and you can't compete by bullying standards bodies, and you can't compete by leveraging your monopoly, and you can't compete on performance, and you can't compete on security....well, at least you can say you use less power.

And yes, when you work for the same company that wrote the freaking operating system, one would hope that IE would use the least amount of power.

Whatever.

IF YOU CAN'T TELL THE TRUTH (like you) (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35661244)

"and you can't compete on security" - by MojoRilla (591502) on Tuesday March 29, @08:12PM (#35660870)

Oh, really? Ok then, take a read:

---

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Windows 7: (03/29/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/27467/?task=advisories [secunia.com]

Unpatched 10% (6 of 59 Secunia advisories)

AND, of those 6 vulnerabilities, yes... 3 are "remote". HOWEVER, they're in subsystems (FAX only) that aren't installed "by default", or, they have EASY work-arounds (mhtml bug via MS FixIt Tool, GUI easy too), OR, are caused/utilized by faulty 3rd party apps (e.g., & of ALL things? Apple stuff triggers one, ITunes another, iirc, etc. but no other apps are KNOWN to - go figure, eh?).

I.E.-> "NO PROBLEMO!"

---

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Office 2010: (03/29/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/30529/?task=advisories [secunia.com]

Unpatched 0% (0 of 4 Secunia advisories)

---

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft SQL Server 2008: (03/29/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/21744/ [secunia.com]

Unpatched 0% (0 of 4 Secunia advisories)

---

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) 7.x: (03/29/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/17543/ [secunia.com]

Unpatched 0% (0 of 6 Secunia advisories)

---

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Visual Studio 2010: (03/29/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/30853/?task=advisories [secunia.com]

Unpatched 17% (1 of 6 Secunia advisories)

(The single 1 here also, like Windows 7 above, has an EASY work-around, & thus? Again, "NO PROBLEMO"!)

---

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Internet Explorer 9.x: (03/29/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/34591/ [secunia.com]

Unpatched 0% (0 of 0 Secunia advisories)

---

That's basically MS' combined offering of the entire "gamut" of what you need to do business online, today (and, as you can see? QUITE safely vs. KNOWN security problems, in said array of tools ENTIRETY (unlike Linux, see below))

I.E.-> They're doing a HELL OF A GOOD JOB on the security front & you? You're just yet another "Pro-*NIX trolling noob" shooting his mouth off... see below on that note, especially!

---

"and you can't compete on performance"

- by MojoRilla (591502) on Tuesday March 29, @08:12PM (#35660870)

Ok again then, time to "shoot you down" yet again:

As far as LAMP vs. the MS webstack? Funny thing is, ANYTHING (even a "mixed stack'/WAMP setup) has run FASTER on Windows Server than on Linux in legit tests before!

Proof? Ok:

As far back as 2006, the "MS Stack" for web based business OUTPERFORMED Linux LAMP setups (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP) by FAR... especially in Average Throughput per second, & Average Hits per second tests & not too badly (not last, like some Linux ones did) in Average Transactions per second too!

SOURCE: EWeek Magazine, July 10 2006 issue, Author Jim Rapoza

http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/software-services-applications-network-software/13447918-1.html [allbusiness.com]

(The best performing was the WAMP type, but LAMP vs. MS stack alone? MS won... 2/3 & in the 1 it didn't dominate in? It was mid pack (4th of 8 total mixes tested))

So, in the end? You're just either a:

1.) Pro-*NIX troll, spouting the usual "/. mix of 1/2 truth propoganda lies, straight outta pravda"

OR

2.) Clearly uninformed on the counts noted above!

(Either way though? You LOSE!)

APK

P.S.=> So, shall we compare a NIX/Open SORES OS in Linux's "latest/greatest"? Lets, & here goes:

---

Vulnerability Report: Linux Kernel 2.6.x (03/29/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/2719/?task=advisories [secunia.com]

Unpatched 7% (19 of 259 Secunia advisories)

---

LMAO - THAT? That's more than 3x as many as Windows 7 has that are unpatched, & I'd wager there aren't workarounds for them (or as many as MS has shown above)...

Plus?

