May be faster but i still wont use it over Opera 10 Beta.

Well why would they compare it against Chrome 2? Aren't IE8 and FF3 out? Chrome may be out, but Chrome 2? Tell me if I'm wrong, but I would assume that they would compare a final product against other final products. Otherwise why would they compare Safari 4 against FF3 and not FF3.5b?

Apple always claims it's the best and fastest. I'd assume they're full of it, or there's some sort of * that defines the parameters of their superiority.

so wot are we talking about? mere seconds? fractions of seconds? and it seems to me the biggest issue that affects loads times, besides the level of flash crap on the page, is the way the site is coded. i suppose if all the sites were coded in a single uniform standard this might be a meaningful metric to talk about... but since there's many standards and levels of coding, i don't see how these speed arguments mean much. let's not forget that load time also includes network latency and bandwidth concerns for your regular user. these sandbox tests showing load times for content hosted on the same machine mean little when they all still have to wait for the content to be fed to them in the real world. next!!!!

Isn't Mozilla working a a much faster javascript engine for Firefox?

Hanin33: What you initially said is true and the reason why browsers need to render faster and run javascript faster. If everyone wrote perfectly effecient pages we could all use FF2 and be happy, however on one focuses on effecience... actually as a web developer I can tell you it is one of the lowest priorities next to usability and functionality. Usability usually takes up all extra time so effeciency is nearly ignored, that is where a really fast JS engine and a fast CSS and HTML renderer comes in.

Also the fact that it says it 100%'d acid3 is interesting... IMO their isn't even a point comparing it to the absolutely terrible peice of shit that IE8 is... fuck I hate internet explorer. My hate for Microsoft is only topped by my hate for their internet explorer software... ruining web dev.

oh also I think it would have been fair for them to compare safari to chrome 1.???. Really you don't need 2... 1 is still damn fast. I wonder if it can run faster than chrome... I'm thinking no... but maybe.

dude like chrome runs 3d smoothly in javascript! No other browser that I have tested does this... the Safari beta was no exception.

Yeah right. Opera 10a did that a long time ago. And it's alpha, imagine what it'll do when it'll be ready.

Headline: "Tom's Readers Say Apple is World's Most Untrustworthy Company"

I won't use anything they make, ever, period. I have no problems with Firefox, there's no reason to give them a chance. Apple = pwn2own fail crew

It's in FF 3.5 betas already, and it's more like an improvement of the current SpiderMonkey engine than a full rewrite. Still, it's at least 50% faster in all cases, and in some up to 40x.

Apple can kiss my A**

They have always claimed to be the fastest and best in everything, computers, phones, Mp3 players, but when you actually compare the hardware and software you get dumped cold like Steve Jobs and his little lackeys did at their High school proms.

...because our web browsers just aren't fast enough... I think I'll go try Safari, as I tire of the latency I experience in web browsing which is due to the javascript engine in my web browser... Notice how CPU useage hits 100% during the loading of a web page?

/sarcasm

To the person who say's an alpha version of Opera passed Acid3 "a long time ago", perhaps you should read the Wikipedia page about Acid 3:

"On 25 September 2008, a development version of Safari was the first browser to produce a smooth animation on the reference hardware, and thus was the first to fully pass the Acid3 test. Opera, having its own issues with smooth-animation Acid3 performance, has not yet passed."

Too bad Safari is also the worst Internet Browser in terms of functionality and bugs.

Honestly, I love the history behind FireFox.

Netscape challenged mammon, and Netscape starts winning, with each fist shreading the armor of mammon, revealing mammon's vulnerable flesh, but is eventually destroyed when mammon counters, lacerating the flesh needed for the function of life. The phoenix has been defeated. While mammon slept, the defeated warrior resurrected once again to finish the battle. The phoenix knew the battle was far from over. The phoenix resurrected in the form of a fox. Mammon underestimated the slyness of the fox, laughing at its apparant weakness, and the fox used deceit and stealth to grab mammon's throat when least expected. The phoenix now bites at mammon's throat, and every time someone shreds the rough scales of mammon for the soft comforting and caring fur of the fox, mammon feels the sharp teeth of the phoenix bite ever so slightly more into the arteries that keep him alive. The phoenix may be destroyed once again, but just like before, will be reborn in a ceremony of fire, burning all who dare interfere, rightly so. Mammon has done great, mammon has done historic things. Mammon however isn't the answer to all problems in life, and does not understand that. The phoenix is reborn with unseen spirit and support every time because it rekindles the fire in our hearts. The phoenix contributes to all, and all can contribute to the phoenix, giving our offerings to force the fire to burn everso hotter. The phoenix loves us, and thus we love it back. Mammon does not know love, it is only cold steel produced for profit.

