Live data from Hacker News

Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X

blog.getbatterybox.com

71–80 of 112 posts

Re: Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X

#71
For a long time I have been trying to switch to Safari, but the UI just does not work for my use case. I really need tabs with site icons, and an address bar that goes side to side and does not auto center text.

Are there any good alternatives to Safari that also use WebKit? Something that would be more efficient, but with a more traditional interface. To each his own, of course, but it would kill apple to make some of the more recent changes to Safari optional.

Re: Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X

#72
post #62

Safari on Yosemite also shows power usage per tab which is great for identifying rogue websites. Also... TIL that some sites take more power to render than a 1080p stream! This also of reinforces the argument for installing an ad blocker -- less elements to process on each page means less power used. µBlock is particularly promising as it's very lightweight.

> some sites take more power to render than a 1080p stream!

This is an interesting aspect of Optimisation. If video decoding were developed using similar standards to the bulk of software it would only be capable of displaying a slideshow.

Video gets massively optimised (at all levels) because the alternative is 'No Video'. It is a good demonstration of the gap between the performance of software and what it could be. Most software can get by being a little bit sluggish so we grumble and suffer but it is not a deal-breaker. What we buy with that performance hit is easier development.

Re: Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X

#73
post #71

For a long time I have been trying to switch to Safari, but the UI just does not work for my use case. I really need tabs with site icons, and an address bar that goes side to side and does not auto center text. Are there any good alternatives to Safari that also use WebKit? Something that would be more efficient, but with a more traditional interface. To each his own, of course, but it would kill apple to make some…

Same here. I could run just about everything I needed (notably, 1Password and µBlock) and be very happy with Safari if it weren't for the inexplicable lack of favicons on tabs. There are some SIMBL hacks and such, but I just want that simple feature built in.

Re: Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X

#74
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of other commenters have remarked about the lacking rigor and narrow scope of the tests. It would be interesting (and time consuming) to re-run this test with many more parameters: * Fresh install of OSX vs fresh install of Win8.1/Win10 on capable Macbook. (I'm unsure about Linux or other distros running on Macbooks, add that to the test if it's feasible.) * Javascript enabled and disabled. * Flash enabled and d…

Desktop PCs don't have battery concerns, certainly, but electricity still costs money, and if you can reduce the power usage of your computer by a significant amount, that can translate directly to saving money.

Yes, that is what I meant to say.

Re: Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X

#75
post #71

For a long time I have been trying to switch to Safari, but the UI just does not work for my use case. I really need tabs with site icons, and an address bar that goes side to side and does not auto center text. Are there any good alternatives to Safari that also use WebKit? Something that would be more efficient, but with a more traditional interface. To each his own, of course, but it would kill apple to make some…

For me it's the other way round, i've been trying to use Firefox but the "pinch to zoom" feature in Safari is so smooth, and so crappy in Firefox, that i always keep coming back to Safari... If you read a lot of text on a Macbook, being able to zoom quickly and efficiently becomes a high priority.

Things like this are much more important for me than energy-efficiency.

Re: Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X

#78
post #71

For a long time I have been trying to switch to Safari, but the UI just does not work for my use case. I really need tabs with site icons, and an address bar that goes side to side and does not auto center text. Are there any good alternatives to Safari that also use WebKit? Something that would be more efficient, but with a more traditional interface. To each his own, of course, but it would kill apple to make some…

I like the UI, especially after they adopted Chrome's "don't resize the tabs when the mouse is in the tab bar and the user is closing tabs" feature.

The only thing I really miss in Safari is searching websites using a prefix.

Re: Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X

#79
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of other commenters have remarked about the lacking rigor and narrow scope of the tests. It would be interesting (and time consuming) to re-run this test with many more parameters: * Fresh install of OSX vs fresh install of Win8.1/Win10 on capable Macbook. (I'm unsure about Linux or other distros running on Macbooks, add that to the test if it's feasible.) * Javascript enabled and disabled. * Flash enabled and d…

Desktop PCs don't have battery concerns, certainly, but electricity still costs money, and if you can reduce the power usage of your computer by a significant amount, that can translate directly to saving money.

The cost of electricity for running a desktop computer is on the order of 2 cents per hour (assuming it draws around 200 W while browsing). If you reduce that by 20%, you save a whopping $8 a year if you spend 5 hours browsing every day.

No, this is mainly motivated by laptops, and I'd say it's even more related to thermal management than battery life. Macbooks are notorious for being very hot under high load, so naturally Apple wants a common task like browsing to be low load/heat.

Re: Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X

#80
post #71

For a long time I have been trying to switch to Safari, but the UI just does not work for my use case. I really need tabs with site icons, and an address bar that goes side to side and does not auto center text. Are there any good alternatives to Safari that also use WebKit? Something that would be more efficient, but with a more traditional interface. To each his own, of course, but it would kill apple to make some…

For me it's the other way round, i've been trying to use Firefox but the "pinch to zoom" feature in Safari is so smooth, and so crappy in Firefox, that i always keep coming back to Safari... If you read a lot of text on a Macbook, being able to zoom quickly and efficiently becomes a high priority. Things like this are much more important for me than energy-efficiency.

> If you read a lot of text on a Macbook, being able to zoom quickly and efficiently becomes a high priority

I read lots of text on my Macbook and I have never purposely used this feature. On occasion I have accidentally engaged it, which is annoying.

Post reply on HN