Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Safari 4 Released, Claimed "30 Times Faster Than IE7"

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the don-your-pith-helmet dept.

Software 465

CNETNate writes "Apple has released the beta version of Safari 4 for Mac and PC, with claims that its Nitro rendering engine is '30 times faster than IE7,' and three times faster than Firefox 3. Other new features include 'Top Sites,' which shows users the most frequently visited Web pages, 'Full History Search' for searching through not only the URLs and titles of visited pages, but also the complete text within the page itself — something Opera has been doing for a while."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Notes on New Features (5, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969633)

Nitro JavaScript Engine

Anyone know if this is a new engine or just Squirrelfish renamed?

Acid 3 Compliance

Looks like Safari might be the first Acid 3 browser to the market. Opera's version 10 is Acid 3 compliant, but it's still in Alpha testing.

CSS 3 Web Fonts

I noted this feature in Opera 10. The results shown in the demos were rather impressive. The web pages had more of a print-layout look to them without the classic trick of relying on images to cover all the content. This has the potential to completely change the look of the web for the better.

CSS Canvas

I'm still trying to figure out how being able to use Canvas as a style to apply to web elements is useful, but the idea definitely sounds cool. I suppose one could always set a fixed web page background as a canvas, then make it look like they're on an acid trip as they scroll. :-P

I'm downloading the beta now. If it lives up to the hype that Apple is giving it, it will be an amazing piece of software.

Re:Notes on New Features (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26969665)

>>If it lives up to the hype that Apple is giving it, it will be an amazing piece of software.
translates into:
I am a fanboi, and I know this thing is so hyped that I will have to just believe in it.

Re:Notes on New Features (5, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969839)

I am a fanboi

Right you are! I am a HUGE fan of web standards and the new features that HTML5 is bringing. And because I have experience with browser developers like Apple, Opera, and Mozilla, I trust that they'll do a good job in making the features a reality. Especially since they're the same people writing the standards.

For those who actually care, I've managed to pull up some demos in Safari 4:

http://webkit.org/blog/138/css-animation/ [webkit.org]
http://webkit.org/blog/176/css-canvas-drawing/ [webkit.org]
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/cssatten [alistapart.com]

I must say, I'm impressed! We'll see how well they work in real-world usage going forward.

The browser itself appears to be leaning more toward the UI design of Chrome. Which fits it well, IMHO. The new Coverflow feature is surprisingly slick and doesn't feel tacked on at all. The bonjour integration feels like a new management console for the network. I can surf all the devices and get important information on their location and status. I can even change the settings!

Which makes me wonder if the next version of OS X is going to use Safari-based widgets for network and printer management. Hmm...

At the very least, this is a nice way to surf the network on Windows. ;-)

More Fun Demos (5, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970171)

Re:More Fun Demos (0)

Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970511)

"Video tag (requires Quicktime)"

I've been wondering - can anyone confirm whether or not Safari 4 will correctly handle the same Ogg Vorbis/Theora <audio>/<video> tags that Firefox 3.1 hypothetically will (assuming it is ever released[1]...) if one has installed XiphQT [xiph.org] ?

[1] Yes, yes, I know that eventually, someday, Mozilla Corporation will reach a release for Firefox 3.1. I think they just bit off way more than they could metaphorically chew and the unceasing stream of delays is making me all antsy here...

(Moral: Never agree to a feature plan bigger than your head?)

Re:More Fun Demos (2, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970647)

Short Answer: Yes

I was on the WHATWG mailing list when this was discussed. Apple was very clear that anything supported by Quicktime would be supported in the browser. They singled out OGG/Theora support as a format they will support, but only through user-installed plugins.

Re:Notes on New Features (5, Funny)

tyrione (134248) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969681)

Nitro has more street cred.

Squirrelfish sounds like a slimy little douchebag trying to get out from under a last call chick who has him pinned at the end of the bar.

Re:Notes on New Features (3, Insightful)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969759)

If it lives up to all the hype Apple is giving it, it will still be lacking Noscript and ABP.

The CSS 3 Web Fonts seem rather neat, though.

Re:Notes on New Features (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970073)

Which is why Privoxy [privoxy.org] Rocks.

Re:Notes on New Features (1)

macmaniac (734596) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970487)

For ABP, there is a (Mac-side) replacement: GlimmerBlocker [glimmerblocker.org] . There's another one out there called Safari Adblock as well.

