4 ms·

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. C

by 4ad 10y ago

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. Why not Safari?

lojack 10y ago
> Safari on macOS is the only browser on this planet that implements color management correctly. This is one of those things that I almost never noticed until I was working with a site that was using one specific color of orange that was dramatically different from what I had in photoshop. It usually isn't something that concerns me too much, but I was adding the ability for content editors to select primary colors of pages (think a super advanced, easy to use CMS), and with the images selected it was painfully obvious. Took me hours of tweaking settings in photoshop and comparing it to various browsers to finally give up and accept that color management in browsers is broken.
Jerry2 10y ago
>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 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.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > 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 VP9 can be hardware accelerated, and AFAIK current Chrome supports hardware acceleration for VP9 with hardware that supports it.
  - MBCook 10y ago
    Are there any normal desktops/laptops that support it? I'd be amazed if anything other than Chromebooks and Android had it.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > Are there any normal desktops/laptops that support it? From what I've been able to find: NVidia Pascal has full hardware decoding for VP9, as does the NVidia GM206. And Intel's (now shipping, but not in consumer hands yet until probably next month, IIRC) Kaby Lake has full hardware decoding support, too. (A lot more existing GPUs have hybrid support, but that's still got a CPU cost.)
      - MBCook 10y ago
        Interesting. Given basically everyone but Google is happy with H.264 I'm surprised they would bother.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Given basically everyone but Google is happy with H.264 I'm surprised they would bother. Well, YouTube alone is something like 1/6 of internet traffic, and probably a sizable amount of the time people spend on the internet. And everyone besides Google isn't happy with H.264, either. While it's true that Google is the main source of VP9, Netflix 4K is, IIRC, H.265-only (for which hardware acceleration is becoming more common just as it is for VP9).
  - Jerry2 10y ago
    Can and is are two very different things. My brand new Nvidia GPU doesn't support it. Neither does iGPU. I'd wager that 99% of devices in use don't support HW decoding of VP9. Which means that Google is wasting tons of electricity by pushing their own codec. That's not good for the environment and for global warming. Extremely irresponsible.

by 4ad 10y ago

lojack 10y ago

> Safari on macOS is the only browser on this planet that implements color management correctly. This is one of those things that I almost never noticed until I was working with a site that was using one specific color of orange that was dramatically different from what I had in photoshop. It usually isn't something that concerns me too much, but I was adding the ability for content editors to select primary colors of pages (think a super advanced, easy to use CMS), and with the images selected it was painfully obvious. Took me hours of tweaking settings in photoshop and comparing it to various browsers to finally give up and accept that color management in browsers is broken.

Jerry2 10y ago

>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 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.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> 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 VP9 can be hardware accelerated, and AFAIK current Chrome supports hardware acceleration for VP9 with hardware that supports it.
- MBCook 10y ago
  Are there any normal desktops/laptops that support it? I'd be amazed if anything other than Chromebooks and Android had it.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Are there any normal desktops/laptops that support it? From what I've been able to find: NVidia Pascal has full hardware decoding for VP9, as does the NVidia GM206. And Intel's (now shipping, but not in consumer hands yet until probably next month, IIRC) Kaby Lake has full hardware decoding support, too. (A lot more existing GPUs have hybrid support, but that's still got a CPU cost.)
    - MBCook 10y ago
      Interesting. Given basically everyone but Google is happy with H.264 I'm surprised they would bother.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Given basically everyone but Google is happy with H.264 I'm surprised they would bother. Well, YouTube alone is something like 1/6 of internet traffic, and probably a sizable amount of the time people spend on the internet. And everyone besides Google isn't happy with H.264, either. While it's true that Google is the main source of VP9, Netflix 4K is, IIRC, H.265-only (for which hardware acceleration is becoming more common just as it is for VP9).
- Jerry2 10y ago
  Can and is are two very different things. My brand new Nvidia GPU doesn't support it. Neither does iGPU. I'd wager that 99% of devices in use don't support HW decoding of VP9. Which means that Google is wasting tons of electricity by pushing their own codec. That's not good for the environment and for global warming. Extremely irresponsible.