I hope Safari finally passes Firefox in render speed. On my Cube, my PowerBook, and my friend's 2nd generation MacBook Pro, Firefox is noticeably faster than Safari - on every site.
I guess I'm good at avoiding non standards-compliant websites, as I've had no problems at all in this area. A few will say "for a better experience" I might want to try Firefox. Since I don't want a freakin' "experience," I just want to check my e-mail or whatever, Safari works fine. The only problem I've ever had is on Flash pages like MacWorld, or nasa.gov seems to be the worst: about one time out of five, when you hit the back button, Safari will beachball until you force quit it. I don't blame Safari for this in any way, shape, or form...the culprit is Adobe. Flash is pure crap! Avoid it like the plague it is!
I see a few people claiming Firefox renders faster on their setup than Safari. For the life of me I don't know how that's possible. Firefox takes ten times as long to do anything for me, except load: that takes thirty times as long! I guess machines and installations are different, but I still say Safari is Much, MUCH, faster.
It is frustrating, but the problem here is poor site design. This is probably one of many websites which were originally designed and tested only for Internet Explorer by inept coders, or it has been patched up over time based on really old code. Even then, the problems with the menu are likely poor JavaScript or CSS.
One of the reasons why Safari runs so quickly is because it doesn't bog itself down trying to cypher through all sorts of bad code. It looks for a number of expected errors and offers corrections, but when the site offers a DOCTYPE, Safari holds it to task.
That could also be the problem here. Intellicast uses a transitional XHTML DOCTYPE which tells browsers to assume a certain level of competence and leaves them expecting certain things from the code. As you can see in the validation results above, they don't deliver on this promise. All we can hope for is the gradual decline of Internet Explorer's market share and the gradual advancement of standards-based design and awareness of other browsers (and thus, other business). Fortunately these changes have been taking place in full swing for years now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cubert
I hope Safari finally passes Firefox in render speed. On my Cube, my PowerBook, and my friend's 2nd generation MacBook Pro, Firefox is noticeably faster than Safari - on every site.
That's pretty interesting, actually. I used to use Firefox on my G4 Power Mac but since I moved to the Intel platform (first with a Mac Mini and now with a 3.2 GHz Mac Pro), especially under Leopard, I have found Safari to be much faster. Furthermore, the Webkit nightly builds are much faster than the stable 3.x build of Safari.
It would be really nice if Apple added some anti-phishing technology in Safari so that they no longer get dinged in the press for being the only major browser without it.
Wasn't Safari 3.0 originally supposed to have anti-phishing per AppleInsider? What happened to that feature?
All we can hope for is the gradual decline of Internet Explorer's market share and the gradual advancement of standards-based design and awareness of other browsers (and thus, other business).
IE 8 is supposed to be a bit better at standards compliance but by deciding to adopt the standards MS is going to break a lot of pages that right now are using workarounds to avoid IE's odd behaviors or in the case of MS centric sites, using the undocumented non-compliant features supported by the current IE version to deploy special functionality. In either case there will be a lot of work to do once they release it.
IE 8 is supposed to be a bit better at standards compliance but by deciding to adopt the standards MS is going to break a lot of pages that right now are using workarounds to avoid IE's odd behaviors or in the case of MS centric sites, using the undocumented non-compliant features supported by the current IE version to deploy special functionality. In either case there will be a lot of work to do once they release it.
They already broke nearly every hack with IE7.
Instead they've introduced a new way to version target which they are actually supporting. It is not an ideal solution, but at least it is something. What we really need is standards support on par with those offered by Gecko, Webkit and Opera.
Does anyone know why FLAVR (browser app to capture video i,e, youtube) does not work on the new Safari? It worked great on Tiger's. Thanks.
From a quick Gogole serach it appears that they changed the name to Videobox and that it works with both 10.4 and 10.5. If this isn't it, the issue will still fall with the OS, not the browser.
It runs each test 5 times to get a good average, I can totally feel the difference going from FireFox 2 to the webkit, night and day and that is on a 3Mb/s internet connection and a 2ghz G5 iMac.
(I also ran the G5 optimized builds of FF, and that only improved the scores by ~3%)
It runs each test 5 times to get a good average, I can totally feel the difference going from FireFox 2 to the webkit, night and day and that is on a 3Mb/s internet connection and a 2ghz G5 iMac.
The lag people seem to have with Safari is not from JS, which that exclusively tests.
The lag people seem to have with Safari is not from JS, which that exclusively tests.
Lag? That old problem where Apple would not start rendering the page on your screen for a couple seconds so you would not see it load in? Is that what you are referring to?
I don't have that with WebKit at all, I thought that was removed from Safari but I am not sure. It's really an easy fix though.
If that is not it I don't know what you are referring to.
WebKit is clearly the fastest browser just from me using it, MAYBE when FireFox 3 is released that will be usable to me again, but going back to FF2 is just painful.