ROTFLMAO - THAT'S ONLY THE LINUX KERNEL MIND YOU, not the entire 'gamut/array' of what actually comes in a Linux distro has (such as the attendant GUI, Windows managers, browsers, etc. that ship in distros too that have bugs, and yes, THEY DO) THAT ADDS EVEN MORE BUGS that COMPOUNDS THAT # EVEN MORE! Additinally, on that list of KNOWN Linux security bugs?? Yes, one IS REMOTE... see the "ROSE" vulnerability there, and yes, it's still unpatched!

So much for "Windows is less secure than Linux", eh?

(It gets even WORSE when you toss on ANDROID (yes, it's a LINUX variant too), because it's being shredded on the security-front lately, unfortunately)

BOTTOM-LINE:

What this all comes down to, is all the "Pro-*NIX propoganda straight outta pravda" practically doesn't stand up very well against concrete, verifiable & visible facts now, does it? Nope... apk

Re:If you can't compete... (0)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661462)

If you can't compete on innovation, and you can't compete by bullying standards bodies, and you can't compete by leveraging your monopoly, and you can't compete on performance, and you can't compete on security....well, at least you can say you use less power.

And yes, when you work for the same company that wrote the freaking operating system, one would hope that IE would use the least amount of power.

Whatever.

It's a little distressing that this is currently +4 Insightful. It seems rather off topic, considering that even sites like Apple-friendly Ars Technica have declared IE9 the best current browser and IE9 is neck and neck with Chrome for the performance crown and those two browsers are tied for most secure, as well.

That said, I use FF because of addons.

CK not only his mod up, but this being modded down (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35661646)

http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2060164&cid=35661244 [slashdot.org]

Take a read CK... be amazed:

Flamebait rating on my post reply to he no less, when every SINGLE word of his QUOTED no less directly (almost) was disproven by myself with DOCUMENTED & MOSTLY CURRENT CONCRETE VERIFIABLE FACTS!

(Only 1 that's NOT "absolutely current" is the webstack test, because I don't have a more current one that's done by PROFESSIONAL sources!)

Well, in any event?

Quoting the King of the Greeks from "The 300":

"THIS IS SLASHDOT!!!"

(Home of the "Pro-NIX troll" & anti microsoft propoganda... but, that is changing & your reply even illustrates this much... thank god!)

APK

P.S.=> Funniest part is, this is "std. practice" in attempted "burying posts" via mod downs that are TOTALLY unjustified around here.... Most especially whenever the "Pro-*NIX Trolls" can't disprove said documented facts & tests etc. like I used the post I did above here initially ... apk

Re:If you can't compete... (2)

kangsterizer (1698322) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661660)

i use FF because of that: http://www.mozilla.org/about/manifesto [mozilla.org]

but it's also one of the best performing browser overall, and has excellent add-ons, so it's all good.

Re:If you can't compete... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35661788)

considering that even sites like Apple-friendly Ars Technica have declared IE9 the best current browser

No, the Microsoft person at Ars said IE9 is the "the most modern browser" of those released, not the best. And, it was a week before FF4 was released, so FF4 wasn't even compared to it.

Ars has yet to compare the latest browsers in performance. They said they'd do an article, but it hasn't appeared yet.

and IE9 is neck and neck with Chrome for the performance crown

Not true, different performance reports found different browsers were fastest - sometimes IE9, sometimes FF4, sometimes Chrome. There is no clear fastest browser or two fastest browsers anymore.

Give me a moment... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35660910)

Yeah. Power consumption. That's why we don't support modern features: efficiency!

That's the ticket!

They're right (4, Insightful)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 3 years ago | (#35660920)

When I'm on my netbook, I want a browser that gives me the most battery life possible. Unfortunately my netbook doesn't have meaningful GPU acceleration, so their comparisons don't do much for me. Is IE9's rendering anywhere near as power-saving with software rendering? They also don't account for the battery saved in FF/Chrome by blocking intrusive graphical ads and their related javascript/flash. They also don't test real-world Javascript-heavy web apps like Gmail, or having multiple tabs open/opening at once.

