Clearly, HDmac and tentaxlbunga haven't used IE9. It's actually quite a decent browser. That having been said, I'll stick with FF4 - I've found FF4 with noscript has an amazingly good battery life due to the elimination of all unnecessary flash.
That's not bad, this means that I can take a 10 minute hit (out of 3 hours and 45 minutes) of browsing time to use FF and enjoy my browsing experience. Couple that with NoScript (as cjl mentioned) and I'll be computing longer!
That last table showing wattage consumed while sitting on certain sites makes absolutely no sense at all. How can "IE9 come out on top of the pack" if it has the highest "W" for two, and middle of the pack for the other two...
I know Im missing something, I just cant figure out watt[sic]?
IE9 is a huge improvement over the IE8, it's almost like it's two differnt browsers with the same interface. It would seem microsoft have rewriten most of the code from scrach and done a good jobb while at it!
Im considering to switch once the IE9 plugins starts to show up!
Wait WTF. According to the tests, Firefox has the system consuming LESS power in all tests but galactic but they claim that ie will have 10 minutes more battery life? WTF? Am I missing something?
And chrome is way better than ie in half the tests and comes close in one, only falling really behind in one test, so why the 1 hour difference?
Enzo said what was on my mind. It doesn't make any sense to a program to use less energy but have lesser battery life? Only way that's possible is if they were tested on different hardware which kind of defeats the purpose...
Hardware is what I care more about when it comes to power and savings. When it comes to software though, proving you have the most power saving software seems like a justifcation for why yours is the slowest.
[citation][nom]Enzo Matrix[/nom]Why isn't tom's responding with their own tests to verify these claims?[/citation]
Toms does not do any of their own testing these days. Its a copy and paste site and its sad to see Tom's like this.
These results are probably due to the complete (or nearly complete) hardware acceleration in Firefox 4 and IE9. The GPU is much more energy-efficient than the CPU used by the other three browsers in performing rendering tasks like those used in the tests.
[citation][nom]fafkac[/nom]the table looks like it was performed on different notebooks, how in the world can IE got longest battery life when it draw far more than other browsers, that is nonsense[/citation]
[citation][nom]cjl[/nom]Clearly, HDmac and tentaxlbunga haven't used IE9. It's actually quite a decent browser. That having been said, I'll stick with FF4 - I've found FF4 with noscript has an amazingly good battery life due to the elimination of all unnecessary flash.[/citation]
I find flash isn't too bad at consuming power if you have GPU acceleration. It used to kill my Macbook's battery, now it just eats slowly at my x120e battery (GPU acceleration).
[citation][nom]malmental[/nom]this is just MS firing back at the report earlier last week saying that IE9 can't save MS in the browser market..[/citation]
And those reports are correct. MS has dropped the ball on IE for soo long that 3rd party browsers like FireFox, Opera, Chrome, have all surpassed IE in just about everything. Going to any of those 3rd party browsers is like going from a Ford Focus with IE to a Mustang GT 5.0