Microsoft Boasts of Tiny Energy Saving With IE 243
judgecorp writes "Microsoft has sponsored research that indicates that its Internet Explorer browser uses less power than the competition, Firefox and Google (there's no explanation of what causes the difference). However, the difference in power use is not really significant — it's about one Watt when browsing. Browsing for 20 hours at this rate, the IE user would save enough power to make a cup of tea, compared with Firefox and Chrome users. That Microsoft commissioned and published the report seems to indicate a certain desperation to Microsoft's IE marketing efforts."
It adds up (Score:5, Insightful)
...a certain desperation to Microsoft's IE marketing efforts
Not at all. If you run a company with 10,000 PCs then it's a significant saving.
Re:It adds up (Score:5, Funny)
What company is stupid enough to pay for 10,000 Windows licences?
Re:It adds up (Score:5, Funny)
Well..certainly not one that would allow their employees to have two extra cups of tea per week.
Re: (Score:2)
I somehow doubt they really did anything to save power. It seems far more likely that they had a lab setup and did measurements and found that IE used less power than the other browsers that they tested and decided to market it.
The summary does a disservice by comparing the power usage to that required to make a cup of tea. If you read the article, it says "Laptops use about 14.7 Watts when idling. Firing up a browser adds another one or two Watts to this, depending which sites are browsed, and which brow
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All of them
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Dell, HP, IBM, and BCE are all windows shops, or at least were when I worked for them, and all of them have *well* over 10,000 employees. I still work for BCE. We've got 65,000 employees in Canada, and they're all on Windows. (well, some of the field repair technicians are being switched to Android, but that's still *well* over 10,000 Windows licenses).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
um, run a company...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It adds up (Score:5, Informative)
But if they are making real work, maybe the results would not be that good.
Re:It adds up (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, only if all of them are just browsing the internet all the time. But if they are making real work, maybe the results would not be that good.
You have to consider the source here too ... its Microsoft. It was "sponsored" research, which translates to "rigged" test with rigged results. So it is indeed done for marketing purposes, or why else do it. Probably a simple web page with little css or js. You can't take anything they say at face value.
Re:It adds up (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to consider the source here too ... its Microsoft. It was "sponsored" research, which translates to "rigged" test with rigged results. So it is indeed done for marketing purposes, or why else do it. Probably a simple web page with little css or js. You can't take anything they say at face value.
I don't think they go as far as rigging the research. What I think they do is pay for thousands of very specific research topics and publish the ones that show them favorably and bury all the others.
If this is the best they could come up with they really are losing the browser war.
Re:It adds up (Score:4, Informative)
And no mention of test conditions... with the actual report containing niceties like this:
In addition, at the request of Microsoft we set the JavaScript timer frequency to “conserve power” in
the Windows power options. We found, however, that the default Javascript time frequency for all
computers tested was set to “maximum performance.” We did not investigate the impact of this setting
upon browser power draw.
Re: (Score:2)
You forget ActiveX!
The fiends at Microsoft are one step ahead of you!!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How much ActiveX can you see out there? I see much more Javascript and HTML5 ...
It's the "out there" part of your answer that worries me.
The OP clearly said "core business apps", ie. internal stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you know that people are still using COBOL?
(And for the same reasons...)
Re: (Score:3)
I fail to see how using IE over the other major browsers yields a net saving. Power usage is only one factor. And it still remains to be seen how objective this sponsored study really is, as MS doesn't have the best track record in that regard.
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to see how using IE over the other major browsers yields a net saving...
...so therefore it can't be true?
Must be nice to be omniscient.
Re: (Score:2)
I do notice Firefox uses a lot of CPU time on recent versions, even when it's displaying nothing but static pages.
If Mozilla take this seriously and save a few CPU cycles here and there some good might come out of this research.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said that it can't be true. I'm just saying that this study of itself can in no way be used to support a claim that using IE saves you money. Simply because this study only measured a tiny subset of the total cost of ownership of a software package.
Re: (Score:3)
I fail to see how using IE over the other major browsers yields a net saving. Power usage is only one factor.
That is the biggest factor that makes this dumb.
So you save a little electricity - how much are you losing elsewhere in lost productivity, insecurity, virus infestations, etc, because you are using IE?
Re: (Score:2)
NOT THIS
The last couple of versions of IE have been far better than anything in the past and just as "safe" as firefox or chrome. I really only stay with firefox because of a handful of extensions and better ability to customize the layout. Not because of performance or security.
