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.
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 for Mac Beta Nearly Matches Safari in JavaScript Benchmarking
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
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.
Chrome:Mac sucks
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?
Depends on what you have open but that's not Safari, that's Webkit which are nightly builds. Nice try.
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?
Depends on what you have open but that's not Safari, that's Webkit which are nightly builds. Nice try.
Depends on what you have open but that's not Safari, that's Webkit which are nightly builds. Nice try.
Have a look at the picture on the second page then. Same deal, but using Safari 4.0.4 instead of a WebKit build.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
Their Javascript core is new. It's called V8.
http://code.google.com/p/v8/
http://code.google.com/apis/v8/design.html
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.
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.
Safari can not run this site
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?
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.
Chrome does not have a built-in RSS reader.. Who cares if they rock at anything else.. pfff..
Safari rulez tbh, end of story.
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)
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.
Chilz0r said: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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
How would it? They're using the same rendering engine except for JavaScript, and WebKit's has been faster for quite a while.