will help download malware faster to OS X?
How is that a good thing?
Safari dominates browser benchmarks
Summary
Proving itself a staggering 42 times faster at rendering JavaScript than IE 7, benchmarks confirm Apple's Safari 4 is the fastest browser on the planet.
Topics
Proving itself a staggering 42 times faster at rendering JavaScript than IE 7, our benchmarks confirm Apple's Safari 4 browser, released in beta Tuesday, is the fastest browser on the planet. In fact, it beat Google's Chrome, Firefox 3, Opera 9.6 and even Mozilla's developmental Minefield browser.
We used the SunSpider suite of JavaScript tests to determine which browser was the quickest, and the Safari 4 beat every browser in terms of speed, on both a PC running Windows XP SP2, and a Mac running OS X 10.6 with all updates applied.
Below are the actual figures if you want to see how all seven browsers scored against each other, but for quick reference we determined on a PC that Safari was a whopping 42 times faster than Internet Explorer 7, just over six times faster than Internet Explorer 8, 3.5 times faster than Firefox 3, and 1.2 times faster than Google Chrome. Here's Safari versus the rest, excluding IE 7:
Add IE 7's results to the PC graph and witness the shocking truth. These are results from a PC with a 2.1GHz Intel Core 2 Duo:
1) Safari 4 (Total time: 910ms)
2) Mozilla Minefield 3.2a1 (1,136ms)
3) Google Chrome (1,177ms)
4) Firefox 3 (3,250ms)
5) Opera 9.6 (4,076ms)
6) Internet Explorer 8 (5,839ms)
7) Internet Explorer 7 (39,026ms)
On Mac OS X, Safari was four times faster than Firefox 3 and a depressing (for Opera) 7.5 times faster than Opera 9.6.
Results (fastest at the top) on Mac OS X (2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo):
1) Safari 4 (Total time 967ms)
2) Minefield 3.2a1 (969ms)
3) Firefox 3 (3803ms)
4) Opera 9.6 (7322ms)
You can download Safari yourself here.
This article was originally published on CNET UK Crave.
Just In
How is that [faster] a good thing . . .?
Well, I'm getting impatient. After all, it's been years I've been waiting . . .
Oh, that's right. It's OS X. Guess I'll keep on waiting.
Oh, that's right. It's OS X. Guess I'll keep on waiting.
malware is PC/Windows only it will not effect Mac's at least. On the PC
side you should have a wealth of experience and Anti Malware
applications to help with the increased speed of delivery of said that
Safari might afford you...:P
Now what Malware there is for OSX does not require speed for there is so
very little of it and what I've read about it the OSX malware I can not for
the life of me determine what actual harm it does.
Pagan jim
side you should have a wealth of experience and Anti Malware
applications to help with the increased speed of delivery of said that
Safari might afford you...:P
Now what Malware there is for OSX does not require speed for there is so
very little of it and what I've read about it the OSX malware I can not for
the life of me determine what actual harm it does.
Pagan jim
I just discovered the Safari toolbar can be customized. Under Mac OS X,
while Safari is running , go to the top menu & click on View, then look for
Customize Toolbar ...
"In a world without walls & fences, who needs windows & gates?"
while Safari is running , go to the top menu & click on View, then look for
Customize Toolbar ...
"In a world without walls & fences, who needs windows & gates?"
Probably when hell freezes over...
The article is all about browser rendering speed, not download speed,
which is dependent on your ISP pan.
Fanboys are as tiresome as religious fundamentalists, and often
indistinguishable.
which is dependent on your ISP pan.
Fanboys are as tiresome as religious fundamentalists, and often
indistinguishable.
Well, I'm getting impatient. After all, it's been years I've been waiting . . .
Oh, that's right. It's OS X. Guess I'll keep on waiting.
Oh, that's right. It's OS X. Guess I'll keep on waiting.
I confess I honestly don't know if Javascript render speed is an important issue these days. I'm still stuck back here with Firefox 2, and aside from the slight delay upon first opening, I've never once watched a web page opening and muttered under my breath, "Damn--I wish this page loaded faster."