As to the power savings, sure take it with a grain of salt. But even taking it at face value and saying a savings of 1 watt per week per user we are talking on the order of a gigawatt per week. That is nothing to sneeze at if tru
Re:It adds up (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is about 5% in power use of the computers only. Which may translate to 1% or less overall savings.
However IE is also slower in rendering pages, causing productivity loss (a few seconds a page of employee time eaten up) which easily costs more than the energy cost saved.
Re:It adds up (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Rendering is only part of the energy use.
YouTube is at the top of the power-hungry pages, which is of course caused by the flash plugin playing video. Other pages will have moving ads, that also continue to use energy. Rendering will likely cause a power spike when loading a page, however thinking of dynamic pages like /. discussion, where you can show and hide pieces of the page, rendering is more continuous. So the time spent reading, commenting, the amount of extra comments opened: it all adds to power u
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you haven't tried IE10. It may be shit for a number of reasons but page rendering speed is comparable to other browsers, certainly not seconds longer.
A 1W saving is pretty good actually. Small Ultrabook type laptops usually only have 30-40Wh batteries so over an 8 hour run-time it could be 1/4 the machine's power budget.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't used IE in ages, as there is no Linux version so can't even try it.
TFA however lists benchmarks as well, without further explanation, but based on the numbers I make up that IE is a bit slower than the others.
And the 1W saving is on a 15W base power draw for laptops, or 2W saving on a 38W desktop. That's just over 5% power saving - which is rather surprising to me, and in itself is asking for further investigation. Your low-power netbook won't have a 1w saving, more likely about 5% of however much
Re: (Score:2)
Bollocks. A few seconds? Seriously, I've seen people waste more time looking for a stapler.
That's true but I look for a stabler at most once a week and I use a browser more or less constantly.
And the people I work with keep moving the dam stapler!
Re: (Score:2)
So get a red stapler - easier to see.
(better yet, steal one.)
Re:It adds up (Score:5, Informative)
No it's bloody not. Honestly people have some weird ideas about arithmetic. If your average PC uses 100W then the difference in browser power usage, 1W, is 1% of that usage. It doesn't somehow magically become 50% if you're running 10,000 PCs - it's still 1%.
But, for the same of argument, let's do the math. A company with 10,000 PCs each consuming 100W during work hours is using 1,950 MWhr (100W * 37.5 hours per week * 52 weeks per year * 10000 PCs / 1000000 W per MW = 1950) per year to power those PCs. Retail electricity is around 12.86 p/kWhr, so they're spending £250k (1950 kWhr * 12.86 p/kWhr * 1000 kW per MW / 100 p per £) on electricity to power their PCs.
A company with 10,000 PCs presumably has 10,000 employees to use those PCs. Suppose they all earn the minimum wage full time, costing £12,000 each (£6.19 per hour x 37.5 hours per week * 52 weeks = £12,070.50 per year - call it £12k). Those 10,000 employees cost the company £120 million per year.
So our company with 10,000 PCs is spending £250k on electricity and £120m on wages. But wait! All those savings will add up! Suppose those users spend every working hour browsing the web. That means they would each save 1950 Whr per year (37.5 hours per week * 52 weeks per year * 1W). Retail electricity is 12.86 p/kWhr, so each employee saves a whacking great... um... 25p per year (1950 Whr * 12.86 p/kWhr / 1000 W per kW). Yes, all those savings add up to £2,500 across the whole company. That's 0.0021% of your combined staff and electricity costs.
Now suppose you live in the real world and not all your employees work in front of a PC all the time and they only spend about 75% of their time browsing the web when they do and some of them, God forbid, take a holiday every now and then. How much do those savings add up to? Sweet. Bugger. All.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or an executive a £250,000 bonus for saving power!
Re: (Score:2)
So if a company with 10,000 Windows computers has their 10,000 employees browse the web for 8 hours using IE instead of FireFox or Chrome then they'll save enough power for 4,000 cups of tea.
Or, since the article gives the figure of 1 watt saved per hour, 10,000 IE users browsing for 8 hours will save 80 kilowatts. Not a very big savings. You could replace a few incandescent light-bulbs with compact fluorescent or LED bulbs and save more energy.
Re: (Score:2)
How does it feel to be a pedantic asshole, AC?
