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

Why we challenge Microsoft’s battery test

opera.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 220 posts

Re: Why we challenge Microsoft’s battery test

#191

Post by rkangel »

Aissen wrote: post #185
kylealden wrote: post #91

Edge platform team employee here. A couple thoughts on methodology, focusing on our scripted test (under "stay productive longer" at https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2016/06/20/more-... ), which is most comparable to Opera's test; nobody seems to challenge our Netflix results: * We did not enable ad blockers, because we were testing the efficiency of the network stack, browser rendering pipeline, etc.; if…

> nobody seems to challenge our Netflix results: Of course, this is Lotus vs Office all over again. You're using the OS advantage (Windows 10 and its DRM platform) to show that you can do things more efficiently. You chose the technology platform (I'm guessing Play Ready), you forced GPU vendors to comply, and now you give competitors a bad reputation for daring to use their own (or a competitor's) technology.

Or, to put it another way: the have built a well integrated technology stack and are now demonstrating that it has superior performance on a metric we all care about.

Apple has a different approach (own the entire stack) but they're going for the same thing and it has made them a lot of cash.

Re: Why we challenge Microsoft’s battery test

#192

Post by moron4hire »

ryuuchin wrote: post #162
oxymoron wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not quite that simple [0][1], or at least it wasn't always. AdBlock Plus in particular used to rely on a massive style sheet that was injected into all tabs and frames, which degraded really quickly on pages with a lot of iframes (which, as it happens, is typically pages with lots of ads). I believe Firefox partly resolved the problem on their end later on, although I can't tell you the exact status of things. N…

No, it really is that simple[1]. The only reason I can think of for someone not using uBlock Origin is because they've never heard of it. [1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock#performance

I got rid of it because it made using the web nearly impossible and I got annoyed with constantly having to manage exceptions just to do things like view my Twitter analytics page. Downloading ads is less annoying than uBlock.

Re: Why we challenge Microsoft’s battery test

#193

Post by anc84 »

dogma1138 wrote: post #140
patcheudor wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hardly complicated. I've put such tests together in an afternoon. In fact, whatever is added in complexity is gained by the fact fewer tests are necessary. Via this mechanism you can also remove any questions about compression, use of HTTP/2, etc., which could impact the tests based on server-side choices when it comes to serving data to either platform. Equal always equals better.

But those metrics are important, if servers serve more optimized pages to Edge users for some reason that a freaking important fact to know. This is about real world data and real experiences and how it affects actual real users. You can normalize the tests to the point where there is absolutely zero difference between the browsers, of that I'm sure, but that will not reflect any actual cases that real users experien…

That would be a whole different test then. Not about efficiency of the browser itself but about what the browser gets served.

Re: Why we challenge Microsoft’s battery test

#194

Post by anc84 »

moron4hire wrote: post #192
ryuuchin wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it really is that simple[1]. The only reason I can think of for someone not using uBlock Origin is because they've never heard of it. [1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock#performance

I got rid of it because it made using the web nearly impossible and I got annoyed with constantly having to manage exceptions just to do things like view my Twitter analytics page. Downloading ads is less annoying than uBlock.

Click ublock icon, click power icon, done.

Re: Why we challenge Microsoft’s battery test

#195

Post by Sylos »

nachtigall wrote: post #93
Sylos wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the battery-benchmarks that I've seen so far, Firefox was always the leading browser, so granted those benchmarks did not test Opera's battery saving mode, Firefox should still be at least in second place. And Firefox does also have a native ad-blocker, so if you enable that, too, I could imagine that it maybe even still outperforms Opera's battery saving mode, but yeah, a proper benchmark would be good...

> Firefox does also have a native ad-blocker I don't think it has one natively. Which one do you mean? Or are you referring to tracking protection (private mode only, but available in Fx 49 also in "normal" mode iirc)

Yeah, I'm referring to Tracking Protection. It's not supposed to be an ad-blocker, but with almost all ads using tracking code, you rarely encounter ads when it's enabled. It's probably even better for battery life than just an ad-blocker, as a lot of webpages also execute tracking code which isn't bound to ads.

And you could always enable it in normal browsing by setting "privacy.trackingprotection.enabled" in about:config to true...

Re: Why we challenge Microsoft’s battery test

#196

Post by moron4hire »

anc84 wrote: post #194
moron4hire wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got rid of it because it made using the web nearly impossible and I got annoyed with constantly having to manage exceptions just to do things like view my Twitter analytics page. Downloading ads is less annoying than uBlock.

Click ublock icon, click power icon, done.

yeah, so why have it installed at all?

Re: Why we challenge Microsoft’s battery test

#197

Post by dogma1138 »

anc84 wrote: post #193
dogma1138 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But those metrics are important, if servers serve more optimized pages to Edge users for some reason that a freaking important fact to know. This is about real world data and real experiences and how it affects actual real users. You can normalize the tests to the point where there is absolutely zero difference between the browsers, of that I'm sure, but that will not reflect any actual cases that real users experien…

That would be a whole different test then. Not about efficiency of the browser itself but about what the browser gets served.

The test was which browser gives you the better battery life while browsing the internet like a normal user.

Why is a different question and it's not that relevant, I often don't care why something I USE works better I just care that it does.

If it something I BUILD then I would care much more but again this is a whole different issue.

Re: Why we challenge Microsoft’s battery test

#198

Post by [deleted] »

anc84 wrote: post #193
dogma1138 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But those metrics are important, if servers serve more optimized pages to Edge users for some reason that a freaking important fact to know. This is about real world data and real experiences and how it affects actual real users. You can normalize the tests to the point where there is absolutely zero difference between the browsers, of that I'm sure, but that will not reflect any actual cases that real users experien…

That would be a whole different test then. Not about efficiency of the browser itself but about what the browser gets served.

[deleted]

Re: Why we challenge Microsoft’s battery test

#199

Post by [deleted] »

kylealden wrote: post #91

Edge platform team employee here. A couple thoughts on methodology, focusing on our scripted test (under "stay productive longer" at https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2016/06/20/more-... ), which is most comparable to Opera's test; nobody seems to challenge our Netflix results: * We did not enable ad blockers, because we were testing the efficiency of the network stack, browser rendering pipeline, etc.; if…

[deleted]

Re: Why we challenge Microsoft’s battery test

#200

Post by ebbv »

JoBrad wrote: post #143
ebbv wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering Microsoft recently added ads to the Windows 10 login screen, I wouldn't hold my breath on Edge coming with an ad blocker out of the box. EDIT: Downvotes? Really this is factually accurate: http://lifehacker.com/windows-10-is-showing-ads-on-your-lock...

The article you linked to specifically talks about how easy it is to turn them off.

I knew someone would make this lame excuse. That's like saying "Hey if you don't want me to take a shit on your sandwich it's really easy to order it without the shit."
Post reply on HN