Chrome for Mac Beta Nearly Matches Safari in JavaScript Benchmarking

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/09/chrome-for-mac-beta-nearly-matches-safari-in-javascript-benchmarking/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article/2009/12/09/153249-sunspider_javascript_mac.jpg

[i]SunSpider JavaScript Benchmarks of Mac Browsers
(Shorter bars represent faster performance)

Article Link: Chrome for Mac Beta Nearly Matches Safari in JavaScript Benchmarking (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/09/chrome-for-mac-beta-nearly-matches-safari-in-javascript-benchmarking/)

[*LTD*]

Nearly? So it doesn't match, nor does it surpass.

I nearly was surprised.

[shujin]

I downloaded chrome and instantly went back to safari. Chrome actually opened safari up when I went to an RSS bookmark. Why should I use a browser that will open up another browser when I hit a link or bookmark.

[Stiss]

I've been using Chrome now for a while, had the Devs build for a fair few months.

Why?

I was sick of Safari toasting my legs when it came to playing videos.
The plugin was a right CPU hog according to my Activity Monitor.

Shujin. Make it your default browser then in Chrome > Preferences.

...sigh.

[JimKirk]

Just look at the macrumors forums. All the posting options are missing.

[Stormbringer]

And what about Safari on Mac vs Chrome on Win? Or is that impossible to compare correctly?

By the way, it's in beta, so it could be a bit better/faster with the final release...

[gibbz]

This is about on par with the results I posted yesterday (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=8932612#post8932612).

In a real world feel, Chrome definitely seems fast.

[BRLawyer]

Nearly? So it doesn't match, nor does it surpass.

I nearly was surprised.

A good effort by Google, but it's not gonna replace Safari on my Mac for now...independent processes are neat and might be useful for Flash crap-ridden sites, though...

As for the incognito thing, Safari's private browsing is still more practical...why doesn't Google simply enable a preference to have incognito mode set permanently?

[JohnDoe98]

And what about Safari on Mac vs Chrome on Win? Or is that impossible to compare correctly?

You can using bootcamp.

[MrM]

Just look at the macrumors forums. All the posting options are missing.

It all works fine for me...

[uaecasher]

more reasons to stick with Safari, although I like the UI of the Chrome in Mac OS

[DipDog3]

Huh? Where are the units and numbers associated with this graph?

If this was minutes, then yea that is a big difference, but if it was milliseconds then I doubt it matters much.

[dagamer34]

Chrome actually does a couple of other tricks to make it actually faster when browsing webpages, like DNS pre-fetching for links on a page.

[BRLawyer]

more reasons to stick with Safari, although I like the UI of the Chrome in Mac OS

Chrome is more of a novelty for Windows users, which are used to crappy browsers such as IE...it adds little real value over Safari for Mac, which is still the fastest browser on Earth.

[greatcaffeine]

This doesn't take into account the horrible sluggishness of Safari's interface, nor is it representative of Safari's ludicrous memory usage. To date, I've never seen Chrome or Firefox use over 1GB RAM, but Safari is atrocious.

Honestly, just look at this memory usage from a WebKit nightly. How is this acceptable? http://img124.yfrog.com/img124/6734/1k0.png

[Jayomat]

I downloaded chrome and instantly went back to safari. Chrome actually opened safari up when I went to an RSS bookmark. Why should I use a browser that will open up another browser when I hit a link or bookmark.

lol... maybe because safari is your default RSS reader? ;)

[Mac.]

Can someone tell me why Safari doesn't have the "Reopen Closed Tab" function?

Seriously, it's the ONLY reason I use FireFox instead. I much rather use Safari! Very annoying.

[jmj]

I was sick of Safari toasting my legs when it came to playing videos.

Install ClickToFlash. My fans rarely kick on when I watch YouTube videos in QuickTime.

[IntelliUser]

Of course Chrome for Windows is the fastest, the Windows version of Safari sucks. Like OS, like browser.

Can someone tell me why Safari doesn't have the "Reopen Closed Tab" function?

Seriously, it's the ONLY reason I use FireFox instead. I much rather use Safari! Very annoying.

CMD-Z?

[Jayomat]

Can someone tell me why Safari doesn't have the "Reopen Closed Tab" function?

Seriously, it's the ONLY reason I use FireFox instead. I much rather use Safari! Very annoying.

although cmd-z does the job ;) (honestly, I'm not sure if it's a default command or came with glims) there are plenty of missing 'peanuts' which makes you wonder if apple engineers are really focused on the customer's needs :rolleyes: if every amateur developer can build an addon which enables such features, why does apple refuse to do so??

[andylyon]

Chrome is more of a novelty for Windows users, which are used to crappy browsers such as IE...it adds little real value over Safari for Mac, which is still the fastest browser on Earth.

How is Chrome on Windows a novelty!? I use Safari on Mac and Chrome on Windows everyday, I love them both, but for me Chrome on Windows is fast than Safari on a Mac, both do the job well though.

AnDy

[greatcaffeine]

Huh? Where are the units and numbers associated with this graph?

If this was minutes, then yea that is a big difference, but if it was milliseconds then I doubt it matters much.

It's not a huge difference, really. On my iMac, Safari scores 299ms, Chromium scores around 330ms. I notice more slowdown from Safari's UI than I notice from Chrome's marginally slower JavaScript performance.

[jmj]

I haven't installed the beta yet, but I did test the developer release. The speed is negligible and they both use Webkit so the rendering is a push. I just prefer Safari's UI. Maybe Chrome will grow on me, but it just seems like the buttons and icons are a little clumpy.

[BRLawyer]

How is Chrome on Windows a novelty!? I use Safari on Mac and Chrome on Windows everyday, I love them both, but for me Chrome on Windows is fast than Safari on a Mac, both do the job well though.

AnDy

It's a big deal for ordinary Windows users who know no better than IE...we Mac users have had Safari since the very beginning, which has ALWAYS been the fastest browser that exists...that's all.

[zipper77]

you've really got to take into account that it's still just a beta
not bad for not being finished yet imho

[Mac.]

Of course Chrome for Windows is the fastest, the Windows version of Safari sucks. Like OS, like browser.



CMD-Z?

although cmd-z does the job ;) (honestly, I'm not sure if it's a default command or came with glims) there are plenty of missing 'peanuts' which makes you wonder if apple engineers are really focused on the customer's needs :rolleyes: if every amateur developer can build an addon which enables such features, why does apple refuse to do so??
I just tried it, and it doesn't work for some reason :(

[jmj]

I just tried it, and it doesn't work for some reason :(

You have to install Glims for it to work.

[jishaq]

Chrome is in its first open beta. As in, not yet Release quality, still need to nail down some features and optimize / tweak stuff.

Safari has been in Release quality (non-Beta) since June 2007 as far as I can tell, which means the product has had almost 2.5 years of fine-tuning.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see the released version of Chrome run laps around Safari.

-J

[Povilas]

This doesn't take into account the horrible sluggishness of Safari's interface, nor is it representative of Safari's ludicrous memory usage. To date, I've never seen Chrome or Firefox use over 1GB RAM, but Safari is atrocious.

Honestly, just look at this memory usage from a WebKit nightly. How is this acceptable? http://img124.yfrog.com/img124/6734/1k0.png

Do you think about what post before posting it? It's nightly build it almost always has bug. Some minor and some very serious bugs. Why? Because it's a work in progress.

[Dagless]

And its only in beta. I'm interested to see where this goes. I wont be switching from Firefox on Windows or Safari on OSX, but anything to get either the Firefox people or Apple to make a better product is fine by me.

[Mac.]

You have to install Glims for it to work.

Thanks.

[greatcaffeine]

Do you think about what post before posting it? It's nightly build it almost always has bug. Some minor and some very serious bugs. Why? Because it's a work in progress.

Okay, just to prove a point, I went ahead and did essentially the same thing with Safari 4.0.4. Here you go: http://img162.yfrog.com/img162/1921/screenshot20091209at153.png

[ChazUK]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 1.5; en-gb; HTC Hero Build/CUPCAKE) AppleWebKit/528.5+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.2 Mobile Safari/525.20.1)

Let's see what optimization they can perform.



I've fallen out with FireFox lately as it seems a little too crash happy for me. Safari and Chrome are fine for me now.

[Povilas]

Okay, just to prove a point, I went ahead and did essentially the same thing with Safari 4.0.4. Here you go: http://img162.yfrog.com/img162/1921/screenshot20091209at153.png

And you are sure that's Safari fault? No plugins? How many tabs and what sites you are loading to achieve such memory usage? Because I have no problems with Safari Snow Leopard.

[Chilz0r]

This doesn't take into account the horrible sluggishness of Safari's interface, nor is it representative of Safari's ludicrous memory usage. To date, I've never seen Chrome or Firefox use over 1GB RAM, but Safari is atrocious.

