...and in a taste of things to come, Apple has removed the option to uninstall itunes separately from QT. Just got QT 7.2 from the Apple Software Update, and whereas previously although an iTunes install was forced you could go to Add/Remove and consign it to the oblivion it so richly deserves, surprise surprise, it now doesn't appear. 10-1 they do the same with Safari.
I've only seen it used breifly on other peoples systems, so i'm not sure of the answerhere. But when drives the iTunes store interface? It looked a lot like regular web pages last time i saw it. So on windows, which rendering engine was it using?
I can understand why QT is required for iTunes right now, and I can understand why they would require Safari to be installed for iTunes in the future if they are using the rendering engine there too.
It is going to make me less likely to use and of the above though
the glow around form fields in safari is intensely annoying.
as said before text rendering is horrible.
I'm qurious, your not in anyway a software developer or a useability expert are you?Originally Posted by Gordy
The apply button is damn useful, lets you keep the dialogue open whilst trialing changes. Cancel is useful because i've had many times where i've suddenly realised i'm been retarded.
Another thing, microsoft actually document in design guidelines this, Yes No Cancel Ok Apply all have specific right too left orders.
The great thing about this is people learn it swiftly, but also people who have any visual disability generally find it easyer. Not too mention it just makes sense too standardise.
Windows never makes you press apply, ok will suffice.
Now, i'm a 'proffesional' (i pay money to the BCS) developer, i work mostly on services not gui code, i find GUI design dull as dish water so avoid it. But even then i know the basics of good user interface design.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
My thoughts entirely. I welcome a move to allow me to further test the compatibility of websites without having to go and buy overpriced hardware
That's my view of it too.
There is a reason that interaction designers aren't usually programmers, and the above post illustrates it perfectly. It's also one of the primary reasons that Linux still hasn't taken off on the desktop; most of the coders hacking for it don't have a clue about interaction design, and the only ones really contributing to improving the UI in window managers are those with design skills, not user experience skills.
The Apply button in Windows is one of the worst, most terribly ambiguous parts of the Windows user experience. When coupled with a Cancel button, it means that the actual 'saved state' of whatever you were working on can remain utterly ambiguous to the user when it should be clear. What happens when I click the cancel button after I've clicked Apply? What happens when I click OK without having first clicked Apply? I've seen veteran sysadmins who always click Apply first, then OK, which illustrates that even these power users feel they have to play safe.
The important thing to take away from this is that it's not the position or appearance of the buttons that defines the experience; it's the behaviour of the buttons. By removing the buttons, Apple removes the ambiguity in the mind of the user. Unfortunately this poses a problem for experienced power-users who are used to having to deal with this ambiguity, as this absence causes confusion in their minds. This is a shame, but to Apple it's not a problem; they (mostly) make their software for the 80% of computer users who aren't seasoned power-users.
This fact can be applied to many of the above criticisms of Safari as well, as they're simply not targeting this browser at you. Tabs off by default? This is perfectly sensible when you're dealing with users whose only prior experience of the web may have been through something like Internet Explorer (6 or earlier). Remember that before IE7 was released, only a tiny percentage of web users actually used a browser that had tabs.
The only particular complaint I have with the above relates to the criticism of the text-rendering. ClearType is a broken method of anti-aliasing text. It might be what you're more familiar with, but that doesn't make alternative rendering methods wrong. If anything, Apple's rendering is far more accurate to the actual letterforms of typefaces; compare it to what you get in a PDF or when you set some text in Photoshop.
Really though, the criticisms about security are about the only valid criticisms this thread has garnered. Everything else seems motivated purely by a dislike of Apple or OS X. As a browsing experience, Safari fits its purpose very well - it's a fast, streamlined browser without too much feature-bloat that works well for casual web users. Unfortunately most of you don't come into that category, and Apple shouldn't be lambasted for not catering to your minority.
Oh, one other thing I also agreed with; Apple could have done more to make the application behave more like a Windows one. Using the faux-metal style doesn't fit in well with Windows, and the resize-from-corner-only thing is a nuance from OS X it could have done without.
i installed this and there is no buttons or anything on it very slow, dont know why?
You simply discount the views of all the people on this thread by saying they are biased against Apple? Ouch.