The graphs also blow the differences out of proportion. The Chrome/FF/IE numbers are all within 15% of each-other most of the time, while the graphs make IE9 sometimes appear with a very wide lead of half the power usage.

Re:They're right (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35661136)

The graphs have their origin at idle power consumption rather than 0. That's actually pretty reasonable, measuring the differences caused by the browsers themselves.

Re:They're right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35661188)

There are features for that such as hibernation/sleep and throttling. Power usage at the application level isn't really relevant, especially for an active user application like these desktop browsers.
They should be measuring power usage for mobile browsers.

The only relevant point they made in the article was that Opera lowered the timer resolution, which prevents the CPU from entering low power states. Opera should probably address this.

But this does bring up an interesting idea. Could there be a niche for a browser that by design consumes less power? Perhaps the current popular browsers could be branched into "Netbook" editions? This seems to be especially relevant for something like Chrome OS.

Wow.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35660938)

talk about reaching for straws o_O

Goals, not real projections (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35660942)

This is simply goals for the WP7 team. Nobody can truly project out that far with information available today, there are simply too many variables, companies, and people involved. Good for them, go big or go home.

Who did the testing? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35660960)

IT'S A TRAP!

Posting on a M$ blog about an M$ product? Don't you believe it.

What the hell? (0)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35660966)

A browser is a piece of software, and to say that it "consumes" power is a very strange way to think about it.

The amount of power being used depends on the hardware. If you want to reduce your power, get a computer that's more efficient, and don't worry about your browser at all.

Re:What the hell? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35661012)

Wrong. If I write crappy software that hits your laptop's disc every 10ms, is the laptop the inefficient part? The hardware guys need to invent better speculative laptop disc caching technology? Of course software can consume too much power.

Re:What the hell? (0)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661096)

Wrong. If I write crappy software that hits your laptop's disc every 10ms, is the laptop the inefficient part? The hardware guys need to invent better speculative laptop disc caching technology? Of course software can consume too much power.

No... the OS guys (or the OEM/admin that prepared the software install) are responsible for causing a mechanical disk to unnecessarily be hit every 10m by the browser's predictable activities.

If the browser is genuinely inefficient and performs many unnecessary operations, the browser will also be slower. Hitting the disk every 10m incurs a performance penalty.

Re:What the hell? (3, Insightful)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661258)

Hitting the disk every 10m incurs a performance penalty.

Not necessarily. If nothing else is using the disk and you spawn a thread to do nothing but sleep 10ms, seek to a semi-random spot on the disk, and write "Hey, hard drive, what's up?" you will have no noticeable performance problems until something else needs the drive.

You could do nonsense math in a loop in a background thread, which in a multi-core system would heat the processor up good and toasty without any real performance hit as long as the other 3 cores are idle.

Neither of those would actually ever happen, but functionally equivalent operations implemented by incompetent boobs could do something similar. To a lesser extent, even a competent programmer, knowing that normally there's a ton of computational power to spare, might not give a dang that his function is sucking up 20% more CPU than it needs to.

Re:What the hell? (1)

kdsible (2019794) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661016)

although i agree with your statement - bloatware can suck a battery pretty good.

Re:What the hell? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35661018)

If a browser pulls a constant 50% on the CPU and another browser pulls 10%, then yes, one will use less power.

*numbers pulled from my ass.

Re:What the hell? (2)

guspasho (941623) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661098)

The amount of power your hardware uses is not constant, it depends on what you run on it. If you run something that's CPU-intensive then your CPU will consume more power than otherwise.

The power rating on your PSU is not constant, it does not suck the rated power at all times and waste the unused portion as heat. The rating is a maximum.

That said, considering all the power wasted by an OS like Windows and whatever other programs you may have resident in RAM for convenience's sake, and plug-ins like Flash that are ubiquitous even on netbooks, measuring the difference in a browser's power consumption is probably laughable.

Re:What the hell? (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661280)

I have a laptop that's just fine with 65 watts, and a desktop that barely gets by with 750 watts.

It's not the software that sucks down the power; it's the hard drives and graphics card.

