# Looking for a power-friendly browser with automatic tab restore & flash



## CarlH (Mar 12, 2012)

Looking at the high CPU usage (and resulting battery drain) with the stock browser open on almost any website, I can't help but think there must be something better, possibly not from the Play store. Is there any decent browser that satisfies all the criteria in the subject? I've tried:

Chrome - No Flash
Dolphin HD - no tab restore
Opera - renders this site quite poorly

TIA.


----------



## CarlH (Mar 12, 2012)

Adding to my list of unacceptable alternative browsers...

Angel browser - page display is blank (100% white) despite using tons of CPU
Firefox - claims no Flash support so didn't try it
Ninesky - no auto-restore of tabs, power usage unpredictable (0% or 100% viewing the same page)
Maxthon Mobile Browser - no auto-restore of last opened tabs, high power use, and same problem as Angel*

* At first the Maxthon browser worked, but since trying Angel, it's giving the same blank page displays as Angel. Too many browsers installed? This problem hasn't spread to any of the other browsers yet.


----------



## nevertells (Oct 29, 2011)

CarlH said:


> Adding to my list of unacceptable alternative browsers...
> 
> Angel browser - page display is blank (100% white) despite using tons of CPU
> Firefox - claims no Flash support so didn't try it
> ...


Have you ever considered that it's not the software but the hardware? I monitored mA's on my TP running the 20120522 rom and the average mA's measured over three different browsers was virtually identical. I use Battery Monitor Widgit to keep track of battery drain.


----------



## CarlH (Mar 12, 2012)

nevertells said:


> Have you ever considered that it's not the software but the hardware? I monitored mA's on my TP running the 20120522 rom and the average mA's measured over three different browsers was virtually identical. I use Battery Monitor Widgit to keep track of battery drain.


It's not the hardware. You can do this test yourself, read this very forum topic (or any Rootzwiki forum topic) in Chrome and in the stock browser. Notice the battery drain when you're not even touching the screen - just displaying the static page. In Chrome I have -561 mA. In the stock browser, -886 mA. Other browsers I tried were similar to the stock browser, except for Ninesky, which occasionally (but not consistently) was similar to Chrome.

So clearly Google has done their homework, optimizing Chrome so it doesn't spin the CPU needlessly. Kudos to them for that, but raspberries for the lack of Flash support and other reduced functionality vs. stock browser (e.g. no way to make "request desktop site" the default).

At this point, I'm probably going to use Chrome for a while and see how often I encounter a site that won't work due to lack of Flash. Eventually we won't care about not having Flash in the browser, but I wonder how many websites today offer the same content in either Flash or HTML5, depending on browser capability.


----------



## StanleyLB (May 24, 2012)

??????? ?????? ???????? ?? ????? ??????? ?????????? ?????? .


----------



## nevertells (Oct 29, 2011)

CarlH said:


> It's not the hardware. You can do this test yourself, read this very forum topic (or any Rootzwiki forum topic) in Chrome and in the stock browser. Notice the battery drain when you're not even touching the screen - just displaying the static page. In Chrome I have -561 mA. In the stock browser, -886 mA. Other browsers I tried were similar to the stock browser, except for Ninesky, which occasionally (but not consistently) was similar to Chrome.
> 
> So clearly Google has done their homework, optimizing Chrome so it doesn't spin the CPU needlessly. Kudos to them for that, but raspberries for the lack of Flash support and other reduced functionality vs. stock browser (e.g. no way to make "request desktop site" the default).
> 
> At this point, I'm probably going to use Chrome for a while and see how often I encounter a site that won't work due to lack of Flash. Eventually we won't care about not having Flash in the browser, but I wonder how many websites today offer the same content in either Flash or HTML5, depending on browser capability.


Well Carl,

I've given your method a try on Firefox, Maxthon, Boat, Chrome and the stock browser. I used a static page and measured the current used with Battery Monitor Widget. They all used around 700mA's current. You might want to have a look at other services running in the background that are spinning your cpu. I did test each browser several times never saw much above 700 mA's each time. Hey, if you are happy with Chrome, then by all means stick with it. Personally, I don't think it's UI is as usable(intuitive) as some of the other browser's UI's. I also think Boat loads pages the fastest.


----------



## CarlH (Mar 12, 2012)

nevertells said:


> Well Carl,
> 
> I've given your method a try on Firefox, Maxthon, Boat, Chrome and the stock browser. I used a static page and measured the current used with Battery Monitor Widget. They all used around 700mA's current. You might want to have a look at other services running in the background that are spinning your cpu. I did test each browser several times never saw much above 700 mA's each time. Hey, if you are happy with Chrome, then by all means stick with it. Personally, I don't think it's UI is as usable(intuitive) as some of the other browser's UI's. I also think Boat loads pages the fastest.


I don't know what a "static page" means to you. Actual URL matters, which is why I suggested a specific URL to test against. Simply going to www.google.com produces a static page that uses very little CPU and is low current even in the stock browser. Looking at topics in this forum has a significantly higher CPU/current result in the stock browser, but not much different in Chrome.

Also, are you measuring current near-instantaneously or looking at the x-minute average reported by Battery Monitor Widget? I get a new battery drain reading every few seconds, as well as a chart of CPU usage while the foreground app is still displayed using the "Cool Tool" overlay.

