[Simon]

Sorry, obviously that came across the wrong way. I'm really just curious to know if I'm not seeing something I should be seeing or if I'm not seeing it because the sites I mainly use (for work) do not rely on JavaScript.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Simon 

What are you talking about? I asked about HTML rendering:

Yeah, AFTER I posted the numbers, not before.

and you quoted that and replied with a link to a bunch of numbers. Turns out those number had to do with JavaScript.

Actually, that post was originally in response to Dakar, but you'd know that if you had bothered to read the thread. I just pointed you to it afterwards, hoping you could take it for what it was, in the context of your original post... esp. since it was quite clear in the original benchmark post that it was a JavaScript benchmark.

[phoenix78]

Im having a really hard time using safari without the 'blue shading' on the address bar indicating the page loading.

I dont like the interface much. I HATE the tabs!!!! ugh.

I dont notice any speedup in page loading.

I dont care what they do 'under the hood', as long as it is stable, and as long as they give more options to customise the browser appearance/behaviour.

[Spheric Harlot]

Give the tabs two days before you complain.

They've grown on me, and they actually make more sense from a hierarchy standpoint - unfortunately, while creating problems of their own.

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Give the tabs two days before you complain.

I have, and I still don't like them. I do think they seem easier to use on the windows version of safari but the osx implementation is harder to use. I'm not entirely sure why but for what ever reason it seems less intuitive using the OSX safari then the windows. Either way I'm still not a fan of the tabs being on the top. Closing and interacting with the tabs get more confusing with them on the top then pointing down. More so under OSX.

Another area that I think apple made a mistake on is the refresh/cancel buttons. they're now in the address bar. I liked having them on the toolbar. While the iPhone operates this way, its less intuitive on a computer.

[64stang06]

Originally Posted by Maflynn 

I have, and I still don't like them. I do think they seem easier to use on the windows version of safari but the osx implementation is harder to use. I'm not entirely sure why but for what ever reason it seems less intuitive using the OSX safari then the windows. Either way I'm still not a fan of the tabs being on the top. Closing and interacting with the tabs get more confusing with them on the top then pointing down. More so under OSX.

Another area that I think apple made a mistake on is the refresh/cancel buttons. they're now in the address bar. I liked having them on the toolbar. While the iPhone operates this way, its less intuitive on a computer.

This annoys me also.

[Dakar V]

The issue isn't so much that it's in the address bar, so much as it is in no man's land. All the important functions are on the left except stop/reload (which is in no man's land). I don't wonder if the usability would be improved by moving that function in front of the favicon, or super imposing it on top of it.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Good, so I'll ask again. Has anyone with a fast Mac observed that Safari became significantly faster for regular HTML rendering? All the improvements I see pertain to JavaScript. On many pages I use for work there is zero JavaScript and I am already used to really fast Safari 3 performance there. Now, with Safari 4 I see no speed-up. Therefore, I am wondering if all this speed-up talk has only to do with JavaScript and/or older Macs.

I think I have slight improvements on pages w/o js, but that's anecdotal. Very slight to imperceptible.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

The issue isn't so much that it's in the address bar, so much as it is in no man's land. All the important functions are on the right except stop/reload. I don't wonder if the usability would be improved by moving that function in front of the favicon, or super imposing it on top of it.

On the left, you mean.

[Dakar V]

heh, yeah

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Actually, that post was originally in response to Dakar, but you'd know that if you had bothered to read the thread. I just pointed you to it afterwards, hoping you could take it for what it was, in the context of your original post... esp. since it was quite clear in the original benchmark post that it was a JavaScript benchmark.

Eug, obviously I read the thread and saw your response to Dakar. I noticed it contained JavaScript benchmarks and went on since I'm not interested in JS.

Later in the thread Oreo and I are talking about HTML performance (not JavaScript!). You quote both him and me and reply with a link to your JavaScript numbers. So I ask again, what do those JavaScript numbers have to do with my question? They don't answer what I asked, so why do you quote my question?

Originally Posted by Eug

Originally Posted by Simon

Right on. Without including Safari 3 those plots are entirely meaningless to me. Also, they don't really answer my original question if Safari 4 is really faster on a current Mac that Safari 3. I have this suspicion that while improvements certainly have been made for JavaScript and the like, regular HTML rendering on a 2.8 GHz C2D won't be any different.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Many pages use a lot of JavaScript and there, I reckon you can measure a difference. But you're right, as long as you don't have any benchmarks comparing the two, all that remains is my personal impression that things got speedier.

http://forums.macnn.com/82/applicati...4/#post3807921

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

I think I have slight improvements on pages w/o js, but that's anecdotal. Very slight to imperceptible.