Re:Notes on New Features (1)

Shining Celebi (853093) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969961)

Looks like Safari might be the first Acid 3 browser to the market. Opera's version 10 is Acid 3 compliant, but it's still in Alpha testing.

Actually, passing Acid3 at this point apparently means supporting the standard wrongly [whereswalden.com] because of a recent change in the spec. I think that illustrates why we shouldn't rely on tests like the Acid Tests too much when determining standards compatibility.

Re:Notes on New Features (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970215)

That's ACID2, not ACID3. As the article says, they'll probably update the ACID2 test to match the spec change.

Re:Notes on New Features (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969963)

CSS 3 Web Fonts

I noted this feature in Opera 10. The results shown in the demos were rather impressive. The web pages had more of a print-layout look to them without the classic trick of relying on images to cover all the content. This has the potential to completely change the look of the web for the better.

Am I the only one who _doesn't_ want this? The web is hard enough to read already with these 10px hard-coded fonts everywhere. Even Zoom in Firefox and Opera is not good enough to work around the problem because the images look terrible. For every site I need a different combination of zoom and text embiggenment (a very crumulent word, I know).

Re:Notes on New Features (4, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970311)

The whole point of features like Web Fonts is to get away from using images. Thus when you zoom, the renderings look crisp and clean. Try these demos [alistapart.com] in Safari 4 to see what I mean. Zooming the reference image looks ugly. (What you're complaining about.) Zooming the actual rendering is helpful and actually looks better the closer the examples are zoomed.

Re:Notes on New Features (1)

frankie (91710) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970503)

The web is hard enough to read already with these 10px hard-coded fonts everywhere. For every site I need a different combination of zoom and text embiggenment

It's called "Minimum font size". Both Firefox and Safari have easily accessible preference settings for this. Sometimes a minimum size will break menu bars with hardcoded widths, but overall it's a big net plus.

Re:Notes on New Features (1)

mzs (595629) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970631)

If Nitro is just marketing speak for SFX (SquirrelFish Extreme) then Apple is guilty of the worst "up to" benchmark numbers crap possible:

http://summerofjsc.blogspot.com/2008/09/squirrelfish-extreme-has-landed.html [blogspot.com]

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2008

"In particular, the version of V8 used here is the bleeding-edge branch, which is a bit faster than the version that shipped with Chrome."
"As you can see, SquirrelFish Extreme is 36% faster than V8"

Top sites (-1, Redundant)

MacColossus (932054) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969635)

The new top sites feature is cool. It shows the sites you visit most often all in a window.

Re:Top sites (1)

Onaga (1369777) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969663)

Chrome beat them to it.

Re:Top sites (2, Informative)

AMSmith42 (60300) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969823)

>Chrome beat them to it.

Not on the Mac, they didn't.

http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/mac.html [google.com]

Re:Top sites (2, Insightful)

reashlin (1370169) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970229)

Though not automatic - Opera beat them to it. Although yes I am an Opera "fanboy" (if you will) I genuinly prefer to know what is where on that list. The main reason is Opera binds Ctrl+[1...9] to the "favorites" as a shortcut. You need them to stay static to have any hope of remembering them.

Re:Top sites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26970433)

To quote Apple:

You can even customize the display by pinning a favorite site to a specific location in the grid. That locks it into position, so you know just where to find it every time you open Top Sites.

Re:Top sites (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969799)

For what i saw in safari site, the functionality is pretty similar to Opera builtin Speed Dial and Firefox's Fast Dial extension.

Is not trivial to innovate over what Opera do since years ago, at least in the meaningful features.

Re:Top sites (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26969809)

The new top sites feature is cool. It shows the sites you visit most often all in a window.

Quite embarrassing if you ask me.

Re:Top sites (0)

MacColossus (932054) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969877)

Maybe if midget or amputee porn are in your top sites. Believe it or not, I have no porn sites in my top sites.

Re:Top sites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26970603)

Me neither.
Of course, just after I installed Safari4, i Had to quickly remove youporn from Top Sites, but at least NOW I don't have any porn in my top sites.

Re:Top sites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26970113)

fap fap fap

No so bold (1)

kellyb9 (954229) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969661)

IE7 is actually getting a bit outdated as it is, so this claim isn't as bold as it seems. Why didn't they compare it to IE8? Or better yet if they really want to talk about speed, Google's Chrome is pretty fast.

