3 ms·
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 brow
by 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 agoMozilla 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 agoPart 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.