OK, thanks. So it's not just that I'm missing it. Good to know.

Apart form JavaScript, is there a big performance difference on older/slower Macs? I was using Safari 4 on a very fast Mac where Safari 3 was already pretty blazing fast. I don't know what it's like on a 1.5 GHz CS or a G5 though.

[fisherKing]

seriously..tabs are much easier to deal with without the 'expanded' frontmost tab; try clicking back&forth between 2 tabs...a lot of 'conscious' work, plus...clicking ONLY on the edge to move a tab seems a nuisance (i keep clicking on a tab and moving the whole window).

maybe i will get used to all of this, but so far...eh.

some sites, btw, load with generic icons where pictures should be...then load the pics if i go past the index page, and back...

[Dakar V]

Someone probably already mentioned this, but occasionally, I'm moving Safari a few pixels here and there when I click a tab on the fly, thanks to the new system.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Someone probably already mentioned this, but occasionally, I'm moving Safari a few pixels here and there when I click a tab on the fly, thanks to the new system.

I ran into the same problem.

And we're not alone. Similar problem for as tablet user here:
http://www.tuaw.com/2009/02/26/tabs-...t-needs-to-go/ (contains video demonstrating the problem)

[Cold Warrior]

One thing I like is that I can cmd-click a bunch of links (to open in new tabs) and Safari 4 beta doesn't beachball while it opens them. I can continue working on the first tab while the others open quietly in inactive tabs.

[Cold Warrior]

Is ctrl+s broken for anyone else? That worked in Safari 3 (and FF) as a javascript-based keyboard shortcut on the boards for Post Quick Reply.

[Eug]

Hmmm... After I installed Safari 4, I've seen my screen black out for a split second on my Cube 1.7. It's happened about 5 or 6 times now, but only when I've been using Safari 4. However, I do use a non-standard GPU - the GeForce 6200.

I don't know if this is just some bizarre coincidence, but I've since uninstalled Safari 4 to see what happens. It's never happened before though.

Is it possible for Webkit changes to affect GPU support?

[Big Mac]

That shouldn't be possible, no. Another update could have changed a driver, though.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Maflynn 

Another area that I think apple made a mistake on is the refresh/cancel buttons. they're now in the address bar. I liked having them on the toolbar. While the iPhone operates this way, its less intuitive on a computer.

I didn't mind the refresh/stop button being in the address bar. I just didn't like how they didn't implement it like they did on the iPhone. Had they done that it would be a lot more intuitive. On the iPhone we still have the blue progress bar in the address field. But in Safari 4 we have the spinning indicator where the refresh/stop button is. The problem with this is two fold IMO ....

1. You have no indication of overall progress.
2. The icon doesn't show the X (stop) when a page is loading unless you mouse over it ... quite unlike the iPhone ... because it's showing the spinning icon.

In my view if Apple had implemented it just like they did on the iPhone it would have been a lot more intuitive.

OAW

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That shouldn't be possible, no. Another update could have changed a driver, though.

True. Just to be able to install Safari 4, you need all the other OS updates as well, which I did recently.

Or else perhaps something else on the machine is going and it's just a coincidence. However, the machine seems 100% stable. We'll see what happens with Safari 3.

[Mac User #001]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Apart form JavaScript, is there a big performance difference on older/slower Macs? I was using Safari 4 on a very fast Mac where Safari 3 was already pretty blazing fast. I don't know what it's like on a 1.5 GHz CS or a G5 though.

I can't say I'm good enough at judging wether things other than JavaScript are faster, all I can say is that on my sigged Mac, Safari 4 is immensely faster than 3.

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Someone probably already mentioned this, but occasionally, I'm moving Safari a few pixels here and there when I click a tab on the fly, thanks to the new system.

Me too...

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

One thing I like is that I can cmd-click a bunch of links (to open in new tabs) and Safari 4 beta doesn't beachball while it opens them. I can continue working on the first tab while the others open quietly in inactive tabs.

I love that too. Safari 3 beachballed like crazy when I opened a bunch of links in tabs. Now it runs fine

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

Is ctrl+s broken for anyone else? That worked in Safari 3 (and FF) as a javascript-based keyboard shortcut on the boards for Post Quick Reply.