Honestly, just look at this memory usage from a WebKit nightly. How is this acceptable? http://img124.yfrog.com/img124/6734/1k0.png

Dude, I've got no idea what your doing with YOUR Safari but I never get that much mem usage happening. Maybe check your plugins + it's a nightly build something could be astray.

[*LTD*]

Chrome is more of a novelty for Windows users, which are used to crappy browsers such as IE...it adds little real value over Safari for Mac, which is still the fastest browser on Earth.

As of May, at least, yes. Even on Winblows.

[greatcaffeine]

And you are sure that's Safari fault? No plugins? How many tabs and what sites you are loading to achieve such memory usage? Because I have no problems with Safari Snow Leopard.

I don't have any plugins in Safari. This is as close to a clean installation as you can get. The trick here is Google Wave - Safari uses a metric **** ton of RAM on Wave, and it just doesn't clean up after itself when you're done. In similar situations with Chrome and Firefox, both of those browsers were using approximately 400-500MB RAM.

So yes, this is clearly an issue specific to Safari. I really hope it can get optimized at some point, because it can be pretty snappy when it's first launched or when you aren't doing much at once. Chrome easily wins out when you've got some pretty heavy pages working in background tabs (like Wave). Most browsers grind to a halt in those situations, but Chrome's multi-process design keeps everything snappy and allows for easy trash cleanup.

[mikes70mustang]

Ill keep my FF Beta- universities and their online class stuff doesnt play very well with safari

[dmelgar]

Its basically built on the same webkit as Safari. Why would anyone be surprised that they perform the same?

More importantly, why would anyone want Chrome? It seems like a gratuitously different version of Safari. Maybe on Windows, because Apple hasn't pushed Safari very hard, but on Mac I wouldn't dream of running Chrome. Firefox maybe, but no way on Chrome.

[retro83]

Its basically built on the same webkit as Safari. Why would anyone be surprised that they perform the same?


But it has its own JavaScript engine, no?

I personally couldn't care less how fast it is on benchmarks, Opera, Safari and Firefox _feel_ far faster than Chrome on the Mac. On windows it's great, on OSX it feels like there is latency between doing something and having the page update on the screen.

[*LTD*]

Running the latest Webkit nightly now. Looks and acts identical to regular Safari. All my settings and prefs are the same.

It's blazing fast.

Might as well just run Webkit, LOL.

[Povilas]

I don't have any plugins in Safari. This is as close to a clean installation as you can get. The trick here is Google Wave - Safari uses a metric **** ton of RAM on Wave, and it just doesn't clean up after itself when you're done. In similar situations with Chrome and Firefox, both of those browsers were using approximately 400-500MB RAM.

So yes, this is clearly an issue specific to Safari. I really hope it can get optimized at some point, because it can be pretty snappy when it's first launched or when you aren't doing much at once. Chrome easily wins out when you've got some pretty heavy pages working in background tabs (like Wave). Most browsers grind to a halt in those situations, but Chrome's multi-process design keeps everything snappy and allows for easy trash cleanup.

I'm using Google Wave 3 days now and Safari memory usage is normal. Right now Safari uses 198 MB with 2 tabs (MacRumors and Goole Wave) open.

[pellets007]

Lack of a Java plug-in that works means that I won't be using it.

[*LTD*]

I think I'm switching to Webkit nightlies permanently. Seems to update itself, too. Hmmm . . .

[Jayomat]

I just tried it, and it doesn't work for some reason :(

Originally Posted by Jayomat
although cmd-z does the job (honestly, I'm not sure if it's a default command or came with glims) [...]

;) :p as already said by someone, go get glims ;)

[greatcaffeine]

I think I'm switching to Webkit nightlies permanently. Seems to update itself, too. Hmmm . . .

You'll enjoy it until you get a bugged version. Just remember, the nightly builds aren't tested at all.

For the most part though, they do seem to work fine.

[*LTD*]

You'll enjoy it until you get a bugged version. Just remember, the nightly builds aren't tested at all.

For the most part though, they do seem to work fine.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but am I right in saying that there's really nothing faster on the Mac than Webkit (nightlies)?

The latest build just flies. I mean, Safari's fast, sure, but Webkit is nearly instantaneous.

[wesleyh]

Quite surprised to see opera 10 doing so badly. Anyway, at the level they're all at, it doesn't really matter all that much anyway. Can you even notice the difference?

[Ropie]

I switched to Chrome a few months ago and now when I (rarely) use Safari it seems quite a bit slower compared to Chrome, and my whites are whiter than white :D There are one or two very minor bugs in Chrome (some of the preferences don't do anything) but really the only thing I miss from Safari is the dictionary link option in the contextual menu when a word is highlighted. No reason to go back, though. I prefer Chrome's tabs, search/address bar/behaviour/text editing options/download manager/ etc.. And I don't use the built-in bookmark stuff as I keep all mine in a folder in Butler anyway.

[ski1ski1]

Running the latest Webkit nightly now. Looks and acts identical to regular Safari. All my settings and prefs are the same.

It's blazing fast.

Might as well just run Webkit, LOL.

Webkit is not the user interface you are seeing. When you run a Webkit nightly, it will always use the standard Apple Safari user interface with all the same preferences and options. When you install and run a webkit nightly, you are only changing the underlying rendering engine.

[ski1ski1]

Running the latest Webkit nightly now. Looks and acts identical to regular Safari. All my settings and prefs are the same.

It's blazing fast.

Might as well just run Webkit, LOL.

Webkit does not have a user interface, it's only a rendering engine. When you run a Webkit nightly, it will always use the standard Apple Safari user interface. When you install and run a webkit nightly, you are only changing the underlying rendering engine.

[zdobson]

Dude, I've got no idea what your doing with YOUR Safari but I never get that much mem usage happening. Maybe check your plugins + it's a nightly build something could be astray.

That is ridiculous memory usage, but I do notice that Chrome uses significantly less memory. Regularly half as much when used under the same circumstances. Granted, this research was unscientific.

[dru`]

I got about 13% better for Safari over Chrome but Chrome is full of issues.

It asks for permission to use Keychain. I give permission. It does nothing. I have to type in account names and it realizes it has a pwd. *rolls eyes*

It's homely. There's too much white space between items on the bookmarks bar, the fonts in drop down menus are TOO BIG. The fake "native" widgets are badly matched to the OS.

Preferences are ****. This is Mac OS X, not Vista. We do not BOLD: and a scrollable preferences pane? Google must DIAF for this.

Why does the Ars homepage show up twice in the new tab page, can't it sort out dupes?

No services support.

Did I mention it's hideous?

This doesn't take into account the horrible sluggishness of Safari's interface, nor is it representative of Safari's ludicrous memory usage. To date, I've never seen Chrome or Firefox use over 1GB RAM, but Safari is atrocious.

Honestly, just look at this memory usage from a WebKit nightly. How is this acceptable?

Depends on what you have open but that's not Safari, that's Webkit which are nightly builds. Nice try. :rolleyes:

[*LTD*]

Webkit is not the user interface you are seeing. When you run a Webkit nightly, it will always use the standard Apple Safari user interface with all the same preferences and options. When you install and run a webkit nightly, you are only changing the underlying rendering engine.

I assume it's just more optimized. Correct? In any case, I'm liking it.

[ski1ski1]

I assume it's just more optimized. Correct? In any case, I'm liking it.

Potentially more optimized, but also potentially buggier.

[greatcaffeine]

Depends on what you have open but that's not Safari, that's Webkit which are nightly builds. Nice try. :rolleyes:

Have a look at the picture on the second page then. Same deal, but using Safari 4.0.4 instead of a WebKit build.

[greatcaffeine]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but am I right in saying that there's really nothing faster on the Mac than Webkit (nightlies)?

The latest build just flies. I mean, Safari's fast, sure, but Webkit is nearly instantaneous.

Some of that is the placebo effect, surely. It reminds me a little bit of when people discovered an old preference (I forget what it was called) that did essentially the same thing as Firefox's 'nglayout.initialpaint.delay' setting. People were swearing that setting the delay to 0ms was making the browser faster until a Safari dev informed everyone about how that particular preference hadn't done anything in a while.

[lamadude]

I would like to see how safari on mac compares to chrome on windows. I have a feeling chrome on windows would come on top, I'm always amazed when I use it, it has to be the fastest browser ever.

[mdriftmeyer]

Chrome is in its first open beta. As in, not yet Release quality, still need to nail down some features and optimize / tweak stuff.

Safari has been in Release quality (non-Beta) since June 2007 as far as I can tell, which means the product has had almost 2.5 years of fine-tuning.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see the released version of Chrome run laps around Safari.

-J

For crying out loud the bulk of the Vehicle was built for Google. The Engine sure as hell isn't Beta, nor the Javascript Core that they've modified to suit their per process model.

[larrylaffer]

This doesn't take into account the horrible sluggishness of Safari's interface, nor is it representative of Safari's ludicrous memory usage. To date, I've never seen Chrome or Firefox use over 1GB RAM, but Safari is atrocious.

