Ads

Best offers

Ads
All about Miscellaneous
 Latest Miscellaneous articles
Exclusive Interview: Nvidia's Ian Buck Talks GPGPU

Exclusive Interview: Nvidia's Ian Buck Talks GPGPU
With Snow Leopard and Windows 7 both offering GPGPU capabilities, we wanted to talk to Nvidia's Ian Buck. Not only is he one of the fathers of Brook, the programming language ultimately adopted by AMD/ATI, but the head of Nvidia's CUDA group as well. Read More

  • Beamforming: The Best WiFi You’ve Never Seen
    Forget 802.11n Draft 2.0. The future of video-capable WiFi depends on a signal-boosting technique called beamforming. We put the pioneers in this frontier through some real-world testing to find out which technology is going to change the wireless world. Read More
All Miscellaneous articles

Newsletters


  • Ask your question about IT issues
  • Post

Partners

The Games selection

kids : Bob Throw bubbles so as to make the ones that appear in the game disappear. For this, use the Right / Left arrow keys to duck or move about, and the...
crazy : PC Breakdown What is worst than a Fatal Error occuring during a game you did not save? Unleash your rage at your PC in this game. Blow it to pieces, it feels so...
Ads

Sponsored links

IE8 = Longer Battery Life on Laptops?

Next news
5:41 PM - September 16, 2009 by Kevin Parrish

A recent test shows that Internet Explorer 8 provides more laptop battery time than Firefox, Chrome, and other browsers.

There's nothing worse than trolling through your favorite video-related website and the laptop suddenly gives up the ghost, or a twenty-page document is ultimately lost because the last drop of battery juice wasn't long enough to save the file. Savvy laptop owners look for ways to reduce the load on the battery by turning off junk applications and services, however AnandTech recently discovered that battery life can be extended by using certain web browsers.

Our friends at AnandTech tested the latest version of the most popular Windows browsers on three different laptops: Internet Explorer 8, Chrome 2, Firefox 3.5.2, Opera 10.0b3, and Safari 4. Believe it or not, Microsoft's latest browser offering won in the taste test, providing a whopping 5 to 10 minutes of additional battery life in comparison to the other power leeches; a super-long thirty minutes more than Apple's graphic-intensive Safari browser.

To perform the browser benchmark, ArandTech used Gateway's NV5807u (Intel-based) and NV5214u (AMD-based) laptops as well as the ASUS Eee PC 1005HA (Intel Atom). The Gateway laptops were running Windows Vista, and the Eee PC running Windows XP. Although Internet Explorer 8 provided more battery time on both laptops, Firefox with AdBlock trailed behind by mere minutes, followed by Chrome 2; Firefox 3.5.2 sat in fourth position on the AMD laptop while Opera 9.64 was fourth on the Intel-based laptop.

As for the ASUS Eee PC, Chrome 2 actually provided longer battery time, followed by Microsoft's Internet Explorer 8 and Opera 9.64. As AnandTech pointed out, Safari 4 was the worst choice for battery life under Windows, however the site speculates that Apple's browser performs better in OS X.

Source : Tom's Hardware US

Talkback
Add your comment
Cryogenic 09/17/2009 12:04 PM
Hide
-19+

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

dingumf 09/17/2009 12:11 PM
Show
njkid3 09/17/2009 12:53 PM
Hide
-0+

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.

Anonymous 09/17/2009 12:56 PM
Show
Anonymous 09/17/2009 1:00 AM
Show
matt87_50 09/17/2009 1:20 AM
Hide
-0+

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?)

ravewulf 09/17/2009 1:25 AM
Hide
-4+

Basically, don't use Safari

maigo 09/17/2009 1:38 AM
Hide
-5+

it works great until you get all the viruses that target IE

koblec 09/17/2009 1:57 AM
Hide
-4+

So... 7 extra minutes of battery life, or a safer, faster browser?

frozenlead 09/17/2009 1:58 AM
Hide
-6+

In other words, I'll turn my screen brightness down a notch and still use Firefox. Great.

LeJay 09/17/2009 2:24 AM
Hide
-4+

dingumf :
LOLWUT? 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

tipoo 09/17/2009 3:35 AM
Hide
-3+

I'll stick to FF+Adblock. IE probably just renders less stuff in that amount of time, thereby using less power.

koga73 09/17/2009 4:12 AM
Hide
-3+

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.

ProDigit80 09/17/2009 4:58 AM
Hide
-2+

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).