Wow I've never even heard of that, sounds awesome and handy! Too bad it's apparently broken now?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Good, so I'll ask again. Has anyone with a fast Mac observed that Safari became significantly faster for regular HTML rendering? All the improvements I see pertain to JavaScript. On many pages I use for work there is zero JavaScript and I am already used to really fast Safari 3 performance there. Now, with Safari 4 I see no speed-up. Therefore, I am wondering if all this speed-up talk has only to do with JavaScript and/or older Macs.

If it's already really fast in Safari 3, why do you need a speed-up?

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

Is ctrl+s broken for anyone else? That worked in Safari 3 (and FF) as a javascript-based keyboard shortcut on the boards for Post Quick Reply.

Yeah, it's broken for me, too.

[Le Flaneur]

What is memory use like? Safari 3, like its predecessors, uses hundreds of megabytes of "real" RAM over time, forcing the user to quit and relaunch it in order to avoid the unnecessary spawning of vm swap files.

Might Safari 4 be better in this regard?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Le Flaneur 

What is memory use like? Safari 3, like its predecessors, uses hundreds of megabytes of "real" RAM over time, forcing the user to quit and relaunch it in order to avoid the unnecessary spawning of vm swap files.

Might Safari 4 be better in this regard?

Safari 4 is still a resource hog. I have about a dozen pages open. It's using 1.09GB of real memory and 2.12GB of Virtual Memory.

Safari 4 doesn't hang and beach ball like Safari 3 does though.

Safari 4 did quit on my once, but no application hanging which is good.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Give the tabs two days before you complain.

They've grown on me, and they actually make more sense from a hierarchy standpoint - unfortunately, while creating problems of their own.

The tabs are not gaining any ground with me. Logically they make some sense, but UI-wise they are the worst I've seen from Apple since the round volume knob in QuickTime 4.



Apple sometimes does poop in its collective UI pants.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Le Flaneur 

What is memory use like? Safari 3, like its predecessors, uses hundreds of megabytes of "real" RAM over time, forcing the user to quit and relaunch it in order to avoid the unnecessary spawning of vm swap files.

Might Safari 4 be better in this regard?

Seems about the same as Safari 3.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Safari 4 is still a resource hog. I have about a dozen pages open. It's using 1.09GB of real memory and 2.12GB of Virtual Memory.

Safari 4 doesn't hang and beach ball like Safari 3 does though.

Safari 4 did quit on my once, but no application hanging which is good.

Hmm... interesting. I've seen a *very* consistent cap of around 300MB (which didn't happen in Safari 3). I wonder how your usage differs from mine that triggers this.

[Jasoco]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

The tabs are not gaining any ground with me. Logically they make some sense, but UI-wise they are the worst I've seen from Apple since the round volume knob in QuickTime 4.

[IMG]http://www.mactech.com:16080/articles/mactech/Vol.15/15.11/QuickTime4ForProgrammers/fig08.gif[IMG]

Apple sometimes does poop in its collective UI pants.

Oh my god. Brushed metal. How I loathe thee. I can't believe it used to be "in". Now it just looks so crappy. Long live gradient plastic!

Never forget:


Though I will sure as hell try. (Note: that's not actually iTunes. I believe it's a skin for WinAmp or something. But I've had it forever. It's close enough.)

[Simon]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

If it's already really fast in Safari 3, why do you need a speed-up?

That's exactly what I was thinking. If something is already really fast it's hard to make it feel any faster. So although on JavaScript pages or on older Macs I'm not surprised to hear people talk about improvements, I wasn't expecting to see any on my really fast Mac. And when I tried it I didn't.

What I would however really appreciate is if Safari would reduce its RAM footprint (I suppose a lot of its speed has to do with that) and improve the UI. Unfortunately so far, I don't think Safari 4 has done that. The footprint has not decreased (although I can't say it has increased a whole lot either) and the GUI has a some new stuff, but it's mainly eye candy. And I guess we can all also agree that some of the new GUI elements are far from perfect.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Jasoco 

Oh my god. Brushed metal. How I loathe thee. I can't believe it used to be "in". Now it just looks so crappy. Long live gradient plastic!

I must admit that I never did understand what was supposed to be so horrible about the almost universally loathed brushed metal skin.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I must admit that I never did understand what was supposed to be so horrible about the almost universally loathed brushed metal skin.

