Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X • Hacker News Board

Re: Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X

#91

Post by pax » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 9:24 PM UTC

ljoshua wrote: post #73

x0054 wrote: post #71

For a long time I have been trying to switch to Safari, but the UI just does not work for my use case. I really need tabs with site icons, and an address bar that goes side to side and does not auto center text. Are there any good alternatives to Safari that also use WebKit? Something that would be more efficient, but with a more traditional interface. To each his own, of course, but it would kill apple to make some…

Same here. I could run just about everything I needed (notably, 1Password and µBlock) and be very happy with Safari if it weren't for the inexplicable lack of favicons on tabs. There are some SIMBL hacks and such, but I just want that simple feature built in.

What kills it for me is the `Command + number` shortcut - that triggers bookmarks instead of tabs (like in Chrome or FF), a setting that can't be overridden :/

Re: Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X

#92

Post by holman » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 9:31 PM UTC

pax wrote: post #91

ljoshua wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. I could run just about everything I needed (notably, 1Password and µBlock) and be very happy with Safari if it weren't for the inexplicable lack of favicons on tabs. There are some SIMBL hacks and such, but I just want that simple feature built in.

What kills it for me is the `Command + number` shortcut - that triggers bookmarks instead of tabs (like in Chrome or FF), a setting that can't be overridden :/

cmd+number works in El Capitan.

Re: Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X

#93

Post by makecheck » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 9:37 PM UTC

pax wrote: post #91

ljoshua wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. I could run just about everything I needed (notably, 1Password and µBlock) and be very happy with Safari if it weren't for the inexplicable lack of favicons on tabs. There are some SIMBL hacks and such, but I just want that simple feature built in.

What kills it for me is the `Command + number` shortcut - that triggers bookmarks instead of tabs (like in Chrome or FF), a setting that can't be overridden :/

Even if an app doesn't have an override for chosen key assignments, you should be able to override anything visible in a menu by using System Preferences (Keyboard category, Shortcuts tab, App Shortcuts item).

Re: Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X

#94

Post by Alphasite_ » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 9:38 PM UTC

holman wrote: post #92

pax wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kills it for me is the `Command + number` shortcut - that triggers bookmarks instead of tabs (like in Chrome or FF), a setting that can't be overridden :/

cmd+number works in El Capitan.

Either way someone looses out, bookmarks were so handy.

Re: Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X

#95

Post by donovanr » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 9:39 PM UTC

These results seem unconvincing without any error bars / confidence intervals, or even a mention of the number of replicates performed (though the downloadable data set seems to indicate that each test condition was performed only once?)

Re: Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X

#96

Post by xd1936 » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 9:40 PM UTC

mattangriffel wrote: post #83

kitsunesoba wrote: post #57

I think it's important to highlight that these benefits aren't exclusive to Safari; they encompass all of WebKit on OS X. Unlike Google who has inexorably tied Blink to Chrome, Apple pours most of its efforts into WebKit itself. As such, any developer using WebKit, especially on OS X, gets these benefits. A great example is how each browser handles per-tab processes: with Chrome, this architecture is part of Chrome i…

Does that mean these findings should hold true for iOS as well?

Not particularly. iOS browsers all use WebKit, regardless of which app it is. iOS doesn't allow third-party rendering engines, so every browser gets these supposed WebKit battery benefits.

Re: Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X

#97

Post by icefox » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 9:41 PM UTC

kitsunesoba wrote: post #57

I think it's important to highlight that these benefits aren't exclusive to Safari; they encompass all of WebKit on OS X. Unlike Google who has inexorably tied Blink to Chrome, Apple pours most of its efforts into WebKit itself. As such, any developer using WebKit, especially on OS X, gets these benefits. A great example is how each browser handles per-tab processes: with Chrome, this architecture is part of Chrome i…

Once you learn that Safari gives you a longer battery life and you are using a tablet or laptop for every day browsing activity it makes it hard to choose anything other than Safari for this reason alone. Choosing Safari means I can waste more time reading hacker news. Who doesn't want that?

Re: Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X

#98

Post by x0054 » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 10:16 PM UTC

Alphasite_ wrote: post #94

holman wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

cmd+number works in El Capitan.

Either way someone looses out, bookmarks were so handy.

Like you say, in the end, the point is, Safari would be a much better browser if it's UI was much more customizable. Of course, that's completely against Apple's idea that they know how it should look, and if your opinion is different, it's simply because you are an idiot. I really wish they would back away from that attitude, and allow more customization.

Re: Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X

#99

Post by x0054 » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 10:19 PM UTC

DavideNL wrote: post #75

x0054 wrote: post #71

For a long time I have been trying to switch to Safari, but the UI just does not work for my use case. I really need tabs with site icons, and an address bar that goes side to side and does not auto center text. Are there any good alternatives to Safari that also use WebKit? Something that would be more efficient, but with a more traditional interface. To each his own, of course, but it would kill apple to make some…

For me it's the other way round, i've been trying to use Firefox but the "pinch to zoom" feature in Safari is so smooth, and so crappy in Firefox, that i always keep coming back to Safari... If you read a lot of text on a Macbook, being able to zoom quickly and efficiently becomes a high priority. Things like this are much more important for me than energy-efficiency.

I use the text reader built into the OS, due to my Dyslexia, so I guess I never noticed :) For me it's just highlight and press the key to have the test read to me, I have "Samantha" cranked all the way to the top speed. That said, Chrome also has very nice pinch to zoom nowadays.

Re: Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X

#100

Post by anonyfox » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 10:27 PM UTC

I use chrome as a on-demand flash player when needed, and hands down, the DevTools are excellent.

But other than that... I switched to safari a few months ago and after a little "learning curve" I love it. Scrolling is butter smooth, performance is perceived really good, the UI is minimal (I don't use bookmarks anymore), and handoff or pinching for a tab overview is great for me. uBlock and Ghostery are really mandatory today for a convenient browsing experience and are available for safari, too.

What's really missing: favicons in tabs, pinned tabs and a dark mode for the window chrome, that matches the dark menu bar in yosemite. AFAIK, favicons+pinned tabs are coming with el capitan.

Just my 0.02$