Honestly, just look at this memory usage from a WebKit nightly. How is this acceptable? http://img124.yfrog.com/img124/6734/1k0.png

How dare they not squash all memory leaks in a nightly build that you aren't supposed to use for anything serious?! HOW DARE THEY?!

Honestly, if you're not seeing Firefox consume a ton of memory, then you aren't using it much. That's not to say Safari doesn't have this problem, but Firefox is much worse in my experience :)

[ski1ski1]

For crying out loud the bulk of the Vehicle was built for Google. The Engine sure as hell isn't Beta, nor the Javascript Core that they've modified to suit their per process model.

Their Javascript core is new. It's called V8.

http://code.google.com/p/v8/

http://code.google.com/apis/v8/design.html

[*LTD*]

Their Javascript core is new. It's called V8.

http://code.google.com/p/v8/

http://code.google.com/apis/v8/design.html

She's a beauty . . . :D

http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/47500/Google-V8--47759.jpg

[Superdelphinus]

chrome 'feels' snappier to me

[trose]

I don't have any plugins in Safari. This is as close to a clean installation as you can get. The trick here is Google Wave - Safari uses a metric **** ton of RAM on Wave, and it just doesn't clean up after itself when you're done. In similar situations with Chrome and Firefox, both of those browsers were using approximately 400-500MB RAM.

So yes, this is clearly an issue specific to Safari. I really hope it can get optimized at some point, because it can be pretty snappy when it's first launched or when you aren't doing much at once. Chrome easily wins out when you've got some pretty heavy pages working in background tabs (like Wave). Most browsers grind to a halt in those situations, but Chrome's multi-process design keeps everything snappy and allows for easy trash cleanup.
Sounds like a problem with BETA Google Wave.

I've *never* seen Safari approach levels even remotely that high, and I *do* use some plugins and frequently have 10-12 tabs open... oftentimes for 12+ hours without quitting Safari.

If I went to one website and started to see massive memory consumption, and did not experience that anywhere else, I would have to assume that site is not built properly.

[*LTD*]

Sounds like a problem with BETA Google Wave.

I've *never* seen Safari approach levels even remotely that high, and I *do* use some plugins and frequently have 10-12 tabs open... oftentimes for 12+ hours without quitting Safari.

If I went to one website and started to see massive memory consumption, and did not experience that anywhere else, I would have to assume that site is not built properly.

I'm guessing Google Wave isn't quite optimized.

[clevin]

i dont know why MR thinks it deserve another thread. and I haven't found anybody can tell the difference of 0.001ms in real life.

Much fuzz over nothing.

[trose]

i dont know why MR thinks it deserve another thread. and I haven't found anybody can tell the difference of 0.001ms in real life.

Much fuzz over nothing.

Well, it's more the significance of a browser finally approaching Safari's speed on OSX. No other has really done that.

Also, it's more than 0.001ms of a difference :)

And finally... a few dozen milliseconds may not seem like a lot, but multiply that by thousands and you can start to see the time you've save.

[macridah]

wake up call for apple's safari engineers. now i have high expectations for safari 4.1 and even higher for safari 5.0

[jimoase]

Try this site with Safari... see if loading is fast, repeated scrolling is smooth
http://radar.weather.gov/Conus/full_loop.php

FireFox can run this site. Can Chrome?

[*LTD*]

Try this site with Safari... see if loading is fast, repeated scrolling is smooth
http://radar.weather.gov/Conus/full_loop.php

FireFox can run this site. Can Chrome?

Chrome:

Loaded page almost instantly.
Scrolling smooth until the animations hit. Then was choppy, but page still quite viewable

Latest Webkit nightly:

Loaded page almost instantly.
Scrolling smooth until the animations hit. Then was choppy, but page still quite viewable.
Animations seem somewhat smoother than Chrome

Safari:

Loaded page almost instantly.
Scrolling smooth until the animations hit. Then was choppy, but page still quite viewable.
Animations seem somehwat smoother than Chrome

EDIT: I checked animations again, and Chrome is just as smooth. Each browser handles the site well aside from a bit of scrolling choppiness.

[toughboy]

[i]SunSpider JavaScript Benchmarks of Mac Browsers
(Shorter bars represent faster performance)

Article Link: Chrome for Mac Beta Nearly Matches Safari in JavaScript Benchmarking (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/09/chrome-for-mac-beta-nearly-matches-safari-in-javascript-benchmarking/)

Chrome does not have a built-in RSS reader.. Who cares if they rock at anything else.. pfff..

Safari rulez tbh, end of story.

[QCassidy352]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)

This doesn't take into account the horrible sluggishness of Safari's interface, nor is it representative of Safari's ludicrous memory usage. To date, I've never seen Chrome or Firefox use over 1GB RAM, but Safari is atrocious.

Honestly, just look at this memory usage from a WebKit nightly. How is this acceptable? http://img124.yfrog.com/img124/6734/1k0.png

Dude, I've got no idea what your doing with YOUR Safari but I never get that much mem usage happening. Maybe check your plugins + it's a nightly build something could be astray.

Same. Safari behaves very well in that regard on my iMac.

I see no reason to go to chrome, as I'm very happy with safari. And I see one big reason not to leave safari - that it syncs with my iPhone.

[Hattig]

Chrome is easily the best browser on Windows, especially now that the extensions are available. I've been using it on Windows at work since it came out, and it has been excellent.

I installed the Chrome Linux Beta on my Linux netbook yesterday, and it's now going to be my default browser. It's just so much faster, nicer looking and functional that Firefox.

On my Mac, I haven't tried Chrome. The Mac Chrome Beta is less featured than the Linux Chrome Beta. I'd wait for those things to be ironed out before trying. Certainly <10% Javascript differences aren't going to make a difference. Chrome's UI is certainly going to be smoother and faster than Safari's though, and hopefully it will crash a whole lot less.

[Stridder44]

This doesn't take into account the horrible sluggishness of Safari's interface, nor is it representative of Safari's ludicrous memory usage. To date, I've never seen Chrome or Firefox use over 1GB RAM, but Safari is atrocious.

Honestly, just look at this memory usage from a WebKit nightly. How is this acceptable? http://img124.yfrog.com/img124/6734/1k0.png


Um, dude, you're doing something VERY wrong. Because that is not normal by any means. Also, that's a Webkit nightly (yes, I know Safari used Webkit, but I'm just making a point). This is not to say that Safari is a perfect saint and/or isn't a memory hog, but it's not nearly as bad as you make it out to be.

Care to show us exactly what you were doing that is causing a 5.1 GB usage?

[slb]

Chrome is in its first open beta. As in, not yet Release quality, still need to nail down some features and optimize / tweak stuff.

Safari has been in Release quality (non-Beta) since June 2007 as far as I can tell, which means the product has had almost 2.5 years of fine-tuning.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see the released version of Chrome run laps around Safari.

-J

How would it? They're using the same rendering engine except for JavaScript, and WebKit's has been faster for quite a while.

[*LTD*]

This doesn't take into account the horrible sluggishness of Safari's interface, nor is it representative of Safari's ludicrous memory usage. To date, I've never seen Chrome or Firefox use over 1GB RAM, but Safari is atrocious.

Honestly, just look at this memory usage from a WebKit nightly. How is this acceptable? http://img124.yfrog.com/img124/6734/1k0.png

That seems excessive. I'm running the latest Webkit nightly (Intel 64-bit, ver. 4.0.4 (6531.21.10, r51881)), using only 287mb of Real Mem.

Your numbers seem way out of line. I've never heard of such a thing. Were you doing anything out of the ordinary with the browser? Was there a memory leak or something?

Slightly OT:

Is it just me, or is Firefox really starting to lag behind? Seems WebKit is THE engine to use these days. I'm willing to bet that even in Beta, Chrome runs better and faster than the latest stable release of Firefox for Mac. Or am I reaching with this one?

[str1f3]

Their Javascript core is new. It's called V8.

http://code.google.com/p/v8/

http://code.google.com/apis/v8/design.html

V8 has been out as long as Chrome has been out. It's also been out the same amount of time as Safari's Squirrelfish/Nitro.

Anyone expecting any significant performance from beta to final product is kidding themselves. The Javascript engine won't change.

Big surprise. Safari and Chrome are equally fast except Safari has deeper ties into the OS. People are excited over Chrome because it's made by Google.

[str1f3]

That seems excessive. I'm running the latest Webkit nightly (Intel 64-bit, ver. 4.0.4 (6531.21.10, r51881)), using only 287mb of Real Mem.

Your numbers seem way out of line. I've never heard of such a thing. Were you doing anything out of the ordinary with the browser? Was there a memory leak or something?

Slightly OT:

Is it just me, or is Firefox really starting to lag behind? Seems WebKit is THE engine to use these days. I'm willing to bet that even in Beta, Chrome runs better and faster than the latest stable release of Firefox for Mac. Or am I reaching with this one?

Firefox is a nightmare. It's the slowest of the three and I've stopped using it and now use Camino as my second browser.

