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

Safari is the new IE

nolanlawson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 368 posts

Re: Safari is the new IE

#291

Post by wang_li »

thanatropism wrote: post #154
mhomde wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but before that IE fixed the web! :) Remember CSS on Netscape? IE4 was actually a beacon back in its day. Everything is cyclical: Lean - Average - Bloated - Lean - Average - Bloated

Then, Safari has an amazing energy footprint. I will readily agree that the evolutionary path of OSX seems to have gone off the rails. But hey, why do I use Safari instead of Chrome?

Apple's model has been apps instead of websites for a while now. It seems unlikely that Safari will ever be cutting edge.

Re: Safari is the new IE

#292

Post by yuhong »

a_c_s wrote: post #246
collyw wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Another difference is that MS never blocked you from installing a better browser, but Apple does that on iOS. That policy is becoming increasingly ridiculous..." Why has that not resulted in anti competitive behavior lawsuits? MS got in to a fair bit of trouble for similar things. They didn't stop you installing an alternative.

Netscape used to be a paid product* before Microsoft made IE free. What Microsoft did was make a free competitor and install it on every machine running their OS. So what Microsoft did that was illegal was use their monopoly power to destroy an existing player. That's how they were "anti-competitive". While Apple not allowing any competing rendering engines to be written for iOS is anti-competitive in the dictionary…

And while Netscape screwed up on their own too, it also affected Opera (remember the ads?)

Re: Safari is the new IE

#293

Post by TheAnimus »

wmil wrote: post #284
anonymousguy wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the biggest thing is that IE6 had a broken CSS box model.

IE5.5 had the broken box model. IE6 used the standard box model if the site had a recognized !DOCTYPE and the 5.5 model if it didn't. Web dev was "fun" in the early 2000s. Also console.log and javascript debuggers didn't exist. Working with complex JS got really interesting really quickly.

Fairly sure I remember using VisualStudio to debug some JavaScript back in the early 00s.

Re: Safari is the new IE

#294

Post by mbell »

h43k3r wrote: post #280
mbell wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Chrom…

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.

Re: Safari is the new IE

#295

Post by orbitur »

mbell wrote: post #255
ben010783 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Chrom…

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?

Re: Safari is the new IE

#296

Post by zamalek »

ninkendo wrote: post #212
zamalek wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Saying "I didn't use any browser-specific hacks" with HTML4 is a strange statement I was working on top of a huge CSS framework - the majority of styling work I did was tiny tweaks to styles where the appropriate hacks had already been solved. Also I didn't mention layout. The specific pain point was contenteditable in combination with JS - by the time I got to the code everything surrounding my little problem-spac…

> I was working on top of a huge CSS framework Well, that's the whole thing then, isn't it? The huge CSS framework probably had tons of hacks (as you say) to make things work in IE8... it's a bit disingenuous to say you wrote everything to be clean and without browser hacks, if the hacks all exist but are buried under a "huge CSS framework". Your whole experience could probably be restated as "I was working with a CS…

> the fault of the CSS

Did you miss the whole of my second paragraph?

> Also I didn't mention layout

Re: Safari is the new IE

#297

Post by scelerat »

Incredibly hyperbolic, considering the not-uncommon x2.5 cost for developing for both IE and Netscape, pre-IE7 or so.

Not even in the same ballpark.

But I get it, Safari is lagging on a lot of things, and it's frustrating.

Re: Safari is the new IE

#298

Post by Tloewald »

jessaustin wrote: post #270
Tloewald wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? Let's suppose Safari has some horrible bug in it that exposes users to malware or whatever. (And it has had from time to time and Apple has been rightly pilloried for some of these cases.) Tell me how saying that Apple would rather improve user experience than add developer-friendly features justifies this.

Different people will draw the line at different places. To you , the hypothetical malware vuln should be fixed before e.g. improving battery life by 5%. To some other user who is on a long plane journey without a power adapter and doesn't e.g. click on .flv links on specialty forums, maybe it shouldn't. But to a greedy fruit executive who wants the web to be insecure? There's no question! b^) This thread explores th…

Let's ignore the fact you didn't address my argument.

There are diminishing returns.

It's not like Apple has provided a web browser that basically doesn't work but has great battery life. Most people consider Safari to be the best mobile browsing experience there is. (I just googled to make sure I wasn't quoting outdated opinions and it's still true.)

Safari in 10.11 has added a feature which tells you which browser tab is making noise so you can close it. Just now I was so wishing for it (in Chrome -- which is my primary browser, since I'm a web developer). Shame on Apple for doing that and not fixing bugs in their IndexedDB implementation! (BTW those bugs are horrible -- how on earth could they pass the simplest unit tests? -- and really should be fixed.)

> To you, the hypothetical malware vuln should be fixed before e.g. improving battery life by 5%.

Apple doesn't let users decide what's best for them... that's one of the things that's different about the company. Want to customize your UI? Nope, that's silly, you can't have it. Apple would decide what's good for the user and it would probably consider browser vulnerabilities more important than some obscure new feature.

> But to a greedy fruit executive who wants the web to be insecure? There's no question!

Good grief.

Re: Safari is the new IE

#299

Post by astrodust »

bzbarsky wrote: post #269
a_c_s wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netscape used to be a paid product* before Microsoft made IE free. What Microsoft did was make a free competitor and install it on every machine running their OS. So what Microsoft did that was illegal was use their monopoly power to destroy an existing player. That's how they were "anti-competitive". While Apple not allowing any competing rendering engines to be written for iOS is anti-competitive in the dictionary…

The real issue is just whether Apple has a monopoly or not. IANAL, but as I understand it what's illegal is using a monopoly in one market to muscle into another market via bundling deals. Just doing bundling deals if you're not a monopoly is perfectly OK.

If Apple sold the operating system used on the vast majority of computers you could have a case, as did the government when 95% of PCs were shipped with Windows.

Even by the most generous definition of "computer", Apple holds 20% market share at most.

Samsung won't get sued for anti-competitive practices because you can't switch the browser on their so-called smart TV for the same reason.

Post reply on HN