Has Apple tripped up with Safari?

Anyone want to go on Safari?
By Oli on Thursday, 14th June 2007. More information. Comments.

Apple has recently launched their flagship browser to Windows. Any good? Any point? Despite his animosity for most things Apple, Oli is excited to be getting his hands on the Apple browser... But for how long?

Apple this week announced and released their latest beta of their flagship browser, Safari... On Windows. The initial welcome of the news was a little sparse (as it would in a room full of Apple activists) but a little while later there were definitely a few people making positive sounds.

Regular readers will know my contempt for Apple fans and Apple software on Windows but please don't see this as a negative because I was genuinely excited to see Safari coming to Windows, even if I did have a few doubts.

My problem with Apple software is that it tries to infest your computer. I'm not saying that in a malware sense but lets just say that Apple software comes from a very controlled environment. OSX is the mothership and it has everything built in that apps might need. Windows is fairly unfamiliar ground and for the software to feel right at home, it brings a lot of personal effects to keep it company.

Performance

Apple claim that Safari is "up to" two times faster than other browsers... I've got to say that's certainly not my personal experience and other people have been publishing studies showing that Safari isn't all that quick.

This one article published by Wired Magazine's blog shows that Safari is slower than all three top browsers (IE, FF and Opera).

Sure you can misrepresent figures to show what you like but at the end of it, performance is possibly the last comparison I make when looking at browsers because it doesn't matter to me if something takes a second longer if I can use it better once it's there.

I'm just saying don't be pulled in by Apple's useless statistics on performance. They're certainly not a viable or uncontested selling point.

Graphics

Apple text is bold — all the time.

So lets start this little look at Safari 3 with the most fundamental of application features: text rendering. Point of notice: Apple text is bold — all the time. Bold text is even bolder. Jeff over at Coding Horror has already taken a in-depth look at Apple's rendering techniques and he has a great paraquote from a MS insider describing as Apple taking the text and just blurring it a little.

That's a superb statement that I think anybody who uses ClearType (the MS antialiasing technology) will agree that Apple screen type is gallons less readable than average Windows text. I'm sure it's just a OS-preference thing but why would you bring your rendering to another platform where they're perfectly happy with (in our opinion) a superior display technology? Here's a direct comparison:

Alternative rendering techniques

Graphically, it's what you expect from Apple. Gradient + rounded corners. Interestingly enough, the window doesn't leave a shadow (as you'll see with pictures later on) which I thought was a bit of a funny thing to turn off. I thought OSX has shadows...

Security

From the Safari website:

Now you can enjoy worry-free web browsing on any computer. Apple engineers designed Safari to be secure from day one.

Fire the engineers. Fire them all now. This is the one that's going to be biting Apple in the arse for a long time. Barely a couple of hours after it was released, people were peeking and poking the browser for vulnerabilities... And getting results.

Yes, I know it's beta. It may have a better patch release schedule than IE, though it may not... But seriously... Critical flaws found in under 2 hours? This is starting to point to a severe lack of ability to test applications properly before releasing them into the wild.

Windows is a completely different beast. You don't have the inherent security levels that you took from BSD when you built OSX watching your back. That means you need to be a hundred times more vigilant when writing anything. The fact vulnerabilities are showing themselves so immediately is a clear sign that Apple just isn't taking this seriously.

They should have had security consultants in detecting this stuff at pre-alpha level.

Stability, bugs and omissions

"Beta" software is that which is still undergoing testing and last minute changes. You usually stagger testing in stages so you can deal with feedback and get a new build that addresses as many of the previous versions bugs as possible.

The mistake that Apple seemed to have made is they've got so caught up in keeping leaks to a minimum that they can't even tell their own employees to test the thing before squeeze it out over the heads of the unsuspecting and eager public.

The sheer range of stability is absolutely astounding. Some people (on both OSX and Windows) have constant repeatable crashing on several places and other have a fairly stable ride. I've only had a few crashes while using it but I've probably only been using it for two hours in total. That level of instability is way below what I'd expect by beta level.

There's also this weird dual-monitor bug... Drag safari over... double click the header to maximise but it disappears! It actually vanishes into a 1px by 20px strip on the far right... Very, very odd.

Err... Where did it go?

There are still rendering bugs but that's only to be expected. Interestingly enough it passes the Acid2 test with flying colours... But as Opera proves in itself, passing that array of positional tests is hardly a universal benchmark for CSS formatting on the whole.

Most of my problems with the browser come at a usability level. There are things that they've turned off or haven't implemented in this version which just make using the browser painful.

As you might expect from an OSX app, you have the world most annoying window-frames. I know they're only 1px wide but I'm pretty accurate so if you gave me the choice, I, for one, would be able to use them to resize windows.... Here's a visual depiction of me trying desperately to resize:

Where are the resize handles?!

Having to dive to the bottom right corner every time I want to resize is not just damned annoying, it's thoroughly inconsistent with the rest of Windows.

Do OSX users use middle click?

Do OSX users use middle click? I certainly do... There's a lot to be said for middle clicking and letting a long page autoscroll so you can read it all without having to scroll down more lines. Middle click does nothing for me.

How about control+mousewheel-up or control+mousewheel-down? Something I do on a very regular basis is change the font size so I can sit back and read. I do this using the wheel... Again... no such love in Safari.

These sorts of petty omissions are amongst some of the first features I would put in something. They are basic functions of many applications and overlooking them as Apple seem to have is revolting.

Perhaps I'm just a power user for using two peripherals at the same... Either way, these sorts of features can't be missing from the final version or nobody will use it. They're fundamental features.