Same here. I was always somewhat amazed how much people loathed BM. Anyway, before it became boring, it did make for a few entertaining flame wars.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

The tabs are not gaining any ground with me. Logically they make some sense, but UI-wise they are the worst I've seen from Apple since the round volume knob in QuickTime 4.



Apple sometimes does poop in its collective UI pants.

As a window management for tabs they are the only implementation that makes sense. Which is why it should be handled like that by the OS, not by individual applications like Safari:

http://ignorethecode.net/blog/

I vote we see this tab-implementation system wide to banish all "home-rolled" implementations forever!

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Sorry, obviously that came across the wrong way. I'm really just curious to know if I'm not seeing something I should be seeing or if I'm not seeing it because the sites I mainly use (for work) do not rely on JavaScript.

If you ever look outside your little sphere you will see that the web all over is extremely reliant on JavaScript these days, hence why it is so important to speed it up. HTML-rendering has already been squeezed the last possible bit of life out of, which is why you are not seeing the great speed increment that the average web surfer does.

[AppleGirl1990]

Apple, release Beta 2!

[TETENAL]

It's not much different than what OS 9 had, only that it doesn't require you to dock the windows to the bottom edge. So it's actually more useful than what it was in OS 9.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

As a window management for tabs they are the only implementation that makes sense.

I strongly disagree on both counts implied here.
1. It does not make sense. The usability problems have been detailed many times in this thread, and besides that it is freaking hideous.
2. There are many other window/tab systems that can be imagined, and it would be pretty hard for any of them to be uglier or have more usability problems without actively trying.

[Jasoco]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

As a window management for tabs they are the only implementation that makes sense. Which is why it should be handled like that by the OS, not by individual applications like Safari:

http://ignorethecode.net/blog/

I vote we see this tab-implementation system wide to banish all "home-rolled" implementations forever!

Here's what I propose:

Apple should create a system-wide standard for Tabs.

They will always look the same.

They will always sit in the title bar.

They will NOT be click-through and if you drag on an area that is usually a button, it will still act as if you are trying to move the window.

They will work with Exposé in that when you activate Exposé, the tabbed window will "explode" into individual parts exposing each tab independently.

They will also all display separately in the Dock's right-click menu and the app's Window menu allowing you to switch to any tab in any window without extra clicks. (Windows 7 has something right.)

They will be separable from the window to become their own window like Safari does.

They should be rearrangable.

They must be part of the OS X API and should be strongly enforced to make any app creator that uses tabs in their application use them.

This is the only way to fix the Tab dilemma.


In fact, let's go all the way. OS X should have a built-in standard ability to dock any regular window into any other regular window in the parent app. All Safari windows would be connectable and seperable. All Finder windows would be connectable and seperable. All.. you get the idea. And this would be a standard built-in ability of the OS. Not the app. So app creators wouldn't have to do anything to get them to work. Command+T would always create a new "docked window" as they would now be called. This would be an OS feature. Not an app feature.

App creators would simply remove their own Tabbing features and let the OS take over. Each app however could control behavior if they wanted to. And the OS would have a preference to disallow any tabs at all if the user doesn't want them.


That article is right, I hate wasted space. I like Safari 4's tab idea because it saves space. I hope Snow Leopard's Terminal follows suit. And the API's should be so accessable that even FireFox's team and Camino and everyone else including Google Chrome would be able to use the idea.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I strongly disagree on both counts implied here.
1. It does not make sense. The usability problems have been detailed many times in this thread, and besides that it is freaking hideous.

Of course they have loads of problems that need to be ironed out, especially the click through issue (this is detailed in the article), but hierarchically tabs on top is the only thing that makes sense.

Ugly is not a usability issue, it's a personal aesthetics preference. And in this case it is obviously a case of "OMG, I'm not used to it and I hate change" issue. The tabs look fine.

What does not make sense is that this is a one-app roll-your-own solution. Tabs need to be dealt with by the OS system wide - otherwise we will have many similar yet different solutions as we are seeing already.

What Apple has consistently done is to roll out GUI changes on a per app basis, leading to inconsistent copycat behaviour everywhere. That is bad.

Snow Leopard is the place to rectify this and get tabs reigned in as it's rightful position as just another way of grouping windows.

[Don Pickett]

Just found the new, Quicklook-like controls which pop up when you view a PDF. Awesome.

[Mac User #001]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Just found the new, Quicklook-like controls which pop up when you view a PDF. Awesome.

Must be a Leopard only thing, as Quicklook is...