Re:What the hell? (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661362)

Your graphics card will not be sucking down power unless you run software that actually uses it.

Re:What the hell? (1)

schwaang (667808) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661394)

That said, considering all the power wasted by an OS like Windows and whatever other programs you may have resident in RAM for convenience's sake, and plug-ins like Flash that are ubiquitous even on netbooks, measuring the difference in a browser's power consumption is probably laughable.

Yeah, kinda laughable in the bigger scheme of things, BUT I have to hand it to Microsoft for their part in getting Adobe to fix a problem where Flash prevented Windows from autosleeping [technet.com] . That was huge energy waste when multiplied across probably millions of home PCs that would normally have been asleep for at least 12 hours a day.

What's more, that was part of a wider Microsoft effort that promotes efficiency across their products, including in data centers where a 10-15% efficiency win can really add up. So a begrudging kudos to MS on this -- and I hope FF kicks IE's lilly white hiney in every regard next go-round!

Re:What the hell? (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661458)

Next go around? With Flashblock and AdBlock it already does in the real world, because it's doing probably 5% of the work on the real web. Same goes for Chrome, the most efficient work is the work I never have to do.

Re:What the hell? (1)

increment1 (1722312) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661104)

Software can have a large impact on power consumption because, quite simply, your hardware consumes less power when it does less. So giving your system more work requires more power.

There are many reasons for this, from the architecture of modern CPUs to memory and disk usage. If you use a program that is inefficient and takes more operations (say O(N) vs O(2^N)) then power will be wasted, regardless of what hardware it is executing on.

Re:What the hell? (1)

404 Clue Not Found (763556) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661146)

Software directly determines how much of the hardware is used, and hence how much power is consumed.

Otherwise there'd be no difference in power use between a computer that's asleep and one that's on -- after all, the hardware's the same and only the software state changes.

ecomentalists unite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35660974)

So if IE is going for the ecomental segment I have yet another reason not to use not to use it. Thanks M$ for making the choice that much easier :)

That picture.. my eyes! Mindfcuk! (1)

black3d (1648913) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661020)

OMG.. that right-hand picture.. In FF4, this end of the rack spaces are almost perfectly in line with the scrolling demarcations. Rapidly scrolling up and down makes it look 3D-esque and screws with my mind.. :O

I just hope I wasn't the only one tripped out by the visual effect. :)

Re:That picture.. my eyes! Mindfcuk! (1)

SammyIAm (1348279) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661152)

Gah! Well now that you mention it, yes! And now I can't unsee it!

Good thing I won't be reading the whole article =P

Congratulations! (-1, Troll)

MadeInUSA (2028028) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661052)

Let me be the contrarian here on Slashdot: Congratulations Microsoft! It's great to see that MS is keeping the competitors honest by improving battery power among the other huge improvements they added to IE9. FF4 and C10 are great browsers, and I used Chrome for the past 2 years until I decided to switch to IE9. I'm not looking back...

The obvious... (1)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661058)

Well, when you program a browser to do less than everyone else's I would assume it doesn't need as much power.

Keep it simple (1)

onyxruby (118189) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661070)

Keep it simple, just disable flash in entirety. You will reduce your power consumption as flash is a poorly coded. Run the numbers with and without flash and see what a difference it makes. This is arguably one of the reasons Steve Jobs won't allow flash on the IOS...

Re:Keep it simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35661360)

Plugins are irrelevant to the comparison since all a browser does is launch the plugin. Perhaps there are some small differences but I assume quite smaller that the relatively resource intensive flash plugin.

I wonder when the day will come... (3, Interesting)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661082)

While power might seem like a minor concern, with nearly two billion people now using the Internet the worldwide implications of browser power consumption are significant.

I wonder when the day will come when the government starts mandating energy efficiency requirements in software, much the same way they do appliances, cars and other things. I wonder if such rules would apply to open source, or other freely exchanged software.

Odd argument (3, Informative)

MCSEBear (907831) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661090)

Since the same computer is MUCH more power efficient running Mac OS X than running Windows, this seems to be an odd argument for Microsoft to be making.