[Maserati7200]

This doesn't take into account the horrible sluggishness of Safari's interface, nor is it representative of Safari's ludicrous memory usage. To date, I've never seen Chrome or Firefox use over 1GB RAM, but Safari is atrocious.

Honestly, just look at this memory usage from a WebKit nightly. How is this acceptable? http://img124.yfrog.com/img124/6734/1k0.png
That is ridiculous. Safari usually only takes 1-1.5 GB on my comp...
It's a big deal for ordinary Windows users who know no better than IE...we Mac users have had Safari since the very beginning, which has ALWAYS been the fastest browser that exists...that's all.
Idk how long you have been a Mac user, but we haven't had safari since the beginning. When we got our iMac G4 in 2002, it came loaded with IE for Mac (YUCK), there was no such thing as safari yet. That was probably one of the worst browsers ever. Safari didn't exist until 2003, and before then the main browsers for Mac were FF, Camino and IE. Also, it is impossible for Safari to always been the fastest browser that has ever existed, because there were many other browsers before Safari, and there was a fastest out of those browsers. There have been browsers since the late 1980's, there has been Sfari since 2003. Therefore Safari couldn't have been always the fastest. Which one? IDK.

[*LTD*]

That is ridiculous. Safari usually only takes 1-1.5 GB on my comp...

Idk how long you have been a Mac user, but we haven't had safari since the beginning. When we got our iMac G4 in 2002, it came loaded with IE for Mac (YUCK), there was no such thing as safari yet. That was probably one of the worst browsers ever. Safari didn't exist until 2003, and before then the main browsers for Mac were FF, Camino and IE. Also, it is impossible for Safari to always been the fastest browser that has ever existed, because there were many other browsers before Safari, and there was a fastest out of those browsers. There have been browsers since the late 1980's, there has been Sfari since 2003. Therefore Safari couldn't have been always the fastest. Which one? IDK.

Chimera? Omniweb?

[polaris20]

IDK about benchmarks, but page loads are considerably faster than FF or Safari on my machine, it seems. And if Chrome on Mac is like Chrome on Windows, it'll be more secure than the rest of the browsers.

[mikes70mustang]

She's a beauty . . . :D

http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/47500/Google-V8--47759.jpg

Hmm, i didnt know Google ran off of a chevy motor

[blackhand1001]

Hmm, i didnt know Google ran off of a chevy motor

I am more of a ford guy myself.

[AidenShaw]

She's a beauty . . . :D

http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/47500/Google-V8--47759.jpg

OMG. That's a classic (in the sense of Mac OS Classic) engine.

A carburetor - QuadraJet from the mid-60s - instead of fuel injection?

A distributor? Wow, my last car with a distributor was an '89.

Cam in block, rocker arms, two valves per cylinder? Isn't 4 valve DOHC the norm now?
_______________________


Or maybe *LTD* meant the engine as a metaphor for Apple's use of rather outdated components in many shiny new systems. Then, it's spot on!

[DualShock]

Um, how can this even be a fair comparison?

Chrome on OS X is still only 32 bit (per Google). 64 bit is coming later.

Safari is 64 bit by default.

So unless Computerworld forced Safari to run in 32 bit mode (which is not mentioned at all in the article), it's not a true :apple:'s to :apple:'s comparison. :D

It's possible that if Safari was running in 32 bit mode, or a 64 bit Chrome existed, the results may be a bit closer, or even reversed.

It's been shown that 64 bit Intel apps may run faster than their 32 bit counterparts because of extra CPU registers and some other goodies in the AMD64 architecture.

[airplaneman]

Just look at the macrumors forums. All the posting options are missing.

? Chrome works fine here. Remember it's a Beta, not a final release. Furthermore, I love Chrome because, as mentioned earlier, it uses less resources (1/3 the memory!) than Safari, which is great.

[ski1ski1]

V8 has been out as long as Chrome has been out. It's also been out the same amount of time as Safari's Squirrelfish/Nitro.

Anyone expecting any significant performance from beta to final product is kidding themselves. The Javascript engine won't change.

Big surprise. Safari and Chrome are equally fast except Safari has deeper ties into the OS. People are excited over Chrome because it's made by Google.

You totally misinterpreted my post. I was responding to a poster that claimed the javascript engine in Chrome was already developed by someone else like webkit. But since you brought it up, V8 performance has greatly increased since Chrome's first beta appeared a year ago.

[str1f3]

Um, how can this even be a fair comparison?

Chrome on OS X is still only 32 bit (per Google). 64 bit is coming later.

Safari is 64 bit by default.

So unless Computerworld forced Safari to run in 32 bit mode (which is not mentioned at all in the article), it's not a true :apple:'s to :apple:'s comparison. :D

It's possible that if Safari was running in 32 bit mode, or a 64 bit Chrome existed, the results may be a bit closer, or even reversed.

It's been shown that 64 bit Intel apps may run faster than their 32 bit counterparts because of extra CPU registers and some other goodies in the AMD64 architecture.

You're looking too deep into it. It's about which browsers are the fastest today. When Google comes out with 64bit, then it will be retested. As it is, you're going to wait awhile seeing as Chrome has just recently started allowing extensions (not even on Mac yet) and there will be a version for the Mac long after Windows.

You totally misinterpreted my post. I was responding to a poster that claimed the javascript engine in Chrome was already developed by someone else like webkit. But since you brought it up, V8 performance has greatly increased since Chrome's first beta appeared a year ago.

Cool.

[*LTD*]

OMG. That's a classic (in the sense of Mac OS Classic) engine.

A carburetor - QuadraJet from the mid-60s - instead of fuel injection?

A distributor? Wow, my last car with a distributor was an '89.

Cam in block, rocker arms, two valves per cylinder? Isn't 4 valve DOHC the norm now?
_______________________


Or maybe *LTD* meant the engine as a metaphor for Apple's use of rather outdated components in many shiny new systems. Then, it's spot on!

Well, Google V8 engine, so . . . there's your Google V8 engine. ;)



As for testing . . .

I tested Safari, the latetst WebKit nightly build, and Chrome on Sunspider.

Safari beat Chrome easily, and the WebKit nightly blew both our of the water. Just for kicks I tested NewNewsWire's built-in browser, and it nearly equaled Chrome! Then again, both are WebKit-based.

[DoFoT9]

i wonder where the latest IE compares :rolleyes:

[iMaggot]

It's a big deal for ordinary Windows users who know no better than IE...we Mac users have had Safari since the very beginning, which has ALWAYS been the fastest browser that exists...that's all.

"the fastest browser that exists" lol yeah and it crashes more than any browser that ever exists to ;)

[DoFoT9]

"the fastest browser that exists" lol yeah and it crashes more than any browser that ever exists to ;)

i dont know what your doing but mine never freezes :\

[tuck5649]

that has got to be the stupidest, most misleading graph I have ever seen

[star-affinity]

Can someone tell me why Safari doesn't have the "Reopen Closed Tab" function?

Seriously, it's the ONLY reason I use FireFox instead. I much rather use Safari! Very annoying.

In the History menu there's ”Reopen Last Closed Window” and ”Reopen All Windows from Last Session”.

Is that what you're looking for?

[christian_k]

This contrasts with the Windows platform, where Computerworld previously found Chrome to be the top performing browser in the same testing suite, clocking in at 30% faster than Safari for Windows.


No surprise IMHO.
Chrome was a Windows program at the beginning, so they have done more optimization for that platform, maybe optimal Windows performance was the reason for some internal design decisions.

Safari in contrast was designed and optimized to be a good OSX browser, I think performance on Windows has much lower priority for Apple.

Christian

[djellison]

we Mac users have had Safari since the very beginning, which has ALWAYS been the fastest browser that exists...

Really? Safari ALWAYS the fastest browser? Are you taking into account the beach-ball minutes per day I have to put up with?

I've not used Safari once since Chrome Beta was released. No point.

[Stridder44]

i wonder where the latest IE compares :rolleyes:

Believe it or not, IE 8 is actually a huge step forward. Now that is by no means to say that anyone should get it, hahaha let's not talk crazy talk here. It's still a POS, but compared to IE 7 (or even the dreaded IE 6) it's a saint.

It's a big deal for ordinary Windows users who know no better than IE...we Mac users have had Safari since the very beginning, which has ALWAYS been the fastest browser that exists...that's all.


Um, the first public release came out in late 2003. It didn't even become the default browser till 10.3 Panther. I'd hardly call that "since the very beginning." And it most certainly has not always been the fastest browser hahaha. Don't get me wrong though, it's still my favorite (in OS X anyway).

[DoFoT9]

Believe it or not, IE 8 is actually a huge step forward. Now that is by no means to say that anyone should get it, hahaha let's not talk crazy talk here. It's still a POS, but compared to IE 7 (or even the dreaded IE 6) it's a saint.

i would believe that. i remember some benchmarks a few months (years?) back. IE7 was about 20x slower then safari, IE8 was only 6-8x slower then safari. so yea it does seem decent compared to the other ones.

its just so... clunky! coding in html is so difficult for IE (for n00bs like me anyway).