It's like going to an auto showroom and the dealer saying, "On this new Belchfire 3000 the engine will start in 0.3 seconds when you turn the key, not the 2 seconds your old car needs." Big whoop.
But maybe it's a factor.
It's like going to an auto showroom and the dealer saying, "On this new Belchfire 3000 the engine will start in 0.3 seconds when you turn the key, not the 2 seconds your old car needs." Big whoop.
But maybe it's a factor.
...if not then, no, it won't help. But a lot (sorry no proof to back this up) of web sites these days use JavaScript.
I personally use FF3 w/ NoScript which stops JavaScript from running by default. More or less any page I visit has NoScript blocking something which tells me there is a lot about (most are Google Analytics scripts) on a page.
So I would say using a browser that can render it faster (if you don't use NoScript) will speed up your web experience...
-- EDIT --
Takalok just kind of made my point a lot more compact!
I personally use FF3 w/ NoScript which stops JavaScript from running by default. More or less any page I visit has NoScript blocking something which tells me there is a lot about (most are Google Analytics scripts) on a page.
So I would say using a browser that can render it faster (if you don't use NoScript) will speed up your web experience...
-- EDIT --
Takalok just kind of made my point a lot more compact!
Go to preferences in Safari, go to security next, and you will see, not only
can you disable javascript, but also java, plugins, etc,,,
"In a world without walls & fences, who needs windows & gates?"
can you disable javascript, but also java, plugins, etc,,,
"In a world without walls & fences, who needs windows & gates?"
But NoScript lets you turn JavaScript on and off without leaving the page and going into options, and can be set on a site by site basis and on an individual page basis if you want. It's fantastic for killng off those annoying and often unwanted adverts etc that tend to pop up all over the page on some sites, and NoScript greatly increases the chances of you not downloading any potentially harmful script.
That's nothing special. That's supposed to be a mandatory feature of any browser. But when you do use that method, javascript is universally unavailable for all sites until you re-enable it.
What NoScript does is allow the user to turn off javascript elements on a site by site basis. Javascript can be on for YouTube.com while being off for ZDNet.com. That's a whole different level of javascript control.
What NoScript does is allow the user to turn off javascript elements on a site by site basis. Javascript can be on for YouTube.com while being off for ZDNet.com. That's a whole different level of javascript control.
update your damn browser! people like you are a
virus writer's wet dream.
virus writer's wet dream.
...that I'm someone's wet dream, I guess. Wrong gender, though.
For those of us trying to avoid java applets, Flash, and Silverlight, this is extremely important.
What you may not understand is that there are many new Javascript
libraries coming on line. JQuery, MootTools and a host of other new
interactive libraries offer us designers many new ways to develop
advanced web pages. With these abilities, the complexities in code can
start to choke older web browsers from rendering. What speeds you
think you are happy with now will start to bother you in the years to
come as the web jumps to 3.0.
As an example, go run your Vista program on a 3-4 year old computer
and feel the effects of why faster computers are needed to make you
happy.
libraries coming on line. JQuery, MootTools and a host of other new
interactive libraries offer us designers many new ways to develop
advanced web pages. With these abilities, the complexities in code can
start to choke older web browsers from rendering. What speeds you
think you are happy with now will start to bother you in the years to
come as the web jumps to 3.0.
As an example, go run your Vista program on a 3-4 year old computer
and feel the effects of why faster computers are needed to make you
happy.
Javascript is everywhere, and if you're talking about having a page load in approximately 1 second with Safari, versus 4 or 5 seconds on other browsers or even 39 seconds with IE7, yeah, that's HUGE.
Don't talk rubbuish. This story is about how fast these browsers render JavaScript not how long they take to download. In other words it's about how good the JavaScript engine is. There's probably little or no difference in the download times between any of these browsers. But they're not going to tell you that because that would tend to put a huge damp squid on the whole thing.
to render so what's the difference..
instantaneous in Safari = 20-30 second in IE...
you're still waiting, fast download or not..
speaking of rubbish.. :P
instantaneous in Safari = 20-30 second in IE...
you're still waiting, fast download or not..
speaking of rubbish.. :P
(a) IE7 doesn't perform nearly as badly as they suggest or IE would have been dumped by the lorry load by now. And it hasn't. It's still the market leader.
