71–80 of 126 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but by the very nature of the linked resource, at some point it won't tell you whether or not the claim is valid. What are you talking about? The linked resource is a JS feature matrix that shows how each browser does against those 2015/16/17 features, and it shows exactly what Safari tip passes.
When other browsers/engines reach compliance, it will be impossible to tell that Safari was "first".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of my friend who is travelling moved from Chrome to Opera (!) for the battery life reason.
Opera uses Blink now, so I wouldn't expect it to be much better than Chrome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh, I didn't realize that. Of course, I rarely use Chrome (usually only when I need Flash, which is thankfully almost never). I assume when going iOS -> macOS it hands the URL to your default web browser?
No, it only works between Chrome on Desktop and Chrome on iOS, and in my experience it's nowhere near as seamless as the one baked into Safari.
At the same time, right now it's relly backwards[1]. Luckily the shelf-life of Safari is much shorter than others, so we'll be able to use fetch() natively without polyfills soon-ish if you target modern browsers. [1] http://caniuse.com/#feat=fetch
This is the important list. I don't care about ES2015 or more—we'll always use Babel. I care about Service Workers and WebRTC more.
Honnest question for Safari users: why Safari? I don't really know Safari. I used Chrome on Windows and iOS, and when I moved to OSX I naturally continued with Chrome. And the dev tools are really great.
Safari on macOS is the only browser on this planet that implements color management correctly. Safari gives me at least three hours of autonomy on my laptop. Chrome burns CPU like crazy. Not to mention that on Youtube (a Google site) 1080p video uses 1% CPU in Safari while 720p video in Chrome (a Google browser) manages to use 80% CPU. Safari is the only browser that can do ad blocking without javascript extensions.…
This is because Google/YouTube is pushing VP9 streams when they detect that you're using Chrome. It saves them few megs on bandwidth (over H.264) but you suffer for it because VP9 is not hardware accelerated so it chews through your CPU and makes your system less responsive. YouTube/Google also doesn't allow you to set your preference for H.264.
It's irresponsible for Google to waste so much electricity for everyone who uses Chrome.
Honnest question for Safari users: why Safari? I don't really know Safari. I used Chrome on Windows and iOS, and when I moved to OSX I naturally continued with Chrome. And the dev tools are really great.
I find it faster and more power efficient. It also fits with the rest of macOS much better than Chrome. Many long time Mac users are fussy about app consistency. For example, initially Chrome and Firefox didn't even support text services in their rendering areas — stuff like the system-wide dictionary lookup. That the developers of these browsers ignored what made macOS unique really put me off. (As did hitting the d…
This is one of the primary reasons why I used Safari when on Mac. Reader view is instantaneous and works really well on almost every site. You can also customize fonts/colors etc which means you can always read article in distraction-free mode and read them that best suits your eyes.
I am now using Linux most of the time (MBP got stolen, didn't buy a new one yet) and I miss Reader view the most. It's a HUGE timesaver.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the important list. I don't care about ES2015 or more—we'll always use Babel. I care about Service Workers and WebRTC more.
I wish someone would come up with something better than webrtc. It's such a mess, and appears to be impossible to standardise.
WebRTC 1.0: Real-time Communication Between Browsers https://w3c.github.io/webrtc-pc/
Identifiers for WebRTC's Statistics API (Draft) https://w3c.github.io/webrtc-stats/
Media Capture and Streams (Draft) https://w3c.github.io/mediacapture-main/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Safari on macOS is the only browser on this planet that implements color management correctly. Safari gives me at least three hours of autonomy on my laptop. Chrome burns CPU like crazy. Not to mention that on Youtube (a Google site) 1080p video uses 1% CPU in Safari while 720p video in Chrome (a Google browser) manages to use 80% CPU. Safari is the only browser that can do ad blocking without javascript extensions.…
> Not to mention that on Youtube (a Google site) 1080p video uses 1% CPU in Safari while 720p video in Chrome (a Google browser) manages to use 80% CPU. This is because Google/YouTube is pushing VP9 streams when they detect that you're using Chrome. It saves them few megs on bandwidth (over H.264) but you suffer for it because VP9 is not hardware accelerated so it chews through your CPU and makes your system less res…
VP9 can be hardware accelerated, and AFAIK current Chrome supports hardware acceleration for VP9 with hardware that supports it.
Honnest question for Safari users: why Safari? I don't really know Safari. I used Chrome on Windows and iOS, and when I moved to OSX I naturally continued with Chrome. And the dev tools are really great.
I don't like the chrome of Chrome. Safari looks like it belongs here. Chrome does not. Also: • The resources thing. I often use Safari windows with 100+ open tabs. • I like Safari's tabs implementation better: new tabs go to the far right. In the past all browsers with tabs did that, now Safari seems to be the last holdout while the others seem to put new tabs to the right of the opening tab. I can understand the log…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More power efficient which is key because I use a laptop all the time, and often on battery power. It fits better with macOS conventions compared to Chrome and Firefox. It's faster. Safari content blockers (I use 1Blocker) seems to not slow down page loading at all compared to conventional ad-blockers on both Safari and Chrome, which does. I used Chrome on Mac for years. Then Safari became better, and then it kept ge…
The power efficiency isn't even close. The 2016 MBP battery lasts about 10 hours running Safari versus 3 hours running Chrome. I've never particularly liked Safari, but I'm close to switching myself because Chrome is such a disaster. From the energy impact tab on the Activity Monitor: Chrome: 43 Safari: 0.3