Apple has been working on the next major upgrade to their Safari web browser for both Mac and Windows PC to improve speed, reliability, and stability. The browser is announced to be up to 3 times faster than Microsoft's Internet Explorer 7 and Mozilla's Firefox 3. Safari 4 comes loaded with the new Nitro Engine for javascript to help browsers execute scripts faster.Apple announced the web browser can execute javascript 30 times faster than IE7 and 3 times faster than Firefox 3. The browser can also load HTML pages 3 times faster than IE7 and 3 times faster than Firefox 3. Safari also comes with HTML 5 and CSS 3 web standards for the next generation of interactive web sites.
Safari 4 is the first web browser to pass the web standards Acid 3 test which demonstrates how well a browser adheres to CSS, javascript, XML and SVG.
Safari 4 public beta is available for download on the Apple web site and completely free.
Download: Download Safari
I'll stick with Chrome. Better UI, better JavaScript engine, same rendering engine.
It's actually more of a rip from Chrome in terms of functionality, since it's not manually chosen, but popularity-based. Anyway, they rip features off each other, and I doubt anyone will sue, because all sides have lawyers whose jobs are to check these things out before shipping the products.
Meh, this is a very fast and capable browser; why would only "Macolytes" be interested in it? It's definitely suiting my needs better than Google Chrome, for example. I doubt I have ever used a faster browser, and it comes with, for example, unparalleled developer features for website optimization integrated.
I also don't really care who's ripping of who, regardless if it's about Safari ripping tab locations from Chrome, Firefox ripping address bar highlighting from IE, IE ripping tab support originally from Opera, etc... You see how ridiculous it is to debate these things? Sure, one could do it for ages, but where's the fun in that?
I care for the end user experience.
They have done testing on both Windows and Mac OS X
Just for giggles, I now benchmarked Safari on Windows using Google's V8 benchmark suite. Just to get away from any bias introduced from tests themselves. The results were:
IE 8 RC 1: 97.1 (could possibly be raised to ~100 though, due to the message box warning about a time consuming Javascript function popping up and delaying the test)
Firefox 3.1 pre-beta 3: 220 (note, this is with Mozilla's new Javascript engine code named "TraceMonkey" enabled)
Safari 4 Public Beta: 1909
(Google Chrome 1.0.154: 2232 (but I don't really want to include those developing a test in the comparison, due to the bias risk)
Last edited by Jugalator on 25 Feb 2009 - 09:42
I know you don't want to add Google due to the bias risk, but Chrome 2.0.164.0 got 3051. That may be a little high compared to Jugalator's numbers, as Safari 4 got 2270 for me.
I think he means "Safari 4 on Mac is way better than IE 8 on Windows".
love the new features and the tabs on top....
@Beastage: sorry, talking about FF 3.0.6 without any theme, with only 4 or 5 add-ons
I'm using 2 addons for safari too... so it's about fair
Last edited by AlexMagik on 25 Feb 2009 - 00:20
Ah, wonder where they got that idea.
To be FAIR, they should compare Safari 4 beta to IE 8 beta and Firefox 3.x beta and the Chrome beta, since all four of these browsers have the new Javascript accelerated engines.
That's pretty disingenuous, even for Apple, who is notorious for letting marketing trump truth.
Bad show.
"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."
"Safari 4 is built on the world’s most advanced browser technologies including the new Nitro JavaScript engine that executes JavaScript up to 30 times faster than IE 7 and more than three times faster than Firefox 3. Safari quickly loads HTML web pages three times faster than IE 7 and almost three times faster than Firefox 3.*"
Seriously though, if that isn't a bad comparison in itself, the straight up copy of Chrome is pretty bad. At least Chrome doesn't become retarded looking just because I'm using another visual style.
Clicking on a new link opens in a new tab for me (unless it's a link within a website which will normally open in the current tab).
Have you tried the following:
1) Edit -> Preferences -> General
2) Where it says "Open links from applications", select "in a new tab in the current window".
Does that help?
There may have been another way I set it to work for me, I can't exactly remember. I'll have a look for you.
Just because it is saying you can "surf the web twice as fast"?
There may be some truth to that.
no it's not
Safari is the first — and only — web browser to pass Acid 3
Apple lying? not possible....
if you can't trust the manufacture, who can you trust? This is where most news sites get their information. If Apple "bends" the truth, so be it.
Now about the issue. Quote (Safari is the first — and only — web browser to pass Acid 3) found on Apple.com Safari's features page. Is that true, or is that false?
Also, from what I heard, WebKit was certified as the first, but it definitely isn't the only one (the Opera 10 alpha does too).
