Mac OS X Lion's Safari is Snappier and More Stable Thanks to WebKit2

[AidenShaw]

Safari is going to be so snappy on my THUNDERBOOK!

Yeah... after TiBook, BlackBook and the likes... THIS is the future.
Like the name... Thunderbook... hmmm

Maybe in 2014, when companies start making Thunderbolt peripherals that don't cost an arm, a leg, and your external genitalia.

If Thunderbolt is still around....

My guess is that by the time other OEMs get onboard with Thunderbolt, USB3 will have taken the market. Thunderbolt will be like FW800 - but not as popular. (Or, with a lot of irony, LightPeak/Thunderbolt will be the preferred way for connecting external USB3.0 hubs!)

Oh, and there's that issue with optical LightPeak making all the copper stuff obsolete. So many people are ignoring that elephant in the corner... (or maybe they want to pay $100 for a 1m cable with copper <-> optical transducers built in).

Of course, Apple's looking forward to selling $99 dongles that you'll need to connect your "early 2011" laptops to the real world. Ever notice that when you go to the Apple store to buy a $999 laptop, you leave with your $999 laptop and a $1499 charge on the debit card? Apple is a master at accessory upsell.

All this hype - and nobody mentions the fact that there are zero products on the market to connect to the "magical" new port.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

being a recent windows convert - i was never to inclined in using safari - only for taking things of my iphone for a work app

since using nd loving os 10.6 - i still can't get into safari - use only to browse apple site - chrome does indeed destroy it in every way


but im so happy and comfortable with firefox, just because ive been using exclusively for years - lovin chrome tho

but i would rate safari lower than microsoft internet explorer even!
soory - but even apple may of found it's achillies!

as for the new faster vsn in lion - well, lion truly does sound amazing; but it would take a lot more than being stable and functional in comparison to firefox and chrome for me to convert - i just do not find the layout and ease of use anywhere near firefox - yes its prettier but thats it

I'm the exact opposite when it comes to Chrome. I do not like it at all, especially for Mac OS X. Its handling of RSS feeds I cannot figure out, nor fathom why Google would implement it in such a non-intuitive way. Both Firefox and Safari do this MUCH better (Safari's implementation I like the best).

 

[TheralSadurns]

Oh, and there's that issue with optical LightPeak making all the copper stuff obsolete. So many people are ignoring that elephant.... (or maybe they want to pay $100 for a 1m cable with copper <-> optical transducers built in)

Of course, Apple's looking forward to selling $99 dongles that you'll need to connect your "early 2011" laptops to the real world.

All this hype - and nobody mentions the fact that there are zero products on the market to connect to the "magical" new port.

Thunderbolt is actually FORWARDS compatible. Optical cables will work in current gen Books since the electrical to optical conversion does not happen in the port, but in the cable ITSELF. Therefore... no adapter or anything else needed.

So let me say it in the words of the Steve 'Go educate yourself'
Thx.

 

[munkery]

And IE8 was already running with a similar sandboxing model when it showed up in Chrome.

Interestingly, IE8 implementation of a split-process model does not prevent it from being exploited at PWN2OWN or in the wild.

Chrome survived last year but not IE8?

BTW, most plugins, such as Flash, run in a separate process in Safari.

Do plugins run in a separate process in IE8?

 

[dubbz]

Yes, but no one apart from Google really use it.

Chromium *is* used by others than Google. How many browsers based on Safari, made by someone else than Apple, do you know of? Or are you trying to compare the use of a rendering engine with a full scale browser?

Apple is obviously doing great work with WebKit, but the Chromium project, and others like Nokia, contributes a great deal to it too.

 

[keruah]

but i would rate safari lower than microsoft internet explorer even!
soory - but even apple may of found it's achillies!

Oh God, why?

 

[notabadname]

Safari needs this. If there's an App that crashes on me, it is usually Safari.

 

[keruah]

Safari needs this. If there's an App that crashes on me, it is usually Safari.

Just delete flash and other plugins (not extensions, but some of them are buggy too, like adblock)

 

[AidenShaw]

Therefore... no adapter or anything else needed.

So let me say it in the words of the Steve 'Go educate yourself'
Thx.

No adaptor, just a $100 cable with active optical <-> copper transducers.

Do you think that those transducers will be free, and you can pick up an optical<->copper cable for $6.99?

Which is really what I said, but you apparently weren't holding my post the right way when you read it.

 

[TheralSadurns]

No adaptor, just a $100 cable with active optical <-> copper transducers.

Do you think that those transducers will be free, and you can pick up an optical<->copper cable for $6.99?

Which is really what I said, but you apparently weren't holding my post the right way when you read it.

Oh I actually was.

