[willed]

Are there any comparisons of Safari against IE or others on Windows? How does it fare?

[schwachs]

Completely non-scientific response. I have a PC next to my Mac. (P4 2gig vs Dual 800 G4) and on most pages now it's extremely close. Before it was always annoying, now it's just cool and not distracting and I don't go over to my PC to surf anymore.

[Macanoid]

I still find Chimera faster!!!!

[MrNo]

I compared P3 650 IE 6 with my QS 867 and Safari and PC was about twice as faster (rendering pages)

[lookmark]

Originally posted by MrNo:
I compared P3 650 IE 6 with my QS 867 and Safari and PC was about twice as faster (rendering pages)

Really?

Comparing XP to OS X? I'm sort of surprised to hear that.

Otherwise, if it's W98/Me, I'd compare to OS 9. Birds of a feather.

(edit: er, not that one can compare Safari in OS 9. Anyway.)

[MrNo]

I used win2k, and PC had 384MB RAM whie QS has a gig. I don't like the fact, however it is a lot faster ...

[sushiism]

you do realise ie cheats really when it asks for web pages, look in the safari crashing servers thread for a link

[Montanan]

I use a couple of different PCs at work, and an iMac and iBook at home ... and just based on "feel," I think that Safari is very close to speed parity with IE 5.5 for Windows. Using Safari, my frustration with the speed of Mac web surfing has completely disappeared. (And for me, Safari is definitely considerably faster than Chimera ...)

[mbryda]

Surfing never really bothered me on the Mac (and I have DSL) - since I switched to Mozilla - the MachO Build is quite fast....

However, Safari is about as fast as IE/Moz on: Duron 700, P3 1.13Ghz Laptop, and just aobut every Windows XP machine I use.

It's a agreat browser, and I just hope they add tabs and a few other little tweaks!

[GORDYmac]

I use a PC at work, and I honestly do not see a difference when surfing on my Mac at home. Even if it was a 2 - 3 second difference, is there really an issue here?

I have DSL too. I also consider style more paramount than benchmarks. That's why I switched from OmniWeb, IE, and Navigator to Safari. I could care less if it's faster or slower by seconds, as long as it loads and I'm not twiddling my thumbs waiting. I think that most "consumers" want the same thing from a browser.

[mikemako]

same for me as most of the above. Surfing Safari on OS X renders pages at about the same speed as Internet Explorer on Win XP.

I do not find Chimera to be as fast as Safari.

Mac = OS X 10.2.3, 533MHz DP, 1.2Gb Memory
Compaq= Win XP SP1, 1.67GHz AthlonXP 2000+, 768Mb Memory

[snerdini]

Speaking as a web developer, I find that the Mac browsing experience is actually superior (not faster) to Windows. Let me explain:

We constantly have to tell our clients to refresh their browser, often clearing cache as well, to see changes we have made to their websites. IE has a very nasty habit of locking pages into cache and just won't see updates without a little kick in the ass. I never, repeat, never have this problem on a Mac. This annoys me to no end; and with the speed, beautiful text rendering, and ease of use of Safari, I really have no desire whatsoever to browse the web on a PC anymore.

IE on the Mac, by the way, is a big steaming pile of dog poo. I have found a nice little bug where if I refresh or revisit a particular page, half of the images on the page won't load. From then on, those images won't load, even on other pages. The only way to get them back again is to quit and relaunch the browser...

[walrusjb]

My little ol' Ti400 is within a fraction of a second against an Athlon 1.2G... better than Chimera was doing, which was already closing the gap.

Wasn't someone in the software forum running a cross-platform iBench test? Actually - just found the thread and it hasn't been updated.

If i get some downtime this weekend I'll run it on the 2 Macs we have (400 G4 & 800G4) and the two PCs (P3 550 and t-Bird 1.2G both Win2k) and see if we can get some real numbers.

Right on Snerdini Of course those of us who have to use the web all day will default to this position eventually - Quality vs. Quantity sort of thing. But you have to remember that for a lot of the public at large we're a generation that wants and demands instant gratification... hence these p1ss1ng contests

[Developer]

A little warning before this thread turns criminal:
Here's a quote from Safari's license agreement:

You agree not to publish or release the results of any benchmark tests run on the Apple Software without Apple's prior written permission in each instance.

[cenutrio]

Safari closes the gap, but there are some speed issues mostly when using 56 K modem.

