Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

IE8 = Longer Battery Life on Laptops?

Last response: in News comments
Share
September 16, 2009 10:04:41 PM

Maybe because it's slower and you get to watch less pages ...
Score
19
September 16, 2009 10:11:05 PM

LOLWUT?

CryogenicMaybe because it's slower and you get to watch less pages ...


Probably so.


Also, this test which is bull, does not proove IE 8 uses less system resources.

THIS CHART IS BULL
Score
-6
Related resources
September 16, 2009 10:53:16 PM

what about the newest beta of chrome version 4 i would like to see a more indepth test or review of the browsers which includes the latest betas to give a more through conclusion.
Score
0
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
September 16, 2009 10:56:27 PM

you people are all apple nut-huggers. IE 9 "just works" all the others are only good until something don't work and then you use the app that "just works" NUT-HUGGERS you are all.
Score
-12
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
September 16, 2009 11:00:35 PM

hey google nut-huggers. Google made chrome so they can data-mine everything you do. freaking idiots, read the ula. They are the freaking UMBRELLA company and soon they will run the world from a smoke filled room. "Mr. President, we know that you googled midget porn in 1999. We also know that you had 2 facebook accounts and uploaded pictures in womens panties."
Score
-5
September 16, 2009 11:20:44 PM

ugh, when Google start creating biological weapons in huge underground labs and selling them to the highest bidder, then I might take notice. till then, I don't put sensitive information on the net anyway, and if all it means is that the annoying ads I get bombarded with are more relevant to me, well, so much the better. futhermore, we should stop just assuming that the browser made by the biggest software company in the world, by the same company that rote the damn operating system, will just be shitter than the rest. now that they have competition, maybe they've upped their game.

still, how did they do the test? did they just leave it on one page for the whole test? or did they load lots of pages? meaning load times could have effected the test results? (the slower browser may not have had time to load the more intensive pages at the end of the test for instance?)
Score
0
September 16, 2009 11:25:08 PM

Basically, don't use Safari
Score
4
September 16, 2009 11:38:43 PM

it works great until you get all the viruses that target IE
Score
5
September 16, 2009 11:57:09 PM

So... 7 extra minutes of battery life, or a safer, faster browser?
Score
4
a b D Laptop
September 16, 2009 11:58:25 PM

In other words, I'll turn my screen brightness down a notch and still use Firefox. Great.
Score
6
September 17, 2009 12:24:20 AM

dingumfLOLWUT? Probably so.Also, this test which is bull, does not proove IE 8 uses less system resources.THIS CHART IS BULL


Always repeat your message, preferably with capital letters. It proves you're right.

ALWAYS REPEAT YOUR MESSAGE
Score
4
September 17, 2009 1:35:25 AM

I'll stick to FF+Adblock. IE probably just renders less stuff in that amount of time, thereby using less power.
Score
3
September 17, 2009 2:12:00 AM

lol. The only reason IE uses less battery power is because it uses less processing power because it is the SLOWEST of all the browsers. Simple.
Score
3
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
September 17, 2009 2:58:02 AM

Toms, I read the article, and can not believe it!
I'd really appreciate it if you could verify this test!
(I just don't own a software that can time pageloads).
Score
2
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
September 17, 2009 3:01:11 AM

What is this stupid rampent fanboy-ism going on here. You can't let IE8 give you like 4% more battery life.

Also about rendering they could easily load 1 page wait 10 secs and load another and run it in a macro.

"Obviously, that's a huge difference in battery life. You get roughly 50% more battery life in simple Internet surfing compared to surfing sites that use of lots of Flash content (along with frames, numerous tables, etc.) Last we checked, your average website is nowhere near what would qualify as "simple", and Flash content is ubiquitous. For better or for worse, we're going to focus on battery life when viewing three websites. One of the websites is AnandTech.com, and the other two shall remain nameless. Suffice it to say, all three sites have approaches to web design that we see replicated all over the Internet." You are telling me the pages they choose was so intensive they could not load in IE8 in 60 secs man you must be stupid.

Want to know what it could easily be the Flash engine for IE vs the flash engine for the other browsers.

True browser speed difference is less then a second to load a whole page limited factor? Latency and bandwidth =p
Score
2
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
September 17, 2009 3:02:35 AM

"For testing, we load the three sites into tabs on our test web browser, wait 60 seconds, and then reload all three tabs."
Score
0
September 17, 2009 3:03:17 AM

I use Firefox + AdBlock so I do not see the need to switch to that horrid IE8 for few mins of battery life.
Score
-1
September 17, 2009 3:06:49 AM

BS
Score
-5
September 17, 2009 3:16:38 AM

I don't care if IE8 saved 10x the power. I'm not giving up my Firefox...
Score
-3
September 17, 2009 4:01:31 AM

BurodsxI don't care if IE8 saved 10x the power. I'm not giving up my Firefox...


