4 ms·
If it is indeed comparable in speed to the excellent Safari 4 beta, I'll stick with Safari. It has worked very well for me over the past few weeks. In fact I've
by jwr 18y ago
If it is indeed comparable in speed to the excellent Safari 4 beta, I'll stick with Safari. It has worked very well for me over the past few weeks. In fact I've yet to find a single problem with it.
- thedark 18y agoThe only advantage from what I understand, is that Chrome is supposedly more "secure". I don't think it is enough to be worth giving up flash/etc for, however.
- jonknee 18y agoWho's giving up Flash? Chrome supports Flash and is rigged such that when Flash crashes (on a Mac that happens all the time) it only takes out the one tab. When Chrome comes out for OS X you'll be able to use Flash all you want. The linked article isn't discussing a shipping product, just a build of the still very much in progress code base.
- hedgehog 18y agoI've been running WebKit nightlies on OS X for a year or so and generally been happy with Safari. That said I think there are two big things to look forward to in Chrome: - Plugins in separate processes. No more beach balls or crashes from Flash. - Tabs in separate processes. No more beach balls or crashes from Google apps.
- Zev 18y agoIf its just Flash that is eating up cpu or crashing Safari, give ClickToFlash (http://github.com/rentzsch/clicktoflash/tree/master http://github.com/rentzsch/clicktoflash/tree/master) a try.
- wheels 18y agoPeople, please don't downvote stuff you disagree with unless it's troll-ish. Seeing two run-of-the-mill, if wrong, comments in this thread that were at -2 is just silly.
- pxlpshr 18y agoAgreed and I pay for .Mac so the bookmark synchronization across multiple Macs and my iPhone is pretty glorious. Looking forward to a more stable Safari 4 tho, mine freezes at least 3 times a day where as 3 was pretty stable, aside from the rare script crashing it.