[Montanan]

Originally posted by Developer:
A little warning before this thread turns criminal:
Here's a quote from Safari's license agreement:

Yikes!

::locks doors::

::closes drapes::

::crawls under bed::

[KidRed]

Originally posted by snerdini:
Speaking as a web developer, I find that the Mac browsing experience is actually superior (not faster) to Windows. Let me explain:

We constantly have to tell our clients to refresh their browser, often clearing cache as well, to see changes we have made to their websites. IE has a very nasty habit of locking pages into cache and just won't see updates without a little kick in the ass. I never, repeat, never have this problem on a Mac. This annoys me to no end; and with the speed, beautiful text rendering, and ease of use of Safari, I really have no desire whatsoever to browse the web on a PC anymore.

IE on the Mac, by the way, is a big steaming pile of dog poo. I have found a nice little bug where if I refresh or revisit a particular page, half of the images on the page won't load. From then on, those images won't load, even on other pages. The only way to get them back again is to quit and relaunch the browser...

The biggest issue for me with IE and table background images. Change it and IE will never know, sometimes even quitting and relaunching doesn't fix it.

Another mac advantage is code. Mac browers are more code compliant (at least compared to IE on PC). I design sites as well and Safari wasn't rendering something right but on a pc IE was. Then I found the issue and Safari rendered it correctly. I pretty much know if displays fine on mac it will in windows, however, displaying fine on windows sometimes will be off on macs. Then I laugh at the coders.

[Mike Pither]

I find it strange that there are still some Chimera supporters who continue to suggest that it's faster than Safari. Even Chimera them selves when they talk about about a forthcoming 15% speed boost (they hope) suggest that this will only get them much closer safari.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by snerdini:

We constantly have to tell our clients to refresh their browser, often clearing cache as well, to see changes we have made to their websites.

Safari also seems to keep the cashe even though the page has been updated. All you have to do is hit reaload and it works and actually reloads on like I.E. that seems to hold onto cashe forever... like old luggage.

[JB72]

I was one that was actually concerned about the PC/Mac browsing difference before Safari. Right now I feel very much satisfied using Safari. It's close enough.

Some say that Safari isn't actually faster than Chimera. That may be true, per benchmarks. But there is something about Safari that just feels "snappy" to me. Maybe that will change... who knows.

Just my very subjective 2 cents.

[voodoo]

Safari is fast, and I like it very much, but it is not as fast as Chimera. Oh, no.
It is very close though.
I'll use Safari full time I expect when it goes final, but until then Mozilla.

[anarkisst]

Originally posted by Mike Pither:
I find it strange that there are still some Chimera supporters who continue to suggest that it's faster than Safari. Even Chimera them selves when they talk about about a forthcoming 15% speed boost (they hope) suggest that this will only get them much closer safari.

And the fact being that they are comparing a beta browser with another beta browser... They're BETA...get over it.

ME? IE. I have had practically no issues myself or even the ones stated above. And Mozilla is way faster than Safari, Chimera, and IE. I still think IE has been the most feature rich (without bloat) browser so far...of course that's my computer...(Graphite iMac 700 G3 w/768 Mb RAM & Jaguar)...I could be wrong.

[raviruddarraju]

Originally posted by Mike Pither:
I find it strange that there are still some Chimera supporters who continue to suggest that it's faster than Safari. Even Chimera them selves when they talk about about a forthcoming 15% speed boost (they hope) suggest that this will only get them much closer safari.

Those guys are big time "whiners". Come'on, Chimera itself admitted that it is slow, bulky (CNET comment) etc.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by raviruddarraju:
Those guys are big time "whiners". Come'on, Chimera itself admitted that it is slow, bulky (CNET comment) etc.

No that comment was based on Gecko's code from over a year ago, it has come leaps and bounds since then.

I like safari much better and even if Chimera is "fast" it is only by about 1 second SOMETIMES which isn't worth even talking about.

[rowell]

Safari is almost as fast rendering pages as the Opera 7 beta 2 browser I use on Windows, which means that Safari renders very fast. Opera 7 is my personal benchmark for basing web page rendering. Nothing, with the exception of text-based unix browsers like Links/Lynx, comes close to beating its rendering speed for me. Of course now Safari is almost at that level, which is really a testament to the team that Apple has put together and the design of the KHTML libs from the KDE developers.

I also use a proxy setup to get rid of ads (squid->squidguard/privoxy) so theoretically, Safari could be even faster should I bypass that configuration. However, I'd end up gettings ads up the yin-yang, so I can deal with the 10ms+ slowdown.