Anandtech: [anandtech.com]

Apple claims 10 hours of battery life for the MBP13 when running OS X, and Anand hit pretty close to that mark when testing it out with his light web browsing test. Now, we’ve shown before that OS X is more optimized for mobile power consumption than all versions of Windows, so going into this test the expectations were a fair bit lower.

And for good reason; the MBP13 (running Windows 7) showed fairly similar battery life to some of the older Core 2-based systems. With it’s 63.5 Wh lithium polymer battery, the MBP hits 5.5 hours on our ideal-case battery test, and exactly 5 hours on the web browsing test. While this is decent for the average Core 2 notebook, it’s pretty woeful compared to the OS X battery life of the MBP. If you have no reason to run Windows (program compatibility, gaming, etc) you’re better off in OS X just so that you can get about double the battery life.

Re:Odd argument (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35661192)

"Well, when you program an OS to do less than everyone else's I would assume it doesn't need as much power."

Re:Odd argument (1)

DCstewieG (824956) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661406)

Friggin' Unix, that do-nothing OS.

Re:Odd argument (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35661330)

While your assertions are completely accurate it important to remember this: there is no reason why Apple would try to optimize it's hardware for use under Windows. There are many complicated power saving techniques that modern operating systems use and many of these techniques must be specially allowed by the hardware.

Can I please PLEASE ask the editors (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35661110)

NEVER to post stories that link to companies' PR releases? I don't care if it's Microsoft, Google or Mozilla, I think it's quite evident that these comparisons are all very biased (and in two days you'll have similar comparisons from the other browser makers with exactly the opposite results).

Deceitful graph (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35661120)

Anyone notice that the battery life graph had the Y axis set to 2 hours? The difference in battery life was exaggerated by this piece of deceit.

mobile vs pc (1)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661138)

This is why you need to build a "mobile web browser" as opposed to just a "browser". This is why Myriad, Isis and Polarity browsers were bought out - they provide a specific function for a select group of devices at the right power level with plenty of functionality.
There's simply no way to put IE9 on most devices and expect anything pleasant to happen to your battery.

Bar graphs aren't zeroed (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35661162)

The second comment makes a very good point about the bar graphs.

For the record, the fact that you're using bar charts that don't line up zero means that those charts are in fact very misleading. Because the power consumption charts start at 10 W, differences as little as 5% look like nearly 100% differences. Int the about:blank example alone, it's scaled to show opera consuming over 93% more power, while the raw data and even the accompanying text show that it only consumes a little over 5% more than IE9. In the battery life chart at the end, the origin is 2 hours, which makes a 38% increase in battery life look like closer to a 150% increase in battery life.

Sure, you could make the argument that people should read the accompanying text and data, but the entire point of using charts and graphs is to provide the data in a consumable way that doesn't require the use of the accompanying text. Someone skimming this article and moving on to other things is likely to be completely misinformed by these charts. I'm not sure if it's just a simple oversight, an attempt at making them more "interesting" or deliberate misinformation, but it makes me severely distrust the quality of the rest of the experiment over all. Poor form, Microsoft. Poor form.

Possting anonymously not to whore karma.

IE integration in Windows (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661170)

What's the situation on IE integration in Windows these days? Is it still true that IE is really kind of always running when you start up Windows, like it was in Windows 98 or XP? If so... could you say that running just IE is more power efficient than running other browsers along with it?

Re:IE integration in Windows (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661504)

It's still integrated, but Trident isn't doing much most of the time and it's just a very small part of the web version of IE.

Linux? (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661204)

They completely missed the fact that the only browser in their list which requires Windows is IE9. I'm guessing that ANY of the browsers would beat IE9 hands down if it were running on linux instead of Windows 7.

Re:Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35661320)

good point

Re:Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35661450)

They completely missed the fact that the only browser in their list which requires Windows is IE9. I'm guessing that ANY of the browsers would beat IE9 hands down if it were running on linux instead of Windows 7.

Of course not. Linux lacks LOTS of drivers needed for proper power management, due to fu**ing manufactures with d*mn closed specs. My battery lasts 2 times more in Windows than Linux, despite lower memory and CPU consumption.

