Author Topic: Safari 3 for Windows (Read 25,034 times)

cthorpe · « **on:** June 11, 2007, 08:07 PM »

Apple has released a public beta of Safari 3 for Windows. Downloading now...

http://www.apple.com/safari/

TucknDar · « **Reply #1 on:** June 11, 2007, 08:20 PM »

hm, wonder how they got those html-rendering results. Every test I've ever made and pretty much all tests I've read about lists Opera as the fastest...

cthorpe · « **Reply #2 on:** June 11, 2007, 08:28 PM »

Well, that was pointless...

Installed it, opened it, and couldn't get to these forums. Minimizing, restoring, and maximizing all cause horrible redrawing issues. Browsing speed seems much slower than Opera 9.20, Firefox 2.0.0.4, and IE7.

Here are two screenshots I grabbed of the redraw problems:

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #3 on:** June 11, 2007, 09:20 PM »

I don't even like Safari much on the Mac - why bother with it on Windows?

Josh · « **Reply #4 on:** June 11, 2007, 10:40 PM »

If you dont like it, dont use it ;-) Those of us who do, will do so. Thats why. I dont see why more competition is a bad thing. We've all seen fireflop's bubble burst as it becomes more and more memory hungry and resource intensive.

Darwin · « **Reply #5 on:** June 11, 2007, 11:34 PM »

PCMag is promising an indepth review tomorrow.

justice · « **Reply #6 on:** June 12, 2007, 12:26 AM »

some other impressions from Gizmodo (and more)

Ampa · « **Reply #7 on:** June 12, 2007, 12:29 PM »

Quote from: Josh on June 11, 2007, 10:40 PM

I don't see why more competition is a bad thing.

In most area of life I'd have to agree with you, more choice for the consumer is a good thing.

But with browsers more choice means...

More bugs - so more hacks
More security holes - so more exploits
More incomplete adoptions of CSS
More different interpretations of the DOM model
More angles from which to rant on the interweb - more troll fodder.

Ultimately more headaches for web designers, more bulk to every page, more time testing on more platforms... = less usable pages for everybody.

Why can't everyone just use Opera and be done with it

Josh · « **Reply #8 on:** June 12, 2007, 01:05 PM »

Thats just it, if everyone went with your logic and no new products were developed because "Everyone just uses opera", then we wouldnt have some of the ideas we've had thus far in any product.

To me, opera is an incomplete and unusable product because I cannot make it "My own" by extending or adding on to it. In opera, I am limited solely to what the developers feel I should use. I have made a huge investment in some internet addons that, while opera may have a similar functionality, it doesnt compare to what I get out of these programs. Roboform, for one, puts the wand to shame. Again, if no one challenged what was already in existance, then we would be stuck with opera's limited implimentation and we wouldnt have the great program which is roboform.

Now, you claim more bugs, this isnt a real issue I think. All software has bugs, by saying we shouldnt have a CHOICE because of this is simply ludicrous in my opinion. Thats like saying Toyota shouldnt make more cars because there will be the possibility of more bugs.

More security holes. This is subjective. While more holes might be found, the number which actually affect users is another story. Out of the several hundred bugs I've seen on windows and with IE or Firefox, only one bug has hit me and that was blaster. So again, an exploited security hole is much different than one which is just "known".

From my understanding, no browser has yet to fully support CSS in the ways the W3C intends it to be, so this argument doesnt hold a candle, IN MY EYES, until one browser successfully does this and does so COMPLETELY without exception.

I dont know much about DOM, so I wont comment on it.

On your last argument, this goes back to my first point. Why should we limit debate just because something exists which is "Good enough"? Debate brings about change, and brings about new innovation and ideas. Opera leaves a lot to be desired, as do most browsers, so again, choice is good in that the users can pick what suit's their needs best.

It seems to me the major problem here, from what I see in your post, is that developers dont follow standards and nor do browsers (again, developers). I dont think we should stifle innovation or stifle giving the user more choices because we cant get standards agreed upon. Then again, I dont think web standards will ever be truely standardized simply because we are human and someone else somewhere will always think of a "better way" to do something.