Re:No so bold (4, Informative)

wereHamster (696088) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969797)

http://www.apple.com/safari/features.html [apple.com] - Safari 4 introduces the Nitro JavaScript engine, an advanced bytecode JavaScript engine that makes web browsing even faster. In fact, Safari 4 executes JavaScript up to 6 times faster than Internet Explorer 8 and up to 4 times faster than Firefox 3.1.

Re:No so bold (2, Informative)

hannson (1369413) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969803)

On the Apple Safari feature page:
 

Safari 4 introduces the Nitro JavaScript engine, an advanced bytecode JavaScript engine that makes web browsing even faster. In fact, Safari 4 executes JavaScript up to 6 times faster than Internet Explorer 8 and up to 4 times faster than Firefox 3.1.

As the article sucks, here's some better info [apple.com] .

Re:No so bold (0)

prof_vestanpance (629108) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969827)

Chrome is based on Webkit so the comparison would probably be a bit redundant.

Re:No so bold (1)

WiseWeasel (92224) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970509)

Chrome uses a different in-house Javascript engine called "V8", though...

Re:No so bold (1)

pdabbadabba (720526) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970003)

Well, so far IE8's javasript performance is roughly 4x faster than IE7's (neowin [neowin.net] ), so...little bit of math...Safari 4's javascript performance should be about 7.5x faster than IE8 (beta)'s.

Re:No so bold (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970655)

IE7 is actually getting a bit outdated as it is, so this claim isn't as bold as it seems. Why didn't they compare it to IE8? Or better yet if they really want to talk about speed, Google's Chrome is pretty fast.

Comparisons are most useful when done against something someone knows. Most people know IE7. It also adds to the switch to a Mac argument when comparing against IE specifically. Is this case, marketers ask themselves, "Why NOT compare it to IE7?"

Saying you beat IE isn't much (5, Funny)

kcbanner (929309) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969703)

Its like saying you beat the kid with a fake leg at sprinting, or beating the a preschooler at a spelling bee.

Re:Saying you beat IE isn't much (1)

hendrix2k (1099161) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969875)

Just as long as it isn't this sprinter. [nytimes.com]

Re:Saying you beat IE isn't much (1)

JuanCarlosII (1086993) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969985)

That'll teach me to F5 before posting.

Re:Saying you beat IE isn't much (1)

JuanCarlosII (1086993) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969935)

That depends who [wikipedia.org] you're racing.

It's worse than that. (2, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970279)

It's like all those things but in a contest that doesn't even matter, like the kid who can eat the most worms or something.

Okay, maybe I'm just being ignorant, I guess there are people who it matters to but personally I've never come across a website that I couldn't "run" because my browser wasn't optimised enough. Even IE7, the supposed slowest of the bunch has run every website I've ever been too fine although I nowadays always use Firefox.

I guess it's more about future potential though? as Javascript performance improves then maybe we can see it become more useful for more things too.

Anyone know why Javascript performance is repeatedly mouthed off as such a big deal? Is it to do with future hopes for Javascript or is it about making existing sites work on even the most low end of systems- would that even matter to Apple when they don't really even sell particularly low end systems?

Re:It's worse than that. (0)

kcbanner (929309) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970393)

JS *is* a big deal, at least for me. I turn javascript off unless I need it because it causes annoying lag issues, especially on badly coded pages (not to mention its used way too much for doing silly little performce-eating things). For me on linux using firefox, I find gmail lags all to hell, it takes 1-2s to tab switch away from it. I switch to HTML mode sometimes because it gets on my nerves. This is on a core2duo 2.4ghz with 2GB of RAM. JS can really get out of hand, I'm looking forward to FF 3.1 with tracemonkey.

Re:It's worse than that. (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970601)

Anyone know why Javascript performance is repeatedly mouthed off as such a big deal?

Two reasons:

1. Faster page loads. Unless a page uses the non-standard "defer" option for Javascript, the page load/render stops every time the browser encounters a Javascript file. Until the script is done parsing and executing (Javascript is loaded into the VM via execution), the page cannot finish loading. Thus a faster JS engine means faster page loads overall.

(A tip for web design: Put your unimportant scripts toward the bottom of the page. The user will be less likely to notice the load pause if the page is already rendered.)