Oh don't be so silly - it's a huge grey slab of a browser, monolithically slow and might as well be running on OSX from it's look and feel. Apple should be lambasted for that in the same way (as mentioned) IBM are for the hideous Notes client. FFS even loyal Apple Mac users don't even like the darn thing much - or are they all biased and evil too?
Crosshair VIII Hero (WIFI), 3900x, 32GB DDR4, Many SSDs, EVGA FTW3 3090, Ethoo 719
Exactly its like running IE in Parallels Coherence, but pretending that's running native and that all those local os conventions aren't worth bothering with anyway.
not a good move by apple, not as good as itunes or bootcamp
No. Re-read what my comment said; the point was that the only valid, substantiated criticism was concerning security. The rest were down to personal taste and therefore I think it's fair to say they're because of a bias against Apple. I'm not saying that such a bias isn't allowed, just that criticisms drawn from it are irrelevent to this discussion.You simply discount the views of all the people on this thread by saying they are biased against Apple? Ouch.
Heh, you're criticising it for being grey? Is that what defines the browsing experience in your view, the theme? From where I'm sat right now my Firefox window looks quite grey too. I'd also like some substantiation to these claims of it being slow. My experience is quite the opposite. But in any case, how it looks is orthogonal to the subject of it being fit for purpose, that purpose being a fast browser for casual web users. Emphasis added so you see the important bits this timeOh don't be so silly - it's a huge grey slab of a browser, monolithically slow and might as well be running on OSX from it's look and feel.
I don't suppose you'd mind providing your source to that claim, would you? I know a lot of Mac users (although where the term 'loyal' fits in, I'm not sure), and a large number of them run - and are quite happy with - Safari. The other browser I see a lot of people use is OmniWeb, which is based on Apple's WebKit - the same rendering engine as used in Safari.
Some people can't see the wood for the.. ApplesI think quite a lot of people here gave Safari a fair crack of the whip - or are you suggesting we've all got nothing better to do that download Apple software just to lay into it?
...and acts like a Windows application despite being a cross-platform browser. Ingenious really
Yes, I provided an example on the previous page, which (again) you didn't read (obviously). I'm not interested in point scoring but really, how many people are saying _nice_ things about Safari? Or do you think the groundswell of opinion against it is purely because we (unlike you) aren't capable of seeing the shining light of browser revolution that is Safari? The problem isn't so much that it's terrible - it's just that it's really not very _good_. I even prefer (deep breath) IE7 over it currently. Then there's Firefox - I don't use that either but it's still much, much better than Safari. If Apple were _really_ interested in changing the face of the browser market they would of brought something substantially better to the table (having looked at the competition). I'm coming round to the idea that it's just there for the iPhone because otherwise I don't see any great need for it (aside from the PR?) based on it's current state. I'll happily look at it again should they substantially change it but at the moment it's a lardy app with some decidedly dodgy ideas about changing the way we use Windows applications for no other reason than that's how it works on OSX. Joy.I'd also like some substantiation to these claims of it being slow. My experience is quite the opposite. But in any case, how it looks is orthogonal to the subject of it being fit for purpose, that purpose being a fast browser for casual web users. Emphasis added so you see the important bits this time
One can only question the sanity of someone who _doesn't_ think Mac users are loyal - although perhaps I should of used the word fanatical instead? lol. A large number of Windows users run - and are quite happy with - Internet Explorer - it's installed by default, it gets used a lot (duh). Why would people need OmniWeb at all, after all - Safari has nothing more wrong with it that a few security flaws, right?
If Safari had been produced by IBM or MS I would of been just as critical. If you'd like to start a thread on IE7 and what's wrong with it i'll gladly contribute
Crosshair VIII Hero (WIFI), 3900x, 32GB DDR4, Many SSDs, EVGA FTW3 3090, Ethoo 719
Pointing out particular features they don't like and why. Giving examples (and where necessary, evidence) of things not working or performing as they ought to. These sort of things. Comments like 'the font rendering is crap' is subjective unless backed up by some sort of justification for the comment. It's also a bit disingenuous to imply that people responding to this thread did so with open-mindedness at the forefront of their thoughts given that the thread subject starts with the words 'Safari on Windows is cack'. It's practically trolling.Really, how do you expect people to evaluate a piece of software?