[No1451]

Interesting, I've been using chromium nightlies but this might be decent. I'd use safari but by the time the beachball goes away and I can actually do anything chrome has usually already loaded my page :)

[*LTD*]

that has got to be the stupidest, most misleading graph I have ever seen

How so?

[AidenShaw]

i wonder where the latest IE compares :rolleyes:

Believe it or not, IE 8 is actually a huge step forward.

http://ieblog.members.winisp.net/images/Dean_PDC_2.png

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2009/11/18/an-early-look-at-ie9-for-developers.aspx

The article says that overall browser performance is more than just one synthetic benchmark - all functions of the browser need to perform well for the best user experience.

If all the fast Javascript engine does is get you to the beach ball faster, it's not that useful. ;)


The page also contains a link to a Mozilla developer's lament on Acid 3 - The Missed Opportunity of Acid 3 (http://shaver.off.net/diary/2008/03/27/the-missed-opportunity-of-acid-3/). Some clips from that link:


...We’re still taking fixes for important issues, but virtually none of the issues on the Acid 3 list are important enough for us to take at this stage....

Ian’s Acid 3, unlike its predecessors, is not about establishing a baseline of useful web capabilities. It’s quite explicitly about making browser developers jump — Ian specifically sought out tests that were broken in WebKit, Opera, and Gecko, perhaps out of a twisted attempt at fairness. But the Acid tests shouldn’t be fair to browsers, they should be fair to the web; they should be based on how good the web will be as a platform if all browsers conform, not about how far any given browser has to stretch to get there.

...Acid 3 could have had a tremendous positive effect on the web, representing the next target for the web platform, and helping developers prioritize work in such a way as to maximize the aggregate capabilities of the web. Instead, it feels like a puzzle game...

[ski1ski1]

In the History menu there's ”Reopen Last Closed Window” and ”Reopen All Windows from Last Session”.

Is that what you're looking for?

That only opens the last closed window, not the last closed tab.

[Capt Crunch]

I've not used Safari once since Chrome Beta was released. No point.

The lack of an adblock for Chrome seems annoying.

[cumanzor]

Chrome is more of a novelty for Windows users, which are used to crappy browsers such as IE...it adds little real value over Safari for Mac, which is still the fastest browser on Earth.

Ahh yes, I'm so used to my crappy Opera 10. :|

Oh wait, who am I trying to argue with?

Either way, now that somebody mentioned Opera, why the **** is it appear to be so slow in those benchmarks*? Are the Opera devs working on their own new engine or something?

*Let's be realistic for a second, those differences aren't exactly noticeable. And the difference between Chrome and Safari are probably not even perceivable.

[postertorn]

I've been hoping Chrome would come out, and have switched to it, and will keep using it, unless I find that I must go back to Safari for some reason.

In the last few months I've found that my MBP will grind to a crawl, and the culprit (when it isn't Time Machine) is almost always Safari, and it's hogging memory. I usually shut it down when this happens, but that takes forever, and as often as not I have to force quit it.

I was tired of the misery.

[*LTD*]

I've been hoping Chrome would come out, and have switched to it, and will keep using it, unless I find that I must go back to Safari for some reason.

In the last few months I've found that my MBP will grind to a crawl, and the culprit (when it isn't Time Machine) is almost always Safari, and it's hogging memory. I usually shut it down when this happens, but that takes forever, and as often as not I have to force quit it.

I was tired of the misery.

How? Safari doesn't use more than it needs and on average uses only about 230mb. I'm running WebKit nightlies now, it's blazing fast, and is using only 190mb with several tabs open, while running a YouTube movie.

[Xian Zhu Xuande]

Okay, just to prove a point, I went ahead and did essentially the same thing with Safari 4.0.4. Here you go:
I'm not sure what you're doing with Safari, but I've never experienced memory usage like that from the browser, and I've got more resources available on my system. What on earth are you viewing when that comes up? Is Flash misbheaving?

Safari on my Mac usually gobbles up around 250-400 MBs depending on how much I use it. I've had my computer on for a few days now and just to check, I loaded up about forty tabs, and here is my current performance.

http://i711.photobucket.com/albums/ww111/XianZhuXuande/safari_process.jpg

You might want to figure out what is wrong.

[postertorn]

How? Safari doesn't use more than it needs and on average uses only about 230mb. I'm running WebKit nightlies now, it's blazing fast, and is using only 190mb with several tabs open, while running a YouTube movie.

I'll play around with WebKit and see how it works.

[macUser2007]

LOL. Safari 4.04 may be 12% faster in JavaScript benching, but it's the worst of ALL browsers I tested in Flash performance.

So, who in their right mind would continue to use a browser, which performs so poorly with a huge part of the web, because it clocks 12% better on a synthetic JavaScript test?!

Yep, FLASH, even if the handful of regular "I-hate-FLASH-and-the-world-is wrong" boys scream that FLASH sucks.

No, boys, Safari sucks, Flash works just fine for the rest of the BIG world....

[WotanAgain]

LOL. Safari 4.04 may be 12% faster in JavaScript benching, but it's the worst of ALL browsers I tested in Flash performance.

So, who in their right mind would continue to use a browser, which performs so poorly with a huge part of the web, because it clocks 12% better on a synthetic JavaScript test?!

Yep, FLASH, even if the handful of regular "I-hate-FLASH-and-the-world-is wrong" boys scream that FLASH sucks.

No, boys, Safari sucks, Flash works just fine for the rest of the BIG world....

I haven't done any benchmarking, but I've noticed this too. I'm not a fan of Safari.

[BRLawyer]

Chrome is in its first open beta. As in, not yet Release quality, still need to nail down some features and optimize / tweak stuff.

Safari has been in Release quality (non-Beta) since June 2007 as far as I can tell, which means the product has had almost 2.5 years of fine-tuning.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see the released version of Chrome run laps around Safari.

-J

This is just a long-standing marketing gimmick by Google...pretty much EVERYTHING it releases is called Beta even when it has final release quality...it's also a way to minimize legal risks and reduce expectations, exactly so they can be seen as releasing outstanding stuff.

[BRLawyer]

And you are sure that's Safari fault? No plugins? How many tabs and what sites you are loading to achieve such memory usage? Because I have no problems with Safari Snow Leopard.

No problems here either...sometimes I really don't know what the heck is the issue for some people...

My Safari with 7 tabs open on relatively demanding websites - 300Mb of memory usage.

[BRLawyer]

Idk how long you have been a Mac user, but we haven't had safari since the beginning. When we got our iMac G4 in 2002, it came loaded with IE for Mac (YUCK), there was no such thing as safari yet. That was probably one of the worst browsers ever. Safari didn't exist until 2003, and before then the main browsers for Mac were FF, Camino and IE. Also, it is impossible for Safari to always been the fastest browser that has ever existed, because there were many other browsers before Safari, and there was a fastest out of those browsers. There have been browsers since the late 1980's, there has been Sfari since 2003. Therefore Safari couldn't have been always the fastest. Which one? IDK.

Well, I use Macs since 1995 with System 7 and Netscape Navigator but was mainly talking about the last 5 years or so...don't even start with IE for Mac, which has always been absolutely craptastic.

My point is that ORDINARY Windows users know no better...so when a big company like Google releases Chrome, it's REALLY a big deal for them.

In other words, they are used to crap; so anything better than crap is a godsend to Windows users...the impact of Chrome on Mac users is absolutely irrelevant.

[Xian Zhu Xuande]

This is just a long-standing marketing gimmick by Google...pretty much EVERYTHING it releases is called Beta even when it has final release quality...it's also a way to minimize legal risks and reduce expectations, exactly so they can be seen as releasing outstanding stuff.
They can 'minimize legal risk' just fine through the license agreement.
A long beta cycle does not necessarily equate to a gimmick.

[macUser2007]

... In other words, they are used to crap; so anything better than crap is a godsend to Windows users...the impact of Chrome on Mac users is absolutely irrelevant.

Hm, I've continuously used Macs from about the same time. The only Windows box I've used is the one I bought for HTPC, because Apple was (and in reality still is) behind on that front.

W7 is really a pretty good OS, and certainly not crap. I still like OS 10.6 better overall, but your statements are either based on ignorance, or being inflamatory.

Safari is just not a great browser, neither on Windows, nor on OS 10.

Apple is second class in FLASH performance, and graphics - both due in large part to Apple's closed nature, and its "our way, or the highway" attitude towards its customers.

[caf9128]

Well, I use Macs since 1995 with System 7 and Netscape Navigator but was mainly talking about the last 5 years or so...don't even start with IE for Mac, which has always been absolutely craptastic.

My point is that ORDINARY Windows users know no better...so when a big company like Google releases Chrome, it's REALLY a big deal for them.

In other words, they are used to crap; so anything better than crap is a godsend to Windows users...the impact of Chrome on Mac users is absolutely irrelevant.