Then again. Chances are, if you NEED 100gigabit/s in contrast to 10gigabit/s, that is peripherals that benefit from THAT speed, i.e. SSD RAIDs etc. you won't care about a cable.

What I said still stands. Thunderbolt is developed so the cable does the signal conversion. It is not like that we wait 3-4 years, have a different port, and THEN do not need expensive cables.
Whether I got TB now or later it won't change anything for that matter.


But two thumbs up for your remark, that I wasn't holding your post in the right way. That was a pretty good comeback. And I don't mean that in a sarcastic way.

 

[sebtk]

Surprised :O

Have to say I am very surprised with how many people have bad results with Safari. I have chrome and Safari installed but usually use safari as I don't notice the speed difference and have all my extensions installed.

But wow Its pretty normal for me to have over 70+ tabs open in Safari so wow is all I can say.

 

[notabadname]

Just delete flash and other plugins (not extensions, but some of them are buggy too, like adblock)

I'll try that thanks.

 

[geniusj]

That's why Macs are so cool to begin with, when a program crashes, only that program crashes. Now, only a portion of the program will crash? GO

Basically every OS has program isolation these days. Consumer windows versions since XP have been similarly isolated, OS/2 was as well, and all of the Unix derivatives have been forever.

This should definitely help with overall stability of Safari though if they do it right. What it will not help with, is speed. Inter-process communication is definitely more expensive than communication within a process. The amount of communication required between the application and the rendering processes is probably fairly minimal though as the tasks are pretty isolated, so it shouldn't be noticeable. Memory usage will also likely bloat a bit. Definitely worth the trade-offs though. Seems to work for Chrome

 

[AidenShaw]

What I said still stands. Thunderbolt is developed so the cable does the signal conversion. It is not like that we wait 3-4 years, have a different port, and THEN do not need expensive cables.

My worry would be that in a couple of years, the mini-display port copper hack is replaced by cheap plastic optical ports (TOSlink like) - or modestly priced glass fibre ports. Then if LightPeak takes off, you'll find the mass market peripherals using the cheaper optical connectors - and if you bought the "early 2011" MacBook Pro you're stuck with buying expensive "FrankenCables" with one end having an active optical <-> copper transducer and the other end having the cheap optical connector.

As with most computer-related things, it's not that a technology like glass or quartz fibre is expensive - it's that low volume technologies are expensive relative to mass market technologies. If quartz fibre hits the mainstream, quartz cables will be cheaper that USB cables.

But two thumbs up for your remark, that I wasn't holding your post in the right way. That was a pretty good comeback. And I don't mean that in a sarcastic way.

I graciously thank you.

Basically every OS has program isolation these days. Consumer windows versions since XP have been similarly isolated, OS/2 was as well, and all of the Unix derivatives have been forever.

The "sandboxing" being discussed here is different from the protected memory implementations in those older systems, but builds on the idea.

IE, Chrome, and now Safari can run each tab of the browser in a separate process (or tab groups in separate processes). Each of those processes is in a traditional protected memory space - but that space is also separate from the main window of the browser. If something goes horribly wrong in the browser or a plugin - only that tab crashes. The browser continues, and other tabs (or tab groups) are unaffected. If a page is hung, you have an unreponsive tab - not a hung browser.

 

[TheralSadurns]

I graciously thank you.

I mean... just because we are having some academic argument doesn't mean we have to become all uncivilized and stuff

This is no stupid fanboy-rant after all.

And don't let my join date confuse you. I'm actually here since 2005
Just never felt the need to actually POST something here, wherefore I never registered ^^

 

[saxon48]

Ah sweet! hopefully this will fix the bloated memory issue in Safari as well...

 

[slb]

If released in April 2010, why not incorporate it into Safari 5?
Though I like Safari in Mac OS X, I still find it fairly sluggish in its browser-specific (not internet connectivity specific) operations.

It wasn't released in April 2010. It was announced.

 

[Pressure]

Maybe in 2014, when companies start making Thunderbolt peripherals that don't cost an arm, a leg, and your external genitalia.

If Thunderbolt is still around....

My guess is that by the time other OEMs get onboard with Thunderbolt, USB3 will have taken the market. Thunderbolt will be like FW800 - but not as popular. (Or, with a lot of irony, LightPeak/Thunderbolt will be the preferred way for connecting external USB3.0 hubs!)

Oh, and there's that issue with optical LightPeak making all the copper stuff obsolete. So many people are ignoring that elephant in the corner... (or maybe they want to pay $100 for a 1m cable with copper <-> optical transducers built in).

Of course, Apple's looking forward to selling $99 dongles that you'll need to connect your "early 2011" laptops to the real world. Ever notice that when you go to the Apple store to buy a $999 laptop, you leave with your $999 laptop and a $1499 charge on the debit card? Apple is a master at accessory upsell.