There's previously also been WebKit nightlies doing this before, but well... Safari IS using WebKit, and WebKit is not a browser, and it can also be argued whether dev nightlies of a rendering engine can be counted.
But Opera 10 Alpha is definitely stable enough and an actual advertised release, so I think that should count.
Last time, they said Safari was the fastest when it was in beta on Windows. Needless to say, it was an outright lie, not to mention the mess that it was at the time...
Also, to be fair in what people bitch about with other browsers,"They should make their browser look more like the native UI on Windows!"
And they are comparing a NEW BETA Javascript engine browser to the OLD RELEASED Javascript browser engines.
To be FAIR, they should compare Safari 4 beta to IE 8 beta and Firefox 3.x beta and the Chrome beta, since all four of these browsers have the new Javascript accelerated engines.
oh and that is without quicktime.
oh and that is without quicktime.
It has Bonjour also on the installer, but it's an alternate option, I didn't install it on my PC. So drop the lame "malware" bit, it's old and playe4d
Do you actually know what "malware" is? I can guarantee you that Apple does not include malware in its software.
And the "pushed" Safari install...which STILL doesn't go away even if you install it, uncheck it, etc. in the Apple Updater...was WIDELY criticized as borderline malware.
I have tried that.
As for Bonjour... if that was technically malware, Apple would not be allowed to keep distributing it.
Here is some more information for you, with "malware" not mentioned once in the whole article -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonjour_(soft..._implementation
They've fixed it now, although if you have EVER installed Safari, then uninstalled it, guess what, it pops right back up as checked to install by default in the Apple Update Installer, hehe.
This is the reason, by the way, that Apple's browser share jumped so dramatically over those next few months. They weren't counting users, they were counting installations. 8P
Sorry for the confusion. I will try to be more precise next time.
Went about testing it though, and it took a while to start up for the first time. Warning: if you have your speakers turned up loud, be prepared. Just got done watching a movie and wasn't expecting a welcome screen with sound. Scared the cat off my desk...
The tabs at the top look really weird considering I use a custom Windows VS. Chrome, Firefox, and everything else look fine though, dunno what's up with Safari. I can get a screen shot up if anyone wants to see.
It's only a beta so hopefully they will improve their compatibility with visual styles.
They're just miserable...!
LoL
Not even RC or Beta ? That's hilarius... LoL
Next time try to actually visit the Apple site before hitting the reply button. They did compare it with Internet Explorer 8 beta...
Anyways i stick with firefox
"Apple, turn on your photocopiers! oh, wait, they took it seriously and turned on!!!"
LoL
http://www.apple.com/safari/welcome/
They could've used the engine from Firefox, licensed from opera, built from KHTML, or—considering that there isn't a linux or mac version they could've even just used Microsoft's engines.
Google had alternatives and Apple certainly isn't required for Chrome to exist.
http://www.apple.com/safari/features.html
my [< snipped > - CalumJR] inovvation
LoL @ Cupertino
Last edited by CalumJR on 25 Feb 2009 - 01:35
If you check out Developing you'll see how close they are, sometimes Porting things to another easily.
I don't care, Webkit is good, but That photocopy of Google chrome is eye-popping out
@manosdoc When you consider where huge portions of the improvements are coming from (IE: CSS 3, Javascript runtime, etc) you'll see that Apple is a major contributor to both.
@manosdoc When you consider where huge portions of the improvements are coming from (IE: CSS 3, Javascript runtime, etc) you'll see that Apple is a major contributor to both.
Won't argue with that. Good for Apple Contributing there ( Not the only one thought)
All we are discussing is the UI.
A massive replica.
Good for Apple, but huge lie to Innovation.
And you're using 2.0.0.17 why?
Everything about your comment fails.
*I mean I can do banking on Firefox and go to addictinggames - just have not seen a site that malfunctions
They're a technology Preview.
Some Sites don't even today meet ACID 2 standards.
Other Things is what matters, let's say Tab per Userspace Memory
They're a technology Preview.
Some Sites don't even today meet ACID 2 standards.
Acid tests don't measure anything about how sites are developed. They're intended to test rendering engine compliance with with edge-cases in standards. They very much mean things to today's browsers however because they test technologies that are used by nearly every site on the web including HTML, CSS, and Javascript.
The idea behind them is that "if you render most things correctly, and you get these edge cases right too, then chances are good that you're doing nearly everything right." The acid tests specifically target bugs and short comings in rendering engines in an effort to get their developers to patch them.
In that mission they have been quite successful given the number of improvements to Safari, Firefox and IE as a response to their wide-spread publicity.
They're a technology Preview.
