Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Safari 9.1

developer.apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: Safari 9.1

#41

Post by ihuman »

possibleNoob wrote: post #37
Longhanks wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please no. I really love Safari for being just a really good browser. No 'sneaky OS' like Chrome (I don't need Chromes User management, thank you, and I'd much rather have my OS's context menus and font aliasing), and speedier, if you will, 'snappier' than Firefox, with its custom animations for every button and overall not very 'native' look and feel. No, I want a browser that does what a browser should do; let me e…

>No, I want a browser that does what a browser should do; let me easily and speedily browse the web. Safari is great at that. Except it isn't. Because it's non standard different way of handling things means it's a lot more work for Web developers to give the same experience they give in chrome to safari users. You get a dumbed down experience on safari as a result.

Are you saying that Longhanks isn't browsing the web "easily and speedily"? Even though it doesn't follow some standards, it appears to be fast for Longhanks anyway.

Re: Safari 9.1

#42

Post by chris_wot »

hamhamed wrote: post #30
mwpmaybe wrote: post #28

For anyone wondering why anybody uses Safari these days, the simple answer (for me, at least) is that it consumes much less CPU and energy on my MacBook Pro than Chrome and Firefox. It can mean an hour or more of battery life when unplugged, and greatly reduced testicle-cooking when plugged. I still use Chrome for development but Safari is my "daily driver" for email, surfing, reading, etc.

an even simpler answer would be because it is the default browser..

Not just the default browser - the only browser on iOS.

Which leads to frustrating issues like webpages you can't read because someone checked in a bit of cide that stuffs up viewport scaling in at webpage that has style="overflow:hidden" in the body tag.

In other words, don't try to browse source code in OpenGrok.

So you get critical issues that don't get fixed for 3-6 months.

https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=152803

Re: Safari 9.1

#43

Post by ihuman »

andybak wrote: post #18
scblock wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great. But as an end user I "utterly" hate the Chrome/Firefox model of endless updates.

You hate endless security updates? Endless compatibility updates? Endless feature improvements? I'm not sure what part of the dark ages you would like to return to. Are we talking pre-Chrome, pre-Firefox or the days when Netscape 4 roamed majestically across the Triassic plains?

Personally, I'd like to return to Firefox 3-era update naming schemes. Point releases for minor features and bug fixes. Main version number changes whenever the browser has a major change, that changes how people use it (Like Firefox 3 to 4). Nowadays, it seems like every update changes the main version number.

Re: Safari 9.1

#44

Post by ihuman »

constexpr wrote: post #23

> Displaying a JavaScript dialog—alert, confirm, or prompt—no longer activates the calling tab. This seems like a regression to me. If some page is bugging me then I'd like to know which one it is so I can close it.

It's probably so that people can close tabs that are spamming alerts.

Re: Safari 9.1

#45

Post by dvcrn »

mwpmaybe wrote: post #28

For anyone wondering why anybody uses Safari these days, the simple answer (for me, at least) is that it consumes much less CPU and energy on my MacBook Pro than Chrome and Firefox. It can mean an hour or more of battery life when unplugged, and greatly reduced testicle-cooking when plugged. I still use Chrome for development but Safari is my "daily driver" for email, surfing, reading, etc.

I am agreeing with this. The difference of using safari vs chrome can make the difference of a few hours more battery.

Here's an example: I just started chrome to read some articles here on HN and it already bypassed my email client in battery usage that was running for for a good bit longer.

Even worse is that a lot of apps nowadays decide to ship their own chromium in form of electron. Slack, Nylas, Atom - it's a battery disaster and makes these tools virtually unusable when I'm not plugged in.

Re: Safari 9.1

#46

Post by Nullabillity »

mwpmaybe wrote: post #28

For anyone wondering why anybody uses Safari these days, the simple answer (for me, at least) is that it consumes much less CPU and energy on my MacBook Pro than Chrome and Firefox. It can mean an hour or more of battery life when unplugged, and greatly reduced testicle-cooking when plugged. I still use Chrome for development but Safari is my "daily driver" for email, surfing, reading, etc.

Of course, if the laptop contained a proper fan then it wouldn't have been an issue in the first place.

Re: Safari 9.1

#47

Post by mchahn »

constexpr wrote: post #23

> Displaying a JavaScript dialog—alert, confirm, or prompt—no longer activates the calling tab. This seems like a regression to me. If some page is bugging me then I'd like to know which one it is so I can close it.

> no longer activates the calling tab

Not much of an alert, is it.

Re: Safari 9.1

#48

Post by chris_wot »

Longhanks wrote: post #19
grumblestumble wrote: post #5

A point release every n months is utterly useless for on-the-ground web developers. Safari needs to move to the Firefox/Chrome deployment model if it wants to remain at all relevant.

Please no. I really love Safari for being just a really good browser. No 'sneaky OS' like Chrome (I don't need Chromes User management, thank you, and I'd much rather have my OS's context menus and font aliasing), and speedier, if you will, 'snappier' than Firefox, with its custom animations for every button and overall not very 'native' look and feel. No, I want a browser that does what a browser should do; let me e…

Except when a large number of sites break due to someone committing unreviewed code that makes it into Safari releases:

https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=152803

Re: Safari 9.1

#49

Post by mchahn »

scblock wrote: post #12
grumblestumble wrote: post #5

A point release every n months is utterly useless for on-the-ground web developers. Safari needs to move to the Firefox/Chrome deployment model if it wants to remain at all relevant.

Great. But as an end user I "utterly" hate the Chrome/Firefox model of endless updates.

> the Chrome/Firefox model of endless updates.

When I first heard about Chrome's secret updates I freaked out. Now I have used the chrome stable channel for years and have yet to see anything serious magically appear. It is king of disconcerting though to see the UI change. For example the new gray bookmark folders are still confusing my eyes. They disappear into the background for me.

Re: Safari 9.1

#50

Post by mstade »

shogun21 wrote: post #21

Safari is the new Internet Explorer. That was my experience trying to grapple with its weird, non-standards-compliant implementation of HTML5 required fields.

I disagree – Chrome is the new IE. Why? It's simple: your analogy focuses on being non-standard, but actually misses the most important bit which is control of the market. Chrome is just as much non-standard as Safari, but you wouldn't know because it controls the market. Since ostensibly everyone uses Chrome, it gets to effectively dictate the standards while everyone else plays catch up – Chrome is the de facto standard to which others are held.

I'm not saying Chrome is a bad piece of software – it may or may not be but that's beside the point. What I'm saying is that when you and many others complain about browsers not being standards compliant, I'm willing to bet you mean de facto standards compliant – i.e. whatever Chrome dictates. Just like IE used to.

IE came up with all sorts of features that became de facto standards and in many cases these days an actual standard – @font-face anyone? Microsoft strong armed everyone else into submission until Google decided enough was enough. But it's not like Google did it out of the goodness of their hearts. They did it because their business depended on people having the ability to consume the web. They need the web to be great, because otherwise they couldn't have sold so many ads on: the web. So their products need features, and it just so happens that a lot of us got to benefit as well. Compatibility however, isn't really important. At least not while they control the market. What they say, goes. It'd be very difficult to create a site these days that won't work on Chrome, but it's not uncommon that you find disclaimers around the web say "optimized for Chrome" or worse: sites just not working at all on anything but Chrome.

Now they have done, and continue to do a lot to advance the state of the art. But so did IE back in the day. At least until the competition died out.

I for one am glad Safari is weird – I only wish there were more weirdos.

Post reply on HN