So back to you point, I think I have shown why we cant all just "use opera". To me, opera limits my ability to work by limiting what I can do with MY BROWSER. Opera limits me by making me relearn certain basic concepts about a browser which are, for the most part, a standard amongst other browsers.

So again, more choice == better. Without it, we wouldnt have what we do now with many things in life.

Now, onto safari. Here are a few annoyances I've found.

No CTRL+TAB/CTRL+SHIFT+TAB to switch between windows. No ability to minimize the application by clicking the taskbar icon. No extensibility (A must in my eyes) so I cant use my programs which I've invested in with both time and money, inside of safari.

It seems like a good browser, and if they impliment a good extensions model or API, then it will be great and a real option for most users.

cthorpe · « **Reply #9 on:** June 12, 2007, 01:25 PM »

Quote from: Josh on June 12, 2007, 01:05 PM

To me, opera is an incomplete and unusable product because I cannot make it "My own" by extending or adding on to it. In opera, I am limited solely to what the developers feel I should use. I have made a huge investment in some internet addons that, while opera may have a similar functionality, it doesnt compare to what I get out of these programs. Roboform, for one, puts the wand to shame. Again, if no one challenged what was already in existance, then we would be stuck with opera's limited implimentation and we wouldnt have the great program which is roboform.

I agree 100%. I converted to Opera and used it exclusively for months. About the time I took over as the Discount Coordinator here at DonationCoder, I started looking for a notetaking application that integrated into my browser. After finding that the big ones didn't work with Opera, I decided to switch back to Firefox. If Opera would open itself up for extensions, and if it allowed something other than plain text to be copied to the clipboard, then I would switch back without hesitation.

Carl

urlwolf · « **Reply #10 on:** June 12, 2007, 01:39 PM »

Quote from: cthorpe on June 12, 2007, 01:25 PM

Quote from: Josh on June 12, 2007, 01:05 PM
To me, opera is an incomplete and unusable product because I cannot make it "My own" by extending or adding on to it. In opera, I am limited solely to what the developers feel I should use. I have made a huge investment in some internet addons that, while opera may have a similar functionality, it doesnt compare to what I get out of these programs. Roboform, for one, puts the wand to shame. Again, if no one challenged what was already in existance, then we would be stuck with opera's limited implimentation and we wouldnt have the great program which is roboform.

I agree 100%. I converted to Opera and used it exclusively for months. About the time I took over as the Discount Coordinator here at DonationCoder, I started looking for a notetaking application that integrated into my browser. After finding that the big ones didn't work with Opera, I decided to switch back to Firefox. If Opera would open itself up for extensions, and if it allowed something other than plain text to be copied to the clipboard, then I would switch back without hesitation.

Carl

Yes, I agree. They get this in their forums constantly, yet they seem to have consciously decided to NOT trust anyone writing extensions. I can see the advantages. After 2-3 months on FF collecting extensions, I could recreate most of them in Opera with userJS. It really is impressive that most of these things are in Opera already without extensions. And how happy am I when I install opera in a new comp and it just works

?

The 'plain text clipboard' is yet another inconvenience.

I still use Opera as my main browser. It saves me time, which is very valuable.

There is a hack to solve the plain text issue on the forums, but I can't find it anymore, sorry. It didn't work on my system, probably because of some other software (admuncher?).

Mark0 · « **Reply #11 on:** June 12, 2007, 02:17 PM »

Quote from: Carol Haynes on June 11, 2007, 09:20 PM

I don't even like Safari much on the Mac - why bother with it on Windows?

I too never liked Safari on the Mac. I tried to use it at first, then switched to Camino: the Cocoa interface & apparence with the Gecko engine from Mozilla. Easy on the eyes and works well.

Review / testing of Safari for Win at this point are of little use, IMHO, as it seems it's just a rushed out - barely usable version, probably just to "make a point" about their commitment to port it to the Redmond platform. It will came handy to test thing to be run on the iPhone, probably, in the future.