2. Upcoming uses of web technologies. High performance JS applications are coming down the pipeline. Examples like those in my sig are going to become more common, not less. Improving the speed of Javascript will make new applications more responsive, thus opening the doors to sophisticated programs that can compete with anything deployed to the desktop. In fact, the web technologies provided by HTML5 browsers may even surpass installable apps simply due to the wide availability of sophisticated technology.

(That right there is why Microsoft is fighting tooth and nail to NOT support modern standards in IE8. If the platform makes it to the types of features we see in this Safari 4 demo, then the desktop is lost. Microsoft will LOSE their software lock-in and multiplatform software will rule.)

Re:Saying you beat IE isn't much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26970679)

Yes, but it's beating it by a factor of 30!

This is the slightly more impressive stat, because it's like that time I beat up an entire class of first graders. There were 30 of them too! And believe me, it's a lot harder to get all 30 than it is to get just one.

For one thing, they run really fast when scared.

re: safari (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26969705)

but does it run on linux?

AdBlock and extensions (2)

nkh (750837) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969717)

I love Safari and just installed the 4th version, and the Web Inspector is very pretty, but as long as extensions are not officially supported, I will use it for 24 hours only and switch back to Firefox (as I do for every new version of Safari).

Re:AdBlock and extensions (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970101)

Safari does have extensions... they call them plugins... though if you're on Windows I think you're out of luck.

Ad Blocking for you. [pimpmysafari.com] There are 7 options in this list. Most are free, I see one commercial offering.

And of course you could always just use a hosts file and personal stylesheet to do the work yourself. If fact with the new support for CSS3 animations you could have some fun... make those ads do a dance before disappearing ;-p

But only in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26969725)

the Reality Distortion Field!

New look looks cluttered (1)

line-bundle (235965) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969745)

I'm posting on it right now on a mac. It has some really innovative ideas and has made my day.

However the titlebar now looks cluttered. Also, when you click on the title bar to focus, you might not get the window you were (half-) looking at. This is a bug they should fix.

Re:New look looks cluttered (1)

spud603 (832173) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970071)

I have always had the same issue with Firefox on mac. It's surprisingly frustrating.

wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26969779)

I've been thinking of upgrading from my 56k modem connection that gets 48 kbps on a good day, but with a 30 times faster browser I won't need to! I can't tell how amazing that is! I can barely wait until the Safari 3.0 download finishes next week!

From the horses mouth (3, Informative)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969783)

Here's the actual claims from Apple's website:

"Using the new Nitro Engine, for example, Safari executes JavaScript up to 30 times faster than Internet Explorer 7 and more than 3 times faster than Firefox 3 based on performance in leading industry benchmark tests: iBench and SunSpider.

In addition to superior JavaScript performance, Safari offers top-flight HTML performance -- the best on any platform -- loading pages 3 times faster than Internet Explorer 7 and almost 3 times faster than Firefox 3."

I'm not too familiar with either of these benchmarking programs, so I can't really pick at the results too much, but the actual claim is 'up to 30 times faster' which means that for some function it's 30 times faster, but for most it's probably not at that level of magnitude. It seems as though some of this important information was lost in the game of telephone that is internet news.

Also, I'm more interested in how it stacks up against Firefox, Opera, and Chrome. Comparing it to IE7 is a little bit like Ford comparing their new car to a horse and cart. No offense meant to the browser, but from every chart I've seen it's the bottom of the barrel in terms of speed.

Re:From the horses mouth (-1, Flamebait)

reashlin (1370169) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969915)

Let me guess that iBench is an apple app designed to highlight every slow part of JS in every browser. Oh and to be quick and use anything that Safari actually does right. Seems like a fair test to me. I bet even MS could make IE7 30 times quicker in some tests than Safari if they wanted too.

Re:From the horses mouth (1, Informative)

maztuhblastah (745586) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970253)

Let me guess that iBench is an apple app designed to highlight every slow part of JS in every browser. Oh and to be quick and use anything that Safari actually does right. Seems like a fair test to me. I bet even MS could make IE7 30 times quicker in some tests than Safari if they wanted too.

Good guess. Unfortunately, you're wrong. It's an open source benchmarking app for Mac OS X. [sourceforge.net]

Re:From the horses mouth (4, Informative)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970547)

This is about a completely different iBench. If you look at the the benchmark graphs, you'll note that

  • the displayed results are actually for Windows (click on the Mac link at the top to see the Mac results)
  • at the bottom: HTML and JavaScript benchmarks based on VeriTestâ(TM)s iBench Version 5.0 using default settings and the SunSpider Performance test.