Compare the Power consumption of web pages. (1)

drolli (522659) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661290)

There are certain flash ads on some web pages which make the fan of my laptop turn on. There are also badly written javascripts which do the same - for essenrially doing nothing.

Re:Compare the Power consumption of web pages. (1)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661378)

Then why don't you block them?

Re:Compare the Power consumption of web pages. (1)

drolli (522659) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661480)

I do for my normal surfing. But sometimes i use another browser/machine to test sth and my usual set of extensions to make the web bearable is not installed.

It doesn't matter to me. (1)

pro151 (2021702) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661334)

Google is Skynet and I am a Google Borg unit. I have not used IE (Internet Excuses) since FF came out. Now it is Chrome all the way. I wish Google would have accepted my passioned plea to have been one of their testers on the Chrome LT. I am Droid X, My Wife is Droid X, my Son is Droid. Skynet has taken over my entire house and family.

Re:It doesn't matter to me. (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661818)

You named your son "Droid" ... dang, my hat's off to you my geek friend.

Meaningless test (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661346)

All of these tests appear to have been done with a wired LAN setup, but power consumption matters most when you're mobile, and the power draw from Wi-Fi will far outstrip the draw from any browser in typical usage. Who cares which browser is more power efficient if the technology you need to access the Internet in the first place draws several orders of magnitude more power?

Power consumption: the HTML screenplay (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35661372)

{inquisitive commercial voice}
If we really wanted to optimize power consumption, wouldn't we blindly stick to simple text-over-the-web?
{/inquisitive commercial voice}

{commercial authoritative voice}
NO! We homo sapiens have complex needs and wants that do not simply conform to plain text. Let us consume RICH MEDIA!! {br}
Windows 7 PERFORMS BETTER than any other version of windows, and it takes MORE ENERGY to do so!!! {br}{hr}
MORE is BETTER!!!!
{/commercial authoritative voice}

{cue to an excited actor-CEO leading a chant}
MORE-elopers!!!!! {b}MORE-elopers!!!!!!{/b}{b}{i}MORE-elopers!!!!!!!{/i}{/b}
{/cue to an excited actor-CEO leading a chant}

{cue to an actor-nerd, sitting in the basement, which is really a soundstage, typing on his workstation, which is really just a monitor and keyboard hooked up to an iPad, inexplicably the Mac Apple glow emanates from the side of the monitor}.
I have come up with a power-friendly optimization for my browser. The WORLD is my OYSTER!!!!!!!! {!--Steven, this is an in joke because nerds don't get to see many "oysters," if you know what I mean--}
{/cue to an actor-nerd, sitting in the basement, which is really a soundstage, typing on his workstation, which is really just a monitor and keyboard hooked up to an iPad, inexplicably the Mac Apple glow emanates from the side of the monitor}.

{fade to black}
{!--{/fade to black} wait, this doesn't make any sense. How do we resolve this?--}

What about their OS hardware requirements??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35661408)

Honestly, MS should focus on their OS instead of trying to wage war in the browser space when it comes to power consumption. With solaris zones or openvz containers, I can run hundreds of servers on a relatively small piece of hardware, as compared to ESX with Windows VM's, which are resource hogs. Now, if you look at the consumer desktop space, MS has the lions share of desktops, which now require 4gb+ of memory, 4 cores, etc. just to run the OS. All that extra processing power and memory put a heavy tax on the power requirements of the desktop, whereas I can run linux or BSD and it requires a fraction (small fraction) of the cpu power just to sit idle. If they really cared about power they would put their money where their mouth is and focus on something that has the potential to make a much larger dent in the bucket (their power hungry OS) and stop in their shameless self-promotion in the browser space.

Why is "being green" always bathed in sanctimony? (2)

swb (14022) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661418)

responsibly lead the industry in power requirements.

Why is being energy efficient so frequently expressed in the most ingratiating and sanctimonious terms? I like using less power, too, but I'm not going to pretend for a minute that it makes me a more moral and deserving human being.

