Microsoft Says Edge Browser Is More Power-Efficient Than Chrome (windows.com) 260
An anonymous reader writes: It's no secret that Google's Chrome browser eats up a considerable amount of memory (and by extension, battery). On Monday, Microsoft announced that its Edge browser has succeeded on that front. Citing several tests, Microsoft claims Edge browser is a better choice for portable device owners. The company took four identical laptops running Windows 10 to see which of the four most popular browsers would be most efficient when it comes to battery life. Interestingly, Chrome was the first to kill the laptop in the video streaming test at 4 hours and 19 minutes. Firefox closely followed its rival at 5 hours and 9 minutes, while Opera (running on the same tech as Chrome) managed to hit 6 hours and 18 minutes. In Microsoft's tests, it was found that Edge was best of the bunch when it came to enjoying a video online, lasting for 7 hours and 22 minutes. That's worked out to be 70% longer than Chrome.In a blog post, Microsoft wrote: "We designed Microsoft Edge from the ground up to prioritize power efficiency and deliver more battery life, without any special battery saving mode or changes to the default settings. Our testing and data show that you can simply browse longer with Microsoft Edge than with Chrome, Firefox, or Opera on Windows 10 devices."
Dear Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)
Stop trying to make "Edge" happen. It's not going to happen.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But I like edging ...
Re:Dear Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. I'm willing to put up with a bit more power drain to have a browser that actually works. Edge is just terrible.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even IE works better than Edge.
Re: (Score:2)
And IE is smart as a brick.
Re: Dear Microsoft (Score:3, Informative)
Someone who believes Edge is just a rebrand of IE is sorely lacking in research. That is a complete falsification.
Get your facts straight if you want people to listen to your opinions.
Re: Dear Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)
Correct. It's a complete rewrite, which explains why nothing works. IE took decades to sorta work. Edge will take a while to be on feature parity with IE and will never catch up to chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really a rebrand, it's apparently a total rewrite... which is the entire problem. It seems to freeze up frequently for many people and it's missing plugin support in the release version.
WINNAR! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't used it yet. Maybe I will have to use it to download Firefox in the future.
Just because a browser is power-efficient doesn't mean that it's smart or useful.
Re:Edge on Linux and OS X could kill Firefox. (Score:4, Informative)
Edge is about as useful as the Windows Store.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Edge on Linux and OS X could kill Firefox. (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the main problems with Firefox is they have put in next to zero effort to making it nice for enterprises to deploy and manage. Sure there are third-party group policy templates and you can get special builds from other sites with commercial support etc but Google and MS give you that free and properly maintained.
I like Firefox personally and use it. But I don't deploy it to users as a first or even second choice as that's just going to generate work in maintaining and support calls.
If Mozilla don't g
Re: (Score:2)
If Microsoft ported Edge to Linux and OS X, it would absolutely destroy Firefox, in my opinion.
I'm not so sure, if Outlook for Mac and the rest of the Office suite on Mac is any indication. That shiz is dog-slow on OSX sometimes...
Re: (Score:2)
That would only be working if you are stoned beyond belief.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even better (Score:5, Funny)
And Lynx was the most power-efficient of them all.
Re:Even better (Score:5, Insightful)
And Lynx is the most power-efficient of them all.
FTFY.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
And Lynx was the most power-efficient of them all.
wget
But it runs on Windows! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Microsoft Says Edge Browser Is More Power-Efficient Than Chrome"
But then almost anything is more power-efficient than Windows. So Chrome on Linux probably beats Edge on Windows hands down. Propaganda is largely a matter of choosing what you want to emphasize and being carefully not to mention anything else.
Re:But it runs on Windows! (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, Edge on Linux uses no power at all.
Re:But it runs on Windows! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Windows and Linux use about the same amount of power. Linux being less efficient sometimes.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.p... [phoronix.com]
Sorry - but I have to argue here... I have a Dell Inspiron 15 laptop - Windows 10 gives me ~5 hours of battery life. Fedora 24 gives me nearly 8. And yes - I have measured.
Re: (Score:2)
In general, at a low level Intel and MS have worked a bit more so that power management features still usually land in Microsoft first still. Even when they land in Linux, the functionality is frequently not correctly used for a long time.