I recommend every just try it out for themselves, it's an amazing browser.
Lag? That old problem where Apple would not start rendering the page on your screen for a couple seconds so you would not see it load in? Is that what you are referring to?
I think it was November of last year the WebKit team made some significant speed changes with WebKit rendering JS. Now there is a lot of unhealthy, non-compliant code out there and WebKit is the best suited to deal with it (as this thread is covering) so that could be the result of some of the rendering slowness, but also webpages are not make up of just JS, there is a plethora of other codes that WebKit has to render and it be optimized for IE, which means it's not optimized for WebKit (unless the server detects the browser and generates optimized code on the fly).
I'm not saying it's a bad browser. In fact, I'm a longtime user of WebKit nightlies. It does what it's made to do well, but there is a large part of the internet not even considered WebKit or compliance.
Hi Solipsism and Nevenmrgan, Ta for the tip, it doesn't give me the result I want though.
Here's a quick illustration of what I get using last week's Circuits newsletter e-mail from NYT, it's the best example I have to hand ( and sorry about the depressing subject matter therein ):
2: Pasting directly into TextEdit, I'm not crushing it, this is how it appears and requires much messing about to make it nice and keepable.
3: Paste And Match Style, same boring result from all four browsers and same as Paste from Firefox and Camino.
4: Pasting from Explorer, just right, minimal fiddling about for keeping. This doesn't save the links and I have to be careful about that, but it's not a problem. This is no good for saving Tables either, but again, not often an issue for me.
It often looks much worse than this, this is just the best example I have to hand.
Comments
lntellicast weather
i think the problems are based on poor coding, not safari:
http://validator.w3.org/
http://tinyurl.com/yweguq (the results)
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
http://tinyurl.com/2cftdg (the results)
I see a few people claiming Firefox renders faster on their setup than Safari. For the life of me I don't know how that's possible. Firefox takes ten times as long to do anything for me, except load: that takes thirty times as long! I guess machines and installations are different, but I still say Safari is Much, MUCH, faster.
lntellicast weather
It is frustrating, but the problem here is poor site design. This is probably one of many websites which were originally designed and tested only for Internet Explorer by inept coders, or it has been patched up over time based on really old code. Even then, the problems with the menu are likely poor JavaScript or CSS.
One of the reasons why Safari runs so quickly is because it doesn't bog itself down trying to cypher through all sorts of bad code. It looks for a number of expected errors and offers corrections, but when the site offers a DOCTYPE, Safari holds it to task.
That could also be the problem here. Intellicast uses a transitional XHTML DOCTYPE which tells browsers to assume a certain level of competence and leaves them expecting certain things from the code. As you can see in the validation results above, they don't deliver on this promise. All we can hope for is the gradual decline of Internet Explorer's market share and the gradual advancement of standards-based design and awareness of other browsers (and thus, other business). Fortunately these changes have been taking place in full swing for years now.
I hope Safari finally passes Firefox in render speed. On my Cube, my PowerBook, and my friend's 2nd generation MacBook Pro, Firefox is noticeably faster than Safari - on every site.
That's pretty interesting, actually. I used to use Firefox on my G4 Power Mac but since I moved to the Intel platform (first with a Mac Mini and now with a 3.2 GHz Mac Pro), especially under Leopard, I have found Safari to be much faster. Furthermore, the Webkit nightly builds are much faster than the stable 3.x build of Safari.
Wasn't Safari 3.0 originally supposed to have anti-phishing per AppleInsider? What happened to that feature?
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._3_builds.html
All we can hope for is the gradual decline of Internet Explorer's market share and the gradual advancement of standards-based design and awareness of other browsers (and thus, other business).
IE 8 is supposed to be a bit better at standards compliance but by deciding to adopt the standards MS is going to break a lot of pages that right now are using workarounds to avoid IE's odd behaviors or in the case of MS centric sites, using the undocumented non-compliant features supported by the current IE version to deploy special functionality. In either case there will be a lot of work to do once they release it.
IE 8 is supposed to be a bit better at standards compliance but by deciding to adopt the standards MS is going to break a lot of pages that right now are using workarounds to avoid IE's odd behaviors or in the case of MS centric sites, using the undocumented non-compliant features supported by the current IE version to deploy special functionality. In either case there will be a lot of work to do once they release it.
They already broke nearly every hack with IE7.
Instead they've introduced a new way to version target which they are actually supporting. It is not an ideal solution, but at least it is something. What we really need is standards support on par with those offered by Gecko, Webkit and Opera.
Can we have an example?
Macworld renders incorrectly. I put two examples on Flikr.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24380667@N03/show/
Macworld renders incorrectly. I put two examples on Flikr.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24380667@N03/show/
Interesting, I don't have these same issues, nor have i ever AFAIK.
I can duplicate your Macworld.com mainpage issue when I use a text size that is one above normal, but this doesn't carry over to the benchmarks page.