Anonymous 09/17/2009 5:01 AM
Hide
-2+

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

Anonymous 09/17/2009 5:02 AM
Hide
-0+

"For testing, we load the three sites into tabs on our test web browser, wait 60 seconds, and then reload all three tabs."

doomtomb 09/17/2009 5:03 AM
Hide
--1+

I use Firefox + AdBlock so I do not see the need to switch to that horrid IE8 for few mins of battery life.

tmlclone 09/17/2009 5:06 AM
Show
Burodsx 09/17/2009 5:16 AM
Hide
--3+

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

LeJay 09/17/2009 6:01 AM
Hide
-2+

Burodsx :
I 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.

DjEaZy 09/17/2009 7:12 AM
Hide
--3+

... everything else but not IE... maybe then, when IE goes open source and let's the community develop it...

Atticah 09/17/2009 8:29 AM
Show
mitch074 09/17/2009 9:48 AM
Hide
--1+

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...

masterjaw 09/17/2009 10:35 AM
Hide
--3+

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.

tektek 09/17/2009 1:28 PM
Hide
-2+

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.

Anonymous 09/17/2009 1:39 PM
Hide
-0+

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).

Regulas 09/17/2009 3:35 PM
Hide
-0+

Ban Flash Adverts

supertrek32 09/17/2009 4:26 PM
Hide
-1+

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.

pender21 09/17/2009 9:10 PM
Hide
-0+

Ya Firefox + ABP is great.

Safari 4 is trying to be too much like iTunes, though I respect webkit very much.

tipoo 09/17/2009 9:33 PM
Hide
-0+

koga73 :
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.



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

cjl 09/17/2009 10:28 PM
Hide
-0+

tipoo :
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


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).


Sponsored links

Related articles

  • Internet Explorer's security holes cause it to regularly provide surprises. The following applies to servers: only surf the Internet if there is no other alternative. Don't ever access the Internet without a firewall and functioning anti-virus software. First, it is important to also modify the temporary directory for the Internet Explorer (Tools, Internet Options, Setting for Temporary Internet files). Since a subdirectory for temporary Internet files is automatically created, the browser has no possibility to access temporary system files that may be sensitive in nature - i.e. don't worry. We would also restrict the maximum size of this folder. By default, the Explorer helps itself as though there were no tomorrow. However, a few megaBytes are adequate for our needs. The security settings of the Internet Explorer should be left at high. ... Or Perhaps Another Browser: Mozilla Firefox 0.9 Firefox appears to be slowly becoming the alternative to the Internet Explorer, because it is small, fast and powerful without dragging along a lot of security holes. The browser is also safer because far fewer users use it than the Internet Explorer. Consequently, there are also fewer hackers interested in it. The multifunctional input line is really useful in Firefox. Small plug-ins can be obtained for it so that you can search directly for desired articles at eBay or Amazon, or you can google using keywords. There are many options to choose from and the value is enormous.