(b) Only one of the SunSpider JavaScript benchmark tests returns an abnormally high result in IE7, and I doubt you'll come up against that very often in the real world or (a) would equally apply.
(c) The times shown in the graphs are the total result in milliseconds for all the tests. You're not likely to come across all the events tested in one piece of JavaScript on any one site.
(d) The important factor is always the user experience, not how long something takes to render in some measurable test. I doubt anyone would really notice the difference between a piece of JavaScript that rendered in 50ms and a piece that rendered in 500ms. Especially given that the download time is part of the perception, and this can vary considerably just from page to page.
I'm not an advocate of IE. I hate it. My preference is still for Firefox. I just think this whole test is not only biased but highly flawed.
(b) Only one of the SunSpider JavaScript benchmark tests returns an abnormally high result in IE7, and I doubt you'll come up against that very often in the real world or (a) would equally apply.
(c) The times shown in the graphs are the total result in milliseconds for all the tests. You're not likely to come across all the events tested in one piece of JavaScript on any one site.
(d) The important factor is always the user experience, not how long something takes to render in some measurable test. I doubt anyone would really notice the difference between a piece of JavaScript that rendered in 50ms and a piece that rendered in 500ms. Especially given that the download time is part of the perception, and this can vary considerably just from page to page.
I'm not an advocate of IE. I hate it. My preference is still for Firefox. I just think this whole test is not only biased but highly flawed.
and don't know any better. That explains most of MS's dominance and
easily answers your a) point.
as for d) "I doubt anyone would really notice the difference between a
piece of JavaScript that rendered in 50ms and a piece that rendered in
500ms."
So you think that there is little difference visually of something updating
at 20 fps VS 2 fps. Interesting.
easily answers your a) point.
as for d) "I doubt anyone would really notice the difference between a
piece of JavaScript that rendered in 50ms and a piece that rendered in
500ms."
So you think that there is little difference visually of something updating
at 20 fps VS 2 fps. Interesting.
the difference between 1/20 of a second and 1/2 a second is nothing when looking at a one time load. fps is continuos over many seconds. therefore your arguement is rejected as being completely lame, like you...
Correction needed:
I believe the author meant to write OS X 10.5.6 instead of
"OS X 10.6" as this would suggest the author had tested the
new Safari 4 on Snow Leopard and not on Leopard.
I believe the author meant to write OS X 10.5.6 instead of
"OS X 10.6" as this would suggest the author had tested the
new Safari 4 on Snow Leopard and not on Leopard.
I'm sure glad Apple used a bit of code off of Konquerer. Man that sure is
one sweet browser on Linux.
"In a world without walls & fences, who needs windows & gates?"
one sweet browser on Linux.
"In a world without walls & fences, who needs windows & gates?"
Safari is also the most insecure browser in the world and if it's based on Konquerer than that makes Konquerer terrible? I'm sorry, security is greater than speed to anyone who is serious about using their computer and making money doing it. FF3 w/ NoScript is the best, IE8 is second, FF3 w/out NoScript is 3rd.
Safari is crap.
Safari is crap.
Go do some Googling & see which browser has had the most exploits
over the course of time that Safari was invented.
I found this so far.
"637 Million Insecure Web Surfers - Microsoft Forced to Launch
SmartScreen Filter"
Guess what buddy this article claims that Internet Explorer is leading
the pack in exploits, vulnerabilities, and all kinds of nasty stuff.
Follow this URL:
http://www.watblog.com/2008/07/03/637-million-insecure-web-
surfers-at-risk/
"Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have
their shoes."
over the course of time that Safari was invented.
I found this so far.