And OBTW, since I was just switching from one browser to the other while nothing else changed, whatever my "other services" were using was the same for both browsers.

And as a FWIW p.s., I have the ad blockers of Rom Toolbox in place. Not sure if that makes some web pages CPU-hungry or not - but I know things got much faster in the stock browser with it. I tried Boat briefly and found it no faster than the stock browser, maybe even a tad slower. If you're looking at ads, maybe it loads the ads faster.


----------



## nevertells (Oct 29, 2011)

CarlH said:


> I don't know what a "static page" means to you. Actual URL matters, which is why I suggested a specific URL to test against. Simply going to www.google.com produces a static page that uses very little CPU and is low current even in the stock browser. Looking at topics in this forum has a significantly higher CPU/current result in the stock browser, but not much different in Chrome.
> 
> Also, are you measuring current near-instantaneously or looking at the x-minute average reported by Battery Monitor Widget? I get a new battery drain reading every few seconds, as well as a chart of CPU usage while the foreground app is still displayed using the "Cool Tool" overlay.
> 
> ...


"Notice the battery drain when you're not even touching the screen - just displaying the static page." Your words, not mine. I was using the same page that this thread is posted on and just letting it sit. Battery Monitor widget logs the current at whatever rate I set it at, in this case, once a minute. I would let it sit five minutes, and each log entry was virtually identical, then I switched to the next browser.

I can't for the life of me figure out why you continue to use Android on a TouchPad. You seem bound and determined to find something to be unhappy about with it. You are the most unhappy person I have ever run into on these forums over thousands of posts and in the 8 months or so I have been a member here. I'm sorry the TouchPad is not living up to your expectations, even though it was never supposed to be running Android in the first place, or the fact that what is running on it save for a couple of exceptions runs as well as or better than any other Android tablet I have tried and it's all been done by a loose group of volunteers operating from dispersed locations. I even stopped by the Apple store and played with an IPad and I wasn't impressed. Most folks who purchased Honeycomb tablets last year who were promised ICS upgrades have yet to see that upgrade and here we are running ICS since January of this year on an orphaned tablet. The Cyanogenmod team warned everyone up front that this was a work in progress and probably always would be. Most everyone here understands that there may be some features that will never be figured out on how to get them working. So man up Carl, and be happy with what we have, because if it wasn't for the CM team, we wouldn't have any of it. If you can't do that, sell the damn thing and move on to other endeavors.


----------



## CarlH (Mar 12, 2012)

Nevertells, you need to get over thinking that you can ordain what is and isn't acceptable discourse. In our first encounter, you chastised me and another member for daring to suggest that Palm/HP engineers might not have done a perfect job. And now again you want to quash any discussion regarding something else that might not be optimized, at least not on my unit. You seem to think if 1 out of 3 posts don't praise the CM devs that the conversation is too negative. But most importantly, you weren't elected nor appointed to the job of list policeman. Your personal criticisms are nothing but noise.

And as for what I'm talking about in this topic, I could just as likely have the same thing to ask about for any other Android tablet. Maybe I've done something that is causing the excess CPU consumption by browsers other than Chrome. You could be assisting in helping to figure out what that might be - that could end up being a good informative conversation that others would benefit from. Instead you fall back to your standard tactic, the uninvited critic. Try to think about this the next time before you post - "is what I've written advancing the knowledge about or usefulness of the Touchpad under Android?" If not, don't click the Post button. See how easy that is?


----------



## nevertells (Oct 29, 2011)

CarlH said:


> Nevertells, you need to get over thinking that you can ordain what is and isn't acceptable discourse. In our first encounter, you chastised me and another member for daring to suggest that Palm/HP engineers might not have done a perfect job. And now again you want to quash any discussion regarding something else that might not be optimized, at least not on my unit. You seem to think if 1 out of 3 posts don't praise the CM devs that the conversation is too negative. But most importantly, you weren't elected nor appointed to the job of list policeman. Your personal criticisms are nothing but noise.
> 
> And as for what I'm talking about in this topic, I could just as likely have the same thing to ask about for any other Android tablet. Maybe I've done something that is causing the excess CPU consumption by browsers other than Chrome. You could be assisting in helping to figure out what that might be - that could end up being a good informative conversation that others would benefit from. Instead you fall back to your standard tactic, the uninvited critic. Try to think about this the next time before you post - "is what I've written advancing the knowledge about or usefulness of the Touchpad under Android?" If not, don't click the Post button. See how easy that is?


You should take your own advice Carl as what you have posted in this thread does not advance the knowledge or usefulness of the TouchPad under Android. Just pointing out that your voice of ONE flies in the face of thousands of happy, patient users.

I think what StanleyB posted defined the understanding of your OP perfectly "������� ������ �������� �� ����� ������� ���������� ������ ."


----------



## CarlH (Mar 12, 2012)

I'm not the only one here talking about things that don't work properly or which could work better. And I've not even asked once about the camera & mic.

Meanwhile you're the only one who has chosen to be rude and attack my character or motives. I have never initiated a personal attack against you. There's a paragraph in the website rules that states:

"Drama being introduced by obvious statements will be considered spamming and trolling."

If a post that contains a personal attack is not spamming or trolling, what is?

I suggest you get over yourself.


----------