Re:From the horses mouth (1)

Thornburg (264444) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970291)

Have you ever tried googling before opening your mouth?

iBench is an open source benchmark tool for OS X.

It's hosted on SourceForge.

http://ibench.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]

Re:From the horses mouth (1)

RegularFry (137639) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970307)

Let me guess that iBench is an apple app

No. Next?

Re:From the horses mouth (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970461)

I doubt that. If you are trying to claim all of this is smoke and mirrors you're wrong.

Re:From the horses mouth (1)

iangoldby (552781) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970173)

but the actual claim is 'up to 30 times faster' which means that for some function it's 30 times faster...

Whenever I see the words up to I always mentally substitute no more than . For example: "No more than 30 times faster", "No more than 25% off", etc. You get the idea.

If more people would do this then the silliness might stop.

Re:From the horses mouth (1)

silent_artichoke (973182) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970657)

My favorite is "Up to XX% or more!!!" I figure they really have no clue and pulled that number out of their collective ass.

Re:From the horses mouth (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970247)

Comparing it to IE7 is a little bit like Ford comparing their new car to a horse and cart.

Hey, a horse and cart can be faster than a Ford Mustang in an off-road race.

Safari 4 actually has SLOWER JavaScript... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26970267)

since Opera and Firefox with Noscript can run JavaScript at infinite speed. Until Safari has this capability, along with ad blocking, it is Full Of Fail.

Re:From the horses mouth (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970401)

That's odd. I was just reading the Apple Safari 4 page, and it very very clearly had graphs comparing Safari 4 with Chrome, Firefox (3.0 and 3.1 alpha), IE7 and IE8.

Also, for you Safari-Is-Brushed-Metal moaners:

Windows Native Look and Feel
If youâ(TM)re using Safari on a PC with Windows Vista or Windows XP, youâ(TM)ll feel right at home. Thatâ(TM)s because Safari features a native look â" just like other Windows applications â" including a native title bar, borders, and toolbars. To provide a consistent Windows experience, Safari now uses Windows standard fonts, but you can choose to use Appleâ(TM)s crisp anti-aliased fonts if you prefer. Of course, Safari in Windows delivers the same lightning-fast performance provided by the Mac version.

How does firefox maintain competitive advantage? (3, Funny)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969787)

If IE and Safari can look at Firefox's source code and see exactly how FF implement's something, how can FF maintain a competitive advantage as a core browser. By core browser I mean without all the plugins/themes/extensions. IE/Safari already have a distribution advantage in that the browser comes with the OS. I'm going to a assume that the folks over at Mozilla would not declare victory if Apple/MSFT decided one day to reskin and rename FF and package it with their OS.

It's a unfair advantage that the OS vendors can see the source code of FF, however the reverse is not true. So if Safari has this great performance, how can the FF figure out how Safari does it?

Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage (5, Informative)

Tinlad (947666) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969857)

So if Safari has this great performance, how can the FF figure out how Safari does it?

By heading over to WebKit.org [webkit.org] and downloading the open source rendering engine it uses?

Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage (4, Informative)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970347)

I've tried pointing [slashdot.org] that out before, but you're probably wasting your breath. The tin-foil hat crowd here at slashdot seems to think that Apple is keeping all the juiciest enhancements for themselves [slashdot.org] . I know it's not true because I run Safari on my macs and have run some webkit browsers like midori [twotoasts.de] on my linux machines, they're about as fast, certainly faster than firefox. I'd use midori as my full time browser, but it's not as full featured as firefox and is unstable (or was last version I downloaded, like 0.0.21 or so).

Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage (1)

prof_vestanpance (629108) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969891)

"So if Safari has this great performance, how can the FF figure out how Safari does it?" By looking at the Open Source Webkit that drives Safari.

Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage (1)

jerep (794296) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969905)

It would seems to me people with ideas are always ahead of people copying ideas.

Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage (1)

djcapelis (587616) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969919)

> how can the FF figure out how Safari does it?

Man they'd have to like, use the Internet or something: http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk [webkit.org]

That's the source code to webkit, the rendering engine behind Safari. It's licensed under the LGPL.

The reason, in case you were wondering, is because it was started from an open-source rendering engine called KHTML, which was written by the KDE project. The LGPL made sure that when Apple started improving it their improvements would stay in the open.

