Google targets Chrome for mid-year showdown with Safari

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 52
    slewisslewis Posts: 2,081member
    Heh, I'll switch from Firefox to Chrome when Chrome is released and has equivalents for Stylish, Greasmonkey, NoScript, CookieSafe, Foxmarks, It's All Text!, and Bookmark Permissions, it's also going to have to do a decent job of importing my bookmarks as I've spent countless hours organizing them, and give me the ability to block images from any domain like I can in Firefox (bonus if there's an Image-blocking tool that's like NoScript). Be nice if I could move the tabs to the bottom of my screen as well but that's not as important, also hope it supports viewing PDFs and PostScript files directly in the browser, something like the PDF Plug-in for Firefox, but if not I'll figure something out. Adblocking isn't important since I block any advertiser I see in my hosts file, assigning 0.0.0.0 to their domains so they won't load in any application anywhere on my laptop.



    Sebastian
  • Reply 42 of 52
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post


    If by "years now" you mean that Safari had this problem in 2005-2006 you are definitely right.



    Personally, I can find no mention of this problem after 2006 though, are you sure it still happens? How about a link to some evidence of that?



    I don't know about proof, but I just closed all five of my Safari tabs, closed the only open window and my "Real Memory" usage went down from 770MB to 755MB, a big whoop dee doo, I don't see what it can do with that much space when it's doing nothing.



    Restarting Safari gets me down to 30MB. \
  • Reply 43 of 52
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MH01 View Post


    This is good news, gives people options.



    As for Safari 4, I am not falling for the hype, so much was said about safari 3 and its still lacking.



    No matter what happens, more users will use Chrome on OS X then they will use safari on a PC.



    Actually looking at stats



    http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp



    Chrome is already used more then safari, not bad for a new browser. Safari is just failing to lure new users.



    I do not see safari 4.0 improving these stats.



    According to these data, Opera is doing extremely well past few months shooting up 20%.



    Ain't It cool to see Presto dominate in W3School world in a year or two while dying actually?
  • Reply 44 of 52
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Being that Google is using Apple's web-kit to develop the software, I am not sure why you'd be concerned about that. With that said, I really think Google isn't taking this browser thing real serious now. I suspect it goals has more to do with cell phones or cutting back the search fews it pays Firefox, then the desktop.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jlaselva View Post


    Yes! Whenever I leave Safari open for more than a few hours, my entire system slows down to the point where it's almost unusable?even when there are no windows open in Safari! Safari may be fast, but over time it gobbles up system resources and doesn't let them go.



  • Reply 45 of 52
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    I have a better idea. Launch Safari. Open up Activity Monitor. Leave Safari running and check in on it occasionally. I for one don't have links to published reports of the high memory usage, but I have noticed that idle Safari takes up more memory usage then I think any other application, including Firefox. That isn't enough for me to stop using it, but I understand the criticism.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post


    If by "years now" you mean that Safari had this problem in 2005-2006 you are definitely right.



    Personally, I can find no mention of this problem after 2006 though, are you sure it still happens? How about a link to some evidence of that?



  • Reply 46 of 52
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    In all fairness, I think Apple's rewrite of Quicktime has more to do with Apple switching all of it's code base from Carbon to Cocoa then what it thinks is problems with the code. It simply wants a unified code base.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Erunno View Post


    Case in point: Quicktime, which is quite an old framework, was obviously so riddled with problems that despite being "mature" Apple decided that it needed a rewrite. A well thought-out architecture can protect you from a lot of problems from the very beginning.)



  • Reply 47 of 52
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Erunno View Post


    No and to the contrary. I'm not heavily invested in Chrome as I don't use it as my default browser on Windows. But I do regard it is highly interesting from a technical point of view with lots of potential for the future. And I'm quite open about discussing the various advantages and disadvantages of each browser. Unlike disciples of the Church of Apple I don't have any emotional attachment to the software I use. ;-)



    Yes, that was rude and unnecessary and I'd like to express my sincere apologies for that. But claiming that a fundamentally different architecture could be imposed on an existing browser (be it Safari or Firefox) easily was just incongruous. You'd have to rewrite the whole code base to switch from a mostly single-threaded browser to a multi-process paradigm.