Wow. Rather condescending. I think "ordinary" Windows users "who don't know any better" have long had lots of browser options. Currently I think Safari on my Mac is crap compared to running Chrome on Windows 7--it's really, really fast and smooth. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I think you've been in a Mac fog a little too long maybe. Some of us use both platforms and are not comparing our 2009 Mac OS to the way they remember Windows 98 years ago.

[Povilas]

Safari is just not a great browser, neither on Windows, nor on OS 10.

Apple is second class in FLASH performance, and graphics - both due in large part to Apple's closed nature, and its "our way, or the highway" attitude towards its customers.

BS.

[BRLawyer]

Hm, I've continuously used Macs from about the same time. The only Windows box I've used is the one I bought for HTPC, because Apple was (and in reality still is) behind on that front.

W7 is really a pretty good OS, and certainly not crap. I still like OS 10.6 better overall, but your statements are either based on ignorance, or being inflamatory.

Safari is just not a great browser, neither on Windows, nor on OS 10.

Apple is second class in FLASH performance, and graphics - both due in large part to Apple's closed nature, and its "our way, or the highway" attitude towards its customers.

Again the ugly head of feature-fanatics shows up in this forum.

1 - I am not talking about Windows, I am talking about ORDINARY users with IE (even though Windows is, OF COURSE, crap; I am always amazed to see, at work, how absolutely INCOMPETENT Windows XP is in terms of multitasking and UI performance); if you're NOT using IE, you are NOT an ordinary Windows user;

2 - Safari is the BEST browser on OS X hands down; Firefox is ridiculously slow and good only for those that like to tinker with their browsers; Chrome is close but no cigar;

3 - As for Flash, which is purely Adobe's responsibility, I have only one thing to say: Click2Flash;

4 - Finally, Apple's purported "high horse" behavior shows in its awesome financial performance when compared with the rest of the market...it DOMINATES revenues when everyone else is just foundering. Nothing else needs to be said.

[DoFoT9]

http://ieblog.members.winisp.net/images/Dean_PDC_2.png

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2009/11/18/an-early-look-at-ie9-for-developers.aspx

The article says that overall browser performance is more than just one synthetic benchmark - all functions of the browser need to perform well for the best user experience.

If all the fast Javascript engine does is get you to the beach ball faster, it's not that useful. ;)
thats the one i was referring to :D thanks for that!



Apple is second class in FLASH performance, and graphics - both due in large part to Apple's closed nature, and its "our way, or the highway" attitude towards its customers.

BS.
hmm i agree with macUser, though i dont blame apple for it completely.

[bkap16]

Well, I seem to be getting the opposite result. On my Macbook Pro (4,1), Chrome beats Safari by about 20ms on Sunspider (470ms to 490ms). Of course, they're both killing Firefox 3.6b4 (950ms)

[AidenShaw]

Some of us use both platforms and are not comparing our 2009 Mac OS to the way they remember Windows 98 years ago.

I don't think that 98 years ago there were very many Windows systems around....

</joke>

But yes, a lot of people around here (and in Apple ads) seem to be comparing the latest Apple OSX to some version of pre-NT Windows like 9x or 3.1.

[IntelliUser]

I don't think that 98 years ago there were very many Windows systems around....

</joke>

But yes, a lot of people around here (and in Apple ads) seem to be comparing the latest Apple OSX to some version of pre-NT Windows like 9x or 3.1.

probably because the difference in stability between os x and windows is like the difference between Windows 7 and Win 98-2000. That is, if you use it intesively enough.

[AidenShaw]

probably because the difference in stability between os x and windows is like the difference between Windows 7 and Win 98-2000. That is, if you use it intesively enough.

Isn't there enough evidence of people having big problems with 10.6 to put this one to bed? (Ignore the next 20 replies from people who say OSX 10.6 has been "flawless" for them and "Windows 7 sucks".)

And, by the way, were you aware that Windows 98 and Windows 2000 are from different codebases? Windows 2000 is an NT-based system, Windows 98 is based on the 16-bit/32-bit hybrid Windows 95 base. Windows 2000 is very stable.

The truth is that OSX and NT are both stable for the majority of users. Some people have problems due to hardware issues or poorly written or conflicting software - but for most users both NT and OSX are stable, productive platforms.

[*LTD*]

Again the ugly head of feature-fanatics shows up in this forum.

1 - I am not talking about Windows, I am talking about ORDINARY users with IE (even though Windows is, OF COURSE, crap; I am always amazed to see, at work, how absolutely INCOMPETENT Windows XP is in terms of multitasking and UI performance); if you're NOT using IE, you are NOT an ordinary Windows user;

2 - Safari is the BEST browser on OS X hands down; Firefox is ridiculously slow and good only for those that like to tinker with their browsers; Chrome is close but no cigar;

3 - As for Flash, which is purely Adobe's responsibility, I have only one thing to say: Click2Flash;

4 - Finally, Apple's purported "high horse" behavior shows in its awesome financial performance when compared with the rest of the market...it DOMINATES revenues when everyone else is just foundering. Nothing else needs to be said.

I have to agree with this. Flash performance isn't that bad, though. I've been YouTubing with Safari lately and things have been ok. Certain vids send the cpu usage up, others don't. WebKit nightlies, however, run Flash content like a champ. I'm experiencing no beachballs, no slowdowns whatsoever and consistently acceptable memory management with extended use of WebKit nightlies. Love 'em. And it's all Safari, to boot. Just bleeding-edge Safari.


Isn't there enough evidence of people having big problems with 10.6 to put this one to bed?

There is evidence. Just not enough. Problems with OS X can be fixed with a few quick updates. Problems with Windows . . . require another version of Windows.

[BRLawyer]

I have to agree with this. Flash performance isn't that bad, though. I've been YouTubing with Safari lately and things have been ok. Certain vids send the cpu usage up, others don't. WebKit nightlies, however, run Flash content like a champ. I'm experiencing no beachballs, no slowdowns whatsoever and consistently acceptable memory management with extended use of WebKit nightlies. Love 'em. And it's all Safari, to boot. Just bleeding-edge Safari.


I concur with the performance improvement, although it's far from ideal...in fact, I already said in a different thread that the latest beta version of Flash performs much better on my Mac...yet another evidence that it's Adobe that has been screwing up all these years, not Apple.

[AidenShaw]

Problems with OS X can be fixed with a few quick updates. Problems with Windows . . . require another version of Windows.

Clearly 10.6.2 is "too few" updates.

What's the difference between waiting for 10.x.5 and Windows XXX SP1? Doesn't seem to be much....

[*LTD*]

Clearly 10.6.2 is "too few" updates.

What's the difference between waiting for 10.x.5 and Windows XXX SP1? Doesn't seem to be much....

Problems with Windows run far, far deeper than bugs. A lot of it is "by design." There is a good reason OS X is so easily differentiated from Windows.

[macUser2007]

Again the ugly head of feature-fanatics shows up in this forum.

1 - ... how absolutely INCOMPETENT Windows XP is in terms of multitasking and UI performance); if you're NOT using IE, you are NOT an ordinary Windows user;

2 - Safari is the BEST browser on OS X hands down; Firefox is ridiculously slow....

3 - As for Flash, which is purely Adobe's responsibility....

4 - ....it DOMINATES revenues when everyone else is just foundering. ...

Do you even attempt to make a coherent argument, or do you just like to hear yourself talk in superlatives?

You live in some parallel universe, which has little semblance to the one most people reside in:

Safari is the WORST browser of the three I tested with FLASH. I'll copy a previous post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8739278&postcount=427) here:

"Some CPU measurements on Mac and Windows

O.K., I decided to check the same video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdOevbchxOc) on both Mac OS 10.6.1 and Windows 7, and in Safari and another browser.

Here are the results for CPU usage:

--------------------
Windows System (my HTPC, it's AOPEN 45-DR)

Windows 7, 32bit, on an Intel C2D P9500 2.53 GHz, 4GB RAM (3GB used under W7-32bit), Intel onboard GMA X4500MHD graphics with Intel Beta W7 driver.

Safari: SD=10%-15%
HD=15%-20% (occasional spike to 25%)

IE8: SD=1%
HD=1%-3% (occasional spike to 5%)

--------------------
Mac System

OS 10.6.1, 24" iMac, 2.4 GHz. 2GB RAM, ATI Radeon HD2600

Safari 64bit: SD=43%-46% (234MB Real Mem)
HD=67%-77% (209.8MB Real Mem)

The SD value is the combination of Safari itself (HD=8%-9% (205MB Real Mem)), and the Flash Player (Safari Internet plug-in, which Safari calls for HD content, and which registers additional 35%-37% CPU and 29MB Real Mem).

The HD value is the combination of Safari itself (HD=13%-15% (175.1MB Real Mem)), and the Flash Player (Safari Internet plug-in, which Safari calls for HD content, and which registers additional 54%-62% CPU and 34.7MB Real Mem).

