This is actually the reason I develop with Safari first because Chrome supports most of the things Safari supports (except for some experimental webkit features) but often not vice versa.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Chrome 56 Offers Faster Reloads, Better Security, Lower Power Usage, and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is actually the reason I develop with Safari first because Chrome supports most of the things Safari supports (except for some experimental webkit features) but often not vice versa.
I have for many years been a firefox fan. The last year I have moved more over to chrome due to it's speed. Chrome and firefox are very similar when working from the URL-bar in terms of autocomplete.
For many years I have tried safari but there is something with the autocomplete in the URL-bar that chrome and firefox does better for me. I don't save bookmarks but return to the same pages many times a day just typing the URL. The public broadcasting corporation in Norway (nrk.no) have regional offices and in chrome/FF I can type nrk and when the suggestions show up use arrow-down and select the regional office I want to load (nrk.no/sf).
Every now and then I go back and use safari, especially after the discussion stemming from the comsumer report with the lastest 2016 laptops.
In safari I must type "sogn og f" to make safari autocomplete. And eventually safari will learn my habbits and I can shorten it to "sogn". But my preferred way to navigate using the arrow keys and I tend to move back to chrome after a while.
Firefox is my favourite browser when navigating with the tab-key since I think it handles input fields better jumping to the input fields. Chrome have (maybe they fixed it) a tendency to jump to any text-field and not just input-fields. But compared to safari and chrome it's getting slow.
regards
Claus
Yeah the Safari autocomplete behavior could use a little work. It's a bit bizarre.
Ah here it is, seems no Google article would be complete without this line being rolled out. It's almost as if Google are the only ones out there who track for advertising purposes. At least they do it via anonymised data and are relatively upfront about it. I certainly benefit from their services as a result.
How about though the HUGE number of other companies that track your data as well? Guess you had better say No thanks to the digital world, not just Google.
At least there are sites that help to see who are tracking your browsing and disable them. http://www.youronlinechoices.com/uk/your-ad-choices.
Right under the logo it says"news and rumors you care about"
If that's not good enough why don't you sue to get your money back?
chrome://flags
"Prefer HTML over Flash" set to Enabled.
That appears to be the default and does not disable Flash. Either way I set that flag the screenshot I posted earlier is the same. Flash is not disabled, it just defaults to HTML and allows you to optionally use Flash.
Correct. Google had said they are rolling out the default to "enabled" slowly over time. For me, disabled was still the default. Not sure how they choose or if it's random.
I have found chrome works better with more websites, for SOME reason.
I went to buy tickets for the tennis on safari the other day (running macOS Sierra) and they weren't all showing up.
Opened chrome, worked first time!
It happens, seemingly with more websites lately. Safari is buggy...
Hopefully this new update is better on battery life because I was trying to use safari because of battery life
They're very similar. Safari has some nice perks. It works well with iOS and macOS
I use Safari and Chrome. Safari has some nice features that Chrome doesn't have such as Picture in Picture mode. And if you use Safari on iOS, you get some very nice Continuity features. I personally prefer the design of Safari to Chrome. But Chrome also has some things that Safari doesn't. You can only Cast to a Chromecast with Google Chrome. Also if you have a 4K Display like I do and watch a lot of YouTube, than lately you've been using Chrome a lot more often due to Safari being limited to 1440p on newly uploaded YouTube videos. There was article on MacRumors on this bug.
Safari uses less performance, and less battery life. Watching a 4K video on Chrome is a lot more demanding than watching that same exact video on Safari. Also, Chrome lets you access 4K 60p video, which is very rare and super intensive (I can't watch it, too stuttery on my little 2015 rMBP).
If you go to HTML5test.com you can see that the newest version of Safari Tech Preview ranks a 419/555, while Chrome 56 ranks a 519/555. So it does support HTML5 better. But in real world use that doesn't make much of a difference
Also, if extensions are your thing, go with Chrome.
So would I. For PC & Mac users like me, it sucks to have to use a different browser for each operating system.
That's because Chrome is used by more devices than Safari so web developers focus their attention on making their sites work well with Chrome.
12-15 years ago, there was almost no mobile browsing, so most web developers optimized their sites for Microsoft Internet Explorer, the dominant browser of the era.