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Just found the new, Quicklook-like controls which pop up when you view a PDF. Awesome.

That is in Safari 3.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Jasoco 

They will work with Exposé in that when you activate Exposé, the tabbed window will "explode" into individual parts exposing each tab independently.

Never. The reason I use tabs is because I group certain activities. I don't want Exposé clouding my view with ten newspaper websites so that I can't distinguish between two different editor windows with different code from different projects I'm actually working on.

If Exposé shows me a browser window and I can't remember that the same browser window also holds tabs to other browser windows it's my problem. Not one engineers should develop around. If I group by browser windows and browser tabs Exposé should respect that. Overriding my choice is Windows behavior. I know best how I want stuff, not the OS. So the OS should respect that.

[Simon]

Regarding click-through behavior.

Is there a single good argument that can be made to have click-through behavior some of the time? Shouldn't the global system default be no click-through at all. In turn a global modifier (alt-click for example) could then be used to invoke click-through.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Of course they have loads of problems that need to be ironed out, especially the click through issue (this is detailed in the article), but hierarchically tabs on top is the only thing that makes sense.

Then put the tabs actually on top of the window, not smooshed into a preexisting control. IMO, they should go below the titlebar, but if you really like, you can stick them on top of the titlebar. Where they should not be is in the middle of the titlebar, scrollbar, back button or any other control.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Ugly is not a usability issue, it's a personal aesthetics preference.

Gosh, I guess that might be why I said "besides." Except I think it's ugly both on a personal level and a more objective level of good design principles.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

And in this case it is obviously a case of "OMG, I'm not used to it and I hate change" issue.

No, it really isn't. The leftmost tab is awkwardly fused with the stoplights, the tabs have a really poorly done pseudo-shaded appearance that utterly fails to make them look round like they're supposed to, and the perspective on the stacking is totally ****ed up. It's true, I'm not used to design this poor from Apple, but I don't think that's why I dislike it.

If you want to see a better implementation, look at Chrome. Its tabs are less ugly and avoid the usability problems of Safari 4's tabs.

[Brien]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Of course they have loads of problems that need to be ironed out, especially the click through issue (this is detailed in the article), but hierarchically tabs on top is the only thing that makes sense.

Ugly is not a usability issue, it's a personal aesthetics preference. And in this case it is obviously a case of "OMG, I'm not used to it and I hate change" issue. The tabs look fine.

What does not make sense is that this is a one-app roll-your-own solution. Tabs need to be dealt with by the OS system wide - otherwise we will have many similar yet different solutions as we are seeing already.

What Apple has consistently done is to roll out GUI changes on a per app basis, leading to inconsistent copycat behaviour everywhere. That is bad.

Snow Leopard is the place to rectify this and get tabs reigned in as it's rightful position as just another way of grouping windows.

Many people, including me, are hoping for OS-level tab support. I'd love a tabbed finder.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Then put the tabs actually on top of the window, not smooshed into a preexisting control.

Tabs = Windows. The tab IS the titlebar.

We agree that they could be implemented better, but conceptually this is the only implementation of tabs that actually make sense.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Tabs = Windows. The tab IS the titlebar.

If that were actually the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all, because we've had windows for several decades now. Tabs are not windows. Tabs might be an organizational structure with a similar purpose, but the fact is that they exist within a window. Even in Safari 4 this is the case.

You might say that one tab — the one being displayed right now — is the window and all the others are potential windows. But even that doesn't really fit with how tabs seem to work. If I resize the window while I'm on this "Reply to Topic" tab and then switch to my Battlestar Galactica tab, I find Galactica has failed to keep the size it was when I last visited it. Because it's the window's size, and the tab is not the window.

Based on this, I think it's most accurate to say the tab is an organizational structure just below the window.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You might say that one tab — the one being displayed right now — is the window and all the others are potential windows. But even that doesn't really fit with how tabs seem to work. If I resize the window while I'm on this "Reply to Topic" tab and then switch to my Battlestar Galactica tab, I find Galactica has failed to keep the size it was when I last visited it. Because it's the window's size, and the tab is not the window.

Based on this, I think it's most accurate to say the tab is an organizational structure just below the window.

Tabs are a way to organise windows into a group. When you resize a tab, you resize a group of windows. There is no need to arbitrate tabs from windows based on such a vague criteria as individual resizing.

Your way of thinking stems from the horrible inconsistent implementation of tabs we have seen so far.