or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Safari retains speed crown over newcomer Chrome in OS X
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Safari retains speed crown over newcomer Chrome in OS X - Page 2

post #41 of 70
I think nobody cares about page rendering speed, as long you do not have to wait behind your screen.
When they say that the icon does not have the time to jump on the dock, Google people meant that their application launches very fast and is very responsive.
And I must admin Safari is a big piece of memory hungry software. I especially hate the "top site" tab, which can sometime take some minutes to appear on a busy systems (I had to deactivate it, even if it I like the idea), causing the whole Safari to stall. And I have a fast MacBookPro with 4Gb of RAM.
Firefox is always very responsive, and Gogle chrome is even better !
post #42 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

As to the speed tests, simply testing Java speed isn't all that interesting to me. In addition, as to the numbers above, a tenth of a second isn't all that significant to the end user. Web pages are not 100% java..

What's Java got to do with the price of fish? This article is talking about javascript... they are about as related as Obama and Bush.

Javascript is NOT the script of Java
post #43 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

This test wasn’t with WebKit but with the JS engines each browser uses. Safari and default builds of WebKit use the Nitro JS engine while Google decided to go with their own V8 JS engine for Chrome.

Turn off Javascript and test the WebKit Engine performance. They have test for this specifically designed to test the progress within their respective project forks.

Run the test harness suite against Eiphany, WebKit Nightly, Chrome, Qt, wx, Haiku, etc.
post #44 of 70
Safari will turn into a slug when asked to render this site
http://radar.weather.gov/Conus/full_loop.php

Load time will be longer than normal. Then time to achieve animation will turn snails into racers. Once animation begins the scrolling results is not something you would want for a drive by wire auto because Safari takes a break for nearly a second before reacting to the command. All this while using up 3...5 times more CPU cycles when compared to FireFox doing the same task.
post #45 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimoase View Post

Safari will turn into a slug when asked to render this site
http://radar.weather.gov/Conus/full_loop.php

Load time will be longer than normal. Then time to achieve animation will turn snails into racers. Once animation begins the scrolling results is not something you would want for a drive by wire auto because Safari takes a break for nearly a second before reacting to the command. All this while using up 3...5 times more CPU cycles when compared to FireFox doing the same task.

Safari and Chrome took the same amount of time to load this page. Firefox started loading the animation faster, and used less cycles to keep it refreshed.

Firefox used about 5% cpu for this page once it loaded.

Safari and Chrome averaged about 50%.

I saw no delays in scrolling on any of the browsers.
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #46 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimoase View Post

Safari will turn into a slug when asked to render this site
http://radar.weather.gov/Conus/full_loop.php

Load time will be longer than normal. Then time to achieve animation will turn snails into racers. Once animation begins the scrolling results is not something you would want for a drive by wire auto because Safari takes a break for nearly a second before reacting to the command. All this while using up 3...5 times more CPU cycles when compared to FireFox doing the same task.

All browsers perform the same on that site. They render it fine, but scrolling is a bit choppy once the animations start.
post #47 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by nofear1az View Post

Well, I tried Chrome on the Mac out - (I use it regularly when I'm on a PC) and I am so glad it fixed that annoying clicking on a link and opening to a tab instead of a new window as Safari always does.

However, one thing I wish Safari and Chrome did was block annoying flash ads and allow custom pop-up blocking instead of all or nothing.

I love how fast Safari is and Chrome is darn good in my eyes too.

I also gave the new Opera try and I must say I am so impressed by it that I am considering using it as my primary browser because it has all the features I like such as the built-in ad flash blocking that I wanted so much. I also like how Opera does bookmarks more similar to IE which is about the only thing I ever liked about IE. Opera seems to have so much more in comparison to many of the other browsers out there.

Now to each their own, i'm not advocating or trying to convert anyone to anything.


You should try out Firefox, the add-ons, especially Ad Blocker, Ghostery (enable it), NoScript (blocks all scripts as default which you enable which ones per site or all if you trust the site), BetterPrivacy (erases Flash cookies which is used to track you) and Morning Coffee (one click loads all your favorite sites on a per day basis) and many others.

Opera is ok, still trying to figure out their methodology.


Fastest isn't necessarily the best, as with Morning Coffee I can load 20 sites at once, reading the first one while the others load. So it really makes little difference if the speed is close to the other browsers, really all depends upon the internet connection. Opera is slow though.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #48 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by nondual View Post

The other thing I've gotten used to in Chrome is that searches are done right in the address bar - so you can either type a full address or if you're looking for something, you can just type that and it just brings you right to the same google page that the search window would. Now that I've been using it, why DO we have two fields at all? Isn't this a function of when IE had all that junkware 'Search Window' 'Yahoo Bar' etc that EVERYTHING wanted to load up in Windows? (I don't know if it's still like that, I've only used Windows intermittently since switching to Mac in 2002).

I like having a separate search field. If I type "united" in the address bar, it automatically takes me to www.united.com, which is where I want to go. I don't want to go to a Google search page, where I have to find the united.com website.