All this hype - and nobody mentions the fact that there are zero products on the market to connect to the "magical" new port.

No adaptor, just a $100 cable with active optical <-> copper transducers.

Do you think that those transducers will be free, and you can pick up an optical<->copper cable for $6.99?

Which is really what I said, but you apparently weren't holding my post the right way when you read it.

Thunderbolt is actually FORWARDS compatible. Optical cables will work in current gen Books since the electrical to optical conversion does not happen in the port, but in the cable ITSELF. Therefore... no adapter or anything else needed.

So let me say it in the words of the Steve 'Go educate yourself'
Thx.

Oh I actually was.

Then again. Chances are, if you NEED 100gigabit/s in contrast to 10gigabit/s, that is peripherals that benefit from THAT speed, i.e. SSD RAIDs etc. you won't care about a cable.

What I said still stands. Thunderbolt is developed so the cable does the signal conversion. It is not like that we wait 3-4 years, have a different port, and THEN do not need expensive cables.
Whether I got TB now or later it won't change anything for that matter.


But two thumbs up for your remark, that I wasn't holding your post in the right way. That was a pretty good comeback. And I don't mean that in a sarcastic way.

My worry would be that in a couple of years, the mini-display port copper hack is replaced by cheap plastic optical ports (TOSlink like) - or modestly priced glass fibre ports. Then if LightPeak takes off, you'll find the mass market peripherals using the cheaper optical connectors - and if you bought the "early 2011" MacBook Pro you're stuck with buying expensive "FrankenCables" with one end having an active optical <-> copper transducer and the other end having the cheap optical connector.

As with most computer-related things, it's not that a technology like glass or quartz fibre is expensive - it's that low volume technologies are expensive relative to mass market technologies. If quartz fibre hits the mainstream, quartz cables will be cheaper that USB cables.




I graciously thank you.

So, uhm, did you guys also feel Safari as being snappier or did you just get tangled up in something entirely unrelated?

 

[abhimat.gautam]

I loved the headline: “Safari is Snappier”

 

[cocky jeremy]

Safari on Lion is super fast for me. Love it so far.

 

[doeman]

Let's hope they fix the memory issues with Safari. It's not unusual I hit up to 1.5 GB in RAM usage for just Safari lately. And, sure, while I may have had many tabs open the memory usage will not go down as I close all of them (unless I restart Safari).

 

[RebootD]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7A341 Safari/528.16)

Safari would be my browser of choice but until I can have it force untagged images to read as srgb I have to stick to Firefox. I cannot deal with hyper saturated colors on my wide gamut screen.

 

[johnnyjibbs]

Wow, that's been a while. It has been TOO long since there has been a rumour about Safari being snappier. What, with all this iPhone business and the like

 

[JPark]

Wow, that's been a while. It has been TOO long since there has been a rumour about Safari being snappier. What, with all this iPhone business and the like

Too true. I even forgot that I was supposed to do a "feels snappier" post when the dev release of Lion came out. It's definitely been too long.

 

[3282868]

EDIT: Yeah, I got off my ass and deleted the FLASH and WMV plug-ins and the problem hasn't arrived with 20 tabs going and lots of ads and video running. It was probably one of those.

Ugh. Flash. I don't get it, why is Flash such a challenge for Safari? Flash basically consists of a swf file in most cases, right? I've always wondered why Flash is such a PITA. Adobe claims to have improved it, using less CPU and battery, but it still doesn't compete with HTML5.

Maybe in 2014, when companies start making Thunderbolt peripherals that don't cost an arm, a leg, and your external genitalia.

Oh, and there's that issue with optical LightPeak making all the copper stuff obsolete. So many people are ignoring that elephant in the corner…

All technology takes time to adapt. "Light Peak" isn't just an Apple invention, if at all, but Intel's baby. Truthfully, I'm more interested in seeing "Light Peak" fully ingrained, replacing the need for USB/FW/Display connections with one board and one style universal adapter. Imagine a Mac Pro/PC/Laptop with one universal connector throughout (say 5-6 external) that supplies power/video/audio to and from. Displays, external drives, etc. all have one connection, and finally displays can be daisy-chained, drives can be better daisy chained.

In the end, it's not about a new EXTERNAL adapter or connector, "Light Peak" is about a new, faster and more efficient METHOD for entire systems to communicate. Yes, it's expensive but so was that Sony 5-Disc DVD player I got in 1999 ($799 back in the day, and that was for standard DVD viewing). As any new tech, given time and more adaptation I think it'll fair well. I'm not voting for it on Apple's side, I'd like to see this in ALL systems.