Are you using a style sheet?
Does anyone know why FLAVR (browser app to capture video i,e, youtube) does not work on the new Safari? It worked great on Tiger's. Thanks.
From a quick Gogole serach it appears that they changed the name to Videobox and that it works with both 10.4 and 10.5. If this isn't it, the issue will still fall with the OS, not the browser.
Interesting, I don't have these same issues, nor have i ever AFAIK.
I can duplicate your Macworld.com mainpage issue when I use a text size that is one above normal, but this doesn't carry over to the benchmarks page.
Are you using a style sheet?
No, nothing unusual.
The mainpage issue shouldn't occur either, and doesn't, with Firefox, no matter how I change the font sizes.
I have similar problems with other sites, including the weather site posted.
As Macworld is a Mac site, you would think that there would be no problems with Safari, either theirs, or Safari's.
WebKit 8881.0ms
FireFox 3 (b3) 17562.2ms
Safari 3.04 19501.4ms
FireFox 2.0.12 33711.4ms
This was from running this javascript test here
It runs each test 5 times to get a good average, I can totally feel the difference going from FireFox 2 to the webkit, night and day and that is on a 3Mb/s internet connection and a 2ghz G5 iMac.
(I also ran the G5 optimized builds of FF, and that only improved the scores by ~3%)
I can say from the latest builds of webkit Safari is SMOKING FAST!
...
This was from running this javascript test here
It runs each test 5 times to get a good average, I can totally feel the difference going from FireFox 2 to the webkit, night and day and that is on a 3Mb/s internet connection and a 2ghz G5 iMac.
The lag people seem to have with Safari is not from JS, which that exclusively tests.
The lag people seem to have with Safari is not from JS, which that exclusively tests.
Lag? That old problem where Apple would not start rendering the page on your screen for a couple seconds so you would not see it load in? Is that what you are referring to?
I don't have that with WebKit at all, I thought that was removed from Safari but I am not sure. It's really an easy fix though.
If that is not it I don't know what you are referring to.
WebKit is clearly the fastest browser just from me using it, MAYBE when FireFox 3 is released that will be usable to me again, but going back to FF2 is just painful.
I recommend every just try it out for themselves, it's an amazing browser.
http://nightly.webkit.org/
Lag? That old problem where Apple would not start rendering the page on your screen for a couple seconds so you would not see it load in? Is that what you are referring to?
I think it was November of last year the WebKit team made some significant speed changes with WebKit rendering JS. Now there is a lot of unhealthy, non-compliant code out there and WebKit is the best suited to deal with it (as this thread is covering) so that could be the result of some of the rendering slowness, but also webpages are not make up of just JS, there is a plethora of other codes that WebKit has to render and it be optimized for IE, which means it's not optimized for WebKit (unless the server detects the browser and generates optimized code on the fly).
I'm not saying it's a bad browser. In fact, I'm a longtime user of WebKit nightlies. It does what it's made to do well, but there is a large part of the internet not even considered WebKit or compliance.
No, nothing unusual.
The mainpage issue shouldn't occur either, and doesn't, with Firefox, no matter how I change the font sizes.
I have similar problems with other sites, including the weather site posted.
As Macworld is a Mac site, you would think that there would be no problems with Safari, either theirs, or Safari's.
As someone already mentioned, the site's broken because you have your font size increased. Try resetting it with View-->Make Text Normal Size.
If I increase the font size in Firefox it starts to break also. Some sites are designed to scale up the fonts well, clearly Macworld is not.
To check if you're running a custom stylesheet, go to Preferences-->Advanced-->Style sheet:
Here's a quick illustration of what I get using last week's Circuits newsletter e-mail from NYT, it's the best example I have to hand ( and sorry about the depressing subject matter therein ):
Link to last week's newsletter from NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2008/...ail/index.html
What I get saving the text:
http://img526.imageshack.us/my.php?i...icture2nc8.jpg
1: How the e-mail looks in Safari.
2: Pasting directly into TextEdit, I'm not crushing it, this is how it appears and requires much messing about to make it nice and keepable.
3: Paste And Match Style, same boring result from all four browsers and same as Paste from Firefox and Camino.
4: Pasting from Explorer, just right, minimal fiddling about for keeping. This doesn't save the links and I have to be careful about that, but it's not a problem. This is no good for saving Tables either, but again, not often an issue for me.
It often looks much worse than this, this is just the best example I have to hand.
Hi Solipsism and Nevenmrgan, Ta for the tip, it doesn't give me the result I want though.
...
It often looks much worse than this, this is just the best example I have to hand.
I think you're screwed.
As recently as a month ago, I was using Safari 3.0.4, in OS X 10.4.11, on a G4 tower, and I had ALL of them, all of the time.
On the new machine with Leopard, Safari is by far the fastest, most stable browser around. On the old one with Tiger it was a nightmare.