And so you *can* in fact see all the nice things Apple has done with Safari and all the speed tricks they're working on.

Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage (2, Informative)

mystik (38627) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969923)

Safari has Webkit [webkit.org] @ it's core.

FF devs can look @ the Webkit source. FF devs can also look @ the Google Chrome Source, which is also based on webkit.

In fact, webkit is licensed under BSD + GPL, so IANAL, but I think this mesans FF can even *use* webkit's code directly in their browser ...

Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage (1)

djcapelis (587616) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969999)

BSD + LGPL actually. Which means *anyone* can use webkit's code in their browser, even a closed-source project. (And many do!)

Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage (1)

djcapelis (587616) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970019)

Er... sorry, that should read "webkit" not "webkit's code"

LGPL or GPL rendering engines can use webkit's code, but closed-source projects have to use the whole engine or publicly provide the alterations they make.

Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26969927)

And what if IE has great performance, too, how will Firefox ever be able to keep up with that?

Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970165)

And what if IE has great performance, too, how will Firefox ever be able to keep up with that?

Anyone believe that this will ever happen?

Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26969939)

reenignE

Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26970007)

You are assuming that Microsoft and Apple will see things in FF code that they could improve and do better than FF. So what.. The purpose of Open Source is just that. Get many eyes on the code and look for improvements. For every Microsoft developer looking at the code there many more open source developers also looking for improvements and creating new functionality.

Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage (1)

reashlin (1370169) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970015)

Through the power of open software many developers can group together allowing many more times the programming ability than MS or Apple could ever pay for. What you mean you've never considered giving back to the FF project. This will always be a "disadvantage" (if you want to call it that) of Open software in a proprietary product world. But TBH who cares. If Safari and IE get better because of FF then FF has done its job as much as if it became the only browser in use. Software popularity is something only a pretentious prick would aim for. Actually impacting others development and making all software better - now thats a worth goal.

Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26970199)

Firefox wins over users by offering a better product.

Let's say IE8 was a repackaged Firefox, what would we learn?

Firefox is where innovation happens. IE could not compete with Firefox. People who use IE8 will now have a better browsing experience because of Firefox.

Why would anyone already using Firefox switch back? There's no reason. But a real reason still exists for IE8 users to move forward to Firefox.

That's the magic of open source. The competitive advantage is that they want people to copy them. Who chooses the copy over the original?

Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage (1)

jeffasselin (566598) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970447)

How is it unfair? Firefox can look at Safari's code source and do the same things it does.

And who cares if Firefox can compete more? It already has a good distribution, and Firefox's point isn't to "compete" or gain a monopoly, or any such thing, but to deliver a good, standards-compliant browser to help foster more standards-compliance in the marketplace. The best situation is to have a number of web browsers that are all fully compliant and have a minimal popularity to be sustainable.

Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970697)

I think you're trolling, but there's an interesting issue here anyway.

If IE and Safari can look at Firefox's source code and see exactly how FF implement's something, how can FF maintain a competitive advantage as a core browser

By having different goals.

For example, Chrome could copy FF's adblock extension. But they won't, because they don't want to. FF (and probably Opera) is mostly for the user (though FF has arguably compromised the users' interest in favor of the commercial CAs); Chrome is for the advertiser and javascript web app maker; MSIE is for the intranet proprietary web app lockin; Safari is probably intended to address a mix of various concerns (but overall very pro-user as well).

The OpenBSD and Linux projects can see each other sources, but they've nevertheless gone in different directions, because their goals are different.

Native look and feel (1)

reashlin (1370169) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969863)

WTF?!?!? It still looks out of place...even the screenshots can't make it blend in with vista. Native look and feel means a complete skin replacement, not just window chrome.

Titles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26969865)

What's the dealio with misleading titles on Slashdot?

Removes existing installations (5, Insightful)

JuanCarlosII (1086993) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969901)

Given that this alleges to be a beta version and according to its own EULA:

THIS IS PRE-RELEASE, TIME-LIMITED SOFTWARE MEANT FOR EVALUATION AND DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SOFTWARE SHOULD NOT BE USED IN A COMMERCIAL OPERATING ENVIRONMENT OR WITH IMPORTANT DATA.

why do Apple insist on removing any existing Safari 3 install when installing?

If we are supposed to evaluate and develop, then surely it would be prudent to allow a stable version to also be installed alongside for mission-critical usage.

Surely it's a TERRIBLE idea for non-stable, evaluation software to disallow the use of an alternative stable version?