It acts like a Windows browser on Windows, and a Windows browser on Linux, and a Windows browser on OS X (why do you think Camino exists?). But look and feel and behaviour are two separate issues. There are however a number of valid criticisms of Safari behaviour on Windows beyond look and feel. But focusing on look and feel makes it sound like cosmetic appearance is more important, which really it shouldn't be (it could retain the solid grey look and still behave more like a Windows app)....and acts like a Windows application despite being a cross-platform browser.
(Needless troll-like asides emphasised). I saw you mention how it was slower than Opera at displaying things, and slower to restore to maximised state. Now it's fair to say that Opera is one of the fastest browsers out there, so it's not too surprising Opera does well against it, but Opera is also a decidedly minority browser. How well does Safari do against the browsers that most people use on Windows; IE6, IE7 and Firefox? I've not actually tried a speed comparison against Opera yet, but I'll do that later today.Yes, I provided an example on the previous page, which (again) you didn't read (obviously).
Still, some actual proof in terms of numbers would be useful. The Mootools Slickspeed test is good for benchmarking JavaScript performance (and in this I was impressed at how much faster it was than Firefox). There are, however, a lot of other factors in how fast a page loads in a given browser. If you use Opera as your browser of choice, did you empty the cache before testing it with eBay? Those sort of things make a big difference.
A good question, which I can't answer. I know of a lot of friends who - anecdotally - praise it, and from the perspective of it being a simplified yet decent browsing experience it makes sense to me that it'd be popular with common or garden computer users. It also makes sense to me that it wouldn't be so popular with power users (it lacks some of the more advanced features, and there's no 'official' way of extending its functionality). The problem is that for a browser to succeed, it doesn't have to meet the needs of the power users. In fact, it doesn't even have to be any good; it just needs to be already there, and good enough. Q.E.D.: IE6.
Why is it much, much better? C'mon. Give me something to go on here! I use Firefox over Safari on Windows currently, but I'm a web developer so the lack of tools like Firebug would make it difficult to switch at the drop of a hat. But I would if they existed for Safari.
Better how? How do you quantify better? When Apple set out to make a browser, the key requirement was for it to be fast. Opera asides, I'd say they'd succeeded. Most users don't need (or even know of) the advanced features that Firefox provides, so what thing are they going to gauge it by when they first use it? The number of options about:config provides?
It seems likely this was the main reason. That and the huge stack of cash they'd earn from Google (the same way Mozilla makes its money).
Riiight. Is there any sense to this? I used to own a Mac a few years back, and I switched to Windows. I'm now in the process of switching back. Loyal? Hmm, to myself and my own needs perhaps. Fanatical? Oh the crutch of the lazy Apple critic strikes back. There are fanatics in any field, and it's unjustified and lazy to tar people with the same brush just to support your arguments.
Can't argue with that.
Why would people need Firefox? In the same way that Firefox meets the needs of more advanced web users, OmniWeb provides more advanced features, but still uses the WebKit framework, ensuring it can take advantage of the speed of that system. In fact, all manner of third-party applications use WebKit to handle their web views. Dashboard's widgets use it too.
Oh, and it's important to note that the security vulnerabilities that were in the Safari 3 beta appeared to be in the Windows version only. Not that this is the fault of Windows (most likely they weren't), but the decision to use OmniWeb over Safari is very unlikely to have been informed by concerns over security.
I'm not sure such a thread would be productive, as I'm not sure this one is particularly either. There's a difference between listing concerns and suggesting possible improvements, and inviting a dogpile with namecalling.
Okay, I've spent the morning running some tests using Slickspeed so as to present them here. Admittedly these are only a test of JavaScript performance, so other tests for overall page loading speed would probably be necessary. I've summarised the results in an Excel spreadsheet, but for the purposes of brevity here is the results graph:
In conclusion: Firefox is a dog, taking over 18 seconds to complete the test. Internet Explorer 7 isn't far behind, and is slow at all tests - even the otherwise fast Prototype. Safari and Opera appear pretty evenly matched, with Safari faster in some tests, Opera faster in others, but with only a few milliseconds between them. Overall, Safari was narrowly fastest.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
