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."
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?)
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
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...