[stephengillie]

Lots of other commenters have remarked about the lacking rigor and narrow scope of the tests. It would be interesting (and time consuming) to re-run this test with many more parameters:

  * Fresh install of OSX vs fresh install of Win8.1/Win10 on capable Macbook. (I'm unsure about Linux or other distros running on Macbooks, add that to the test if it's feasible.)
  * Javascript enabled and disabled.
  * Flash enabled and disabled. As well as Silverlight and other media players.
  * Various adblockers, tracking blockers, and content filters (like Adblock vs Adblock Plus vs uBlock vs uBlock origin, etc. And uMatrix and Ghostery et al.) This could become its own research project.
  * Logged into tracking sites (e.g. Facebook) vs logged out.

Maybe this testing could be automated with Puppet/Chef?

Edit: Windows 10 would be a definite option instead of Win8.1. I was unaware Win10 would operate on a Macbook, but in retrospect I suppose there's no reason it wouldn't.

---

Note that high-power-consuming sites also consume more electricity on desktop PCs; this is less of a concern because they are on a constantly-replenished power system. The concern may be closer to that for CFL vs incandescent lights, where we can make a few changes to the system and make it vastly more efficient, multiplied by a large userbase.

[bhauer]

> Fresh install of OSX vs fresh install of Win7 on capable Macbook

Why Windows 7 and not Windows 10? The article is capturing fascinating data, and I'd like to see how Edge stacks up.

[josephmx]

Windows 8.1 probably makes more sense, I'm not sure how stale a 1 day old OS would be

[zobzu]

Specially on a macbook woth notably nbad windows drivers...

[joshuapants]

I upvoted you because Apple's drivers for Windows are notoriously bad, but the major impact is on user input (trackpad, for example) rather than on performance (in fact, Windows tends to perform better than OS X on a number of tasks on a given hardware configuration) so I think it would still make sense to run the test on Windows on identical hardware.

[zobzu]

its not about speed its about power. if hardware isnt even instructed to go into sleep mode for example, there will be large differences.. which tends to happen on macbooks running windows.

[maaaats]

A post on HN a few weeks ago showed that Windows 10 preview was smoother than OS X on a MacBook: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9555628

[mwcampbell]

Regarding Windows 10 on a MacBook via Boot Camp, I can confirm that it works; my boss has been running insider builds on his MacBook for a little while. Just make sure that if you get to Windows 10 by upgrading from a previous version, you repair the Apple driver installation afterward.

[eridius]

Desktop PCs don't have battery concerns, certainly, but electricity still costs money, and if you can reduce the power usage of your computer by a significant amount, that can translate directly to saving money.

[semi-extrinsic]

The cost of electricity for running a desktop computer is on the order of 2 cents per hour (assuming it draws around 200 W while browsing). If you reduce that by 20%, you save a whopping $8 a year if you spend 5 hours browsing every day.

No, this is mainly motivated by laptops, and I'd say it's even more related to thermal management than battery life. Macbooks are notorious for being very hot under high load, so naturally Apple wants a common task like browsing to be low load/heat.

[stephengillie]

Yes, that is what I meant to say.