Safari 5.1 for Mac OS X Lion has some pretty cool features that aren't in the Windows version. While none of the capabilities in this spotlight enhance performance, efficiency, reliability, or conformance in any way, they could very well mean more to a user than any of the above. Every one of these features is completely unique to Safari for Mac. And in requisite Apple fashion, they all display a certain level of polish that only Cupertino can pull off.
| Full-Screen |
While full-screen browsing is certainly nothing new (most Web browsers have had that option in their view menus for ages), the way in which Safari handles it is more functional than the traditional completely full-screen method. Oh, and the animation is slick, too.
While in full-screen view, the navigation and tab bars remain on-screen. There's no more hovering to the uppermost edge to reveal these important controls. However, hovering to the top of the screen does open the Mac global menu bar for full control. And the most important thing about the new full-screen feature is that it's the only way to maximize Safari. Since Mac OS X doesn't have a maximize button (it uses an "intelligent resize" button instead), we sure do welcome full-screen.
| Multitouch Gestures |
Like Lion itself, Safari 5.1 supports several multitouch gestures, provided you have a suitable input device.
Scroll
Swiping upward with two fingers causes the page to scroll down. Likewise, swiping downward with two fingers scrolls the page up. The scroll gesture also responds to momentum. The faster you swipe, the faster and farther it scrolls.
Back/Forward
Using the same two-finger swipe as the scroll gesture, performed left and right, controls navigation. Swiping two fingers to the right navigates to the previous page in your history, and swiping left moves forward.
The back and forward browser buttons are probably some of the most clicked-on controls in any UI. But never before has it been both faster and easier to use them as it is with multitouch gestures.
Somewhat like the animations on tablets and certain e-readers, Safari mimics the page turning of books and magazines, which the Web never really tried to emulate (despite the fact we call them webpages).
Pinch-to-zoom
Like the iPad, iPhone, and iPod Touch, pinch-to-zoom now appears in OS X. Placing two fingers on the multitouch surface and moving them apart zooms the page in. Moving two fingers together causes the page to zoom out.
Tap-to-zoom
There is yet another way to zoom Safari with multitouch gestures in Mac OS X Lion. A double-tap with two fingers quickly zooms in on the portion of the screen near the cursor. A second two-fingered double-tap returns you to a neutral zoom level.
| Reader |
Apple has a unique feature in Safari called Reader. Reader essentially converts webpages into a clean "page," like you would expect to find in a PDF. This "page" is displayed above the original webpage, which is darkened out.
The Deus Ex 3 Article Before Safari Reader
After Reader
One of the best parts about Reader is that it ditches sidebars and ads. Overall, we're pretty surprised at just how effective this feature is in focusing on and clarifying the actual content of the webpage. Here's Reader and the next feature, Reading List, in action:
While not a new feature, the updated implementation is slicker, and the whole "page" illusion works much better with multitouch.
| Reading List |
Another portion of Reader is the Reading List. The Reading List is a sidebar for saving webpages for later reading. Hence, Reading List.
Readin List Safari 5.1 on Mac OS X Lion
When combined, full-screen, multitouch gestures, Reader, and Reading List succeed at making the Web look and feel like a traditional print publication. It really is fantastic. Not magical. Just fantastic.
- Crowning A Web-Browsing King In Windows 7 And OS X
- The Contenders
- A Spotlight On Lion's Safari
- Hardware And Test Setup
- Performance Benchmarks: Startup Time
- Performance Benchmarks: Page Load Time
- Performance Benchmarks: JavaScript, DOM, And CSS
- Performance Benchmarks: Flash, Java, And Silverlight
- Performance Benchmarks: HTML5
- Performance Benchmarks: HTML5 Hardware Acceleration And WebGL
- Efficiency Benchmarks: Memory Usage
- Efficiency Benchmarks: Memory Management
- Reliability Benchmarks: Proper Page Loads
- Conformance Benchmarks: HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, And DOM
- Placing Tables
- Analysis Tables
- Two Winners: One In Windows 7, One in OS X
thank you, workin' on it
chrome13 completely obliterats it.
and firefox 8/9 are still a memory hog.
not really surprised by poor show of ie9. moat updates it gets are "security updates".
Yeah? And exactly what principle would that be?
Bring back the Google Dictionary, otherwise I will use Bing Search, Firefox and Facebook instead of Google Search, Chrome and G+.
According to the graphic on "Reliability Benchmarks: Proper Page Loads" on MacOS Firefox is actually second, not third.
thank you, workin' on it
These "browser" GP are getting more and more complete and the're always very interesting.
I have to say, I am a bit surprised to see FF being so close to Chrome now: kudos to Mozilla.
I have been using FF since 1.0 and only recently coupled it with Chrome (it is just convenient for me to have 2 completely different setups).
FF 7.0 should have a significant boost in memory efficiency: if everything else stays the same, we´ll have a new champion ...
But if anythin is clear from these reviews, is that nothing stays the same for very long in the browser´s domain (well, except IE).
Looking forward to GP7, whenever that will be.
You should've put more emphasis on the actual scores and performances in tests rather than count the times when certain browsers placed 1st. Thus a browser that had a small advantage in more and minor tests and at the same time severe handicaps in more important but fewer tests would seem better, when technically it is not. Suggestion: tie all the candidates when the differences between them in a certain test are less than a single digit percent. Good article anyway.
And to think Apple hates Flash...
There are no points in the analysis tables. They simply list how each browser rates per category of testing. The 'Strong' part of the table was added a long time ago and it basically means that it's right up there with the winner in terms of performance. When we get a solid point-based scoring system figured out 'Winner' will only receive a minor boost above 'Strong', whereas 'Strong' will receive a significant boost above 'Acceptable', and 'Acceptable' above 'Weak'. We're not there yet, but we're getting closer with every WBGP. The composite tests are a BIG step in that direction, and the new benchmark rankings further lay the groundwork for a fair scoring system which accurately reflects scale.
The analysis tables were created to balance the raw placing tables. The problem with what you're saying is that you would have to decide which categories are more important than others. Is JavaScript more important than CSS? Is HTML5 more important than Flash? This is going to depend on who you ask. People who only watch Netflix with an HTPC will put mega emphasis on Silverlight perf, whereas the chronic YouTuber will be more concerned with Flash, and devs are going to gravitate towards standards conformance. Ranking benchmarks based on the importance of what they test isn't a one-size-fits-all type of thing with Web browsers. As far as your other suggestion, dealing with practical ties, this is something we definitely want to look into moving forward. Thanks!