"637 Million Insecure Web Surfers - Microsoft Forced to Launch
SmartScreen Filter"
Guess what buddy this article claims that Internet Explorer is leading
the pack in exploits, vulnerabilities, and all kinds of nasty stuff.
Follow this URL:
http://www.watblog.com/2008/07/03/637-million-insecure-web-
surfers-at-risk/
"Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have
their shoes."
"Safari is the the most insecure browser..." "Safari is crap."
Having baseless and biased opinions presented as facts is always a
tremendous help in forwarding any reasonable discussion.
Having baseless and biased opinions presented as facts is always a
tremendous help in forwarding any reasonable discussion.
... there's nothing like baseless opinions.
I think the terminology used in the story is creating deliberate confusion here. I don't think this article has anything to do with download speeds at all, but how fast the JavaScript engine actually renders the code after it's been downloaded!
Not caching and NOT 0 milliseconds. Take a look at all the graphs. It's called lousy graphing. A simple 2D graph would have done a better job of showing the results than a wannabe 3D graph.
Yeah, it's hard enough for me to tell...
ZDNet loves 3D graphs...
ZDNet loves 3D graphs...
MacOS X.6 (Snow Leopard) isn't out yet - did you mean X.5.6 with all the patches?
According to Apple's propaganda dept (er, marketing)
"Because Snow Leopard delivers the fastest implementation of JavaScript to date, web applications are more responsive. Safari runs JavaScript up to 53 percent faster with Snow Leopard.*"
According to Apple's propaganda dept (er, marketing)
"Because Snow Leopard delivers the fastest implementation of JavaScript to date, web applications are more responsive. Safari runs JavaScript up to 53 percent faster with Snow Leopard.*"
Extremely fast, great features, developer tools are great!
I was glad to finally make the switch from firefox.
Forget the benchmarks, in the real world this browser is lightning-fast,
no other browser is close.
(Sorry PC fanbois, I bet Safari is not quite as good running on Windows.)
I was glad to finally make the switch from firefox.
Forget the benchmarks, in the real world this browser is lightning-fast,
no other browser is close.
(Sorry PC fanbois, I bet Safari is not quite as good running on Windows.)
I care less about speed and more about security. Safari is a huge failure in this department, on both PC and Mac. Granted, at this point, it's a bigger issue on PC but as long as Apple continues to foster this moronic community of "I'm a Mac user, I'm invincible" it's going to hurt extremely bad when someone decides to target Macs.
Of course since most don't have AV you could be infected with bot software and never even know.
Of course since most don't have AV you could be infected with bot software and never even know.
For years all I ever heard that the Mac will be attacked. Dag nabbit I've
been waiting for over 15 years and nothing yet. There must be
something that has to be said about all this F.U.D. Well yours anyway.
Like when Steve Ballmer said that Linux is violating about 230 something
of Microsoft patents. Ballmer and his moronic Saber Rattling. If you are
going to make a threat Mister Ballmer, please proceed forward and show
us the code. I mean like it's no top secret then if many are violating your
patents. Right!
"In a world without walls & fences, who needs windows & gates?"
been waiting for over 15 years and nothing yet. There must be
something that has to be said about all this F.U.D. Well yours anyway.
Like when Steve Ballmer said that Linux is violating about 230 something
of Microsoft patents. Ballmer and his moronic Saber Rattling. If you are
going to make a threat Mister Ballmer, please proceed forward and show
us the code. I mean like it's no top secret then if many are violating your
patents. Right!
"In a world without walls & fences, who needs windows & gates?"
Can't agree more with you! 
"I care less about speed and more about security." And get neither?
While MS has improved in both areas, the number of attacks (successful
at that) against Windows far outweigh what their market share would
indicate.
While MS has improved in both areas, the number of attacks (successful
at that) against Windows far outweigh what their market share would
indicate.
I use Firefox because you can customize with Addons. That's why safari just sits in my applications folder.
True FF with addons can get buggy at times. And it will crash (not often) more than Safari (never seen it crash to date), but it's the trade-off.
True FF with addons can get buggy at times. And it will crash (not often) more than Safari (never seen it crash to date), but it's the trade-off.