I think like most geeks, getting more work done with less energy input is inherently valuable -- at a minimum your batteries last longer. But I can't help but want to waste energy when energy efficiency becomes a question of faith, and I'm pretty sure a lot of other people who would otherwise find great appeal in what essentially amounts to getting more for less are turned off by it as well.

Load of Bollocks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35661446)

It's not the browser that determines "efficiency", it is the PLUGINS. And this is a lesson that Linux has taught me through hell and high water.

The prime culprit: Adobe's god damned FLASH plugin. Doing very little, this stupid plugin will drive my CPU usage through the roof. Even sitting idle. CPU usage == fan working overtime == battery life. And this goes for every plugin but I guaranTEE you...FLASH is the primary culprit.

So, battery efficiency basically comes down to how the web browser deals with plugins. Opera is horrible...that god damned operapluginwrapper executable continues to linger consuming HUGE amounts of RAM and CPU. They continue to ignore this at their own peril. However Chrome has a different approach. With Opera, I have to continually watch my CPU load and kill the stupid flash plugin. With Chrome, I close the tab. Boom, it goes away. MUCH better design.

I can't comment on IE9, but I will guarantee that any claims of efficiency come down SOLELY on how IE9 deals with plugins. Nothing else. And FLASH is the biggest CPU-draining battery-sucking piece of SHIT there is.

Conditions Apply.. (0)

tvpmdude (923318) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661478)

That OS will not crash during the test .

Install Ad / flash blocker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35661482)

And increase batteri time by 30%

Louis Vuitton (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35661540)

Welcome to our Louis Vuitton Outlet [lvlouisvuitton.org] ,you can get any Louis Vuitton products you like in our Louis Vuitton Outlet Store with low price.The Louis Vuitton [lvlouisvuitton.org] Outlet sales cheap bags,hangbags and so on.Stop thinking and do action now.We promise the reliable quality and reasonable price

Cannot beat my browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35661554)

Nobody can beat my browser for memory efficiency or power consumption. It may not score the best on Acid tests, but we all know those tests aren't indicators of real-world performance. I've appended the source code here (see, it's also open-source!):

int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { return 0; }

Try Youtube (4, Interesting)

omni123 (1622083) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661604)

They really should try flash heavy sites like YouTube.

I can have my battery life cut in half when using Chrome 10 on YouTube; so much so that I actually have to switch back to Firefox for extended browsing when I'm on the road. It's pretty poor because even if the video has stopped and it becomes an idle page it can still sit at 10-15+% while doing absolutely nothing (so I don't see how they can claim rendering speed is the cause).

0.25 watts? Seriously? (1)

scdeimos (632778) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661614)

What type of memory are they using in a useful working computer system that only draws 0.257 watts?

Dear Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35661636)

Browsers don't consume power, CPUs do. If you're unable to make even that distinction, you will fail. Who uses IE anyways?

But IE9 runs only on bloated Windows... (2, Informative)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661704)

IE9 currently is confined to Windows Vista and Windows 7, the two most bloated, power-hungry versions of Windows around. Maybe Microsoft should start telling the billions of computer users to ditch Microsoft Windows and move over to a more efficient, less resource-hungry, operating system.

Tests are a bit off the mark, I think. (1)

RobbieThe1st (1977364) | more than 3 years ago | (#35661820)

Testing about:blank is one thing, but how about typical usage: At least three sites displaying different sites. As it is, we're testing the effeciency of the rest of the browser framework as much as anything, whereas with several heavy tabs running, you'd be able to test how well it scales up to normal workloads.
Also, it would have been nice to see power consuption graphs for running a Youtube video(flash vs webm vs x264) in the various browsers, using plugins as needed. I mean, a very common web usage scenario is playing one or more youtube videos in a row. Running a JS benchmark? Once or twice a year max for most people.

Also, I see their graphs as showing Firefox winning. IE doesn't even count; It doesn't run cross platorm(Windows, OSX, X-based Linux at least).

What I want to know, however, is how to -increase- consumption for better performance: Sure, on a laptop you want battery life, but on your big honking desktop? I'd take performance over effeciency any day - I've got plenty of spare cycles it can use.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?