So in nutshell from my personal experience, browsing with Safari on my Powerbook is as good as browsing on my PC with Opera. And to think I could not say that sentence more than a week a half ago!

Just as an aside (and not to derail the thread), I can't wait for the Opera 7 release because there are plans to start porting the code to OSX shortly thereafter. Then we should see some really great competition between two of the fastest browsers on the planet on the Apple platform. Good times.

[besson3c]

rowell: why not just use the pop-up ad blocker if you want to block ads?

Does Opera use its own propetary rendering engine? I'm sick of 2384230948 rendering standards, I wish we'd settle on a couple of good standards!

[dfiler]

I routinely use every browser available (almost) when testing my company's web site. In my experience, any performance disparity between safari and IE on windows is now imperceptable. This assumes a broadband or better connection. Some modem users have reported slow performance using safari.

How much faster than instantaneous can a page load? Seriously, if I blink with no net lag, I compleletely miss the page being rendered. Safari renders so efficiently that its the only browser i've seen render macnn's header during a half-second pause of net congestion. The header turns out quite narrow since no other page content has been received.

Scrolling in Safari is better than I thought possible without hardware acceleration.

Safari's widgets are instantaneous on my machine.

Window resizing is now acceptable but still below that of windows software.

At work:
winXP 1.4G P4 with 768MB
At Home:
jaguar: 450DP with 1.5GB

Slightly off topic: Reports of drastically different speeds for chimera and safari have me baffled. For me, they are quite close in page rendering performance while Chimera lags in text field responsiveness.

[beb]

"I don't go over to my PC to surf anymore."

-I used to do that also. Now I don't. Except for a few rendering bugs, Safari works great for me.

[rowell]

Originally posted by besson3c:
rowell: why not just use the pop-up ad blocker if you want to block ads?

Going through proxies like squidquard or privoxy block a majority of the other ad flotsam on the web besides blocking popups: webbugs, flashads, ads from doubleclick etc. These are either not rendered nor are the adservers contacted using proxies like this. It's like browsing the web during the pre-ad era (almost). I know there are other methods available, such as hacking the hosts file, but I prefer to use proxies.

Does Opera use its own propetary rendering engine? I'm sick of 2384230948 rendering standards, I wish we'd settle on a couple of good standards!

I sense a little bit of confusion in this question. The rendering engine, the subsystem of the application that programatically renders how a webpage appears, is wholely unrelated (usually) to the rendering standards it follows. In this case the rendering standard is the W3C recommendations which most people would agree is the one to follow (alas except for a certain company in Redmond).

Opera, as a private company, built their own proprietary rendering engine in version 7 which they called Presto (cuz it's supposed to render in a *snap*). It's a complete rewrite from the engine they used in their previous versions. They said they've been working on it for a year and a half and it shows. I think their new engine absolutely rocks. It's still in beta and has some bugs, but it's still my favorite browser. It also has an integrated Mail/News app that is amazing and yet the whole thing is about the same size as the Safari download (~3MB).

As for rendering standards, take a look at this page which ranks css implementations for different browsers using a point system. I haven't visited there in a while and was really suprised at what browser is currently at the top: Opera 7. Mozilla/Chimera is #2 and Safari/Konqueror is at a respectable #3. Notice the previous version of Opera (6) is below that.

I'm sure in time, CSS compliance in Safari will increase. It's already very high in my view, meaning I haven't noticed anything funky with its CSS interpretation while I've been browsing these past couple of weeks.

Anyway, I didn't mean for this to be a rah rah post about Opera. I wanted to point out the differences between the two browsers and what I believe Apple's future competition will look like should Opera 7 be ported and what they should be gunning for in Safari: speed, standards-compliance and ease of use.

[Sarc]

I adopted Safari for my browsing need ... I still think that the "boosted" Chimera is faster, but that' s a little cheating

As far as windows goes ... try loading a page that you know it's not hosted on Microsoft servers ... IE. apache, netscape, solaris. only then you will have a true benchmarking site.

btw. does anyone know if that nasty M$ trick applies to the Mac IE ??

Also in my experience, if you have a fat pipe (ie. 2MB+) you wo't see the difference.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Guys quit all this "... FEELS faster" crap. Time it and back it up with some numbers.

[ibobunot]

Don't know, Don't care

[Zadian]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
Guys quit all this "... FEELS faster" crap. Time it and back it up with some numbers.