Fast forward to today: Safari runs on Macs and iOS devices, the latter are a sizable group. Firefox mostly runs on PCs (including Macs and Linux boxes), they have almost zero mobile presence. MSIE or Microsoft Edge runs on Wintel systems (I guess Edge might run on some tablets). Chrome runs on pretty much anything: Windows, Linux, Macs, Android, iOS, Chrome OS.
Of course, none of this means that Chrome can't be a resource pig.
Last edited:
I'm not a web developer (seriously, hasn't the age of every kid calling themself a 'web developer' passed yet?) and I don't have Chrome installed because all the sites I use work perfectly well on my choice of Google-free browser (of which there are many).
You're basically saying 'blah blah blah obscure examples where one might choose Chrome to improve their personal workflow in your personal opinion... get why it has everything to do with Macs now?'
Nope - you lost me at 'it's a popular THIRD PARTY APP'. My life is fine without it.
Second bit, rumour. A minor update to a 3rd party browser that's basically a bug fix is not a 'rumour'... it's back-page news. There have been 50+ iterations of this goddamn browser (which started as a Safari clone and is now some shonky tracker/ad-ridden 3rd party app that steals all your RAM and batteries). A bug fix is not a rumour, it's out in the open. Out in the open as something I couldn't care less about. Oh and users will be automatically prompted to update, so nobody needs to inform them that an update is available.
[doublepost=1485601713][/doublepost]
Bingo... that argument's like saying 'most websites worked better on IE in the 90's, not Netscape'. Oh right, because it was the default browser (and broke all the standards - so unless you wanna look like a mug, you'll focus on making an IE-compliant website), not because Netscape was an inferior browser.
[doublepost=1485601842][/doublepost]
Chrome ---> TRASH
How many tabs do you have opened?(wondering about average) I am running Chrome with like 42 tabs open on 6GB RAM on core2duo 2008 unibody macbook. Works great as far as I see. Maybe you guys running 5-7 pro apps at a time.
Chrome must be the best browser out there, it has all the features. Syncing, plug-ins, keyword searches, cross-platform, regular updates, aesthetics. I am not sure how Google jumped in and beat Apple and Microsoft at their own game. For some reason they don't build similar features in their browsers. Safari still does not have keyword searches AFAIK, and it took them so long to implement plugins that they still don't have the uBlock Origin. Firefox seems clunky but still good.
As for people worried about privacy, I thought Chrome is an open source project? Does any one actually KNOW if Google gathers info on your browsing habits if you use Chrome?
Chrome must be the best browser out there, it has all the features. Syncing, plug-ins, keyword searches, cross-platform, regular updates, aesthetics. I am not sure how Google jumped in and beat Apple and Microsoft at their own game. For some reason they don't build similar features in their browsers. Safari still does not have keyword searches AFAIK, and it took them so long to implement plugins that they still don't have the uBlock Origin. Firefox seems clunky but still good.
As for people worried about privacy, I thought Chrome is an open source project? Does any one actually KNOW if Google gathers info on your browsing habits if you use Chrome?
(in response to the folks who feel it necessary to blindly criticize Google and those who choose to use their products)
It feels like ever since April of 2004 (when Google introduced Gmail...) we've been reading in the tech world about how "evil" Google is, and how their number one goal is to suck up your personal information and one day rule the world! (here's the earliest article I could remember regarding that issue: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/03/google_mail_is_evil_privacy/)
While it's absolutely true that the number one goal of Google (and many other tech giants these days...) is to serve end users advertisements, it should be noted that that in itself is not evil. In essence, Google as a whole is an advertiser and you the end user, is their product. It might feel creepy that there's a company who can see your every click and move on the web, but the truth is you have a choice in what products you use; and ultimately how you use them. If someone forced you to use a specific brand or product against your will--despite all of the other wonderful free alternatives--that's a fine example of evil.
The key with getting the most out of any product or service you use is a basic understanding of what you're getting after understanding what you've given up to get the product or service--after all, nothing is ever free. Use Gmail as an example, because frankly, it's one of the easiest to understand examples of what I'm saying..