Re:Removes existing installations (1)

reashlin (1370169) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970067)

Safari have Googleitis. Symptoms: releasing ALL software under the term Beta so that any bugs are just untested parts of the application. Seriously - they seem to have removed all traces of Safari 3 from their website as well. This is not a "beta" app in the traditional sense. Its a "play-it-safe" release.

Comparing to old outdated tech isn't a win. (0, Flamebait)

y86 (111726) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969907)

Yeah windows IE7 is better than Netscape 4.0. A like product should be compared to a like product.

They don't compare it Chrome.

Chrome is insanely fast. Chrome is all I use now for browsing. I can middle click on my "daily" folder which spawns 12 tabs. All tabs are loaded in less than 2 seconds.

Re:Comparing to old outdated tech isn't a win. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26970499)

Chrome is based on Webkit, as is Safari. That would be like saying Safari is exactly as fast as Safari! Well duh. It uses the same engine.

Classic Apple performance claim inflation (3, Informative)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969931)

Apple loves to put in meaningless benchmarks with no real-world meaning to hype their products.

For example, the "3 times faster than a Pentium II" claims back in some of the older PowerPC days - this was true for a single Photoshop operation that at that point had Altivec optimizations on PPC but was running straight scalar code (no MMX) on a P2.

For nearly all other applications, the P2 was equal to or faster than the PPC. But Apple hyped their systems based on that one single meaningless-for-most-people benchmark. (As opposed to AMD's speed rating system which for the Athlon XPs was based on a suite of benchmarks and their average comparison to a similarly clocked P4, which was typically pretty accurate.)

Here, how is Apple magically eliminating network latency and providing infinite network bandwidth with browser changes? For nearly all users, the network is the bottleneck.

Re:Classic Apple performance claim inflation (3, Interesting)

ogdenk (712300) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970407)

Apple loves to put in meaningless benchmarks with no real-world meaning to hype their products.

For example, the "3 times faster than a Pentium II" claims back in some of the older PowerPC days - this was true for a single Photoshop operation that at that point had Altivec optimizations on PPC but was running straight scalar code (no MMX) on a P2.

If your going to spout blind FUD, do your homework. Altivec didn't even exist on PowerPC's back when the Pentium II was around. The current PowerPC CPUs were the PowerPC 604 and the newcomer was the G3.

Altivec didn't arrive until the G4 and by then the Pentium III was out and selling.

At the same clock rate, the PowerPC really was quite a bit faster. Not by rediculous "3x" margins but it really was quite a bit faster. The PowerPC is also a much cleaner and well-thought-out architecture. Anybody that still does any ASM can definitely vouch for this.

Just because IBM/Moto/Apple didn't have the R&D dollars to polish a turd until it hit 4GHz doesn't mean the PowerPC sucked. It was and still is an awesome architecture.

For nearly all other applications, the P2 was equal to or faster than the PPC.

No, it wasn't. I ran several real-world benchmarks as I owned an Apple B&W G3 tower and a Pentium II at the time.

Are they as fast as Apple claimed? Hell no. Were they genuinely faster? Yes.

For nearly all users, the network is the bottleneck.

Now that is very accurate. For what most people use a computer for, a single-board 1.6Ghz atom machine with a GMA950 is more than they'll ever need for web browsing, e-mail, playing youtube videos and running Word. A faster machine doesn't make you type faster or make web pages load faster.

Safari's improvements though are very welcome as they free CPU cycles for more useful things. A more efficient app is always a welcome change.

Re:Classic Apple performance claim inflation (3, Funny)

juuri (7678) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970473)

Damn; you got served by a 5UID.

Re:Classic Apple performance claim inflation (1)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970615)

Apple loves to put in meaningless benchmarks with no real-world meaning to hype their products.

This applies to all companies in all markets. Such is the nature of advertising. Do you think the FTC will ever waste their resources investigating the correctness of a claim like this?

Almost all companies (pharmaceuticals and the like excepted) make equally absurd claims in their advertising, because they can. You probably notice Apple's outrageous claims more than others because presumably you understand something about benchmarking and what's really happening a lot better than someone who isn't so involved with computers. However, I'd bet you are affected by other forms of misleading advertising regularly, in areas where you are not so informed.