The only thing that matters is how it feels. (in my opinion ;-) )

Most people (if not all) can't measure time in an exact and absolute way.

Most people don't surf the web with a stop watch and the ability to stop that watch in the exact moment the web page is completely loaded.

Time and speed is a matter of subjective perception.
Isn't there even a proverb about that topic? "A watched pot never boils"

[OAW]

I use my iBook 700 at work on a Windows network (T1). I also have a PIII PC (don't know the MHz offhand) in my office as well. IMO, there is no appreciable difference in surfing speed between Safari on the iBook and IE 6 on the PC. They both are blazing! At home Safari on my G4 iMac 800 with a cable modem just flies!! Period. Dot. End of sentence.

Now if some of you want to break out the stopwatches and haggle over fractions of a second here or there ... then all I can say is "knock yourself out!".

The bottom line is that surfing speed was a problem on the OS X platform. Apple has fixed this problem with Safari. In my view, the primary factor now in surfing speed is the bandwidth of the internet connection and general internet congestion .... as it should be. In other words, rendering speed is simply not an issue anymore.

OAW

[clarkgoble]

I heard someone ran TCPLog carefully and disproved that report about IE that was on Slashdot last week. No trickiness on IE. Although even in that report it was only faster while accessing IIS servers.

As for Safari, while it is quite fast, it also does Flash very, very slow. Even slower than Chimera 0.5. (They fixed it in 0.6) That may change. But right now Flash remains the bottleneck in OSX browsing. (And to be fair that is partially Macromedia's fault)

[MrBS]

Originally posted by OAW:
Now if some of you want to break out the stopwatches and haggle over fractions of a second here or there ... then all I can say is "knock yourself out!".

How many pages would you need to load in your newly-found faster browser to make up for the time you wasted even just to post that other people should time it?

~BS

[raviruddarraju]

Originally posted by willed:
Are there any comparisons of Safari against IE or others on Windows? How does it fare?

I don't see whether this is a fair comparision. IE is totally hardcoded into the operating system. Safari on the other hand is like any other piece of software. With this close integration, Microsoft has more OS resources at its hand to speed up the browser. The fact is that when Microsoft was losing battle with netscape, they plugged this browser right into the OS. That is how, I think, they won that war. This is the reason why killing IE on a PC can bring down the entire OS for a brief moment. I am not saying that Apple cannot do this, but certainly the camparision is not a fair one. It is a pity that netscape messed itself up with 6.x, but oh well....

[Superchicken]

The question is... with v10.3 of OS X... will Apple intigrate Safari deeper into the OS like microsoft did with IE to help them beat netscape but simply open up the same stuff to third party developers?
Or do you think they'll leave it as a stand alone browser?

And with the advent of Safari once it reaches 1.0, and the fact that Apple has Mail, and now Keynote, Appleworks, iTunes, iDVD, iMovie, iSync, iChat, iCal, iPhoto, Sherlock, and so on and so forth... what is left for apple to do!?

[BTP]

The issue is closed for me, albeit recently. I have no appreciable speed difference across platforms. Are the PC's I use faster? Maybe. But it is to such a degree that I can't notice.

Moving on..

[Graymalkin]

This thread was originally about rendering speed and has somehow turned into a crapfest about IE's integration with Windows.

IE's Windows integration goes so far as IE's functionality is a subset of Windows Explorer. Netscape never used system native widgets in their browser, they used Motif for a long time and just used wrappers to access system native widgets. Thats why Netscape never quite looks like a regular Win32 (or MacOS) application. Microsoft learned from this mistake, it is a slower to wrap functionality than to just use native functionality. Microsoft took their HTML renderer URL handling from their IE product, made them system level libraries, and then rewrote Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer to both use them. Windows Explorer being able to use IE's web components allow for stuff like Active Desktop (in-Active Desktop in my experience with it) and web views in WE windows.

Is this horrible integration? No, it gives all applications system level URL and HTML handling. Is it very competitive? It depends on your outlook. Microsoft was able to leverage the browser market not by a superior product but by having their browser come with the OS and thus a new computer. Microsoft said OEMs couldn't stick Netscape on their systems by default. The integration of IE and WE was a good idea technically, the business descision to use their monopoly on desktop computers to kill Netscape was not a good descision. Netscape didn't help matters by making a horrible browser that ran and behaved worse than its previous version. No one buying a new copy of Windows (stand alone or on a new PC) was interested in taking the time to download Netscape and thus IE won out.