I avoid search pages when I can. Of course, if Safari offered a choice of using either way, that would be best for all.
post #49 of 70
I found a hidden widget to the right of the URL bar. You can't see it until you mouse over it. If you click on that after trying to install the AdBlock extension, you can then go in and subscribe to a block list (it doesn't do so automatically which would explain why it wasn't working after the install).
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #50 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

I found a hidden widget to the right of the URL bar. You can't see it until you mouse over it. If you click on that after trying to install the AdBlock extension, you can then go in and subscribe to a block list (it doesn't do so automatically which would explain why it wasn't working after the install).

Great! Now how about an extension that uninstalls Chrome and every single one of its components with which it littered your hard drive. I'd love to see that.
post #51 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Great! Now how about an extension that uninstalls Chrome and every single one of its components with which it littered your hard drive. I'd love to see that.

I haven't gotten to that point yet. I have to wonder why app designers can't follow the rules and keep everything in the .App folder except for the prefs of course.
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #52 of 70
The whole premise of comparing a beta build of a product (With debugging info turned on) with a product that is in production is wrong. This comparison is too early and invalid. Some of the comparisons of webkit nightly with Chromium nightly are better assuming they both use the same compile flags.
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
post #53 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by talksense101 View Post

The whole premise of comparing a beta build of a product (With debugging info turned on) with a product that is in production is wrong. This comparison is too early and invalid. Some of the comparisons of webkit nightly with Chromium nightly are better assuming they both use the same compile flags.

The compiler flags would be consistent on Windows and OS X. It would be interesting to see which compiler they are using.

I know Apple uses GCC and LLVM-GCC, plus testing with Clang.

I wouldn't be surprised if Google uses Intel's C/C++ Compiler.

Secondly, the process models are incompatible.

It would be interesting if they both used the same model.
post #54 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by nondual View Post

You're probably right - I probably misused that term. All I know is that with similar amounts of tabs and windows open, Chrome eats less memory and doesn't give me the spinning beachballs that Safari does. The same kinds of use.

I have had other errors with Chrome, but they aren't as predictable.

So I'm not really concerned about whether it's a memory leak or not, I just know that after having it up for a while and using multiple tabs and windows (and then closing some windows)..after a while, my memory is completely 'eaten'. And it doesn't happen with Chrome.

The other thing I've gotten used to in Chrome is that searches are done right in the address bar - so you can either type a full address or if you're looking for something, you can just type that and it just brings you right to the same google page that the search window would. Now that I've been using it, why DO we have two fields at all? Isn't this a function of when IE had all that junkware 'Search Window' 'Yahoo Bar' etc that EVERYTHING wanted to load up in Windows? (I don't know if it's still like that, I've only used Windows intermittently since switching to Mac in 2002).

Hmm. Haven't checked this feature out yet, so I'm not certain of what you are speaking, but when I type "apple" in the address bar, I want the page to resolve to Apple website home page. When I type "apple" in the search field, I want all search returns for the word "apple" (orchards, juice, computers, etc)
post #55 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post

Hmm. Haven't checked this feature out yet, so I'm not certain of what you are speaking, but when I type "apple" in the address bar, I want the page to resolve to Apple website home page. When I type "apple" in the search field, I want all search returns for the word "apple" (orchards, juice, computers, etc)

Easily solved by putting a link to your search engine of choice on your toolbar, or by setting your home page or new tab page to your search engine of choice.
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #56 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Easily solved by putting a link to your search engine of choice on your toolbar, or by setting your home page or new tab page to your search engine of choice.

meh. Nothing to be "solved" for me.
In Safari I type the word "ford" in the field on the left. and I get Ford's web site. I type "ford" in the field on the right and I get any and all possible information relating to the word "ford" that I could want.
I prefer a "blank" home page. And I definitely don't want to have to click on something in order just to be able to google something.
post #57 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post

meh. Nothing to be "solved" for me.
In Safari I type the word "ford" in the field on the left. and I get Ford's web site. I type "ford" in the field on the right and I get any and all possible information relating to the word "ford" that I could want.
I prefer a "blank" home page. And I definitely don't want to have to click on something in order just to be able to google something.

Yet you click on the search field? It's still a click one way or the other. Defaulting to a web search page just puts the cursor in the search field and you start typing.
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #58 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Safari and Chrome took the same amount of time to load this page. Firefox started loading the animation faster, and used less cycles to keep it refreshed.

Firefox used about 5% cpu for this page once it loaded.

Safari and Chrome averaged about 50%.

I saw no delays in scrolling on any of the browsers.

For me there were delays in both Safari and Chrome. Camino worked fine. Firefox 3.5, 3.6 (Namoroka) & 3.7 (Minefield) all worked well. I have a 20" iMac 2 Ghz from late 2007 with 1 Gig of RAM.
post #59 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by WPLJ42 View Post

For me there were delays in both Safari and Chrome. Camino worked fine. Firefox 3.5, 3.6 (Namoroka) & 3.7 (Minefield) all worked well. I have a 20" iMac 2 Ghz from late 2007 with 1 Gig of RAM.

