Bowsers of Browsers: Safari vs. Chrome

Battle of the B(r)owsers

Battle of the B(r)owsers (original graphic)

Much of the hype from WWDC 2009 revolved around iPhone 3G S and Macbook Pro. One aspect of the conference that seemed to fly under the radar of popularity is the release of Safari 4.0 for Mac and Windows. The last time I gave Safari a try to be my default browser, it was going up against my long-time use of Firefox 2.x. As I remember, Safari lost the match. As of today, some time has passed and Google’s Chrome browser has overthrown my love for Firefox. This is the new standard Safari has to live up to in my opinion, anyway.

When I initially launched Safari 4.0, it took a little time to start up – but that’s to be expected. From there on afterwards though, Safari had pretty similar startup rates to Chrome. In fact, the appearance of the Safari browser is so close to that of Chrome. Although I am not all too sure, I think Chrome copied Safari rather than vice versa.

Safari goods when contrasted with Chrome:

  • Equally snappy webpage loading
  • RSS
  • SnapBack
  • Top Sites grid-style graphic interface
    • Very sleek and smooth
    • Notifies you if one of your top sites has updated with new content since you last visited
  • Smooth transitions
  • More to come…

Safari bads when contrasted with Chrome

  • Address bar doesn’t forward to search engine
    • In other words, when you enter search terms in the address bar, it assumes you are searching for an exact domain, thus you receive a “server not found” error
  • No tab button
  • Opening a new tab shifts position of your webpage up or down
  • Loading webpages lag out more than they do in Chrome

Final Thoughts

Safari is pretty neat – it has some fundamental features that are absent in Chrome. However, it’ll take more from Apple to make Safari stand out from the crowd. At this time, it seems that they are just meeting benchmarks, rather than exceling beyond standards.

Movie Review: Star Trek

Last night was quite satisfying. My family and I went to Regal Cinemas 18 at Bridgeport Village to see the viewer-acclaimed Star Trek. I, myself prior to the production of this film, was a somewhat hardcore ”Treky”. I had seen most, if not all episodes of television series Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG), and had viewed a great majority of Deep Space 9 (DS9) and Voyager. I had loved TNG when I initially started having interest in Star Trek. However, I really despised the three more current series. Additionally, I have only watched a stark few episodes of the original series back from the 1960′s. Yet, I came to truly enjoy DS9 and Voyager, but not so much Enterprise, the latter of the series’. When I was younger, the socially spawned question amongst peers was, “Star Trek or Star Wars?” And of course, the “cool” thing at the time was definitely Star Wars. Star Trek was far-too-nerdy is the majority of peoples’ eyes. When I was eight or nine, my Halloween costume was even a Star Trek uniform, and I had a Medical Tri-Corder and a little pin-on electronic communicator to go with it. It was a great ride for my imagination. But this long overdue movie… was amazingly nothing short of fantastic.

The story line, we can all agree, is moderately tacky – but to a “Treky”, such a basis is expected, as the ideals of science fiction can be easily judged upon as irrational. The blending of post and more modern graphics was excellent. The U.S.S. Enterprise implemented a simplistic, strong edged styling from the original Star Trek series, however, there were brilliant asthetics derived from modern computer graphic abilities. Many details were carefully worked upon regarding the structure and function of the ship. Sound effects were deliciously retro yet pleasantly re-thought and re-defined. They assumed some retro roots, but were treated to crisp, new tones and patterns. As for characters, modern representations of original series cast was splendid. It was very satisfying to see everything thought out quite well.

I had a few gripes about some storyline events, but from such a production that was well able to satisfy a determined “Treky” and a general audience, I really cannot complain much. Overall, acting was not predominantly overworked, yet it was not always smooth-as-glass (cue the flashback portion of the film). If another Star Trek movie was to emerge in theatres, I would not hesitate to see it. I was constantly entertained (except for drinking a large fountain drink and filling my bladder twice) and never disappointed with the turn of events. I suggest all who have not seen it to do so promptly.