Someone should create a website to list bugs that haven’t solved for years. Hall of shame. I myself could add couple from Oracle, hibernate
Microsoft fixes 5-year-old Defender bug, reducing Firefox-related CPU use by 75%
361–370 of 443 posts
Re: Microsoft fixes 5-year-old Defender bug, reducing Firefox-related CPU use by 75%
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would be at least slightly surprised if Apple would deliberately hold back power-saving techniques from third party developers. It’s not like this is something that makes Safari much more appealing to users. Most users wouldn’t even notice that their choice to use Safari is responsible for their great battery life.
Third party developers are free to go here and see what Apple is doing: https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit > Most users wouldn’t even notice that their choice to use Safari is responsible for their great battery life. Seeing that MacOS has called out which apps are using the most energy for years, users can definitely tell which apps are using the most battery life.
Apple can and does leave things out of that repo.
Re: Microsoft fixes 5-year-old Defender bug, reducing Firefox-related CPU use by 75%
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Are you sure you want to invoke this logic? Because following it through imagine the energy savings if Firefox users switched to Chrome. Ironically, Mac users routinely complain about how power-hungry Chrome is on the Mac. Safari is significantly more efficient.
Is that because of the quality of Chrome or because Safari is a "blessed" application and probably gets to do things other applications do not? Entirely serious question. Apple is known to severely privilege their own applications over competitors.
It’s mostly that they care. Chrome is designed with the mindset that it’s the most important thing running on your computer.
Re: Microsoft fixes 5-year-old Defender bug, reducing Firefox-related CPU use by 75%
#364Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe compare manifest v2 friendly Firefox with uBlock Origin vs eventual Chrome without it :)
Serious savings indeed when the Javascript cryptominer some ad network blithely serves up is ad-blocker'd, but we prefer synthetic benchmarks . In seriousness, though, this is an issue. Elsewhere, I observe arguments about eg userbenchmark rankings, and the comparative relevance of single-core vs multicore performance. Are you playing a game, or rendering video 24/7 -- or running some entirely synthetic workload that…
Web browser benchmarks are typically designed to track real-world applications
Re: Microsoft fixes 5-year-old Defender bug, reducing Firefox-related CPU use by 75%
#365Guess that's why I never feel firefox laggy but others said it is. The first thing I do after installing windows is always installing some other antivirus to disable defender. Because the defender start routine scanning at weird time and lag games randomly, which is really annoying. I really have no clue why engineer at ms think such behavior is ok. Shouldn't scans like these scheduled at some time slot that people a…
I haven't run in to this issue either. The first thing I did when I bought my windows laptop, before ever booting it, was plug in a debian installer disk and then boot to that, erase the entire drive and install debian. More windows users should try this little trick!
Re: Microsoft fixes 5-year-old Defender bug, reducing Firefox-related CPU use by 75%
#366Earlier quoted context omitted.
A bunch of cars across many manufacturers were recalled in the 2010's due to a defect in the airbags made by the same manufacturer. One could also argue that the OS is the car, the browser is the chauffeur, and the user is the passenger.
With regard to browsers, I think we need more manufacturers, not just the GM (Google/Chrome) of browsers. I want Ford in there as well. (Sticking with US automotive companies).
[deleted]
Re: Microsoft fixes 5-year-old Defender bug, reducing Firefox-related CPU use by 75%
#367Quick napkin math of the wasted power : Firefox has ~300e6 users, let's assume the bug wasted 5 extra watts 4 hours a day. That's 250 megawatts saved, the equivalent of an average coal power plant. Because some Microsoft engineer missed a bug.
> That's 250 megawatts saved, the equivalent of an average coal power plant. Because some Microsoft engineer missed a bug. Are you sure you want to invoke this logic? Because following it through imagine the energy savings if Firefox users switched to Chrome.
Imagine the energy savings if all users installed a good ad-blocker.
Re: Microsoft fixes 5-year-old Defender bug, reducing Firefox-related CPU use by 75%
#368Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's 250 megawatts saved, the equivalent of an average coal power plant. Because some Microsoft engineer missed a bug. Are you sure you want to invoke this logic? Because following it through imagine the energy savings if Firefox users switched to Chrome.
The cause and effect exists whether or not some commenter on HN writes about it. The reason it is not “invoked” is because energy prices are sufficiently low (due to not pricing in externalities) that there exists little incentive for end users to optimize for power usage.
[deleted]
Re: Microsoft fixes 5-year-old Defender bug, reducing Firefox-related CPU use by 75%
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it should be one of the cheapest syscalls in the entire kernel. That's an educated guess... that is unfortunately very easy to disprove :(
I'd love if you'd elaborate on this. I know very little about what VirtualProtect actually does under the hood but, in theory, it should just have to flip a couple bits in the address space mapping which says what the protection level is.
It also needs to flush TLB entries. Changing permissions on page table entries is unfortunately a bit more complicated than just twiddling some bits.
Re: Microsoft fixes 5-year-old Defender bug, reducing Firefox-related CPU use by 75%
#370Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would pay the same amount for a Linux laptop that worked as easily as a MBP and had similar build quality, performance and battery life. Howver, whatever crazy-stable and easy to use and well supported hypothetical Linux this is wouldn’t be compatible with my “real” Linux use cases so I would then also install Arch or whatever and live with constantly borked everything and just swap between my Arch “Dev” OS and my…
Current Linux cannot be made “MacOS”-stable. But maybe in 5 years. Stable ?? Linux is a rock of stability, you must mean something else.
You seem to be confused, Linux is the most stable OS available for desktop or servers.