    I actually never disputed this point. This also matches my experience with Chrome 1.0 and the Webkit Nighties. But this was beside the point I made. Both browsers are ridiculously fast and their differences in synthetic benchmarks are in absolute numbers so small that it doesn't have noticeable effects when using both browsers (except some Placebo effect maybe).



    Doing a quick search for "Safari 3.2 crash" actually shows quite a few results. But in my experience stock Safari is quite stable. It doesn't crash more or less than Firefox, which I use as well.



    This I also never disputed. It's bundled with the OS and Internet Explorer has taught us that most people are content with a limited feature set as long as it gets the job done (i.e. displaying web pages).



    "Designed to be"? It's a major architectural advantage both from a UI responsiveness as well as stability. No matter what you throw at a process, others won't be affected. The Chromium process itself (doing the IPC among others) is the only weak point and it is protected from its siblings due to the process separation. As long as Google keeps the core code small and tidy stability can be much easier ensured than in a singe process browser where each part (rendering, JavaScript Engine, plug-ins) can crash it.



    Quite a few million people use web mail services at least and I hear that services like Facebook, Picasa and Google Earth are very popular as well. And mature code means nothing. Case in point: Quicktime, which is quite an old framework, was obviously so riddled with problems that despite being "mature" Apple decided that it needed a rewrite. A well thought-out architecture can protect you from a lot of problems from the very beginning.



    This won't be necessary. :-)





    Touché, very well thought out an put into terms that someone with no (or little) knowledge can undersand.
  • Reply 48 of 52
    I am fedd up with it as it is hang up manu time. and there no felxibility in compare to firefox
  • Reply 49 of 52
    erunnoerunno Posts: 225member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post


    If by "years now" you mean that Safari had this problem in 2005-2006 you are definitely right.



    Personally, I can find no mention of this problem after 2006 though, are you sure it still happens? How about a link to some evidence of that?



    Then you are not looking hard enough, not at all or you simply decided to blind out the aspects of reality which do not meet your ideology. I thought that I was being too harsh in my first post since, hey, fanboys are still people after all. But especially our first question here is trying my patience especially since it is indicating that I'm pulling those allegations out of thin air (because I have an anti-Apple agenda, right?).



    And what kind of evidence would be sufficient for you? Obviously I can only offer empiric evidence, both personal from 2 separate OSX installations (my own and my mothers) and what people report on the Internet. Since you are obviously not versed in the secrets of Google-Fu here are three quick searches, all limiting the range to 1 year old items:



    safari 3.2 memory hog



    safari 3.2 memory usage



    safari 3.2 memory leak
  • Reply 50 of 52
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Erunno View Post


    A process comes with a fixed upfront cost in terms of memory and process creation takes longer than spawning a new thread. But since we are talking about microseconds at best there's no noticeable effect for the user. And whatever slight increase in memory usage this architecture might cause is far overshadowed by the gains, i.e. memory is released immediatly and completely, memory fragmentation is a non-issue, plug-in crashes don't even crash the tab in which they run, the interface doesn't lock up as some CPU intensive calculations are made and it scales well with a rising number of cores/processors without having to do further programming work.



    Very true. You can see all this in action in Stainless, a one-tab-per-process browser for OS X (inspired by Chrome 'natch). Although short-term memory usage is on average higher than Safari, closing a tab shuts down the process and frees all memory. And opening multiple tabs quickly is fast due to better scaling over all the cores.
  • Reply 51 of 52
    I've noticed that too...it's really annoying...I hope the final 4.0 will fix that, otherwise its back to Firefox.
  • Reply 52 of 52
    ivan.rnn01ivan.rnn01 Posts: 1,822member
    but Safari4's Top Sites display, being the same in its essence, seems far more useable, than Chrome's Most visited... There's nothing in the nature being equal to Safari's bookmarks in Cover Flow view... And that solution separate process per connection is definitely ugly
Sign In or Register to comment.