Elliott C. Back: Technology FTW!

Safari 3 Windows Review, Benchmark

Posted in Apple, Browsers, Computers & Technology, Firefox, Mac, Microsoft, Performance, Spread IE by Elliott Back on June 11th, 2007.

Safari has a new version, and a new platform. The once mac-only web browser has released Safari 3 for Windows XP, backed by claims of UI, performance, and integration superiority. The claims are that it is 2x faster in Javascript and HTML rendering, a claim we plan to test ourselves. Note that Safari, the first time it was launched, took about a minute to start up and froze the screen for that time. Only after that did it open fast.

safari.jpg

Javascript Performance Results

So, their biggest claim is Javascript performance, which they show like so:

js-performance.jpg

We’ll combine the overall results from these benchmarks together:

  1. JS/Bench
  2. DHTML Benchmark
  3. DOM Query Test
  4. JS Speed Tests

We find that depending how you look at it, Safari can actually be considered 3x slower than IE7, or roughly of equal speed. Here is an overall performance chart, with two columns–one is the raw average score, the other averages the worst-test group (three results) into one result and averages it:

overall.png
Safari doesn’t break much ground here

Here’s the per-test chart, which shows Safari kicking ass in the first test, losing the next three, tying the fourth with IE, and doing well again on the last test:

pertest.png

Other annoyances

Interestingly, Apple tries to bundle Safari with not one, but three separate Apple products: Quicktime, Bonjour, and Apple Update. On top of that, they break the back-mousebutton click that I’ve become used to using in IE/FF, and use tons of my RAM main memory up. No one sums it up better than Dev Hints who notes that “Safari Isn’t the Beauty That Apple Likes To Claim.” It’s not bad, and it’s getting better, but there are still bugs to be worked out.

This entry was posted on Monday, June 11th, 2007 at 8:57 pm and is tagged with apple products, main memory, test chart, performance chart, speed tests, last test, test group, performance results, kicking ass, first test, annoyances, safari, benchmarks, benchmark, superiority, sums, bench, ff, web browser, bugs. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback.

Viewing 25 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    You do good work. Please define axis in graphs, i.e. time to start etc.
    • ^
    • v
    One is the test group / browser, the other is milliseconds for the tests I listed.
    • ^
    • v
    I don't see 2 times faster. LIES!
    • ^
    • v
    Well, considering Safari is behind the curb in supporting many applications and since it sucks even on Mac, what good is it on windows?

    Firefox rules. Sure it takes 2 more seconds to start it up but the browsing experience is more than worth it.
    • ^
    • v
    On my Mac I've always used Camino, which, while still not having as many features as Firefox, is definitely better than Safari. Also, I looked at some of the screenshots, doesn't look that good. Even one friend of mine who's a Mac fanatic thinks Safari sucks.
    • ^
    • v
    "Interestingly, Apple tries to bundle Safari with not one, but three separate Apple products: Quicktime, Bonjour, and Apple Update."

    This is what has me searching for an alternative to iTunes, and means I would _never_ install Safari. Installs a bunch of essentially malware on my machine. I hate that extra crap.

    Irksome that they have a series of commercials knocking PCs coming w/ a bunch of extra software...

    BTW, iTunes is such poop on a PC, I would doubly not use it.
    • ^
    • v
    Safari won JSBench and JSSpeed, the most general-sounding benchmarks. Isn't that enough to declare it the winner even though it sucks at DHTML?
    • ^
    • v
    It's not like Apple forces the extra software down your throat. The download page (http://www.apple.com/safari/download/) has three radio buttons:

    * Safari+QuickTime for Windows XP or Vista
    * Safari for Windows XP or Vista
    * Safari for Mac OS X v10.4.9 or later

    The first one is selected by default; if you don't want QuickTime, you select the second radio button.


    When you install Safari, there's a step that asks "Would you like to install these additional programs?" There are two checkboxes -- one for Bonjour, and one for Apple Update. If you don't want either one installed, all you have to do is uncheck the appropriate box(es).
    • ^
    • v
    I'm not sure how those tests are run, but here's a good article on how Safari doesn't quite to page load timing as we've come to expect:
    http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/safaribenchmarks.html
    • ^
    • v
    "Installs a bunch of essentially malware on my machine."

