4 ms·
It's funny how Microsoft conducted the "tests" on Chrome [1] & Firefox [2] and discreetly leave out Safari. Safari is by far a winner when it comes to efficienc
by scope 10y ago
It's funny how Microsoft conducted the "tests" on Chrome [1] & Firefox [2] and discreetly leave out Safari. Safari is by far a winner when it comes to efficiency. So hats off to MS for their "informative" & "thorough" test(s).
[1] has been known for draining battery, so no surprises there.
[2] which for a couple of releases has become even more unusable. On my MBP (2014, i5, 8GB), takes over 4+ seconds for the bar to activate. Hopefully with the introduction of E10S [3], next releases will be much more perfomant.
[3] https://wiki.mozilla.org/E10s https://wiki.mozilla.org/E10s
EDIT: I did not know Safari is no more on Windows. So in that case Edge is the winner for Windows.
- j45 10y agoCo-signed. I had no idea how efficient Safari was.
- MBCook 10y agoSafari doesn't run on Windows (anymore, and it wasn't efficient). Edge doesn't run on OS X. I think it was fair. They showed browsers on Windows. I just wish more people would realize just how bad Chrome is at power efficiency so that Goigle might pretend to care.
- EpicEng 10y agoSo... You think MS should have run all of their tests on macOS?
- CyberFonic 10y agoHow about porting Edge to Android and testing on a smartphone?
- EpicEng 10y ago...because they care most about performance on Windows?
- coldtea 10y ago>It's funny how Microsoft conducted the "tests" on Chrome [1] & Firefox [2] and discreetly leave out Safari. Safari is by far a winner when it comes to efficiency. So hats off to MS for their "informative" & "thorough" test(s). Safari also doesn't run (anymore) on Windows platforms that Microsoft targets, so it's irrelevant to their point.