So is Apple's descision to pack an HTML and JavaScript handling system into the OS a bad technical descision? Not at all. Can they use their monopoly on Macintosh computers to snuff out browser competition on MacOS? Possibly but it is unlikely.

The WebCore framework on OSX is a very valuable thing to have, especially being that it is pretty freaking fast. I've written a web browser using IE's OCX control in Visual Basic in a couple hours. It amount to about 600k once fully compiled and optimized. How was it so small? I provided the interface to IE's rendering engine in my own way. I leveraged a component already in place. Quicken and AOL and probably tons of others do the same thing. Lots of Windows apps use IE's renderer to display HTML for either documentation or as a program interface. WebCore gives Mac developers the same oppertunity. Chimera's image is over 20MB because it has to included everything in one package, Safari is already small and will only get smaller when WebCore is a default OSX framework.

This integration doesn't stiffle competition, it endorses it. Safari isn't the end all be all of web browsers. Chimera has lots of things they can add to entice users. The OmniGroup apparently is planning to adopt WebCore in OW5, they are leveraging a system that is in place and putting their much liked interface on top of it. Anyone wanting to write their own HTML/JS rendering system is free to do so but they can also use WebCore if they want. No one complains about Quicktime or OpenGL's integration with OSX, why about WebCore?

To stray back into the realm of the topic, Plank unit measurements of rendering speed are really unimportant. What is important is a browser regardless of who makes it rendering pages CORRECTLY. I can factor a 400 digit prime number in my head in half a second, that doesn't mean I actually got the right answer (which I assure you I won't). Instead of some abstract rendering speed measurement why don't you try measuring the speed of adding bookmarks, the cold start from clicking a link in a document to the final display of the page, how well Flash/Java/Quicktime works on pages, how well DHTML/JavaScript/CSS work on pages, the amount of resources a normal browser session takes up memory wise, the disk space used by the program (measured by a downloadable executable installer/disk image/Stuff-It file/Zip file size), etcetera. Even a 233MHz iMac can render a web page so fast your brain can hardly process the passage of time. That doesn't mean all web pages will render that fast/slow. The measurement is really varied and subjective. If Safari renders pages you visit frequently fast and correctly it is better FOR YOU, it isn't objectively better or worse.

[raviruddarraju]

Originally posted by Graymalkin:


Is this horrible integration? No, it gives all applications system level URL and HTML handling. Is it very competitive? It depends on your outlook. Microsoft was able to leverage the browser market not by a superior product but by having their browser come with the OS and thus a new computer. Microsoft said OEMs couldn't stick Netscape on their systems by default. The integration of IE and WE was a good idea technically, the business descision to use their monopoly on desktop computers to kill Netscape was not a good descision. Netscape didn't help matters by making a horrible browser that ran and behaved worse than its previous version. No one buying a new copy of Windows (stand alone or on a new PC) was interested in taking the time to download Netscape and thus IE won out.

I was also under an impression that whenever you login to a PC, there are several aspects of IE (in addition to prefs) that get loaded in. I heard that this is what that makes IE a snap to start up on a PC. AND, I was under an impresion that IE has (some kind of) kernel level integration that gives it more speed than netscape.

[Metzen]

Originally posted by raviruddarraju:
I was also under an impression that whenever you login to a PC, there are several aspects of IE (in addition to prefs) that get loaded in. I heard that this is what that makes IE a snap to start up on a PC. AND, I was under an impresion that IE has (some kind of) kernel level integration that gives it more speed than netscape.

I guess you could just look at the source code and figure that yourself...

[Mike S.]

I simply don't know why every one is raving about Safari's speed unless you all have current, top of the line Mac hardware.

Here are the stop watch tests I posted at another forum, two pieces of hardware.

A PowerMac 8600/Mach3 with a G3/400 1MB CPU upgrade, 240 MB RAM and a Radeon 7500 PCI upgrade as well as an eMac.

Cable internet connection going through a Linksys switched router, the eMac is connected via a 1Mbps HomeLine connection.

Tests between OmniWeb, Chimera and Safari had caches emptied before hand and tests on the machines (all 8600 and all eMac browsers that is, both machines were tested and much different times) were done within seconds of each other so network congestion shouldn't be a huge issue.

Now that all that is aside, the post:

There's one site that takes longer to render than any other I visit, The Apple Collection, and these are the results with a clean cache:

Navigator 12/20/02 Build: 14.01 sec.

Safari beta v51: 24.36 sec.

