Less battery time using Seamonkey (v 2.10.1) compared to IE9, Firefox and Opera.
I noticed it on my new computer, an ASUS K53SV, without external AC power in Battery Save Mode. In this mode I can get up to 6 hours of use when I use IE 9 and about the same with Firefox x64 nightly and Opera 12 but after a couple of minutes with Seamonkey the computer reports that I only have 2 hours of use left. I surf the same sites with all the browsers. Do you people know why this might be the case? Regards Rickard G ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Less battery time using Seamonkey (v 2.10.1) compared to IE9, Firefox and Opera.
I used a single tab in both browsers and headed over to www.aftonbladet.se which has quite some stuff going on (flash, a lot of animated pictures) and these are the results I got after letting the browsers just sit still for a few minutes: Opera 12 - 5h 24m Seamonkey - 3h 01m I then closed Seamonkey and reopened Opera and after a minute the battery time is up to 6h. Regards. Den fredagen den 13:e juli 2012 kl. 12:13:52 UTC+2 skrev Philip TAYLOR: What is the projected life if you open it at a single static HTML page with no other integrated components (mail, news, IRC, WHY ...) open ? Philip Taylor rickard wrote: gt; I noticed it on my new computer, an ASUS K53SV, without external AC power in Battery Save Mode. In this mode I can get up to 6 hours of use when I use IE 9 and about the same with Firefox x64 nightly and Opera 12 but after a couple of minutes with Seamonkey the computer reports that I only have 2 hours of use left. I surf the same sites with all the browsers. gt; gt; Do you people know why this might be the case? gt; gt; Regards gt; Rickard G gt; ___ gt; support-seamonkey mailing list gt; support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org gt; https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey gt; ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Less battery time using Seamonkey (v 2.10.1) compared to IE9, Firefox and Opera.
Oh, sorry. I missed out on exactly what you wanted me to use as reference. I was just about to go out and visit a friend but I will have this tab visible so that when I get home I won't forget to report how the new test with a simple static html page turns out. Regards Rickard G Den fredagen den 13:e juli 2012 kl. 13:06:55 UTC+2 skrev Philip TAYLOR: rickard wrote: gt; I used a single tab in both browsers and headed over to www.aftonbladet.se which has quite some stuff going on (flash, a lot of animated pictures) and these are the results I got after letting the browsers just sit still for a few minutes: gt; gt; Opera 12 - 5h 24m gt; Seamonkey - 3h 01m OK, but that didn#39;t really address my question, which is quot;Does Seamonkey use excessive resources only on dynamic pages (such as the one you describe), or does it also use excessive resources on a single, non-animated, no-plugin-dependencies, static HTML page ? Philip Taylor ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Less battery time using Seamonkey (v 2.10.1) compared to IE9, Firefox and Opera.
Seamonkey: 3h 09m Opera: 4h 02m I used http://www.internet-guide.co.uk/static-html.html in both browsers and let the browsers be while they had the page loaded for a couple of minutes before I checked the readings. Regards. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
