Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Building a more power-efficient browser

blogs.windows.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 105 posts

Re: Building a more power-efficient browser

#41

Post by taf2 »

mappu wrote: post #30
iamleppert wrote: post #24

They can start to compare themselves against Chrome when they are at least at feature parity with HTML5, CSS3, Ecmascript6, work cross-platform (not just on Microsoft-owned platforms), and have useable developer tools. I'm not sure I know of any professional web developers that don't view IE/Edge as an afterthought still. We build our applications in Chrome/FF, using Chrome/FF, and occasionally test to make sure the…

>when they are at least at feature parity with HTML5, CSS3, Ecmascript6 Edge 14 has 90% on kangax, putting it on par with current Firefox 48. >work cross-platform (not just on Microsoft-owned platforms) Valid concern. >have useable developer tools Have you tried them recently? They've made massive improvements. >They are also missing something like Electron UWP for Windows 8+, HTA for older platforms.

Does Edge implement WebRTC now?

Re: Building a more power-efficient browser

#42

Post by partiallypro »

iamleppert wrote: post #24

They can start to compare themselves against Chrome when they are at least at feature parity with HTML5, CSS3, Ecmascript6, work cross-platform (not just on Microsoft-owned platforms), and have useable developer tools. I'm not sure I know of any professional web developers that don't view IE/Edge as an afterthought still. We build our applications in Chrome/FF, using Chrome/FF, and occasionally test to make sure the…

None of what you just said negates that Chrome is a notoriously bad battery hog on PC and Mac. Opera, Edge and Safari are better than Firefox and Chrome both.

It's pretty clear you don't like Microsoft, which is fine...but your opinion added nothing to the discussion, all things considered.

Re: Building a more power-efficient browser

#43

Post by partiallypro »

gtirloni wrote: post #2

That's pretty nice but the lack of plugins means I can't have LastPass/1Password, uBlock, etc, which kills it for me.

LastPass and AdblockPlus are already available to insiders. Still waiting on PrivacyBadger and Ghostery for my own preference.

Re: Building a more power-efficient browser

#44

Post by partiallypro »

wlesieutre wrote: post #27
mey wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a Surface Book, once Edge support EFF Privacy Badger, Edge will likely become my default browser.

Sold my SP3, but do Firefox and Chrome both still feel wrong on the touchscreen, as far as scrolling and zooming go? I'd been using IE on that thing on account of nobody else being able to do it right.

They both still need work. Opera and Edge are probably the two best touch browsers for Windows, atm.

Re: Building a more power-efficient browser

#45

Post by kylealden »

taf2 wrote: post #41
mappu wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>when they are at least at feature parity with HTML5, CSS3, Ecmascript6 Edge 14 has 90% on kangax, putting it on par with current Firefox 48. >work cross-platform (not just on Microsoft-owned platforms) Valid concern. >have useable developer tools Have you tried them recently? They've made massive improvements. >They are also missing something like Electron UWP for Windows 8+, HTA for older platforms.

Does Edge implement WebRTC now?

Edge implements ORTC, working on WebRTC 1.0 for interop.

Re: Building a more power-efficient browser

#46

Post by kylealden »

sp332 wrote: post #32
fsiefken wrote: post #6

That's odd, a month ago I read a statement from Opera that they had the most power efficient browser. Which is the most powerefficient? http://www.windowscentral.com/opera-adds-power-saving-mode-i...

The Anniversary Update isn't out yet, so Opera's power-saving mode is probably the best you can get at the moment.

Actually the tests in the post linked from the Edge blog we're on current stable bits; Brandon's post details additional improvements coming soon. In our testing we're considerably more efficient than Opera.

Notably, Opera turned on their (off-by-default) ad blocker for their power efficiency measurements.

Re: Building a more power-efficient browser

#47

Post by kylealden »

acqq wrote: post #19

re: The reading mode button animation batery use improved Who needs the button animation at all? I like them not moving, every movement of something that's always on the same place is distracting. It's stunning on what they spend the energy of the management and the programmers, not only of the CPU's and GPU's of all of us. "We replaced the traditional XAML animation with a timed GPU transform, and now animate the co…

It's a hint to users that reading mode may provide a better experience. When we introduced it, reading mode usage went up; without the (very subtle) animation, users weren't aware when the feature would be useful.

Re: Building a more power-efficient browser

#48

Post by kylealden »

mtgx wrote: post #8

I wish they didn't do these tests on a Microsoft-made Surface Book...They should've taken a couple of other popular Windows 10 notebooks and maybe do the tests on those. Who knows how much of this difference is because of Edge itself (which is how well it would work on other notebooks, too), and how much it's the optimization they did for Edge for their own hardware.

We chose the Surface Book because it's instrumented with a chip that allows direct measurement of instantaneous power consumption, which most OEM devices don't have, and because it has lots of battery for a fun run-down video :)

Re: Building a more power-efficient browser

#49

Post by MBCook »

zZorgz wrote: post #40

Google did make battery life improvements by reducing wakes at least on the Mac in response to Safari performing better. Some interesting details are at https://plus.google.com/+PeterKasting/posts/GpL63A1K2TF Perhaps Edge will a nice competitive impact on the Windows side :P.

Perhaps they should have cared years ago when this problem was first clear. I don't know about on Windows but on OS X the difference has been massive for years and years.

Re: Building a more power-efficient browser

#50

Post by MBCook »

ohitsdom wrote: post #22
cptskippy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's really an Apples to Oranges comparison since Macs and PCs aren't comparable. Yes you could run Windows in BootCamp but it isn't tuned for that and is actually hampered. It would be like making a Surface Pro a hackintosh and using that as a basis for comparison.

Comparing Edge on Windows to Safari on macOS is apples to apples. Browsers running on an OS. I d be really interested in this comparison, since Apple's big selling point is being apple to specialize since they control the hardware. If Edge can come close or beat them on more diverse hardware, that would be very impressive.

Not quite. I imagine Windows isn't well optimized for a MacBook Pro, Apple isn't going to go out of their way to squeeze every drop of efficiency out like they do on OS X.
Post reply on HN