On the flipside, MS tends to do more uncontrolled behind the scenes crap. In a stock Windows install, there will be antivirus examining most disk I/O, update checking spawning at annoyingly arbitrary times, etc. If a linux were up to the same degree of BS background act
Re: (Score:2)
Can you go into more detail on your setup?
Did you install any custom or non-standard kernels modules?
Any specific config tweaks?
What version of W10?
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what you do with the Linux install, which distro, etc.
A bog-standard Ubuntu install with all the bells and whistles will suck down the battery just as fast as Windows. However, a carefully tuned kernel and a leaner GUI stack (say, something like the old Fluxbox [fluxbox.org])? You'd have something that really sips power when compared to windows.
Maybe the younger generation just plain forgot that Linux can be customized and stripped for better performance and battery life?
Re: (Score:2)
A bog-standard Ubuntu install with all the bells and whistles will suck down the battery just as fast as Windows. However, a carefully tuned kernel and a leaner GUI stack (say, something like the old Fluxbox)? You'd have something that really sips power when compared to windows.
That's assuming that you've actually got the power management working correctly, which especially on Linux is not a foregone conclusion on most platforms... especially AMD-based ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows and Linux use about the same amount of power. Linux being less efficient sometimes.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.p... [phoronix.com]
I think you're over estimating the ability for edge to start let alone play 4 videos at the same time while running on Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Other browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Opera) are all cross-platform. Edge is not. The most they can say is that Edge is the most power efficient running on Windows. I suspect (as you do) that this would not be the case running on anything else as it wouldn't be as tightly integrated.
Re: (Score:2)
Where can I get Safari for a non-Apple device?
Re: But it runs on Windows! (Score:2)
Relevant but invalid argument.
I use devices across the OS spectrum and synchronization is very helpful. I don't tend to use Safari for this reason; Apple is terrible at porting (and their past attempts of porting apps to other platforms indicates they really don't care). Microsoft has been ok and has actually gotten better as of late, but until Edge is ported and offers synchronization, I don't see much point to bothering with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually... http://www.macobserver.com/tmo... [macobserver.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I could only imagine the countless security nightmares of running a four year old browser!
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
His point may well be bullshit, but you'd have an excellent opportunity to find your own numbers and tell him to GTFO with actual facts behind you.
It's annoying to see people throw around demands for citations when they don't actually follow through themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
It's annoying to see people throw around demands for citations when they don't actually follow through themselves.
The onus is on the person making a claim, not a person asking for verification.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but it's a missed opportunity to actually bring facts where they could actually be of some use. You can certainly feel justified in the minimum possible rebuttal, but you will have the minimum possible effect (usually applause from the echo chamber).
Maybe when comparing to stock Chrome... (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe it's faster when comparing to stock Chrome, but I'd bet that you throw an Adblocker on Chrome and it blows Edge's socks off in real-world usage. Since there are no add-ons for Edge, it's dead in the water.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't easily and quickly whitelist sites.
Not on mobile it's not (Score:2)
System 57.1%
Display 38.3%
Seems high but ok
Apps (top 3)
Edge 86.5%
Groove music (also shit) 4.1%
File explorer 2.8%
It's not even as if I'm a heavy. About average I'd say maybe less and I only ever really keep a maximum of six tabs open, but still edge drinks up that power and doesn't have anything to sh
Re: (Score:2)
How could it not be? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And then, when there's a major update, all of a sudden your defaulted back to Edge.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You've missed a trick there. You should really first go to http://www.ubuntu.com or https://www.linuxmint.com/ and get an operating system that isn't complete spyware.
... and then not use Chrome browser!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Textbook example of how to game a test. (Score:4, Insightful)
Edge lost at browsing, this is the video player (Score:3, Interesting)
They weren't even browsing. They were playing a video. They tested the power consumption of the -video player- and claimed it was great test of the -browser-. Why did they release this test? Probably because the ones that involved browsing showed Edge to be a major loser.
Re: (Score:2)
* If they sent a raw unencrypted stream, you could capture the stream and have a copy of the movie. But decrypting the stream in a v
Re: (Score:2)
You can check this yourself. Edge playing a youtube video uses less than half the CPU of Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
They weren't even browsing. They were playing a video.
