Which browser isn't such a battery hog?
The three computers in the test were a Gateway with an Intel processor, a Gateway with an AMD processor, and a netbook, the Asus Eee PC. The two Gateways were running Vista, with the Eee PC running XP. On the Eee PC, the browsers all came in within a few minutes of one another, meaning you should make your decision based on other features. On the other machines, though, IE was the clear leader. Firefox (with adblock installed) came in second. Because adblock keeps battery-intensive Flash elements from being displayed, running it will let you eke out an extra 10 minutes compared to standard-issue Firefox.
So, just how good at time waster games are you? Think you've got the stuff? Well, The World's Hardest Game 2.0 doesn't think you do.
Yes, amazingly, it's possible to have a sequel to a game called "The World's Hardest Game". It doesn't seem logically possible, since if the first one was actually the world's hardest, how could another one come along and share the moniker? It made me doubt the name in the first place. That is, until I tried the game.
The mechanics of the game are very simple. You are a small red square, ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
NyaR said 5:17AM on 9-14-2009
While I primarily use firefox, it does seem biased that FX had the adblock extention, while IE and Chrome did not.
This means that IE and Chrome were displaying the same ads that FX was blocking in the test....
Additionally, IE and Chrome (at least the ancient Chromium build I am using [FUCK GOOGLEUPDATE.EXE]_) support Aero-Glass, and FX does with an addon which is not mentioned.
The power setting was not mentioned in the article, neither was OS, IMO they should have tested it with the themes and desktop manager services off and on to have an applicable result.
Given the extremely close results, I would disregard this study COMPLETELY. I am no rocket scientists, but the general idea is that the least ram and c/g/pu your browser is taking, the more battery life you will have.
Reply
Jay Hathaway said 5:26AM on 9-14-2009
They used Firefox with AND without adblock, and the version with adblock performed a bit better. The same 3 laptops were used for each browser, browsing the same websites, and they tested each multiple times. I'd say it was a pretty well-designed, if not necessarily definitive, experiment. The difference between FF, Chrome and Opera wasn't too great, but a nearly-30 min difference in battery life between IE and Safari makes a difference.
On the other hand, I'm never going to use a browser I don't like, just because I can use it for a longer period of time. I'm not the kind of guy who'd complain that the food is terrible and the portions are too small.
Brandon said 12:00PM on 9-14-2009
Turning off important system services wouldn't improve the comparison... that's just non-sense. It's hardly surprising that IE 8 performs better, as battery life is a key performance tenet for Windows components. Other vendors haven't ever made it a priority.
You just want to disregard the study because it doesn't match with your predetermination that IE sucks, right?
NyaR said 2:33PM on 9-14-2009
What are you talking about Brandon, saying these irrelevant fallacies. GTFO with that.
If two browsers are using the GPU to display Aero effects, and one is not, it will affect the times. How you got IE butthurt from that statement I cannot fathom.
theharmonyguy said 11:12AM on 9-14-2009
If you factor in performance, I wonder if you actually get any benefit from the extra time using IE...
Reply
young said 1:23PM on 9-14-2009
This data is absolutely true.
and it has to be this way.
because IE8 is slower than those,
IE8 probably surfed less than Chrome in the test.
Reply
Lochlan said 6:22PM on 9-15-2009
Chome 2, hey?
Reply