Vultures (0, Troll)

Oakk (1453545) | more than 4 years ago | (#26969937)

High five apple! You've managed to steal the good functions from other browsers and claim to innovative. Top sites from Chrome (and Opera) and Full History from Opera! To top it all off you compare the speed to IE7 (the slowest browser) on a sub-par benchmarking system. Way to make yourselves look legit. Stay tuned for Apple's next Safari release in which they'll come up with the innovative idea to allow user made extensions to the browser.

Re:Vultures (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970451)

The average user, is entirely unaware of this whole heated battle of the browsers nonsense.

To them, all they see is "new update to Safari available", and they install it, and suddenly they have all these new amazing features, because to them, they are new.

Stability and consistency is far more important than the latest and greatest toys. Personally, I have no real use or preference for Safari, but I'm not going to attack them for simply bringing in some features their users might like. Chances are pretty good that every feature of every single browser, of every platform, was already created somewhere else beforehand.

Likewise, especially if you are a fanboi of whatever browser you use, you will rant and rave about how it has this feature that no other browser has, yet, you don't actually use it.

And lastly, it's not exactly an instantaneous thing, there are quite a few factors they have to take into consideration, it's not just as easy as "hey thats cool, lets add that to ours" and 2 days later its coded, tested, packaged and posted. Much like any software, there is a 1 to 1.5 years between major releases, and you can't exactly force every browser to align their releases.

Besides, Safari 4.0 has been around for almost a year as a developers preview.

P.S. Opera User.

Re:Vultures (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26970535)

So the other browsers no longer have the features?

Using the claims as a metric (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26969945)

So IE operates at 1/30 Safari speed and Firefox operates at 1/3 Safari speed.
Which means Firefox is 10 times faster than IE. Not my experience...

History (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26970041)

Has got to be the worst idea ever in a browser. I don't want to see my top visited websites, and I'm betting that if you guys are honest with yourself, you don't want to see yours either. I hope they provide an option to turn that tracking stuff off (that doesn't require a command-line parameter [I'm looking at you, Chrome!]).

Me likey... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26970117)

Here's what I know:
It passed acid3 with 11 tests having to be retaken in order to pass. (not perfect) it feels fast, but at the same time laggy. (scrolling is fast, but isn't smooth, sort of choppy) and it has a minimal gui (me likey). Its going to be a great firefox replacement for a day :D

Mac and PC? (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970123)

Ok, in this case PC is MS Windows. So it doesn't run on GNU/Linux. Considering the current Macs are build using almost the same components as any other PC (the only real difference being the lack of the old BIOS) they might as well drop the useless distinction and simply refer to MS Windows.

Kills Growl Mail.app Plugin (2, Funny)

bhima (46039) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970159)

So it looks like the Safari 4 beta causes the growl plugin for the mail.app to crash the mail.app

great.

Impressions (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26970283)

- Scrolling this /. page is extremely slow in safari.
- The tabs in the window's title bar is just plain annoying and feels really out of place.
- Just like Google's Chrome this browser also doesn't blend in well with MS Windows UI. It's feels alien to the other programs.

Re:Impressions (5, Funny)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970367)

- Scrolling this /. page is extremely slow in safari.
- The tabs in the window's title bar is just plain annoying and feels really out of place.
- Just like Google's Chrome this browser also doesn't blend in well with MS Windows UI. It's feels alien to the other programs.

-No, it's 30x faster than anything you've ever seen.
-That's Windows' fault and yours. Windows should be designed around Safari, not the other way around.
-Again, the Windows UI is just a thin shell meant to blend nicely with Safari. If it doesn't, then it's Windows fault.

To read more about safari's legendary stability... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26970501)

Just type data:%80,; into your address bar!

The Full Feeature List (0, Redundant)

PPCAvenger (651410) | more than 4 years ago | (#26970675)

If anyone wants to enter full Apple marketing land they can click this link to see the full list of "150 features". [apple.com]

  Some that popped out at me: They now seem to be adopting a few Google Chrome ideas such top of the window tabs and the search box now auto suggests sites as Google's browser does... didn't Google take a lot of fire for that? Will Apple allow you to turn it off?

  On the Windows side, they are now using standard Windows... windows (titlebar, scrollbar, etc..) to give it a more native appearance as well as native font rendering with Apple's font rendering still available as a toggle.

  They claim to have first browser support for HTML 5 offline and have integrated an sql-like database (that is user accessible and query-able) for holding everything that's needed to run advanced web apps offline.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?