Agreed, Buried as inaccurate. Testing on google-only Ajax implementations is just bad testing. I'm amazed WIRED even printed this. It's well known that quite a few of Google's apps have had problems on Safari support (Google Docs, Gtalk, come to mind), and have been admitted by Google to be problems on their end. Testing on sites that heavily implement a number of Google Apps on safari, it should not be a surprise Safari rendered these pages slower. Go do some real testing. A number of reports of XP users have stated that, while ugly because Safari does not follow typical Windows UI themes, Safari appears to at least "feel" faster, and can be supported by industry-standard tests to actually be faster. I'm not saying Safari is the end-all-be-all for windows, but considering this is the first shot beta to get Safari on Windows, doesn't seem like *that* bad a rollout. Anyway, anyone who bothered to read and think about the way WIRED's test was performed should have figured out that the way they performed that test was just plain stupid.
@mingistech:More people use Opera than Safari (just!) across supported operating systems, including the Mac. And obviously many, many more use it on Windows. So why benchmark Safari?
Oh and BTW thanks apple for making safari blend in so well with windows. You did an amazing job. That brushed steel look really blends in, especially in vista. and i love how you can only resize it from the bottom corner. Perfect. Fits in well with itunes but nothing else! At least when MS makes programs for the mac they make an effort to adapt to the mac gui. Is that so hard apple?
Well... for starters... I generally have the two browsers open at the same time... on my mac, there's no processor time or memory hogging to worry about when an app is in the background... so time to open the browser is irrelevant if I never have to open them. Second, it's not the loading of gmail's page which is slower on one browser over another, rather the AJAX and actively refreshing content noticeably lags in safari vs. bon echo... as far as whether or not load times really matter... perhaps they don't to a lot of people... but I use the internet enough that I definitely notice the difference in rendering times... if i come across a page that doesn't appear correctly... it's not difficult to simply drag the page to my bon echo browser and instantly i have a working page in my computer's second fastest browser. bandwidth tweaks are somewhat irrelevant... there are hacks for both safari and firefox... As far as add-ons for firefox go... I've found that to be the easiest way to bog down a browser... I used to like having all sorts of cool addon features... but then I realized they don't really increase any productivity or make my user experience any better... the browser is still a browser and I don't need it for more than... well, browsing.And you ask how important is the "tiny difference" in speed? well... after a couple weeks of side-by-side comparison... I've noticed that difference really isn't tiny. :-P if it was, I wouldn't have noticed it.
zamyatinJun 13, 2007
Agreed, Buried as inaccurate. Testing on google-only Ajax implementations is just bad testing. I'm amazed WIRED even printed this. It's well known that quite a few of Google's apps have had problems on Safari support (Google Docs, Gtalk, come to mind), and have been admitted by Google to be problems on their end. Testing on sites that heavily implement a number of Google Apps on safari, it should not be a surprise Safari rendered these pages slower. Go do some real testing. A number of reports of XP users have stated that, while ugly because Safari does not follow typical Windows UI themes, Safari appears to at least "feel" faster, and can be supported by industry-standard tests to actually be faster. I'm not saying Safari is the end-all-be-all for windows, but considering this is the first shot beta to get Safari on Windows, doesn't seem like *that* bad a rollout. Anyway, anyone who bothered to read and think about the way WIRED's test was performed should have figured out that the way they performed that test was just plain stupid.
simdJun 13, 2007
@mingistech:More people use Opera than Safari (just!) across supported operating systems, including the Mac. And obviously many, many more use it on Windows. So why benchmark Safari?
br0ckJun 13, 2007
@aluminumpork - try F11 in IE and Firefox. Neat, eh?
bristerJun 14, 2007
Oh and BTW thanks apple for making safari blend in so well with windows. You did an amazing job. That brushed steel look really blends in, especially in vista. and i love how you can only resize it from the bottom corner. Perfect. Fits in well with itunes but nothing else! At least when MS makes programs for the mac they make an effort to adapt to the mac gui. Is that so hard apple?
bedrockoJun 21, 2007
Well... for starters... I generally have the two browsers open at the same time... on my mac, there's no processor time or memory hogging to worry about when an app is in the background... so time to open the browser is irrelevant if I never have to open them. Second, it's not the loading of gmail's page which is slower on one browser over another, rather the AJAX and actively refreshing content noticeably lags in safari vs. bon echo... as far as whether or not load times really matter... perhaps they don't to a lot of people... but I use the internet enough that I definitely notice the difference in rendering times... if i come across a page that doesn't appear correctly... it's not difficult to simply drag the page to my bon echo browser and instantly i have a working page in my computer's second fastest browser. bandwidth tweaks are somewhat irrelevant... there are hacks for both safari and firefox... As far as add-ons for firefox go... I've found that to be the easiest way to bog down a browser... I used to like having all sorts of cool addon features... but then I realized they don't really increase any productivity or make my user experience any better... the browser is still a browser and I don't need it for more than... well, browsing.And you ask how important is the "tiny difference" in speed? well... after a couple weeks of side-by-side comparison... I've noticed that difference really isn't tiny. :-P if it was, I wouldn't have noticed it.
nevaliAug 4, 2007
Safari didn't seriously fail ACID2 in the slightest; WebKit was the first engine to PASS the test!