Okay, I'll stop...

Oh yeah, FireFox also has a robot, beat that Microsoft!

I use FireFox because of the original Netscape vs. Microsoft battle.
I use FireFox and I'm devoted to the cause. I love Microsoft dearly, but sometimes they should take into account why Netscape managed to push back orignially.
I do believe the European lawsits were going to far. Having a OS without a browser to download FF in the first place sounds horrid.

If I ever were to down Netscape, it would be for Google. From all I've seen, Chrome so far is amazing. I have no want nor need for Safari of Internet Explorer. I understand those already comfortable with it may prefer to, but ertainly not me.

Oh yeah, FireFox also has ADBlocker. No way to dis that. It is horrid going to a website, giving you twenty flash adds, draining all resources, all blinking several colours, almost inducing a seizure.

Plus I like open source. If you find a problem and know how to, just fix it. Though I don't care for the feel of Opera, but it's still a feasible option.

Yeah, it will get a score of 101 out of 100.

This 5x faster than Chrome thing is very sketchy to me.

I gave it an honest try ( about 3 months of solid use)

I am now back with IE8.

I didn't notice that it was faster. Another Apple half truth?

I also tried Firefox.

I've tried FF3, IE8, Opera 10 beta, and Safari 4; it's not an extensive list but enough for comparison imho.

I can easily support their claim to be the fastest, but they lack in everything else, minus the shiny graphics (depending on your preference.) The only browser I can recommend them over is IE.

Still nothing quite compares to FF, except of coarse Opera.

All you will find in Apple is full of bs.

First and foremost I use IE. To download Firefox, that is... Maybe some drivers, when installing / reinstalling.
Apart from that, I'm a HFFU (Happy Firefox User) - been so since its appearance.
Also use Chrome, but irregularly. I can still see its strengths though.

Chrome 2.0.X is the standard version for download from Google right now, so it would be fair to compare it against Opera.

Since I switched to Chrome 2, I haven't even gone back to FF. Chrome 2 is just noticeably faster to me. It has a clean interface, is easy to use, functional, and just all around better than FF3 IMO. I would at least recommend others give it a try. After reading all the fans of Opera, I'm going to give it a try as well.

I'm a regular user of IE8, FF3, FF3.5B4, Safari 4 and Chrome 2 (across various PC and Mac platforms) and I find Chrome 2 to be the best browser in stock form. But Firefox 3.5 is still my browser of choice based solely on its plugin support.

The haters here are funny, its obvious that they've never even tried the browser. Safari does render Javascript faster than any of the other browsers out there. This is important as jquery starts to grow, and sites shift to more javascript based animations and effects. I still like Firefox better though, even with its bloat, simply for all of the plugins. I'm not a fan of what Safari does to buttons, scrollbars, and forms either.

The speed tests linked to on Apples site compare 6 different browsers listed below. Opera 10b is omitted.
Safari 4.0
Chrome 2.0
Firefox 3.5 Beta 4
Firefox 3.0
Opera 9.6
Internet Explorer 8

Speed notwithstanding, I still think my Firefox+Opera combo shits bricks on all other browsers.

Apple says a lot of things that aren't true.

I have been using Safari for the last couple of days and, honestly, I don't see ANY speed difference at all over the previous version. I'm disappointed that Apple chooses to hype something without really supporting their claim with improved performance.

can't go back to anything since chrome came out.. it is just what browsers needs to be in this broadband age.
another thing, chrome has simple and very usable interface.

Every time they release a version of Safari they claim it's the fastest. If it's such a great internet browser, why is the record for hacking a computer through it 10 seconds?

Safari is for grandmas and newbs