You see, there is no point in talking to the tech community
about anything Apple does better than anyone else
because better is no longer what the tech community is
about.
Safari 4 is different enough from other browsers for both a
wow factor, for speed and for, what I considered, smarter
browsing. And it renders faster than anyone.
Do you think giving the lemmings better water will lead
them to the trough?
No. Just look at the answers in this post. More excuse-
making here than a pregnant Mother Superior in a delivery
room.
about anything Apple does better than anyone else
because better is no longer what the tech community is
about.
Safari 4 is different enough from other browsers for both a
wow factor, for speed and for, what I considered, smarter
browsing. And it renders faster than anyone.
Do you think giving the lemmings better water will lead
them to the trough?
No. Just look at the answers in this post. More excuse-
making here than a pregnant Mother Superior in a delivery
room.
I mean can you blame the MS fanboys, their Microsoft Empire is
crumbling. They are in denial. That's right kiddos, Apple did what
Microsoft couldn't do. Acing the Acid 3 test, properly rendering CSS 3,
and so on.
"In a world wihout walls & fences, who needs windows & gates?"
crumbling. They are in denial. That's right kiddos, Apple did what
Microsoft couldn't do. Acing the Acid 3 test, properly rendering CSS 3,
and so on.
"In a world wihout walls & fences, who needs windows & gates?"
At last, a genuinely funny response which made me laugh!
Yes - don't bother showing how Linux, OS X and others can do better;
even if they were 10 times faster or 10 times more secure (oh, wait,
they are!) or came for free (oh, wait, Linux does!) then most of the
unwashed masses would still buy Windows because they don't know
any better.
As for the IT community, posts like "Safari is crap" and "Safari is
insecure", where opinion overrules any facts, are just sad & scary.
At least Firefox, Chrome, Safari et al are improving the situation and
giving the rest of us a choice.
Yes - don't bother showing how Linux, OS X and others can do better;
even if they were 10 times faster or 10 times more secure (oh, wait,
they are!) or came for free (oh, wait, Linux does!) then most of the
unwashed masses would still buy Windows because they don't know
any better.
As for the IT community, posts like "Safari is crap" and "Safari is
insecure", where opinion overrules any facts, are just sad & scary.
At least Firefox, Chrome, Safari et al are improving the situation and
giving the rest of us a choice.
that you'll always have Windows fanboys, Linux fanboys, and Mac
fanboys. That's just life.
fanboys. That's just life.
Now if we could jyst trust Apple not to load all the other garbage it does when you install their software I would try it but tired of cleaning the computer after Apple's effort to send us stuff we don't want.
All Apple had to do was tweak what Google did and they had the fastest browser. The fact that the V8 benchmarks for Chrome and Safari 4 are so close just tells me that there's a lot more Chrome under the hood of Safari 4 than some would let on.
My prediction is that Google will just tweak Chrome's javascript engine and recapture the speed title in the near future. Eventually, either FF or Opera will blow past them both in the next year or so. Ultimately, javascript rendering comparisons will become largely irrelevant within the next two years - unless you're comparing speeds with IE, that is.
My prediction is that Google will just tweak Chrome's javascript engine and recapture the speed title in the near future. Eventually, either FF or Opera will blow past them both in the next year or so. Ultimately, javascript rendering comparisons will become largely irrelevant within the next two years - unless you're comparing speeds with IE, that is.
Wrong. Safari was released long before Chrome.
If anything its the other way round. All Google had to do was tweak what Apple did and they had a great browser.
Safari uses WebKit - WebKit was originally created by Apple based on Konqueror?s KHTML software library. WebKit is the best rendering engine on the market today. The recently released Chrome uses - Webkit. Apple technology.
If anything its the other way round. All Google had to do was tweak what Apple did and they had a great browser.
Safari uses WebKit - WebKit was originally created by Apple based on Konqueror?s KHTML software library. WebKit is the best rendering engine on the market today. The recently released Chrome uses - Webkit. Apple technology.
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
Facebook Activity