    I don't think I'd call it malware. The worst of the bundled programs is Quicktime, which steals file type associations on install, but they can be changed back without too much effort. It's not like any of the programs wipe your hard drive or steal your credit card number.
    • ^
    • v
    I would say this is the first bold move Apple has taken in their software business... With browsers like Firefox & Opera already far superior to the Safari, such a move is comendable. Apple software runs really bad taking tooooo much system resources on windows and this time with already solid competetion I have no doubt Apple will have their asses handed over in time.
    • ^
    • v
    I have a PC/Windows operating system. Large HD, and 512Megs of RAM. I have Firefox, Netscape 9, Opera, and IE installed..I DID give Safari 3 a thorough ringing out and compared to Firefox, Netscape, and Opera, Safari sucks. Its functionality sucks, its interface has a prehistoric feel and look to it. It has none of the capabilities of extensions or add ons enjoyed by conventional browsers. It crashed every time I tried to report a bug, or bookmark a website. In spite of Apple's claims, its performance falls below that of Firefox.

    I was always curious about the hype over MAC, but after sampling this poor example of Apple software, I can definitely say there will never be a MAC in my future. Not if Safari is representative of Apple engineering.
    • ^
    • v
    All anyone can say for Safari is that it looks pretty. The private browsing feature is nice for those who are worried about security and use it for inputting credit cards etc. The only reason Apple has for releasing Safari for Windows is that they may require it for some of the iPhone features. Some Windows users that have iPhones are going to want to create apps for the iPhone and those apps are Web2.0/Ajax as announced by Apple at the WWDC2007 Keynote; so, as the iPhone runs Safari, this will make it easier for developers to make those apps Safari specific.
    • ^
    • v
    I find Safari even quicker now with this Beta release. I have always used Safari,prefering it to the bells and whistles of other browsers, Camino excepted. Also its BETA and not a forced download or upgrade so its your choice, and installation does give you the choice of installing the bundle or not.
    • ^
    • v
    Safari is 2x slower than IE, what a disappointment, bunch of liers. Lost all my respect to Mac.
    • ^
    • v
    So far Safari 3 IS twice as fast on my PC as any other browser I've used. IE7 can't even keep up AT ALL. Its not even close. So I don 't know what you guys are doing wrong.
    • ^
    • v
    I've used Safari ( along with Camino and Firefox, Opera on linux and begrudgingly IE for testing sites ) for some time and i like it's simplicity, tabbed browsing, tidy rss support, standards compliancy, great text rendering, ad blocking, plugin blocking (great on a friends 7yr old imac)and activity monitor –i'm not sure thats a feature on the PC version– which is a very useful tool when developing websites i find..

    To be fair to it, i dont have problems with safari. The beta renders text properly, which is nice compared to the crap that cleartype outputs in IE on XP.

    The latest nightly of Webkit –and in the near future, presumably Safari 3 on Leopard– contain a very slick set of developers tools for inspecting layouts, DOM etc. Similar to firefox's web developer toolkit..

    It's not slow on my mac, and it's still only BETA on windows ( not to mention out of it's native code base). As mentioned by other sensible people, it's presumably being released to get the people that develop web apps on windows –there are quite a few of them presumably– to develop apps for the iPhone.

    Admittedly Camino is simpler and quicker, and i get less crashes with buggy java on firefox. (note less, not none)

    Quoted from Jerry:

    "I was always curious about the hype over MAC, but after sampling this poor example of Apple software, I can definitely say there will never be a MAC in my future. Not if Safari is representative of Apple engineering."

    Clearly, judging all of Apple's products based on a BETA release browser application on it's first open release to the windows public, is stupid and ridiculous.

    I'd also urge you to try the most important piece of Apple software, OSX, before passing judgement on it's side projects such as a release of Safari for windows.

    And from Nice Gato:

    "Safari is 2x slower than IE, what a disappointment, bunch of liars. Lost all my respect to Mac."

    It's true, all the statistics are clearly flawed – just like the sales projections and speed ratings for new laptops and Zune sales Etc etc.. Seriously? do you really ever believe that crap? It does suck that they use these figures, but how many things do you think Adobe and Microsoft Lie about collectively?

    I'm assuming you had no respect for Apple already if you can loose it over an inaccurate speed projection for safari 3 beta JavaScript render time.

    On the resources front, I suppose if you chaps had an OS that didn't natively consume 'A lot' of RAM then this might not be such a touchy subject, but on the other side (used natively on a mac) it's pretty good, I assume that because Core Animation deals with a lot of the appearance and rendering in native mac safari. It can't in windows.

