HN Explorer

12 comments

[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 31.2 ms ] thread
JohnTHaller
Safari for Windows was abandoned 2 years ago by Apple with no announcement and no transition plan. It's now got quite a few unpatched security vulnerabilities and shouldn't be used by anyone. I'm not sure why it even warranted a mentioned in this article.
dmart
Interesting. I'd like to see a similar test for OS X - at least anecdotally, Chrome seems to destroy my battery life compared to Safari (though to what extent App Nap helps Safari in that regard, I'm not certain.)
allegory
Same issue here with 10.9 and Chrome 36.

Get 4h45m with Chrome versus 6h30m with Safari doing the same tasks daily on a 2011 MBP i7.

Not overly bothered as I work right next to a power socket all day every day but it's an interesting statistic.

lloeki
Well you'll go through battery cycles more often, resulting in comparatively premature wear.
tatalegma
What if you're plugged in all the time?
the_mitsuhiko
Firefox for the last few versions is a constant offender in my battery usage panel in OS X Mavericks. Very disappointing.
lobster_johnson
While this article is about Windows, the situation is very different on Macs, where Safari completely trounces Chrome 36 in terms of battery life, but also rendering performance and UI responsiveness.
batmanthehorse
Are you aware of any tests confirming this, or is it just anecdotal?
bendyorke
I'm not sure of any official tests, but I often keep Activity Monitor open, and I've noticed Chrome using on average 2x more CPU. Plus, that's excluding the occasional "Google Chrome Helper" that tries to use 95+% of the CPU randomly (even when the app is in the background).

Not that I'm claiming that this is proof that Safari is better than Chrome, but in my experience it uses a fraction of the CPU and gets the same job done.

pohl
The "Energy Impact" and "Avg. Energy Impact" columns (also in Activity Monitor) are also helpful for this.