Hacker News Reader

Comment by benjamindc | Hacker News Reader

Safari isn't "lagging behind other browsers", it's just implementing different things. In fact, Safari is still the best browser when it comes to everything UI-related (animations, visual effects, …). You might disagree with Apple's priorities, but it doesn't mean other browsers are "better" per se, they're just different.

Safari's release cycle, however, is stupid per se.

View on HN

In fact, Safari is still the best browser when it comes to everything UI-related (animations, visual effects, …).

I'm a Safari user who develops first and foremost in Safari, and I completely disagree with this. Chrome runs rings around Safari in UI animation performance, it's almost embarrassing.

I read this as a comment about the design decisions in the Safari UI, not how it performs.

So the stuff that I shouldn't spend time using in a browser? I don't really open up a browser hoping to spend time with it's UI.

First: I'm not the one who made the original comment, and therefore not the person you should be taking this up with. So why have you written this to me?

Second: If you are going to involve me in this, then I'll point out that of course people care about their browser UI, otherwise everyone would be using something like Conkeror, except with an even more ascetic UI philosophy.

> Safari isn't "lagging behind other browsers", it's just implementing different things.

Which is exactly what makes safari the new IE. Going it's own way and not even bothering to try to implement the new standards used in other browsers.

> Safari isn't "lagging behind other browsers", it's just implementing different things. In fact, Safari is still the best browser when it comes to everything UI-related (animations, visual effects, …).

So then let's name these things, specifically, if you really believe that. I'm not aware of any new specs related to animations in the last couple of years. Can you name them?

I'm not really well informed here, but I'd guess that he means how the animations, visual effects, Ui, etc. actually look and behave, rather than new specs.

One thing I've noticed several times is that in chrome, many CSS animations aren't animated across sub-pixel boundaries. I don't know necessarily that safari does this (again, I'm not well informed here -- for all I know this has been fixed in Chrome), but if they did, that would count in my book, despite not being a new spec.

(Honestly, my suspicion is that they aren't though, since a high dpi screen removes most of the need for sub-pixel accuracy).

Examples are Reader Mode and Power Saver, both features designed to reduce the impact of, let's say, non-central content. Ad-supported browsers are not exactly eager to implement these, naturally.

> In fact, Safari is still the best browser when it comes to everything UI-related (animations, visual effects, …).

I use Safari for all my general browsing for one reason: It uses 1/2 to 1/5 the power that chrome does.

I doubt it will ever be as good as Safari, but Google is working on this: http://www.macrumors.com/2015/06/12/chrome-os-x-performance-...

Unfortunately the biggest problem by far is video playback and for whatever reason they seem to refuse to fix the problem.

Here is a simple test I just ran:

Using https://github.com/erkserkserks/h264ify for blocking VP9

2015 rMBP 13", 3.1Ghz i7, 16GB (defaults to software rasterization in chrome)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK9Im1eP3DI (1080p60 video)

Power is CPU Package Total (core + GPU).

Chrome VP9: 26W

Chrome VP9 + Force GPU Acceleration: 28W

Chrome h264: 19W

Chrome h264 + Force GPU Acceleration: 13W

Safari: 4W

Additional comments:

This is all in window at the default 'theater mode' size of youtube. I can't full screen either of the VP9 options without completely maxing out the CPU, dropping frames and during my laptop into a frying pan. Its really hot even in window with chrome VP9 using ~175% CPU.

Any idea how does it achieve that?

There is no reason for h264 decode to take much power at all, it's all done in hardware now (or should be done in hardware).

In other words, Safari's power number isn't surprising but I don't know how chrome manages to use so much processing power. Even my cell phone can decode 1080p60 without catching fire but chrome manages to bring a $2200 laptop to it's knees doing it.

Glad to see some hard numbers on Chrome video performance compared to Safari. I like Chrome because I like the integration with Google services and separate user profiles so I have 2 sessions going at once, but I often have to take Hangout meetings in Safari because Safari doesn't turn my laptop into a hairdryer heating element.

I am curious, though, do the Chrome devs have access to the video APIs that the Safari people would?

Exactly.

Apple adds features based on what users seem to need, not what programmers want (Google) or programmers want to work on (Mozilla).

It should also be noted that Safari's accessibility support is head and shoulders above anything (including IE with dedicated third-party extensions -- our blind accessibility guy who has access to every accessible technology under the sun simply uses Apple devices at home).

Wake me up when IE is open source, Google gives flying f* about accessibility, and Firefox is better than a distant second.

As stated in the article, often Safari's implementation just sucks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com