Safari for Windows

[ecoli]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6742439.stm

 

anybody try it yet? They claim it's two times faster than internet explorer. I thought that speed dependent only on the internet connection speed... how can one browser be significantly faster?

 

How does it compare to firefox?

[Sayonara]

Was just installing it when I saw your thread

 

I couldn't care less how fast it is, but I have been waiting for a Windows-platform Safari testbed for ages.

[insane_alien]

i'm also under the impression that the speed you get is dependant solely on connection speed (at least with modern processors unless your running every bit of software you own at once on an infected vista machine)

[ecoli]

Was just installing it when I saw your thread

 

I couldn't care less how fast it is, but I have been waiting for a Windows-platform Safari testbed for ages.

 

let me know how you like it.

[Sayonara]

Not had time for a good play around yet, but it looks good. Images and font rendering seem slightly fuzzy, but CSS handling is exactly what it should be for a modern browser, which counts for a lot. Does actually seem quite nippy too!

 

My blog and SFN render really well, so I'm happy

[Aeternus]

They are talking about the speed to render a page. A page with lots of styles, images and mainly javascript etc can take a while to render even after it has been downloaded (even if it is usually only a second or so). During their tests they chuck huge bloated pages (for instance there are javascript tests that just dynamically create huge amounts of html objects and place them on the page) at the browsers and see which one finishes everything first.

[bascule]

Safari for Windows has one real use:

 

Allowing Web designers without Macs to test their designs on their Windows systems

 

Beyond that, I don't expect a high level of adoption

[KLB]

I downloaded and tested the Windows Safari today on my WinxP Pro box. It works great. Based on some testing I did with my website a month or two back on Safari 2.0 running on a Mac, it appears to me that the Mac and Windows versions of Safari will render virtually identically.

 

As others have said this is going to be a great boon for web developers as we will finally be able to test on all major browsers at the same time without having multiple computers or parallel installs of Windows and OS/X.

 

While Safari may not steal lots of the Windows market share, I expect it will grow its overall market share mostly at the expense of MSIE.

 

The only thing I did not like about Safari is the way it renders text. It makes text too thick. I really think that all browsers should render text the same way and since Opera, Firefox and MSIE all handle text in the same way, Safari should adopt the same text rendering behavior.

[insane_alien]

They are talking about the speed to render a page. A page with lots of styles, images and mainly javascript etc can take a while to render even after it has been downloaded (even if it is usually only a second or so). During their tests they chuck huge bloated pages (for instance there are javascript tests that just dynamically create huge amounts of html objects and place them on the page) at the browsers and see which one finishes everything first.

 

ah that makes sense. thanks. although, in my experience i would be quicker drawing the graphics out by hand than using IE

[Pangloss]

Well, competition is a good thing, but from what I understand most Mac users prefer Firefox. I think bascule may have it right -- this is useful for site-checking, but little else.

[Klaynos]

Well, competition is a good thing, but from what I understand most Mac users prefer Firefox. I think bascule may have it right -- this is useful for site-checking, but little else.

 

I have to admit when I use mac's at uni I normally use firefox, although it's often both. I'm not going to get into why as this isn't really the place.

 

I do quite like safari, and for web design this is great!

[bascule]

Well, competition is a good thing, but from what I understand most Mac users prefer Firefox. I think bascule may have it right -- this is useful for site-checking, but little else.

 

I use nothing but Firefox on Mac, except when checking designs

[herpguy]

I downloaded it and I really like it. Everything just looks...cooler.

[Pangloss]

Apparently this thing is just riddled with security vulnerabilities. Hey wait, you mean something's NOT automatically better just because Microsoft didn't make it? Shocking!