Some Sites don't even today meet ACID 2 standards.
Acid tests don't measure anything about how sites are developed. They're intended to test rendering engine compliance with with edge-cases in standards. They very much mean things to today's browsers however because they test technologies that are used by nearly every site on the web including HTML, CSS, and Javascript.
The idea behind them is that "if you render most things correctly, and you get these edge cases right too, then chances are good that you're doing nearly everything right." The acid tests specifically target bugs and short comings in rendering engines in an effort to get their developers to patch them.
In that mission they have been quite successful given the number of improvements to Safari, Firefox and IE as a response to their wide-spread publicity.
They sure do test standards, but really calm down if sites were developing using ACID 3 standards 99% of Web sites would be broken...
It is good for a browser to comply, but really, ACID 3 tests just don't prove anything at the moment.
You obviously know nothing about web standards or the ACID tests. Also, please do not insult web developers by calling them "a handful of neurotic, obsessive compulsive web coders" who "whine about something incessantly".
So what's your problem? You enjoy making a sites javascript, CSS, etc. work in every browser individually and including an iehacks.css and iehacks.js?
PS CalumJR, I wasn't referring to anyone here, but I get your point.
And where's the ad blocking?
Last edited by excalpius on 24 Feb 2009 - 22:31
And we wonder why some of their fans are such insufferable sheep. I give them credit that they're finally moving to a usable release on Windows by aping Google's Chome who in a similar way have relegated their browser as a 2nd class release for OSX.
1. Faster than Firefox 3.0.6
2. During installation,options are provided to install Bonjour,Apple updater etc.
3. Coverflow feature is great.
4. Passes Acid 3 test with 100/100
Cons
1.Installer is 25.46MB on Windows. Space is not a issue but why so big
2. Jesus, this thing hogs memory same as iTunes. Will uninstall it after few days for sure. Consumes 140-145MB of RAM with a single tab opened
3. Whenever a click a link which opens in new tab under firefox, in safari it opens in a new window and i cant customize this in preferences
4. Usage of a custom style in Windows breaks the tab bar of Safari (atleast for me)
5. Interface is a Rip off of Chrome... and there is nothing innovative to see here which they claim
6. Copy-paste is broken and doesn't work sometimes
Windows
Safari 4 Beta - 1.06 s
Chrome 1.0 - 1.38 s
Firefox 3.0 - 3.11 s
Firefox 3.1 Beta - 23.16 s
IE 7 - 3.25 s
IE 8 Beta - 4.71 s
Performance measured in seconds and milliseconds. Testing conducted by Apple in February 2009 on a 2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Duo-based
SunSpider JavaScript (in milliseconds)
Windows
Safari 4 Beta - 657.07 ms
Chrome 1.0 - 853.13 ms
Firefox 3.0 - 2399.20 ms
Firefox 3.1 Beta 2 - 1034.47 ms
IE 7 - 19902.20 ms
IE 8 Beta - 4137.80 ms
Testing conducted with a beta version of Safari and the following versions of other browsers: Chrome 1.0.154.48, Firefox 3.1 Beta 2, Firefox 3.0.6, IE 8 RC1 Beta, and IE 7 version 7.0.6001.1800. Performance will vary based on system configuration, network connection, and other factors.
Right from Apples Safari site.
Obviously he can't read Jason, or is just a windows fanboy who constantly bashes apple.
Par for the course.
Chrome 1.0 - 1.38 s
Firefox 3.0 - 3.11 s
Firefox 3.1 Beta - 23.16 s
Safari 4 Beta - 657.07 ms
Chrome 1.0 - 853.13 ms
Firefox 3.0 - 2399.20 ms
Firefox 3.1 Beta 2 - 1034.47 ms
LOL, really?
Regardless, I think this is an EXCELLENT step forward for Safari, especially on Windows. Before now, it was like a tinker toy version of a browser. This is MUCH better.
Its fast, i'll give it that but the thing eats memory and takes forever to load. The new UI looks MUCH better on Windows, still a few issues with Windows 7 and Aero (the maximized title bar is glassed but with a few little glitches)
EDIT - Beat me to it Simon
Last edited by CalumJR on 25 Feb 2009 - 03:51
Love this new look Safari. Looks great on Vista and Windows 7.. I wonder how this looks on a Mac.. anyone got a pic?
Is there a new iTunes expected soon?
also does anyone have a problem using msn hotmail with safari beta, because i can't seem to go to my inbox. now that i can't log in, but when i do, it has the normal screen that says how much space you used in your inbox. i try to go to my inbox, but it won't load. everything works fine with it except for that. its doesn't freeze at all but i still can't get to my email
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.