3 ms·

> Are you sure you want to invoke this logic? Because following it through imagine the energy savings if Firefox users switched to Chrome. Ironically, Mac user

> Are you sure you want to invoke this logic? Because following it through imagine the energy savings if Firefox users switched to Chrome. Ironically, Mac users routinely complain about how power-hungry Chrome is on the Mac. Safari is significantly more efficient.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>Safari is significantly more efficient. Based on the increased laptop battery life I notice, so is using Edge on Windows. It makes sense that both Apple and Microsoft can extract the best out of their OS + browser. There's no way Firefox can compete on such OS specific optimizations.
- 908B64B197 4y ago
  > so is using Edge on Windows. The new Edge based on Chromium performs better than Chrome with regards to power consumptions. The old Edge was even better in terms of power consumption. Like a few extra hours of battery life.
  - gorby91 4y ago
    To continue to overextend the analogy though, that's asking people to use Edge over Chrome or Firefox is like trying to market the Smart Car. Few people want to be seen driving it, fuel efficiency be damned.
    - BizarroLand 4y ago
      And no browser is more efficient that simply turning off your computer and reading by daylight.
Karunamon 4y ago
Is that because of the quality of Chrome or because Safari is a "blessed" application and probably gets to do things other applications do not? Entirely serious question. Apple is known to severely privilege their own applications over competitors.
- dijit 4y ago
  Its been a really long time but safari on Windows was a thing and it did run a lot leaner in the background than anything else available at the time (except Opera if memory serves). It’s entirely possible that Safari is intentionally avoiding features that make it wake up- I doubt that it does anything unavailable to other browsers, thats MS territory, because they wanted features. I feel like safari, by contrast, doesn't want to add features.
- LeoPanthera 4y ago
  It's not impossible, but I doubt it, if only because very few third party applications use as much as Chrome does. The only exceptions are things that actively use a lot of CPU, like compilers or compressors.
- jeron 4y ago
  Blessed or not, I still end up using Safari. The improvement in battery life is too significant to ignore
  - gnicholas 4y ago
    Have you compared versus Orion, which is also based on WebKit (and can run most Chrome and Firefox extensions)? IME, Safari is no better than Brave in terms of battery, even when I’ve got hundreds of tabs open.
- drdrey 4y ago
  That's because optimizing for battery life is a stated goal of the Safari team, it's actively benchmarked
- ojosilva 4y ago
  Totally guesswork here, but I'd say Chrome has a lot more telemetry, profiling and tracking built-in and its users tend to use a lot more plugins, including things like ad-blockers that scan over each webpage and can be beneficial (battery-wise) or not depending on content. Safari users are more of a barefoot type. A power user is more likely to not be running Safari. And a power user may, well, prefer to sacrifice battery power to get the power they seek. Besides, there's some precedent set in 1998 by a certain OS that "favored" their embedded browser over the competition, so I doubt Apple would want to tickle that fancy.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago

>Safari is significantly more efficient. Based on the increased laptop battery life I notice, so is using Edge on Windows. It makes sense that both Apple and Microsoft can extract the best out of their OS + browser. There's no way Firefox can compete on such OS specific optimizations.

908B64B197 4y ago
> so is using Edge on Windows. The new Edge based on Chromium performs better than Chrome with regards to power consumptions. The old Edge was even better in terms of power consumption. Like a few extra hours of battery life.
- gorby91 4y ago
  To continue to overextend the analogy though, that's asking people to use Edge over Chrome or Firefox is like trying to market the Smart Car. Few people want to be seen driving it, fuel efficiency be damned.
  - BizarroLand 4y ago
    And no browser is more efficient that simply turning off your computer and reading by daylight.

Karunamon 4y ago

Is that because of the quality of Chrome or because Safari is a "blessed" application and probably gets to do things other applications do not? Entirely serious question. Apple is known to severely privilege their own applications over competitors.

dijit 4y ago
Its been a really long time but safari on Windows was a thing and it did run a lot leaner in the background than anything else available at the time (except Opera if memory serves). It’s entirely possible that Safari is intentionally avoiding features that make it wake up- I doubt that it does anything unavailable to other browsers, thats MS territory, because they wanted features. I feel like safari, by contrast, doesn't want to add features.
LeoPanthera 4y ago
It's not impossible, but I doubt it, if only because very few third party applications use as much as Chrome does. The only exceptions are things that actively use a lot of CPU, like compilers or compressors.
jeron 4y ago
Blessed or not, I still end up using Safari. The improvement in battery life is too significant to ignore
- gnicholas 4y ago
  Have you compared versus Orion, which is also based on WebKit (and can run most Chrome and Firefox extensions)? IME, Safari is no better than Brave in terms of battery, even when I’ve got hundreds of tabs open.
drdrey 4y ago
That's because optimizing for battery life is a stated goal of the Safari team, it's actively benchmarked
ojosilva 4y ago
Totally guesswork here, but I'd say Chrome has a lot more telemetry, profiling and tracking built-in and its users tend to use a lot more plugins, including things like ad-blockers that scan over each webpage and can be beneficial (battery-wise) or not depending on content. Safari users are more of a barefoot type. A power user is more likely to not be running Safari. And a power user may, well, prefer to sacrifice battery power to get the power they seek. Besides, there's some precedent set in 1998 by a certain OS that "favored" their embedded browser over the competition, so I doubt Apple would want to tickle that fancy.