Bye!

Josh · « **Reply #12 on:** June 13, 2007, 08:27 AM »

So, 2 hours after being released, an exploit was found. This is worse than IE7's 2 day's before a hack was found.

Guess apple can no longer put up commercials about how much more secure its software is. This also goes to show that its easy to be secure when you have < 2% market share.

Read more here

Mark0 · « **Reply #13 on:** June 13, 2007, 08:51 AM »

Considering that this beta seems to me an alpha at most (seeing the frequency at witch is crashs), IMHO it's just a case of a rushed out release (for the sake of having something to show / fill the gaps), with all the problems / issues that this could led to.
Surely a bad showing for Apple.
On the other way, their PR machine could probably easyly turn the gaffe on something like "see, on Windows even Safari have security issues"!

mitzevo · « **Reply #14 on:** June 13, 2007, 09:00 AM »

Apples apples I smell apples.

Josh · « **Reply #15 on:** June 13, 2007, 11:53 AM »

Beta doesnt mean anything nor does the fact that this is on windows. This bug can be exploited in the OSX environment as well. All you have to do is change the path to a *nix style path.

Mark0 · « **Reply #16 on:** June 13, 2007, 12:39 PM »

That about Win was just a joke, obviously.
I agree that it's surely a bad move / show for Apple. It could take very little to obfuscate the "security image" (real or fake that it may be) that they are enjoying with the general public. Every (mis)step in that direction seems a bit suicidal...

Bye!

Darwin · « **Reply #17 on:** June 13, 2007, 01:40 PM »

Quote

On the other way, their PR machine could probably easyly turn the gaffe on something like "see, on Windows even Safari have security issues"!

Don't give them any ideas!

bugis · « **Reply #18 on:** June 13, 2007, 02:38 PM »

I tried out Safari yesterday, but didn't like it very much because it completely lacks mouse gestures. I cant do without MGs! Also, the text smoothing seems really wierd, and the right-click functionality was buggy. Back to Opera for me.

Mark0 · « **Reply #19 on:** June 13, 2007, 02:52 PM »

About Apple's way of rendering text:
Font smoothing, anti-aliasing, and sub-pixel rendering

Mycle · « **Reply #20 on:** June 20, 2007, 04:05 PM »

I tried the latest version (as of June18) and found it noticeably faster than IE/Firefox/Opera and I liked the interface, mostly.

It's still far too crash-prone (at least on Windows XP) for any kind of serious use and for now, I've removed it from my computer.

I'll wait for another release.

elpresi · « **Reply #21 on:** June 21, 2007, 01:28 AM »

I am a Firefox fan, but in all fairness it should be pointed out that Safari is the only windows web browser that fully suports embedded colorprofiles and thus apropriately displays pictures that are not in the sRGB colorspace.

bugis · « **Reply #22 on:** June 22, 2007, 11:55 AM »

Quote from: elpresi on June 21, 2007, 01:28 AM

I am a Firefox fan, but in all fairness it should be pointed out that Safari is the only windows web browser that fully suports embedded colorprofiles and thus apropriately displays pictures that are not in the sRGB colorspace.

But would it really matter to those who are not in the publishing business? I am ignorant in these color profile matters

, so please correct me if I am wrong. My understanding was that unless your monitor/video card color profile was set accordingly, it wouldnt matter what profile the image used, and it would display according to the monitor profile only (eg sRGB in my case)?

elpresi · « **Reply #23 on:** June 22, 2007, 06:00 PM »

I am no expert either, and in general pictures saved for web use are in the sRGB colorspace, and should display apropriately in any browser.
In digital photo editing advanced users use wide gamut colorspaces (such as Adobe RGB) but for web purposes convert to sRGB (windows default, since monitors are in general anyway unable to display wider gamuts).
There might be an interest though to post pictures in wide gamut colorspaces in the future as LED backlit wide gamut monitors proliferate.

Mark0 · « **Reply #24 on:** June 23, 2007, 12:27 AM »

The last beta, v3.02, is much more stable and usable.

Bye!