You do realise that playing youtube videos more common than actually browsing the internet right? I mean we're a bit old fashioned here on Slashdot typing comments into text boxes, and even Dice tried to give us videos to watch instead.
Re: (Score:3)
-1 overrated. Know how I know you didn't read the article? I'm not even going to do a summary here, just know you're wrong. Here's a hint, there's more in the article than in the summary. You wasted your time, my time, and I assume 3 mod points, because its only at 4.
Re: (Score:3)
They pick a bench mark test, run it, profile the code, and optimize it to beat the test... The real test would be to record normal browsing habits or a large cross section of people, and then repeat exactly the same mouse clicks and key board input to various browsers and then check the battery endurance.
From the article: "Second, we examined the real-world energy telemetry from millions of Windows 10 devices."
Re: (Score:2)
As much as you're right about gaming tests I don't at all doubt the actual result of this one.
A browser that is a bit of a resource hog, vs one that's unlikely to actually render the page in the first place? Yeah I'll pick the latter for good battery performance.
I just did a quick sense check on this too. Loaded up a 4k youtube video and checked CPU usage. ~20% utilisation on chrome (variance from 15-27%), ~8% utilisation on edge (variance from 6-10%). So I believe the numbers. ..... I'm still not going to
Re: (Score:2)
No. There is something to Edge's efficiency. At least vs Chrome I've noticed it.
I have an old Lenovo S10e with an SSD and 2GB Ram running Windows 10, running on a first gen Atom Processor. When I installed Chrome on it it would take minutes before the main windows for chrome would show up. same goes for IE. Edge however would take up to 15 seconds tops. It also ran much better than chrome when browsing sites performance wise. Pages came up faster, video played smoother and pages would scroll smoother than C
Re: (Score:2)
So the streaming client that runs with edge is better than the streaming client that runs with Chrome. Good. What about browsing the internet?
Even if you talk about watching videos, it will be different depending on what codecs are used. Maybe you don't get the same result if you watch VP9 encoded videos. Are we really talking about the flash player? is edge using hardware decoding?
And with room for improvement! (Score:5, Interesting)
Just think how much more efficient it could be if it didn't have to drag all that telemetry baggage with it all the time!
Re:And with room for improvement! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just think how much more efficient it could be if it didn't have to drag all that telemetry baggage with it all the time!
That is probably how they beat Chrome, since Chrome has a lot more telemetry than Edge.
Did you known Google Chrome does A/B testing with optimizations and architecture redesigns, enabling some at random and then reporting back to Google how often they crash or cause other issues?
Re: (Score:2)
Just think how much more efficient it could be if it didn't have to drag all that telemetry baggage with it all the time!
That is probably how they beat Chrome, since Chrome has a lot more telemetry than Edge.
Did you known Google Chrome does A/B testing with optimizations and architecture redesigns, enabling some at random and then reporting back to Google how often they crash or cause other issues?
Well, Edge does not need as much telemetry as Chrome since most of the telemetry is actually done under Windows 10 which is an operating system.
Also in Chrome, all that you mentioned is normally turned "off" by default. You have to deliberately turn them on if you want them.
It is not off by default, and you can not disable all of it. A lot Chrome features depends on being able to talk to Google.
Jules (Score:5, Funny)
"Microsoft Says Edge Browser Is More Power-Efficient Than Chrome"
Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy motherfucker.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you consider a dog a filthy animal?
Who cares? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't care of gives me the ability to poop gold bullion. I'm never going to use it. It's a Windows-only browser that was written by Microsoft, and not only that it's only available for Windows 10.
Microsoft already demonstrated with Internet Explorer, that they will happily turn the internet into a filthy Windows-centric cesspool the second they are given the opportunity. The last thing we want to do is give them the opportunity to try again. The fact that it only works on Windows 10 (which is another nigh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care of gives me the ability to poop gold bullion. I'm never going to use it.
I would be willing to use any browser if it provided me with a regular source of gold bullion.
And on OS X/Linux it's 100% more efficient... (Score:2)
... because Edge only runs on Windows so, being unable to run on those operating systems, we could say it uses zero energy.