 

http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/12856/1103/

[KLB]

Here's a good explanation of why Safari is running into problems on Windows in regards to security: http://www.betanews.com/article/Day_One_for_Safari_for_Windows_Becomes_ZeroDay_Nightmare/1181661606

 

Basically Safari developers are use to having the protection of OS/X and as such Safari is handing things off to the OS that OS/X would then filter, but Windows doesn't. Where as IE and Firefox would handle those things themself and would filter out the requests before sending them to the OS.

[insane_alien]

well safari for windows is still a beta. this is what betas are for. to find bugs and vulnerabilities. you can't really blame it unless its the finished product.

[KLB]

well safari for windows is still a beta. this is what betas are for. to find bugs and vulnerabilities. you can't really blame it unless its the finished product.

 

I absolutely agree.

[bascule]

Apparently this thing is just riddled with security vulnerabilities. Hey wait, you mean something's NOT automatically better just because Microsoft didn't make it? Shocking!

 

http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/12856/1103/

 

Generally Apple's ports to Windows have been massive failures. Having the OS X versions and Windows versions side-by-side, they simply do not compare.

[Pangloss]

Here's a good explanation of why Safari is running into problems on Windows in regards to security: http://www.betanews.com/article/Day_One_for_Safari_for_Windows_Becomes_ZeroDay_Nightmare/1181661606

 

Basically Safari developers are use to having the protection of OS/X and as such Safari is handing things off to the OS that OS/X would then filter, but Windows doesn't. Where as IE and Firefox would handle those things themself and would filter out the requests before sending them to the OS.

 

Hogwash. When has that popular, traditional 3rd-party developer excuse ("it's the operating system's fault! not mine!") EVER been accurate? You write software to the operating system, you don't write software to some fantasy world that doesn't exist.

 

Besides, OSX, like Linux, is perceived as more secure because fewer people are attacking it and because it's popular to say that it's more secure. The real security issues relate to the current state of the technology and of human effort. "Real" scientists may scoff all they like, but computer science really does involve more than just "Hi, I'm a Mac!"

 

I'm all for competition, and if they work out their issues and contribute something new to the PC browser market, I'll be all over it. But I'm not the least bit interested in shiny baubles and feel-good marketing.

[KLB]

Hogwash. When has that popular, traditional 3rd-party developer excuse ("it's the operating system's fault! not mine!") EVER been accurate? You write software to the operating system, you don't write software to some fantasy world that doesn't exist.

 

Neither I nor the article are saying its Windows fault for the security issues in Safari. What was being said in the article is that Safari was depending upon APIs in OS/X that handle the security issues. Since Windows doesn't have those APIs the security issues aren't being addressed. This isn't the OSes fault, as much the Safari developers having made security assumptions that were only true on OS/X. It is a classic case of unexpected things happening when a program is broken off and separated from the OS it matured with. Safari was never truly secure in and of itself, it just happened that OS/X provided the security blanket for Safari so Safari didn't need to worry about this itself.

[Pangloss]

I see your point, but I remain skeptical. We'll see what happens after they've had a few months of struggle with these often-difficult issues.

[KLB]

I'm sure in time it will become a very reliable and very secure browser. It is just going to have six months to a year of really bad "teething pains". If Apple throws a lot of development effort behind Safari they may be able to compress this time frame to a certain degree. It will also probably make Safari a more secure browser on OS/X as well as it will start doing things itself that it is allowing the OS to do.

[bascule]

Here's an interesting conjecture:

 

http://roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q2.07/34C8BD5D-E210-4A62-BE6F-FD21E046A397.html

 

A Windows port of Safari gets Apple more free security testing for Safari before the iPhone is released.

[NLN]

I'm a Mac user, and have used Safari since its inception, and it has always been my browser of choice. If it functions the same on a PC, I think PC users are really going to like it. Safari has a nice look, is quite speedy, and on a Mac shares bookmarks with the Apple address book application (handy!).

[Pangloss]

Yeah since I made the statement above that I thought all Mac users use Firefox, I've had several Mac users correct me on that point at work, so I have amended my opinion and learned something as well.