@0dev: Maybe the Safari problems aren't that urgent? Of course nothing is perfect and of course there will be always room for improvement ( and bug fixing )... That being said, I have a slightly different opinion on how well and fast Google fixes issues ( but then again, I don't know what their priorities really are... maybe the issues I was experiencing weren't common enough to be worth fixing in at least a decent amount of time ).
Multiple processes on their own don't improve reliability... the system is more complex than that. If a failed process is not handled correctly, it can still take everything else down. Speed is indeed most likely the main reason why they went with the approach... if your system can handle it, certain things could surely be faster than on competitor browsers using older / other approaches. THEN AGAIN, multiple processes usually need more juice to run too... the coin has two sides. The Chrome multi-process approach usually ( in my experience at least ), can end up eating a crap-load of RAM and CPU power compared to other browsers ( something I'm not really that happy about... I unfortunately don't have any numbers at hand on this ).
I'd rather not discuss too much about the Chrome sandboxing... the idea is cool and "in theory" ( I'll explain shortly why "in theory" ) it is an additional security layer... in reality, it would be cool to know how many people just tick the checkbox in a blink of an eye ( the "I understand the risks, bla, bla bla..." shenanigan ) and proceed to the desired website... you know, the "Ahh, this crap again... next, next, next and show me the bloody thing already" mentality.
Ehh... discussing this won't bring anything useful to the table... we'll just end up posting a lot and never agreeing to anything or reaching a "real" conclusion... it would mainly be senseless philosophy...
The cracking part I can't take extremely seriously ( sounds funny, I know )... just because something is relatively easy to crack, doesn't necessarily mean everything is lost and you are doomed. That's when the OS and other factors come into play... how many Mac viruses are there again? How many "real security" problems were reported by users in recent times and how many lawsuits did Apple face and lose because of this? Right... you see, that's why they are not really bothering with fixing stuff
( not that I necessarily agree with their strategy... but from a business point of view, it's a good strategy )
Again... both browsers do a more than decent job at opening tabs and loading websites ( the main tasks they need to fulfil for the vast majority of the users ). Just please don't run around throwing with big words when in reality things aren't as clear or horrific. Everyday ( "simple" ) users have NO REAL benefits out of any of the features we are discussing here... people just need someone else to tell them that they can go to bed and everything will still be fine when they wake up in the morning.
Whichever company can sell this illusion better will usually gain the most out of it ( financially and not only )...
If Chrome is to be favoured over Safari by the everyday users, then it will most likely be because of the ability to extend it with plug-ins ( with a ton more than Safari has )... they can install a crap-load of plug-ins and feel happy about their achievement ( ignoring of course the fact that the browser will slowly end up eating a crap-load of memory and CPU power because of the plug-in overload ). It's the "swiss army knife" style I'm not a huge fan of ( "one browser to do it all"... I'd rather user specific tools, created and optimized for solving specific problems in a more than decent manner, than start using plug-ins for Notepad++ so I can edit my photos in it just like in Photoshop... but yeah, that's just me... "average Joe doesn't really care about 'using the right tool for the job' too much..." ).