Video format? (Score:2)
Interestingly, Chrome was the first to kill the laptop in the video streaming test at 4 hours and 19 minutes. Firefox closely followed its rival at 5 hours and 9 minutes, while Opera (running on the same tech as Chrome) managed to hit 6 hours and 18 minutes. In Microsoft's tests, it was found that Edge was best of the bunch when it came to enjoying a video online, lasting for 7 hours and 22 minutes.
Was this an HTML5 video, or was it playing in Flash player or some other plugin? It doesn't seem to say in th
Interesting but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Their investors should be demanding that they shop in this futile battle, and try something that is actually groundbreaking where they MIGHT have a chance to dominate if they get in before some smart 3rd university student get's in on the action. :D
When has Microsoft ever done that, though? Their investors should be demanding that they buy something that is actually groundbreaking, Microsoft has managed that before and could probably do it again.
If that's all they got... (Score:5, Insightful)
Compare w/Opera's New Power-Saving Mode? (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally, I am wondering how the results would stack up with Opera thrown in with the power saving mode [opera.com] turned on.
The article points out that Edge does pretty darn well without the need for any power saving mode. Like, ok, but perhaps it makes sense to have a full featured, powerful browser (which Opera is becoming again, though for a long time that was really questionable) with the ability to flip a switch that reduces the "power" (reducing activity of background tabs, wake CPU less often, pause unused extensions, etc) and increases battery life. Also there's the built in ad-blocker, which I'd think would substantially reduce power consumption.
Please re-run the test.
So basically they're saying that (Score:2)
Edge is an under-powered browser.
Go home Nadella, you're drunk.
Edge sucks, and I like Microsoft.
Extensions? (Score:2)
No Ublock Origin == not using Edge.
Benchmarks? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and benchmarks." --- Jon "Maddog" Hall, Atlanta, GA, 1999
From the article: "we examined the real-world energy telemetry from millions of Windows 10 devices"
So it's statistics, not benchmarks.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, the actual original quote is from Mark Twain (who attributed it to Benjamin Disraeli):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
re: (Score:2)
There are better ways for them to spend their time (Score:2)
How about focusing on making edge more standards-compliant instead of worrying about battery?
Stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
First sentence of summary is a MASSIVE FAIL. Using RAM is not what wastes power. Using CPU wastes power.
Conflict of Interest (Score:2)
Edge more power efficient than Chrome (Score:2)
That's like saying Popeye has better eyesight than a blind person.
Why Did They Bother? (Score:2)
Most people are perfectly willing to burn battery power on the things they want to do.
People buy computers---including premium features like battery life---to run what they want. Or they buy accessories after the fact like DC chargers and spare batteries.
At most, this article made me consider Opera as an alternative to Chrome, as it is equally functional and perhaps less demanding.
From a security standpoint, I am fine with almost anything that replaces Internet Explorer. But seriously, everyone who really w
Even more efficient... (Score:2)
You know what's even more efficient that using Microsoft Edge? Not using it.
I've heard that actually improves the web experience a bit too.
What a joke. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Blame the submitter. For better or worse, Slashdot has always passed through submissions as written - and, if they get enough votes, they make it to the front page.
Personally, I found the obvious bias of the submitter rather funny.
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard NetCraft is the place to go.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But more importantly how well does it support web standards. Even from going from I.E. To edge you are still 5 years behind the time in compatibility.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not crazy about it, but in my web development where I constantly hit things IE won't do, I haven't had to make many concessions to target Edge when I get to ignore IE.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...on Windows.
Not that Chrome is much better on anything else, but obviously they didn't test against the others on non-Windows OSes.
I mention this because damned near every bit of Microsoft software on the Mac (Office, RDP client, etc) is bloated and slower than hell... I'd imagine if they made IE/Edge/Whatever for the Mac again, it would probably suck (...down the battery, in this case.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome uses more of almost everything, in my experience. Including disk writes/reads, memory footprint and CPU time. What it's doing, I don't know but the fan on my Surface Pro starts to wheeze whenever I have Chrome even in the background.
It got significantly worse with Windows 10 (I know, I know, shame on me for upgrading). To the point where the machine, with an i5 processor, will stutter and lag just from browsing simple websites.
I get the feeling Chrome on Windows is a side-project for Google at this p
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, the summary starts off with quite a whopper. First thing that caught my eye. Nothing hurts your message quite like blundering massively in the first sentence. "By extension, battery" my ass.