He should have said 80 kilowatt-hours, but his point is still correct: you can get more energy savings by installing one LED bulb per every five employees or so.
Browser energy? (Score:4, Funny)
And I bet that IE v1 (not v10) would eat much less power as it supports a tiny slice of HTML and other web related technologies.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they measured power consumption with IE running and then not, or then with a different browser. The power difference is really the result of the browser, isn't it? If it's the only thing changing?
Re: (Score:2)
True, but GP does have a point. What if the scheduler really has some inefficiencies (IE bugs that need fixing) that only MS' devs know about? But let's not go down that rabbit hole.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless you can finely account for every single CPU instruction and hardware activity to the browsing, then it's unlikely your "test with and without" will yield anything relevant.
Even if you reboot the system after every single test you won't be able to get the very same "execution environment".
And this is why I am asking: there seems to be not enough information on how the test has been conducted and measured.
To me it smells like cr
Re: (Score:3)
A better comparison would be IE running on the OS that is required to run it compared to Chrome running on a different OS. keep in mind that to run the IE OS you also need a vurs checker running. I'm sure the IE/Windows/Virus checker combination would gobble more power than, say, a Linux compiled from source targetted to the hardware and running Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
You may believe this, and it may well be true, but good luck finding any large corporations where it's not standard IT policy for computers to run a virus scanner at all times.
The OP's point is sound: a better comparison would be to run Linux with Chromium or Firefox, versus Windows with IE and a virus scanner and all the other crap that goes with it (in a standard corporate build). Most likely, the Linux system will be more power-efficient overall.
and if you're dumb enough to click on links in unsolicited
Re: (Score:3)
I normally don't care about browser power usage, until I'm trying to maximise the time left on my laptop battery, and then I play close attention to CPU usage and power consumption.
On my laptop Konqueror wins by a very wide margin when it comes to being able to browse the Internet for as long as possible on a single charge. Firefox and Chrome are absolute pigs by comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
I second that. Firefox on a laptop on battery is a nightmare that is best shut down unless it is absolutely needed. I see 10% CPU usage when it's doing absolutely nothing. Come on Mozilla, stop wasting my CPU cycles!
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to know how can they tell whether the energy has been ate by the browser, the scheduler, the idle process or whatever else is in a Windows OS!!!
If only there was an electrical device you could connect to a computer and see instantaneous power usage. That way you cold open a page in IE, look at the power. Open the same page in Firefox, look at the power, etc.
I guess we'll all have to wait at least another century for a technology as advanced as that, though.
Oh, wait: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_A_Watt [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what the parent is asking at all: he's asking for an accounting of which parts of the Windows OS use power, and how much, not just the overall consumption. The implication is that other parts of the Windows OS are wasting power, compared to other OSes (namely Linux). Of course, this is all speculation; it'd be interesting if someone did do some measurements of some Linux systems (desktop and laptop, multiple ones of each, for better statistical data, and also using different Linux distros and D
Megawatts worldwide (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
amen to that. Its not just ecological issues that benefit from efficiency - there's a reason why modern applications run about the same perceived speed as their ancient counterparts did on ancient hardware - generally its because the programming involved is now built on layers of layers of abstracted frameworks.
For example, I run a few graphics-intensive games and they work fine, then I run a couple of not-so graphically intensive games that were written using XNA and the cooling fans come on full blast. I
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but doesn't running windows consume a lot more power than running OSX or GNU/Linux? Especially with all that fancy aero stuff, etc, etc.
My laptop had windows out-of-the-box. With Linux I get abotu 25% more battery duration, which basically translates to 25% energy savings. Windows+IE pushed me the wrong way.
Disable Flash (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
On my poor old computer it is clearly visible on the CPU load :)
I am able to hear from a significant distance when the fans struggle to keep the machine alive as my wife play candy crush on her macbook pro, nothing else that she does on it is causing the same desperate whirring of the fans.
Re: (Score:2)
On my poor old computer it is clearly visible on the CPU load
Flashblock FTW!
Re: (Score:2)
Even Chromium. My daughter likes to open lots of YouTube tabs, and that (a) is really confusing, and (b) drains the battery fast without Flashblock.
Re: (Score:2)
You poor old computer? My octo-core Bulldozer FX 8150 can't keep up with flash. Of course, flash uses just one core, but it should be more than enough to get decent FPS on silly flash games.