    Each to their own i guess... I'm sticking to Safari and Camino on a Mac.
    • ^
    • v
    Now running safari beta 3.0.2 version over windows vista. Major changes and much better functioning with only few errors in some pages from 3.0.1 version and also very very quick navigation.
    I just make allmost all my internet navigation with safari, reserving firefox or IE por the few cases safari gives error.
    I have the impression we'll have a real alternative to IE or Fi
    • ^
    • v
    I agree that the Safari Beta for XP is not a usable piece of software. I agree that iTunes for windows is way too slow. I very strongly agree that the "brushed metal" UI is ridiculous on Windows - especially with the window control buttons on the right. In general, I am very disappointed with the "Apple experience" on Windows.

    That said, out of the Windows OS and the Apple software, I ditch the OS in favor of the software every chance I get. Apple software is very much out of place on Windows, but I simply will not tolerate (any more than my employer demands of me) the way Windows and Windows applications behave inconsistently, the way they try to predict my thoughts, the way they crash if the wind blows the wrong way, or the way Windows flat-out lies to me by acting like it's ready to open things immediately after I log in.

    Not to mention the pathetic excuse for a command-line environment that is "Command Prompt." If it weren't for cygwin, I'd have shot myself by now. Even in cygwin though, all is not rosy - the fixed-width terminal and schizophrenic filesystem drive me nuts.

    Sorry folks - I know I've drifted off topic, but I just have to blow off some steam every so often :)

    In fairness to Apple (and anyone else that's ported software from one development to a radically different one) - high memory usage and poor performance is a price inevitably paid in such an endeavor. Functionality that is provided by APIs taken for granted on one system must be recreated, often more or less from scratch, in the target development environment.

    And in its proper context (the Mac OS, of course), Safari is a very nice browser. I am a big fan of Firefox on *nix and windows, but compared back-to-back with Safari on the Mac, I find Firefox over-engineered and slow. I was hoping for a similar experience on

    I will not, however, forgive Safari's (and iTunes') bastardized half-OSX/half-windows UI. Just use a standard windows window frame - my day is already beyond saturation with marketing experiences. I don't need my application frames to add to that.

    As for standards-compliance: I don't know the present state of DHTML WRT standardization (my impression is that it has yet to be definitively identified, let alone defined), but in general, I consider the proliferation of pseudo-standards a Bad Thing. Maybe it's my OS/2 background, but I equate it with the screwing of the little guy. Standards get declared, and anyone whose browser of choice doesn't keep up with the latest whims of God-knows-who gets hung out to dry.

    Any web site that doesn't stay a good, safe, healthy 1 year behind the "standards" isn't worth visiting, IMO. And users of any browser that doesn't keep at least that current ought to cry out to their developers, or get involved themselves where possible.

    And now that I've revealed myself as the true technopath that I am, I bid the one reader that made it this far godspeed. And since you're apparently actually reading this, I may as well take the chance to remind you that to all reasonable degrees of numerical precision, 100% of the universe is outdoors and, in fact, without WiFi coverage.
    • ^
    • v
    Oh, one more thing: Apple does "try to bundle" three things, but each one makes sense because they all directly add functionality to Safari. What's more surprising (in contrast with the "Microsoft model of software deployment," if I may be so rude) is that you have the option not to install them.
    • ^
    • v
    I would like to say that I think things have changed since its first release. Safari in almost every asect in web surfing, besides BMW's web site -- which is strangly built fot Safair Mac, but not WIndows (I still wonder why) -- seems more then 2x faster. In fact, my girlfriend who has hated Safari since I bought a Mac, uses Safari now on Windows because she can get her internet ritural done quicker, because pages like Myspace and Facebook open almost instantly.

    The only problem I have is start-up, sometimes it seems to freeze, others it just slow. But considering how much time we save, I am not that concerned.
    • ^
    • v
    I loaded up Safari for Windows and uninstalled after using it for about an hour. I could not locate a single Website that rendered correctly. I did not experience the crashes and freeze-ups that y'all are describing, but I did witness the pitifully poor performance of this third-rate piece of crap. It's in BETA, you say? Looks to me like it's barely off the drawing table.

    No, I won't be loading up any further issues. Why would I, when I have the speed, the elegance, the reliability, the compatibility of IE7? It's beautiful baby, sorry for you.

    Game over, IE wins, and by a fantastically wide margin.