Camino 2.0b3: SD=34%-35% (102.6MB Real Mem)
HD=47%-49% (101.2MB Real Mem)

Firefox 3.5.4: SD=30%-33% (91.6MB Real Mem)
HD=43%-44% (99MB Real Mem)

--------------------

The way I look at this, performance-wise and resource-wise, Safari basically sucks, compared to both the Mozilla browsers, and IE8. I really do not see, how anyone half-way reasonable, can keep blaming Adobe for this kind of abysmal performance in Safari.

Also, when I open my iGoogle home page, Safari takes noticeably longer to load everything, than either Camino or Firefox. On Windows 7, Safari is noticeably faster to load the same page, than on the Mac."

P.S. Comparing Webkit browsers in Windows 7, with the same video as above, Chrome runs the same as Firefox at 4% CPU, but Safari goes up to 25% CPU.

[AidenShaw]

Problems with Windows run far, far deeper than bugs. A lot of it is "by design."

On the other hand, "by design" Explorer is better than Finder according to many users of both. "By design" it's handy to resize windows by dragging on any border. "By design" some of the changes to the Windows 7 taskbar were so good that Apple had to copy them at the last minute for 10.6. "By design" Windows has supported 64 CPU systems (and extended that to 256 CPU for "Win7 Server"), while 10.6 had major repair work just to support 4 to 8 CPU systems.

Actually, much of it is not "by design", but "by opinion". Windows is fine and natural for many people, OSX is intuitive for others. The nonsense like "OMG Windows has the registry" is just as silly as "OMG OSX has little config files scattered all over the filesystem".

Both are good operating systems - and their differences should not be automatically viewed as flaws or advantages.

[archurban]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)

Whatever matches, it doesn't matter because overall chrome is way faster than Safari. No doubt.

[Ljohnson72]

Just downloaded Chrome. Wow, I LOVE it!

[iMaggot]

Again the ugly head of feature-fanatics shows up in this forum.

1 - I am not talking about Windows, I am talking about ORDINARY users with IE (even though Windows is, OF COURSE, crap; I am always amazed to see, at work, how absolutely INCOMPETENT Windows XP is in terms of multitasking and UI performance); if you're NOT using IE, you are NOT an ordinary Windows user;

2 - Safari is the BEST browser on OS X hands down; Firefox is ridiculously slow and good only for those that like to tinker with their browsers; Chrome is close but no cigar;

3 - As for Flash, which is purely Adobe's responsibility, I have only one thing to say: Click2Flash;

4 - Finally, Apple's purported "high horse" behavior shows in its awesome financial performance when compared with the rest of the market...it DOMINATES revenues when everyone else is just foundering. Nothing else needs to be said.

Lol you forgot 5 - Steve Jobs is God.
Fanboys are to funny :D

[DMann]

On the other hand, "by design" Explorer is better than Finder according to many users of both. "By design" it's handy to resize windows by dragging on any border. "By design" some of the changes to the Windows 7 taskbar were so good that Apple had to copy them at the last minute for 10.6. "By design" Windows has supported 64 CPU systems (and extended that to 256 CPU for "Win7 Server"), while 10.6 had major repair work just to support 4 to 8 CPU systems.

Actually, much of it is not "by design", but "by opinion". Windows is fine and natural for many people, OSX is intuitive for others. The nonsense like "OMG Windows has the registry" is just as silly as "OMG OSX has little config files scattered all over the filesystem".

Both are good operating systems - and their differences should not be automatically viewed as flaws or advantages.

Well then, we won't mention that "by design," it's somewhat irrational to have to click on a START button to SHUT DOWN.

"By design," having the Task Bar encasement be so short that the height of the icons bleed off the top edge, is shoddy, as is having them be too small when "small icon" is chosen.

"By design," having such a large amount of space separating icons not only looks bizarre, but wastes valuable space for "pinning" other quick launch items.

"By design," having 'maximized windows' displayed as buttons in the Task Bar is redundant, unnecessary, and wasteful of Task Bar space.

"By design," Hiding the Task Bar makes your list of programs, documents, minimized windows, menus, and system notifications disappear - everything, is gone.

"By design," "pinning" items to the Task Bar is far more click intensive than necessary.

With the Task Bar, if the application you want to pin is already running, you need to:

Right click on its icon

Choose “Pin this program to taskbar”

To remove a pinned application from the taskbar:

Right-click on its icon

Choose “Unpin this program from the taskbar”.

This is hardly more convenient than the Dock's solution, which allows one to drop in applications, folders, documents, devices, drives, and peripherals directly, swiftly, and with no unnecessary clicks.

"By design," not being able to pin a peripheral drive or USB memory stick image to the Task Bar is illogical and inconvenient.

"By design," ejecting devices takes too many clicks.

"By design," most desktop Gadgets are sub-par.

"By design," not being able to run applications outside of their folders is restrictive, and primitive.

"By design," the Control Panel is a cluttered mess:

http://www.blogsdna.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/windows-7-control-panel.png

http://files.myopera.com/lizard_kanta/blog/Snow-Leopard-2.jpg

This is especially apparent when compared to the streamlined, hierarchical organization of System Preferences in SL.

"By design," the UI of W7 is noisy, chintzy, and prone to looking worse than the panel of a poorly packaged 27" iMac:

http://www.windows7taskforce.com/uploads/afm.jpg

Windows 7, by design

[MagnusVonMagnum]

No Chrome for PPC = No Chrome for me (despite having a MBP that's Intel and a PC that could run it). I need a consistent browser platform across all the computers I use and the lack of support for the machine that is on 24/7 means I have no use for it. Firefox still gets the most use here.

[jimmyjoemccrow]

Well then, we won't mention that "by design," it's somewhat irrational to have to click on a START button to SHUT DOWN.

"By design," having the Task Bar encasement be so short that the height of the icons bleed off the top edge, is shoddy, as is having them be too small when "small icon" is chosen.

"By design," having such a large amount of space separating icons not only looks bizarre, but wastes valuable space for "pinning" other quick launch items.

"By design," having 'maximized windows' displayed as buttons in the Task Bar is redundant, unnecessary, and wasteful of Task Bar space.

"By design," Hiding the Task Bar makes your list of programs, documents, minimized windows, menus, and system notifications disappear - everything, is gone.

"By design," "pinning" items to the Task Bar is far more click intensive than necessary.

With the Task Bar, if the application you want to pin is already running, you need to:

Right click on its icon

Choose “Pin this program to taskbar”

To remove a pinned application from the taskbar:

Right-click on its icon

Choose “Unpin this program from the taskbar”.

This is hardly more convenient than the Dock's solution, which allows one to drop in applications, folders, documents, devices, drives, and peripherals directly, swiftly, and with no unnecessary clicks.

"By design," not being able to pin a peripheral drive or USB memory stick image to the Task Bar is illogical and inconvenient.

"By design," ejecting devices takes too many clicks.

"By design," most desktop Gadgets are sub-par.

"By design," not being able to run applications outside of their folders is restrictive, and primitive.

"By design," the Control Panel is a cluttered mess:

http://www.blogsdna.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/windows-7-control-panel.png

http://files.myopera.com/lizard_kanta/blog/Snow-Leopard-2.jpg

This is especially apparent when compared to the streamlined, hierarchical organization of System Preferences in SL.

"By design," the UI of W7 is noisy, chintzy, and prone to looking worse than the panel of a poorly packaged 27" iMac:

http://www.windows7taskforce.com/uploads/afm.jpg

Windows 7, by design

Same tired **** you spout in other threads.

There are other ways to shutdown Windows you just list one. Look closely at any version of Windows after XP and there is no "Start".

I really don't see any icons on my taskbar bleeding off the top edge so I don't know what you're talking about.

I wouldn't say the space between the icons looks bizarre, I'll say that you are used to OSX. I'll tell you if the spacing on them is too great when I have around 20 programs open that aren't pinned there. I don't think thats ever gonna happen.

A maximised program is in the taskbar so it can be located easily if you put another maximised window on top of it. Are you referring to the window which currently has focus?

I can't really believe you can bring up this as a complaint about autohide. Surely a user using autohide has done so by choice and expects to have these things hidden until he decides its time to check them himself?

You are complaining about two clicks, on an action that is unlikely to be carried out often. I don't know about you, but I know which programs I use frequently, I don't unpin/pin regularly. And whats more I prefer clicking to dragging, especially on a trackpad where its awkward.

I haven't got a USB drive handy to test whether they can be pinned, can't comment.

You show your Mac bias by ejecting with a click. I eject with the button that is handily on my drive.

There is very little difference in quality of the gadgets between OSX and Windows 7, you are just showing prejudice now.

Not sure I know what you are talking about with the folders comment and I don't think you do either so again no comment.

You have deliberately chosen to show the control panel in grid view which is not default. The default view is category view which has around 8 categories. In any case, Control Panel has more hardware and more settings to deal with than OSX, which would rather you just left things as Apple set them.

