Study Crowns Internet Explorer 10 as the Most Energy Efficient Browser

16

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Scatter

But Firefox kills less whales.

avatar

elistone

where is the delete button for this article .

avatar

jonnyohio

It's the biggest POS browser available but it will save you a few cents on your electric bill next month.

avatar

Electrik

Does it have an NSA blocker?

avatar

Insula Gilliganis

None of this means horse crap on a flaming stick of dog poop if IE isn't safe.. and it isn't!! Steve Gibbon on Twit.tv's "Security Now" episode 401 (April 24, 2013) (https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-401.htm) said..

"Firefox and Opera and Chrome on Windows all - and probably Chrome on Mac - still adhere to the fundamental principle of extended validation certificates, which is that they are special. They build into the browser an awareness of which certificate authorities' root EV certificates are valid for signing, and that can't be changed.

Unfortunately, Microsoft somehow didn't get the memo. They completely screwed up extended validation. There are even links that Microsoft has in their Knowledge Base about how you can make your corporate server come up green. And it's like, oh, no, that's, I mean, now it means nothing. If certificates not issued by EV certificate authorities can be made to show green on Internet Explorer, then IE is broken for extended validation completely, meaning that it's spoofable."

And in episode 402 (https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-402.htm) Steve said..

"I may have mentioned it last week.. I was beginning to rant on Internet Explorer last week, and believe me, they ended up deserving it - is the potential power of extended validation certificates. The EV certificates are those ones that all the browsers give extra attention to. GRC is an EV site. And in fact, probably by this time next week we will be 100 percent SSL. I'm going to make the switch to HTTPS everywhere, essentially force the display of all of our pages to fully secure, just so that you always know that GRC should be EV. That's important because, for browsers that have not totally screwed up extended validation, and as far as we know only Internet Explorer has completely rendered it useless.. It's unbelievable. But I've read the source code of Firefox and Chrome/Chromium. And they both did it right.. with Firefox and Chrome, they verify the hash of the root signer of the chain of trust of the certificate, and only if it matches will they turn this on. By comparison, Internet Explorer is broken completely. It is useless. There are pages on Microsoft's site showing companies how they can give their own websites extended validation green coloring, just by clicking a few buttons."

BOTTOM LINE.. quoting Steve again.. "Internet Explorer's indication of extended validation means nothing.. All of them. It's, I think, from 7. From 7 on they brag, there's like all kinds of links showing you - and I'm going to do a full page to explain this and cover it on my site. And I will link to these things where Microsoft is saying, oh, wouldn't it be fun to have extended validation on your own web servers? Here's how you do that. And essentially you can just make some changes to the registry to clear your own certificates as EV, and then IE turns green.. Which means it means nothing. It's completely broken."

avatar

praetor_alpha

<in before someone accuses this of being obfuscatedly funded by Microsoft/>

avatar

someuid

All the more reason to bring back the Start Menu as only a portion of the screen has to be re-drawn vs Modern UI and it's full screen redraws.

avatar

ZayLay

I have long known that Internet Explorer is more CPU efficient in displaying my flash presentations. I think they have a backdoor agreement with Adobe, just try doing a screen recording of a full screen HD video on a 10 year old laptop in chrome or firefox, it won't work. So it doesn't surprise me in the least. If the browser actually worked, didn't keep crashing, and could display things quicker, I would agree it's more efficient in battery life. But the fact that things take longer, it crashes and you have to start over, and eventually you have to load another browser just to see the content that breaks in IE leads me to believe just the opposite in the long run. I don't believe switching to a full day browsing in IE would prove less battery consumption.

avatar

HiGHRoLLeR038

now just watch, this 1-watt difference is gonna spin into a whole green initiative by Microsoft and they're gonna tout their new devotion to the environment haha

avatar

wolfing

of course, it has so few features that the CPU does almost nothing. Nice way to spin bad news around Microsoft!

avatar

someuid

Haha! Funny, +1!

avatar

tom_m

I wonder how much difference that would make in a laptop, over the course of a full day's browsing.

avatar

H1N1theI

I guessed it was MS sponsored before I read the article...

This is sad. Really.

MS can do much better than play POV slanting and marketing and focus on actual development and enhancements. If you have a good product, it will market itself after a while.

It's like comparing a (metric) ton of gold to a (metric) ton of horse shit. Even if it's easier to get and more affordable, it still doesn't get you anywhere in life and it will always taste like shit.

avatar

Bucket_Monster

And still no adblock, noscript, or any number of addons. I'll gladly consume a couple more watts. Hell, when I already have a PC for gaming, do I really give a crap about how many watts my browser uses? I'm already sucking plenty of juice out of my outlet.

avatar

Hey.That_Dude

Yes and ARM is more power efficient than x86. Lets do some side by side double precision floating point comparisons between x86 and... oh wait, never mind.
Just because it's more efficient doesn't mean much of anything. I'd like to see it do half the stuff that Chrome and Firefox can do.

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

"Browsing YouTube on a notebook with Chrome, for example, consumed about 18.5 watts, versus around 17.8 on Firefox and 16.5 on Internet Explorer 10. If you're surfing Craigslist, all three browsers consume a little over 15 watts, on average."

I call Bullshit on this one!

pull out yer wattmeter and try it live on the next podcast

then try to find a few million sites where Explorer uses more juice than the others

That should be easy enough

I can show ANY browser to be the most efficient if I look long enough at the biased evidence I present

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.