Why we challenge Microsoft’s battery test • Hacker News Board

Re: Why we challenge Microsoft’s battery test

#31

Post by darkmuck » Thu, Jun 23, 2016, 5:49 PM UTC

mwcampbell wrote: post #30

darkmuck wrote: post #29

Now that Opera Software is owned by a Chinese company I've avoided their browser anyways, regardless of potential battery/performance benefits.

Isn't that just xenophobia?

No, I don't think so. Maybe I'm a bit paranoid but I tend to avoid software from Chinese companies because of all recent stories of a apps stealing/sending data that they don't necessarily need to function. But I suppose software from any country could do the same thing though...

Re: Why we challenge Microsoft’s battery test

#32

Post by pfortuny » Thu, Jun 23, 2016, 5:51 PM UTC

mwcampbell wrote: post #30

darkmuck wrote: post #29

Now that Opera Software is owned by a Chinese company I've avoided their browser anyways, regardless of potential battery/performance benefits.

Isn't that just xenophobia?

Nope: it is Statephobia and States have no right to honor, just people eith individual bodies.

Re: Why we challenge Microsoft’s battery test

#33

Post by pfortuny » Thu, Jun 23, 2016, 5:51 PM UTC

mwcampbell wrote: post #30

darkmuck wrote: post #29

Now that Opera Software is owned by a Chinese company I've avoided their browser anyways, regardless of potential battery/performance benefits.

Isn't that just xenophobia?

Nope: it is Statephobia and States have no right to honor, just people eith individual bodies.

Re: Why we challenge Microsoft’s battery test

#34

Post by tremon » Thu, Jun 23, 2016, 5:54 PM UTC

cordite wrote: post #18

theseatoms wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't. But there's no reason anyone should be running a browser without an ad-blocker in the first place. Edge should have a lightweight ad-blocker built-in by default.

How would that fair with Bing's ad network?

How is that the user's problem?

Re: Why we challenge Microsoft’s battery test

#35

Post by feld » Thu, Jun 23, 2016, 5:56 PM UTC

bialpio wrote: post #25

guroot wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even with the ad blocker being a feature in opera out of the box? They were trying to show that opera can achieve better battery performance based on it's features and optimizations. Does that not include the ad-blocker?

In that case you might as well browse different websites because using adblocker makes your browser render different content.

Microsoft is welcome to include a native content blocker in their rendering engine

Re: Why we challenge Microsoft’s battery test

#36

Post by bradbeattie » Thu, Jun 23, 2016, 5:57 PM UTC

amq wrote: post #4

Opera with an ad blocker vs Edge without it doesn't seem like an ubiased test.

Perhaps the fairest approach would be to compare results across the different browsers with the presence or absence of various adblockers:

* Edge (no adblocker) * Opera (default adblocker) * Opera (adblocker disabled) * Chrome (no adblocker) * Chrome (uBlock Origin)

Otherwise you're just lying through omission to make your product seem better.

Re: Why we challenge Microsoft’s battery test

#37

Post by sp332 » Thu, Jun 23, 2016, 5:59 PM UTC

guroot wrote: post #16

amq wrote: post #4

Opera with an ad blocker vs Edge without it doesn't seem like an ubiased test.

Even with the ad blocker being a feature in opera out of the box? They were trying to show that opera can achieve better battery performance based on it's features and optimizations. Does that not include the ad-blocker?

It's not on by default though.

Re: Why we challenge Microsoft’s battery test

#38

Post by overgryphon » Thu, Jun 23, 2016, 5:59 PM UTC

Microsoft didn't just do a battery test, they also release statistics based on Windows 10 telemetry showing that Edge has better battery life than Chrome, Firefox:

"In addition to testing battery life internally, Microsoft also looks at tens of millions of PCs that send telemetry data to the firm, Weber said. And what it sees there is simple: A small advantage over Firefox, but massive gains of about 50 percent additional battery life when compared to Chrome."

https://www.thurrott.com/windows/windows-10/68176/microsoft-...

Re: Why we challenge Microsoft’s battery test

#39

Post by mwcampbell » Thu, Jun 23, 2016, 5:59 PM UTC

pfortuny wrote: post #32

mwcampbell wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that just xenophobia?

Nope: it is Statephobia and States have no right to honor, just people eith individual bodies.

That seems like splitting hairs to me. Would you want people to reject your software just because of your nationality or that of your company? Probably not. So it seems to me that an implication of the golden rule is that we shouldn't do that.

Re: Why we challenge Microsoft’s battery test

#40

Post by kraftman » Thu, Jun 23, 2016, 6:01 PM UTC

JulienSchmidt wrote: post #23

adrianN wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OS is a pretty obvious confounding factor, don't you think?

I think it would still be interesting. Win10 + Edge vs macOS + Safari. In the end the user does not care which OS runs in the background, just which platform offers the best experience - in this case the longest battery time.

Depends really. I prefer using ubuntu but win 10 + edge gives nearly double the battery life, so when I'm out and about I have to use win 10.