The default scheme of Windows is colourful and warm. The default scheme of OSX is cold and humourless, not even stooping to a jingle as you log on. I'm playing Devil's Advocate here because I do like both, but in the face of such ignorant pretension I present a counter view.

A static screenshot of Aero Peek does not give a true representation of it in action. The picture with lines across the screen that you seem so keen to deride is present only for a second or two until you find the window you were searching for. If you are looking at the overall screen then you are not only stubbornly looking for things to nit pick you are using it wrongly.


But on topic, Safari may have the fastest java rendering engine but the milliseconds saved there cannot make up for all the time you will waste just using at as a browser. Its crap tab and search support are only partially corrected by Glims. Glimmerblocker is great but in Safari prone to rendering errors. I don't have the same errors on Camino or Chrome. Top Sites are useful but over the top for an older machine like a G4. In fact I just prefer Chrome's flat display even on my Macbook as its clearer.

[*LTD*]

We can spend all day making claims about what MS and Apple copied from each other. But all that needs to be said is right here, striaght from Redmond. An admission of what we've known for years.

http://thenextweb.com/2009/11/11/microsoft-admit-copied-apple/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/12/simon-aldous-windows-7-in_n_355043.html

http://www.findmysoft.com/news/It-s-Official-Microsoft-Copied-Mac-s-Looks-and-Feel/

http://gnews.com/technology/Microsoft-Blunder-as-Employee-Admits-Windows-7-is-Mac-Copy-511138363833.html

[AidenShaw]

We can spend all day making claims about what MS and Apple copied from each other.

Yes, they copy from each other - like the task bar copied some ideas from the dock, and Dock Exposé copied Aero Peek. Back and forth, forth and back. It's about time for Apple to do some major copying from the Windows filesystem/volume manager to clean up HFS+... ;) .


Well then, we won't mention that "by design," it's somewhat irrational to have to click on a START button to SHUT DOWN.

There's a button to do things, and one of items "to do" is to shut down. Seems perfectly natural to go to one place to do things. And why do you think that it's labeled "Start"?

To me it seems irrational to drag a removeable drive to the trash bin to eject it - I'd expect that to reformat the drive.


"By design," not being able to pin a peripheral drive or USB memory stick image to the Task Bar is illogical and inconvenient.

This one honestly amuses me - because I think that it illustrates how OSX and Windows have different philosophies.

I've never even considered putting a device in the task bar, it just seems wrong. Tasks belong in the task bar, not files.

By the way, you *can* pin a file/directory/device to Windows Explorer in the task bar, which makes sense to me.



"By design," the Control Panel is a cluttered mess:

http://www.blogsdna.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/windows-7-control-panel.png

<cut>

This is especially apparent when compared to the streamlined, hierarchical organization of System Preferences in SL.

Nice that you clicked on "View all control panel items" and then complain that you see all control panel items. The default view (attached down below) is hierarchical. The first image is the top level view, the second when you select "Network" and move down the hierarchy to network items.

I hope that you were ignorant about Windows here, and not being dishonest.

[bobsbarricades]

i'm stoked.

I've been using it since it was released, exclusively, and guess what?!

IT HASN'T FREAKING CRASHED ONCE!

I'm sick of safari's joke performance with *anything* flash video related. Firefox bombs for god only knows what reasons, camino...i just don't like so I can't say.

I am so far, a fan. a big one.

[*LTD*]

Latest WebKit nightly is phenomenal in Sunspider. Score of 383 to Chrome's 493.

[AidenShaw]

Latest WebKit nightly is phenomenal in Sunspider. Score of 383 to Chrome's 493.

Does it get rid of the beach balls?

[DMann]

Same tired **** you spout in other threads.

Since the same tired Windows hasn't changed significantly during the past year, the same observations still apply.

I really don't see any icons on my taskbar bleeding off the top edge so I don't know what you're talking about.

http://www.techhail.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/stack-icons-on-taskbar-in-windows-7-similar-to-mac-os-x-dock-with-7stacks.jpg

Some do, and some don't - the problem being that they need to be scaled at all, to fit inside of their enclosed 'buttons' - so much for Windows without Walls.

I wouldn't say the space between the icons looks bizarre, I'll say that you are used to OSX. I'll tell you if the spacing on them is too great when I have around 20 programs open that aren't pinned there. I don't think thats ever gonna happen.

I currently have 22 apps in the Dock, which can be magnified and resized to one's liking. The Taskbar ('Superbar') does not utilize space efficiently, IMO, and this would only seem to be a more critical issue for laptop users with 13" screens.

A maximised program is in the taskbar so it can be located easily if you put another maximised window on top of it. Are you referring to the window which currently has focus?

Flipping back and forth among maximized documents is a breeze using Exposé. Filling the Superbar with an icon of one or two documents, which are already in the forefront, for the sake of toggling between the two, seems redundant.

I can't really believe you can bring up this as a complaint about autohide. Surely a user using autohide has done so by choice and expects to have these things hidden until he decides its time to check them himself?

Why not? If I hide the Dock, corresponding menus are still available, as well as network status and notifications. Exposé allows one to navigate through documents while the Dock is in hiding.

Besides, I find using a key command to turn hiding on/off much less complicated than having to cull through a menu from the Start Button, and check or uncheck boxes.

You are complaining about two clicks, on an action that is unlikely to be carried out often. I don't know about you, but I know which programs I use frequently, I don't unpin/pin regularly. And whats more I prefer clicking to dragging, especially on a trackpad where its awkward.
Nevertheless, I find the 'click-drag' approach to be much more direct and less cumbersome - to each his own.

I haven't got a USB drive handy to test whether they can be pinned, can't comment.

I suggest that you try it sometime, along with any other peripheral or external drive.

You show your Mac bias by ejecting with a click. I eject with the button that is handily on my drive.

I prefer the eject button on the upper right side of the keyboard, or the keyboard command: ⌘E. Reaching behind or out of the way to access an eject button on a drive, a button which may, or may not even exist on many drives, is a bit inconvienient, IMO.

Not sure I know what you are talking about with the folders comment and I don't think you do either so again no comment.

No?

Can you run an application on a Windows desktop without making an alias? This comes in handy when testing apps, deciding whether or not you want to keep them. If not, simply trash the app from the desktop to the trash - no uninstall necessary for the majority of them, thus no chance of disabling your OS via ********** up The Registry either.

You have deliberately chosen to show the control panel in grid view which is not default. The default view is category view which has around 8 categories. In any case, Control Panel has more hardware and more settings to deal with than OSX, which would rather you just left things as Apple set them.

That is the point - the System Preferences panel is the 'grid view' of OS X System Preferences. If more hardware and/or settings become necessary via additional Preference Panes, they are organized in this fashion as well, which is much more sensible, consistent, and methodically categorized.

The default scheme of Windows is colourful and warm. The default scheme of OSX is cold and humourless, not even stooping to a jingle as you log on. I'm playing Devil's Advocate here because I do like both, but in the face of such ignorant pretension I present a counter view.

The default scheme of Windows is, to put it gently, IN YOUR FACE.

OS X becomes as warm and as colorful as the desktop photo of your liking. The GUI is far less intrusive, and stays out of the way of the user. We won't dare mention UAC.

A static screenshot of Aero Peek does not give a true representation of it in action. The picture with lines across the screen that you seem so keen to deride is present only for a second or two until you find the window you were searching for. If you are looking at the overall screen then you are not only stubbornly looking for things to nit pick you are using it wrongly.

I find the entire UI to be of a Fisher Price experience, IMO - cheap skins which are more detracting and distracting, than beneficial, IMO.

To me it seems irrational to drag a removeable drive to the trash bin to eject it - I'd expect that to reformat the drive.

As soon as a device is clicked on, the Trash icon transforms into an 'Eject,' icon -- of course, you knew this already.

http://davaomacuser.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/eject-2.jpg

I hope that you were ignorant about OS X here, and not being dishonest.

[CQd44]

In Windows 7 you CAN drag a program to the task bar to pin it. Just wanted to point that out.

Personally, I can't stand the UI in OS X. A combination of the unified task bar and Finder just kill it for me ):

I find file manipulation much easier in Windows, mostly because of cut and paste and being used to explorer and being able to click like a madman to get to where i want in no time.

[AidenShaw]

As soon as a device is clicked on, the Trash icon transforms into an 'Eject,' icon -- of course, you knew this already.

I was ignorant of that change - so it looks like that complaint can be put into the archive of past "transgressions", like the "Start Menu".

Sounds like an inconsistent kludge, though, for the trash bin to morph into something else. Windows seems much more consistent here ("Eject" is an entry on the context menu for the device).

[Yidaki]

I downloaded chrome and instantly went back to safari. Chrome actually opened safari up when I went to an RSS bookmark. Why should I use a browser that will open up another browser when I hit a link or bookmark.

Shujin - This will happen in any other browser you use without changing your 'Default Web Browser' Apple stashed this setting away in your Safari - General Preferences. It used to be in the more logical place of System Preferences :-/