As far as free email goes, Gmail is king. No other free service offers the features and reliability of Gmail. You sign up for a Gmail account and you get this wildly reliable email platform with tons of storage and what did you really pay for it? Google gives you a free service, and in turn you give Google little bits of info about yourself so they can better understand who you are, and how to better serve you relevant ads. Creepy? Maybe. But if you're not cool with that, use any of the literally hundreds of other free email solutions that are available.
The same model goes for Google search--and again, if you don't like it, head on over to Yahoo!...well...maybe don't go there..but you get the idea.
If you're not okay with sacrificing some of your data to receive a product or service from a company, don't bash the company simply because they're using a creative method to offer you a seemingly free product; move on, and find a product or company with which you agree with their principles and either pay for said product or service or don't. As the saying goes "don't hate the player; hate the game."
And as far as bashing Google and its products on an Apple centric news site--I'm a realist and understand you're free to do as you wish..but c'mon man--don't be a troll.
It feels like ever since April of 2004 (when Google introduced Gmail...) we've been reading in the tech world about how "evil" Google is, and how their number one goal is to suck up your personal information and one day rule the world! (here's the earliest article I could remember regarding that issue: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/03/google_mail_is_evil_privacy/)
While it's absolutely true that the number one goal of Google (and many other tech giants these days...) is to serve end users advertisements, it should be noted that that in itself is not evil. In essence, Google as a whole is an advertiser and you the end user, is their product. It might feel creepy that there's a company who can see your every click and move on the web, but the truth is you have a choice in what products you use; and ultimately how you use them. If someone forced you to use a specific brand or product against your will--despite all of the other wonderful free alternatives--that's a fine example of evil.
The key with getting the most out of any product or service you use is a basic understanding of what you're getting after understanding what you've given up to get the product or service--after all, nothing is ever free. Use Gmail as an example, because frankly, it's one of the easiest to understand examples of what I'm saying..
As far as free email goes, Gmail is king. No other free service offers the features and reliability of Gmail. You sign up for a Gmail account and you get this wildly reliable email platform with tons of storage and what did you really pay for it? Google gives you a free service, and in turn you give Google little bits of info about yourself so they can better understand who you are, and how to better serve you relevant ads. Creepy? Maybe. But if you're not cool with that, use any of the literally hundreds of other free email solutions that are available.
The same model goes for Google search--and again, if you don't like it, head on over to Yahoo!...well...maybe don't go there..but you get the idea.
If you're not okay with sacrificing some of your data to receive a product or service from a company, don't bash the company simply because they're using a creative method to offer you a seemingly free product; move on, and find a product or company with which you agree with their principles and either pay for said product or service or don't. As the saying goes "don't hate the player; hate the game."
And as far as bashing Google and its products on an Apple centric news site--I'm a realist and understand you're free to do as you wish..but c'mon man--don't be a troll.
I quoted this section because of a recent story about Symantec and Chrome. It was discovered, again, that Symantec was improperly issuing TLS certs. Google had imposed a more strict scrutiny regimen on Symantec issued certs because of earlier improprieties.
https://arstechnica.com/security/20...-https-certificates/?comments=1&post=32677389
I'm not a regular Chrome user. I only rarely use it for one specific purpose so I didn't realize that it possibly doesn't immediately check for certificate revocation status. I haven't done any detailed research on this but thought it might be useful for Chrome (or other browser) users to know about it, so, if desired, they can try to mitigate what can be considered a flaw.
https://arstechnica.com/security/20...-https-certificates/?comments=1&post=32677389
[An article published one week later including Symantec's response HERE.]
Someday the blight of flash will be no more. On the Apple side this will occur went Apple drops the Intel x86 chipset and moves all their desktops and laptops to an A10x chipset. Then when google recompiles chrome, flash won't be an option in swift.
I been using Chrome for a long time currently have:
Version 56.0.2924.76 beta (64-bit)
Is the released a newer version? When I check for updates there are no updates available at this time. I do have a ton of Chrome tabs open at all times and of course battery life is important when I'm out in the field.
-Mike
Version 56.0.2924.76 beta (64-bit)
Is the released a newer version? When I check for updates there are no updates available at this time. I do have a ton of Chrome tabs open at all times and of course battery life is important when I'm out in the field.
-Mike