That is quite a bit of power! (Score:2)
The energy needed to brew a cup of tea is definitly NOT small compared to the energy that is available in your cellphone battery.
Re: (Score:2)
Using this [confused.com] (so making five cups at once):
2.2kW * 3 minutes / 5 = 0.022kWh.
1W * 20 hours = 0.020kWh (the extra energy used by Chrome).
However, I think the whole thing's rubbish -- I don't constantly load websites, I load them once (which takes a few seconds -- or longer if it's IE), then spend time reading the page.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok... so just assume that a typical cellphone battery has a capacity of 2000mAh and a voltage of 5V, then the power stored in it would be something around 0.01 kWh
So you would need the energy of TWO whole cellphone batteries to make a cup of tea.
The difference would be that browsing 20 hours with IE means that you have to go two charching cycles less within those 20 hours than with another browser.
Now we only would need to compare this to a typical number of recharching cycles for 20 hours nonstop-browsing.
Desperation? (Score:2)
Theehee thats a bad comparison (Score:3)
No matter how silly the original article is, this /. article is even lamer.
Heating thee? Thats a really bad comparison!
Or .. a good one if you realize how inefficient heating with electricity is, especially relatively to other useful household things such as anything with batteries, your DVR, the lighting, a tablet, or even a laptop.
On my 35W laptop this means 3% power savings.
(my dupe comment on a dupe submission: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3846941&cid=43962015 [slashdot.org] )
This article seems to wind down on the marketing effort. Whats news in that? I rather like this fact exposing instead of the shockshell courtroom cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Heating thee? Thats a really bad comparison!
It was RIGHT THERE in the summary! In fact, you QUOTED that part of the summary! It's a three letter word and you STILL screwed it up THAT badly?
Re: (Score:2)
tea / thee ;)
As AC contemplated its my bad: the spelling in Dutch is different but pronunciation is identical.
I could get away with claiming its a sagacious pun though.. but i'm not sure anymore myself!
Re: (Score:2)
Good points you have AC, you win the internet today.
On the other hand... (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft failed to mention the amount of power wasted cleaning up malware infections brought about because IE is not able to block malware 'mouse over' attacks. "Ad Block Plus" and "No Script" kill crapware attacks before they happen... unfortunately IE is part of the problem rather than the solution.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Have you tried IE 10? Seriously, actually given it a go? Or are you just speaking out of zealotry rather than experience? FF has made some anti-customisation (and thus anti-user) changes lately that are really pissing me off. I think they've gotten a bit big-headed, or they're terrified of Chrome, either way, MS has been working really hard improving their browser and perhaps they do feel justified in feeling unfairly judged and perhaps they can feel desperate - they've put in a tonne of work and everybo
Re: (Score:3)
FF has made some anti-customisation (and thus anti-user) changes lately that are really pissing me off.
I haven't noticed any. What kind of changes?
OS comparison (Score:4, Interesting)
terminal server (Score:2)
I use firefox on my laptop almost exclusively (I don't drink tea), but on terminal servers i'd much prefer users ran IE than firefox. Memory is cheap but lots of memory is expensive, and the stats of IE vs FF on a terminal server shows IE using hardly any resources while firefox consumes much more memory and cpu.
of course firefox is better so i'd expect it to use more power to better express it's awesomeness...
1 Watt is HUGE on mobile! (Score:4, Insightful)
As I type this in Firefox, Lenovo's Power Manager is showing power usage of about 6W. 1W less would be a 17% decrease! With the 9-cell battery currently attached, that's a 2h20m jump in battery life.
Of course, I've already dropped FIrefox's power consumption significantly using Adblock, Noscript and so on, so it's unlikely I'll see a full Watt of improvement by switching to IE, but for others, this could be huge.
Bloated web pages are the real power wasters (Score:2)
And you have found the real power guzzling culprit!
Browsers wouldn't have to waste so much power if they didn't have to spend so much time processing crap rather than just displaying your content. On some web sites I have managed to vastly increase the speed and responsiveness of the sites just
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm, the chart seems pretty clear: Average power consumption over a set period of time displaying the web page (either including or not including the power spike during the page load - at those figures, I'm assuming it includes the spike unless the laptop is running dedicated graphics).
The PDF seems to confirm this (see 2.2.2) - 6 minute test for each page, including the load spike.
