3 ms·

Really enjoying the power efficiency of Safari on a Mac, it keeps me away from the other browsers.

by als0 4y ago

kitsunesoba 4y ago
It’s disheartening that Google and Mozilla seem so disinterested in trying to match or exceed that power efficiency. I like having multiple options for web browsers but because of the difference is so stark it’s only actually a choice on desktops.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kevingadd 4y ago
  Mozilla has invested a lot of effort into power efficiency. It's a pretty painful treadmill considering how often platform-level things change (OS X compositor changes, OpenGL being killed, etc) which means you end up losing ground and having to rearchitect or rebuild stuff to get back to where you were previously. Part of Firefox's power efficiency challenges on OS X are specifically due to how Apple designed the platform, and not something wrong with the browser. They've had to incrementally add in lots of machinery to feed the OS the information it suddenly wants. If Safari has better power efficiency on OS X (I don't doubt it), that's partly just because they work next door to the video driver and OS compositor people. It's not because Mozilla doesn't care. (Does Google care? I can't say for sure, but I suspect they do.)
  - kitsunesoba 4y ago
    Part of the difference is compositor integration for sure, but there's also design decisions that factor in, like how Safari has throttled JS in non-active tabs for years, where Chrome only started doing this last year. One gets the impression that Google at least is more concerned with Chrome being an attractive app platform than they are with it being responsible with user resources.
bombcar 4y ago
You can turn on lockdown mode on MacOS Ventura and it basically disables active compiler JavaScript for all sites - you can turn it back on site-by-site but it’s interesting to see what keeps working. Benchmark scores go to ass but much of JavaScript I’m actually used is just fine.

Really enjoying the power efficiency of Safari on a Mac, it keeps me away from the other browsers.

by als0 4y ago

Really enjoying the power efficiency of Safari on a Mac, it keeps me away from the other browsers.

It’s disheartening that Google and Mozilla seem so disinterested in trying to match or exceed that power efficiency. I like having multiple options for web browsers but because of the difference is so stark it’s only actually a choice on desktops.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kevingadd 4y ago
Mozilla has invested a lot of effort into power efficiency. It's a pretty painful treadmill considering how often platform-level things change (OS X compositor changes, OpenGL being killed, etc) which means you end up losing ground and having to rearchitect or rebuild stuff to get back to where you were previously. Part of Firefox's power efficiency challenges on OS X are specifically due to how Apple designed the platform, and not something wrong with the browser. They've had to incrementally add in lots of machinery to feed the OS the information it suddenly wants. If Safari has better power efficiency on OS X (I don't doubt it), that's partly just because they work next door to the video driver and OS compositor people. It's not because Mozilla doesn't care. (Does Google care? I can't say for sure, but I suspect they do.)
- kitsunesoba 4y ago
  Part of the difference is compositor integration for sure, but there's also design decisions that factor in, like how Safari has throttled JS in non-active tabs for years, where Chrome only started doing this last year. One gets the impression that Google at least is more concerned with Chrome being an attractive app platform than they are with it being responsible with user resources.

bombcar 4y ago

You can turn on lockdown mode on MacOS Ventura and it basically disables active compiler JavaScript for all sites - you can turn it back on site-by-site but it’s interesting to see what keeps working. Benchmark scores go to ass but much of JavaScript I’m actually used is just fine.