OmniWeb 4.1.1: 18.72

Safari must need a G4 or something if it's getting trounced by fsking OmniWeb :-P

I'll try the same test on the eMac later and report back.




Update:

The eMac results are in and I included some other browsers that were installed.

Navigator 12/20/02 Build: 12.76 sec.

Safari beta v51: 18.18

OmniWeb 4.1.1: 13.80 sec.

iCab Pre2.8.2(US): 23.95 sec

Mozilla 1.1: 10.85 sec (though it's status bar said 8.9)

Granted, the test was for only one site but it's a complex site with a whole lot of images laid out in a tabular format.

Another person did their own stop watch test with an iMac Flat Panel 800 Mhz after seeing my results and had similar results.

If OmniWeb improves upon it's current performance as significantly as Rickster seems to be indicating than it's just going to own everybody because it's already the nicest browser on any platform, IMO, and they aren't done improving the user experience!

[dfiler]

There seems to be some confusion about IE's 'integration' into the windows operating systems. While it is possible for integration to mean a bundled, standard API for accessing html rendering and associated, embedded formats, IE's 'integration' goes much further. Some of IE's code was moved into the kernel space. This means that the operating system is doing less mode switching when using those browser components. Greatly simplifying this explanation, it means that there are less layers of programming interfaces being used by IE.

This provides a performance boost but comes at a price. The price is that it is possible for a browser crash to muck up low level system stuff. An explorer crash can bring down the entire OS. This type of integration makes debugging more difficult. The code is also more difficult to extend and maintain. For Microsoft, this may be a reasonable approach. They can afford to pay more developers and testers to work through the hazards of kernel integration. They'll also likely be able to afford the increased costs associated with maintaining such a design.

Safari's integration is much different. In fact, I would go so far as to claim that it is only bundled with OS X, not integrated into the OS. WebCore and some other components are available to third party application developers. These developers can rely on the assumption that the web APIs will be available on default installations of OS X. (in the near future) However, these APIs are in no way 'special' they exist at the same level of OS integration as any other framework installed on OS X.

[cambro]

Chimera 0.6 with pipelining enabled is not perceptibly or reproducibly faster or slower than Safari in rendering most pages. To enable pipelining, these two lines must be added to the Chimera's generated prefs file:

user_pref("network.http.pipelining", true);
user_pref("network.http.proxy.pipelining", true);

Note that pipelining is most effective on broadband connections. Dial-up users are bandwidth limited in the majority of cases and will not see any effect of pipelining or may even experience slow-down.

[OAW]

Originally posted by MrBS:
How many pages would you need to load in your newly-found faster browser to make up for the time you wasted even just to post that other people should time it?

~BS

MrBS,

I suggest you re-read my post and a few of the posts immediately preceding it to get a sense of this little thing called context. Once you do that you might realize that I was in no way advocating that people should time it. Then again, this assumes that your reading comprehension skills have improved a tad bit since you posted those comments listed above.

OAW

[zigmeister]

I just tested www.theapplecollection.com and Chimera really did load it faster then Safari, but this is not the case with other sites. I did not get the whole page displayed either, so the speed issue with this particular page could be due to html coding or some Safari bug.

[villalobos]

I do not find Chimera to be as fast as Safari.

[/B]

I dont know where you guys get that.
Chimera IS faster than Safari. (flash animation is a good example)

villa

[Adam Betts]

Originally posted by villalobos:
I dont know where you guys get that.
Chimera IS faster than Safari. (flash animation is a good example)

villa

Poor example. Most people are talking about RAW rendering speed.

Flash animation speed is out of the question since they already fixed the slowness problems in next beta. David Hyell mentioned this himself.

[villalobos]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
Poor example. Most people are talking about RAW rendering speed.

Flash animation speed is out of the question since they already fixed the slowness problems in next beta. David Hyell mentioned this himself.

Poor comment. most people does not mean everybody, first of all, hence not me. Secondly it is about the overall usage, and that includes how flash animations behave.
As far as I am concerned, cnn.com loads faster on Chimera, espn.com loads faster on chimera, and most of websites load faster or as fast on Chimera as compared to Safari. You guys think Safari is the best thing because Apple is making it, I still think it is a waste of time for Apple if the only goal is to make a web browser (which does not mean that Apple has not some other ideas and alternate use with Safari that I don't foresee right now).

as for your 'non-appreciation' of my comment Adam Betts, well I really do not care I guess.

Villa