Re: (Score:2)
This is correct, of course... however: I've already decreased the average power usage of my system with idling Firefox from about 8W to 6W (no Flash, Noscript, GIFs set not to animate, Profile and Firefox itself entirely on RAMDisk to minimize disk access etc.). I'd assume optimizing the browser directly would be much more effective, so getting half of the power savings I'm able to reach with a few simple (albeit drastic) tweaks is entirely within the realm of reality, IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
You may be right about that, but even then, someone who runs a bog standard Firefox or Chrome would see a benefit in battery life by switching to IE.
Not that I'm advocating switching to IE, of course... just saying Firefox and Chrome need to start focusing more on reducing power consumption.
Hard to believe (Score:3)
I would have thought the fastest browser was the most efficient, thereby making the fastest browser also the most efficient in power. That makes this study very hard to believe.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe it. Firefox, Chrome, etc are all independent programs. IE however is part of the OS. Microsoft has been telling us that for years. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I would have thought the fastest browser was the most efficient
Why? You wouldn't assume the same of cars, would you?*
*knowing my luck this will probably turn out to be obviously true
Test procedures (Score:3, Informative)
Let's look at the test procedure in the actual report...
Measure the true root-mean squared (rms) current, power, and voltage for each UUT over a six (6)-
minute period at 1Hz (averaging over 1s period) for the following test conditions:
a) Baseline: No browsers or other windows open
i) First perform a preliminary measurement of power draw in this mode for the UUT, to
ensure that the lowest suitable current range has been selected on the power meter to
maximize measurement accuracy
(1) Record the current range selected for testing the UUT
(2) Record at least 6 minutes of ‘Baseline’ UUT operation with no browsers.
(3) Move the mouse/trackpad once a minute to prevent the unit from going idle
b) Static Website Test: Three different browsers (Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, and Mozilla
Firefox) will be used. Each browser will be tested for the Top 10 U.S. websites as of March 25,
2013 (listed below, from Alexa 2013). The UUT will then be rebooted after all ten websites have
been tested. In all cases, the browser will have two ‘background tabs’ open to
cse.fraunhofer.org and cfvsolar.com, both static landing pages.
i) Each browser will be directed to the following websites, with all cookies accepted. Data
logging will begin immediately when changing the target website to capture transitional
power draw.
(1) Google.com
(2) Yahoo.com
(3) Live.com
(4) Youtube.com
(5) Facebook.com
(6) Wikipedia.org
(7) Ebay.com
(8) Amazon.com
(9) Craigslist.org
(10)Bing.com
ii) Record all power, current, and voltage measurements in a database. Each test will take
place for at least 6 minutes.
iii) Move the mouse/trackpad once a minute to prevent the unit from going idle
Notice the "at least 6 minutes" part...
So if we change sites every 6 minutes with one browser and every 30 minutes with another, that's still perfectly valid.
And then this gem:
In addition, at the request of Microsoft we set the JavaScript timer frequency to “conserve power” in
the Windows power options. We found, however, that the default Javascript time frequency for all
computers tested was set to “maximum performance.” We did not investigate the impact of this setting
upon browser power draw.
Re: (Score:2)
Please mod parent up.
Who wants to be that the Windows Power option for JavaScript timer frequency only affects IE, and not other browsers on the machine?
Can read in another way... (Score:2)
In true /. tradition, I did not read the article. So perhaps the article contradicts me, but just bases upon the summery I could give an alternative explanation:
It could have been that the following two things are true:
1. IE is terrible in use. It is that horrible to work with that an average person browsing the web for 20 hours with IE reads only half the pages compared to an average person using Chrome or Firefox.
2. IE is terrible in powermanagement. Within that 20 hour period, it will use almost the same
Re: (Score:2)
In true /. tradition, I did not read the article. So perhaps the article contradicts me
Spoiler alert: it does.
Makes sense,,, (Score:2)
Slower things need less energy...
Study conducted using Windows 8 (Score:3)
But you have to check the PDF to find that...
http://preview.tinyurl.com/kyp6ypz [tinyurl.com]
Selected quote: "The variation between websites and the technology they use seems to be far more significant, with YouTube clearly burning up to 3W more power than other popular sites such as Google. And more complex media experiences, delivered by sites using Flash or HTML5, appear to burn even more energy, with heavy HTML5 and Flash sites causing an increase in power draw of up to 8W or 9W (effectively adding 50 percent to the machine’s power draw)"
So maybe IE can make more power-efficient use of Win8 when playing YouTube videos? Not really a surprise...