If IE8 gave me 50+ hours of surfing, I would actually give up firefox.
Score
2
September 17, 2009 5:12:21 AM

... everything else but not IE... maybe then, when IE goes open source and let's the community develop it...
Score
-3
September 17, 2009 6:29:14 AM

if it gives me viruses....I'M IN!!!!!!!
Score
-4
September 17, 2009 7:48:19 AM

I don't think it's IE "by itself" that uses up less power; rather, I think it's Flash for IE that uses system resources better than the 'Netscape plug-in" version (Adobe Flash comes in two formats, in Windows: ActiveX control, for IE; Netscape plug-in, for all other browsers), as 'Firefox+AdBlock' demonstrates: all Flash adds are removed in Firefox, but stuff like YouTube videos are not (since they are part of the site and not blacklisted by AdBlock).

Another test that could be done, is Firefox+Adblock+NoScript. If you try THAT combination, you'll probably reduce power use by quite a lot (if you don't spend all your time watching YouTube, I mean; if you do, that won't save squat).

Imagine, only opening Flash videos you really want to watch...

What do we learn from that? Well, Flash in ActiveX is more resources-efficient than a Netscape plugin. But wait, ain't ActiveX an entry door for virii? Ooooh...
Score
-1
September 17, 2009 8:35:14 AM

Battery life over security/extensibility? I would choose the latter anytime. I would not opt with the extra battery life being used by other people for their own purposes.
Score
-3
September 17, 2009 11:28:48 AM

Hey its all about options right? Take what u want.. leave what u dont.. so far I've been ok with IE..

Article is interesting.. thank the author and move on.. hate posts makes this dumb.. if u want to comment then try to bring something technical to the table.
Score
2
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
September 17, 2009 11:39:53 AM

Imagine a browser that the entire web was designed to run on giving you more batter life. Now imaging a product you like better that gets less battery life and that doesn't always work so you have to use the product that works all the time. Only a fanboy would still trash out the one that just works.

So why are all you fanboys being so harsh on the IE? So you prefer to use FF, UNTIL it just don't load the page right and you have to go IE. And Chrome and Safari are both big giant jokes.

Safari will never be anything. Apple can't build an operating system to save their life. When the one they have is obsolete, they will just grab something opensource and rename and sell it with flashy advertising (kudos to them).
Score
0
September 17, 2009 1:35:49 PM

Ban Flash Adverts
Score
0
September 17, 2009 2:26:03 PM

I don't think a test like this could be very accurate. The only way it could be is if they set up fixed webservers/pages. Browsing the internet normally, you'll run into different ads, even on the same sight. If one browser had bad luck and kept getting animated flash videos while the other got simple banners, it would make a huge difference. I'd like to know the details of the test before drawing any conclusions.
Score
1
September 17, 2009 7:10:46 PM

Ya Firefox + ABP is great.

Safari 4 is trying to be too much like iTunes, though I respect webkit very much.
Score
0
September 17, 2009 7:33:11 PM

koga73lol. The only reason IE uses less battery power is because it uses less processing power because it is the SLOWEST of all the browsers. Simple.


That would make sence, but by that course of logic Safari would be the fastest of them, which no one here seems to be willing to admit :-P
Score
0
September 17, 2009 8:28:19 PM

tipooThat would make sence, but by that course of logic Safari would be the fastest of them, which no one here seems to be willing to admit :-P

I don't care how fast safari is - pages load fast enough in my current browser (FF+adblock), and I'm not willing to give up half an hour of battery for a few tenths of a second of gain when loading pages. Similarly, I won't switch to IE for a 3-4 min battery gain.

Oh, and I wouldn't think that Safari being the fastest (which is quite debatable) is not the main reason - poor coding is the likely reason for it to hog so many resources (seriously, half an hour less battery than FF without adblock is pretty ridiculous).
Score
0
September 19, 2009 8:29:18 AM

^ With the power of thought. :heink: 
Score
0
September 22, 2009 2:42:33 PM

Stop the presses, or at least the rumors. Anandtech has now questioned their own tests as they are seeing too much variation on some subsequent tests for another article.
http://anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=3642

That doesn't mean the original results are incorrect, only that it's not a reliable test.

I still won't be using IE8 for anything other than WindowsUpdate, but that's another story.
Score
0
!