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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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).
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.
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.
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 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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Comments
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.