Put noscript, adblock etc. into Ffox and save! (Also on bandwidth..)
Would have been nice to have seen Fraunhofer (who conducted the survey) try and retain some shred of dignity by comparing performance on other platforms.
How about Safari on PC & MAC? Chrome & F'fox on Linux also?
Maybe because IE only runs natively on Windows?
I run browser on other operating system (Score:2)
OK. I could save one watt by running IE instead of [insert your favorite browser here]. But then I would have to run it on Windows, and install anti-mallware, anti-virus and other anti-CPU measures.
I think I am much better off running a less efficient browser on Linux, even with a memory hog called KDE 4 running the whole show.
Less Power? Easy (Score:2)
Use a dark colour as a background instead of white when drawing pixels.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never understood this line of logic that seems to happen with computing. It's not that hard. Hook up a power meter and see for yourself.
Stop guessing and start knowing.
damning with faint praise (Score:2)
It's like damning with faint praise, only they are doing it to themselves.
My MSIE install uses 0 watts (Score:2)
I'm guessing you know why that is.
Battery power (Score:3)
On a laptop or tablet, one watt is a lot of power to waste. But of course it looks small when you compare it to an irrelevant but very energy-intensive task and add some anti-Microsoft flamebait.
Where they testing this one Windows machines (Score:2)
Meaning that IE was running on the test machines regardless of browser being tested, but the same wasn't true in inverse?
Hardly seems fair to me.
When IE first started getting forcefully integrated in the latter days of 95, even more so in the 98 days, one of the first things I would do is do every hack and trick I could find (usually available in handy "lite" programs) to remove IE from the background when you weren't using it. It was a major undeniable performance boost on those machines of the day. I'm
Offset (Score:2)
Even Better on Linux! (Score:2)
What the press release totally left out was that the power savings of running IE on Linux is 100% compared to running firefox on linux. I don't understand why MS wouldn't mention that in their own press release - I mean, how often does MS beat anybody on linux systems?
Notebooks (Score:2)
Yeah, because a whole watt of power is completely irrelevant when you're running on a battery.
Submitter was in such a rush to bash MS he just sounded like an idiot (along with half the posters). I enjoy some good old fashioned Slashdot MS bashing, but let's make it good old fashioned MS bashing, okay?
Re: (Score:2)
Consider how much energy we would save as a species if IE never existed. I remember all the wasted time debugging and breaking my code to work with IE6. I still do have to write code that works in EVERY OTHER BROWSER without change, and then consistently does not work in IE, and requires additional effort to create. Consider that continuing to use IE means every web business wastes time making code that specifically panders to IE's broken rendering and javascript environments. I'm sorry. I remember t
Mine goes to zero (Score:2)
It uses zero power on my computer. I never click on it.
Pathetic. (Score:2)
Ridiculous bullshit. Focus on your damn core competency MS. You know, that shit you actually suck at now?
Yes but how much power does Windows 8 use... (Score:2)
How much power does Windows 8 use compared to other operating systems? Perhaps you'll save enough money to make 2 cups of tea per week, but is that savings negated by running Windows 8 with both the Metro UI and the "desktop" mode with a separate version of IE in both modes? Compare that to Safari on OS X or Firefox/Chromium on Linux (gnome 3 vs fluxbox vs xmonad vs KDE...)
I mean if we're just looking at power consumption here...
Re: (Score:3)
we installed three popular browsers, Google Chrome, Microsoft Internet Explorer, and Mozilla Firefox, on six new notebook and four desktop computers running Windows 8. We then measured the average power draw over one-second intervals for a six-minute period with each of the individual browsers open, for each of the ten most-visited websites in the U.S. In addition, we also measured power draw for both the Flash® and HTML5 versions of an online video, as well as the Fishbowl HTML5 benchmark.
Re: (Score:3)
Windows 8... That answers everything. Remember a year ago, when the browser creators were complaining, because Windows 8 wouldn't let them run their renderer natively, so they had to either take a CPU hit to run interpreted code, or use the Trident rendering engine?
I'd like to see the same test done on Windows 7...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
App Nap for general apps (Score:2)
It wasn't just Safari either. I found it even more interesting that applications in general would be paused if "App Nap" determined they were not active/seen/playing [apple.com].