I was a little surprised at how well firefox did. I should say that I'm using a Quad I7 with 8GB though

Firefox's plugins make it a very tough competitor all else aside. I put it on family PC's due to the WOT plugin, adblock+, and Better Privacy.
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #60 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Turn off Javascript and test the WebKit Engine performance. They have test for this specifically designed to test the progress within their respective project forks.

Run the test harness suite against Eiphany, WebKit Nightly, Chrome, Qt, wx, Haiku, etc.

Do you have a link or links to test browser engine performance?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #61 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvid View Post

May not be faster, but doesn't hog memory like Safari does.

thats is so completely inaccurate - have you actually done any testing ?

I am blessed with the ability to observe a large number of Mac users -

Safari uses far less cpu on average than either Firefox or Chrome -

Chrome is very cool - but I was noticing yesterday while SSH'D in to one of my users with TOP

I noticed Chrome had 4 PID running ar over 40% per thats huge - I remoted in to the user to see what the fuss was about - and he was watching a youtube video with one tab in Chrome

in my testing Safari is the lightest fastest and most render capable web browser on the market - chrome is runner up but it appears to be a CPU hog.
post #62 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

I was a little surprised at how well firefox did. I should say that I'm using a Quad I7 with 8GB though

Firefox's plugins make it a very tough competitor all else aside. I put it on family PC's due to the WOT plugin, adblock+, and Better Privacy.

Running the test in Windows was about the same. Chrome was actually better. Safari was bad. For Firefox, I only tested Minefield. Hard to tell what the scrolling was actually like as Windows 7 RC does not allow my bluetooth Apple mouse to function properly in BootCamp. If I actually had the money for an iMac with i7 and 8 Gigs, I'd probably go Alienware.
post #63 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

This test wasnt with WebKit but with the JS engines each browser uses. Safari and default builds of WebKit use the Nitro JS engine while Google decided to go with their own V8 JS engine for Chrome.

Aren't they both integrated back into WebKit eventually? Oh well, thought so.
post #64 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

Aren't they both integrated back into WebKit eventually? Oh well, thought so.

I suppose it depends on how you define integrated. You can turn off JS in Safari and other browsers, not sure about Chrome, and see that SunSpider wont run even though the basic page loads fine.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #65 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Yet you click on the search field? It's still a click one way or the other. Defaulting to a web search page just puts the cursor in the search field and you start typing.

Well, no. when I open a web browser, it is a blank page with the cursor in the URL field. If the first thing I need to do is google something (rarely), then I just hit the tab key and then keep on hitting the other keys (typing) ending by hitting the return key.

To each his own.
post #66 of 70
Ill give Chrome a chance even though Im a Safari fan. If you want to read experience with Chrome so far or you also want to give it a try you can download Chrome from my here
iHing @ iCrazee - A Personal Guide To Owning An Apple Mac and All Things 'i'
Reply
iHing @ iCrazee - A Personal Guide To Owning An Apple Mac and All Things 'i'
Reply
post #67 of 70
For those of us who tinker with Linux, Chrome is good. I was able to add Chrome to Linux Mint without much trouble. In both Windows and Mac OS, I have VirtualBox running with 384 Meg of RAM assigned to Linux Mint. Chrome works okay.
post #68 of 70
The speed difference is so small it's irrelevant. Meanwhile, Chrome already has 500 free extensions (soon for Mac too) while Safari lollygags along with *cough* none. The only REAL competition for Chrome is Firefox.
post #69 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by dualie View Post

The speed difference is so small it's irrelevant. Meanwhile, Chrome already has 500 free extensions (soon for Mac too) while Safari lollygags along with *cough* none. The only REAL competition for Chrome is Firefox.

How popular are extensions for the average user? I use Safari on Mac and IE8 on WIn7 with the Chrome browser engine inside IE. I like the integration that each built-in browser has, as well as the power savings when using battery.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #70 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by dualie View Post

The speed difference is so small it's irrelevant. Meanwhile, Chrome already has 500 free extensions (soon for Mac too) while Safari lollygags along with *cough* none. The only REAL competition for Chrome is Firefox.

I use Firebug and other Dev Tool extensions for Firefox. It's built-in to Safari so I don't need them. It's built-into Opera so I don't need them.

I don't use Sidebar extensions for RSS, Twitter, Dictionary [built-in to Safari] or other Social Dweeb Networking crap, extensions for every F'n blog site, etc. I don't need a color extension, I don't need a photo extension, blog upload extension, etc.

I want a browser that complies with CSS3, SVG1.1, WebGL, MathML, CSS2/2.1, HTML5, XHTML1.1, XML1.1, XPath, XForms, etc.

Get it?

I want the Interface to do stateless/state behavior via WebServices to actually be transparent across browsers and platforms.

That's it!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Safari retains speed crown over newcomer Chrome in OS X