  • The Web browser is essential, and to a growing number of users even more important than the operating system itself. As more tasks commonly associated with locally-installed applications are being accomplished using online services, the Web browser will only become more critical in the future. If Firefox seems like the de facto browser for Linux, that's because it is. However, Windows users will remember late last year when Internet Explorer security holes drove them en masse to Firefox, only to later discover similar exploits in Firefox. This incident drove home the need to have multiple browsers installed, if only for emergency backup use. To put these browsers through a quick (and admittedly unscientific) test, I utilized some of the Internet's most popular Web sites. For starters, I performed a few random searches on Google to gauge page-load speed. Next, I simply navigated to the Yahoo homepage. Believe it or not, that site doesn't support very many browsers. I navigated to my house using the maps at Microsoft's new Bing.com (why not test in unfriendly territory?). And finally, I played the current feature video on Hulu, and the same on YouTube. Mozilla Firefox (v. 3.0.11) Mozilla's Firefox is the undisputed king of Web browsers on the Linux platform. No matter what any given distribution has installed by default, the vast majority of Linux users rely on Firefox as their primary window into the World Wide Web. It's popularity is due in large part to the unparalleled number of custom add-ons and plug-ins available. If a feature exists on any browser, there's probably an add-on to enable it in Firefox. This browser is more stable and secure than Internet Explorer, while still performing similarly on Web site compatibility. With all this going for it, it's no wonder that Firefox holds almost one quarter of the entire Web browser market share. That means about twenty percent of current Windows users prefer it. If you don't already use this browser, regardless of your OS, you should. Opera (v. 9.64) For many years, Opera has been the third wheel at the browser party. Today, it's more like the fifth. Opera has had a long history of innovation, often including cutting-edge features before the competition. By including a thumbnailed bookmarks page, thumbnailed tab previews, and split-screen browsing (not as optional add-ons, but integrated into the default installation), the latest version of Opera is still ahead of it's time. One of the simple features that I especially like is the ability to have a separate entry in the search bar for each tab. For example, if you search for "fried chicken recipes" in one tab, and open a second tab to search for "cornbread recipes," the search bar in the second tab will not have "fried chicken recipes," but will be blank for a new search. If nothing else, Opera is a solid backup or secondary browser and is available for just about every operating system you can think of. BeOS stalwarts rejoice! SeaMonkey (v. 1.1.15) The first thing that you're sure to notice about SeaMonkey Navigator is the Netscape Navigator theme. Of all the browsers in this article, SeaMonkey was the biggest surprise. It is hands-down the best non-mainstream offering on the list, no question. This browser had no problem handling YouTube, Hulu, Yahoo, or even Microsoft Bing Maps. Apart from the theme, being an actual descendant of Netscape makes SeaMonkey very approachable to ex-users of Navigator. When you perform a search using the search bar, a pane appears on the left side of the screen displaying search results. This feature can come in handy if you have the screen real estate to spare on a wide-screen monitor. I really did not expect to find anything decent besides Firefox and Opera, but SeaMonkey is truly a great app; something that will remain installed on my machine long after this article is finished.

  • Although Windows already offers several online programs such as Internet Explorer and Outlook Express right out of the box, many users prefer not to use these applications. After all, neither of them can be considered up-to-date, and both are simply not secure. Web Browser Today, Microsoft's web browser is considered one of the least secure programs you can use to surf the web. Using it without its ever-increasing number of patches and a proper configuration is tantamount to an invitation to worm writers, hijackers and spoofers to come in and make themselves at home. Therefore, we recommend using a more modern and safer browser such as Firefox (freeware). The better Browser: Firefox has a lot to offer compared to Internet Explorer: a much higher level of security, tabbed browsing, an integrated pop-up blocker, an easily extensible Web search window, and lots of flexibility. Here's how: Installation is very straightforward. Just click your way through the setup, and in no time you'll have Firefox up and running. Window Cleaning: Internet Explorer is deeply rooted within the operating system and should not be removed. Bear in mind that it is an integral component required for the essential Windows Update feature! Besides, there are programs, such as the RSS reader Feeddemon, that require it as a module and will not work without it. E-Mail Client Outlook Express is conveniently installed by default on every Windows computer, and as a result enjoys a very large user base. Although the program is no longer plagued by the same number of security holes as it did in the past, it is still a very popular target for viruses and worms. Thunderbird (freeware) is a much safer alternative. The better Mail Client: Thunderbird comes with a very powerful spam filter that you can train to improve its success rate. It is also suitable for mailing lists with many recipients and to subscribe to newsgroups. Finally, Thunderbird support not just mailbox access using the simple Post Office Protocol (POP3), but also the far more capable Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP). The Thunderbird Mail Client: This program can also be used to subscribe to newsgroups and mailing lists. Here's how: Install Thunderbird. On its first start, the program will ask you whether you want to import email accounts and address books from other email clients. If you answer in the negative, you are next given the opportunity to create a new email account. First, enter your name and email address in the corresponding fields, then choose whether Thunderbird should use POP3 or IMAP. Of course, the second option will only work if your provider supports IMAP. You should only leave the box for "Global Inbox (store mail in local folders)" checked if you check several accounts and want all messages to be collected in one inbox. You can get the addresses for the incoming and outgoing mail server from your provider. Next, you have to enter your account's user name. Although, this is usually the same as your email address, this is not always the case. Finally, enter a name under "Account Name" to complete the configuration. Now, let Thunderbird contact the mail server(s). The first time it establishes a connection, the program will prompt you for your password, which you can choose to add to the password manager by checking the little box under the input field. Window Cleaning: Under Windows XP, only the start menu entry for Outlook Express can be removed. To do so, go to "Start, (Settings), Control Panel, Add or Remove Programs" and click on "Add/Remove Windows Components" on the left-hand side. Scroll down in this window labeled "Components" until you find the entry for "Outlook Express". Uncheck the box and click on "Next".