There's also a lack of a plug-in framework at the moment and, obviously, therefore a lack of plug-ins. I wouldn't say my install of Firefox 2 is totally pimped out by plugins but I have it made it my own... I'm uncomfortable doing certain things without my plug-ins...

I've got the Web Developer toolbar for giving me technical information about pages and helping me optimise pages, Firebug for detailed manipulation of webpages to debug the design and javascript. Adblock Plus keeps annoying adverts and scripts off my computer and really makes viewing websites so much more enjoyable. Colourful tabs makes the tab bar more usable. Finally, I've got Stumble Upon for unmitigated procrastination.

I can't count the number of times I've used the in-line spell-checker in Firefox 2. It's not perfect (grammar checking would be a nice addition) but going without it certainly means there are going to be more typos.

Possible uses

So security is shot, text looks dodgy, there are bugs galore, many features that are largely fundamental are missing, there aren't any plug-ins that make other browsers so powerful, the interface is annoying and inconsistent with what Windows users expect and the speed of this thing is vastly debatable... So why would anybody want to use Safari?

useless for mainstream Mac user testing

Well I was first enthusiastic about being able to use Safari so I could test designs and make sure they work. Older versions of Safari have been pretty good on the CSS front but have a few lapses that can make all the difference. Version 3 of Safari fixes some but introduces some more... It's completely inconsistent with Safari 2.x and that makes it useless for mainstream Mac user testing.

Other people have said the whole reason for releasing this to Windows users is so they can develop safari modifications that work with the iPhone. While I can see the logic there, how does releasing something in this state signify any commitment to your developers?

They've called it a beta but it's clear to me that it's nowhere near that state of readiness. There has been a massively low amount of testing happen before the public release or the testing happened but its results were just discarded.

I think a lot of security experts are assuming that we're going to see some form of bundling going on where iTunes downloads include Safari... Therefore there's a lot of emphasis on hacking the hell out of it so if there is any sort of measurable Windows Safari membership, they'll soon become part of a botnet.

The worst case scenario for Apple is that these security bods find cross-platform hacks in Safari and we'll see how long Apple fanboys can keep holding IE's face in the mud.

If you can get good use from this, I wish you the best of luck... Personally, I can't see any use for it whatsoever — it doesn't do anything that another browser does and what it does do, it does worse than them.

"Safari" is Swahili for "trip". I can't help but feel that's what best described this. A massive safari-up for Apple because they've released this saying it's in a late stage of production and its nowhere near ready or even safe. They need to adopt a better system of testing things internally... That requires Jobs to actually trust his minions a little.

Anyway... Thanks, Steve... But no thanks.

Grav

Written by Oli on Thursday, 14 June 2007. Tagged with apple, webdev, releases. Read 15128 times. If you liked it, please give it a digg.

1 to 10 of 49 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
#1 /* 2 years, 1 month ago */
Well. Despite the fact that yes there ARE a lot of improvements needed for Safari, there are a lot of good features in it too, that I have only seen in Firefox extensions. Safari has those little bits that make everything so good...like resizing text-boxes. That helps me so much when I write long blogs. And I don't notice any blurriness in my font in Safari. My only problem is that sometimes it stops responding all together and has the ability to freeze my whole computer for up to 20mins! Maximizing and minimizing also take quite a while, and note that there's not that many animations.

But yes Safari DOES load pages very fast for me. It loaded my Bebo profile {mind, that's a lot of Flash} in under 5 seconds, whilst Firefox can take up to 10 seconds to load the page properly.

Now, I believe that the main reason for the speed of Safari is their lack {this could be good} of extensions, because, for example, extensions like FireDoodle have to load every time you load a page. In Safari, there's no such thing. Thus pages tend to load faster. I've also noticed a big improvement in my Firefox after un-installing about 10 extensions and 3 skins that I didn't really need.

I'm guessing that although some people might not notice, extensions can really slow down your page loading. My advice is that if you want any web browser to be as fast as possible, keep it minimal. Use less extensions. Perhaps this is why Safari has the upper hand on speed, with it's minimalist design.

I'm positive that as soon as Safari for Windows gets fixed on the fonts, bugs and security leaks, it will certaintly come into the Windows world. I believe this is especially for developers who need to see if their pages would render correctly on a Mac. Also the obvious advantages are that you get a touch of Apple's beautiful GUI in that window.

Although Windows fans might not like Safari's interface OR Safari itself at all, I have always been a big Mac fan, although I'm still using a Windows desktop now {I'm getting an Intel Macbook in the summer}
I always welcome a touch of Apple's GUI on my computer. Even if it's just a program {say, ObjectDock?} that imitates the Dock in Mac.

I'm sure that Safari will be a success, as Apple IS a success 99% of the time. The only place they have faults is when they stubbornly stick with their GUI and ways of rendering {and not that I have a problem with that. I'm a big Mac fan incase you didn't notice that I said that earlier}

Yes. Security. At least for the 24/7 ALWAYS ON computers, users can sleep peacefully knowing how secure Apple always has been. As soon as Apple patches up Safari, it might even get close to being almost as good as the Mac version of Safari, especially when it comes to protection from the dreaded viruses, trojan horses, keyloggers etc.

:D:D:D
#2 — Author comment /* 2 years, 1 month ago */
Thanks for the mammoth post Hugo.

They've got a lot to learn before they can get something like this secure. As I said in the posting, Windows is a completely different beast which is a lot more insecure as far as kernel-level encapsulation and memory protection go. They flaunt that fact in almost every Mac advert... Yet here they are with a bazillion and five very easy to execute security flaws on their doorstep.

I don't know how you can say people should expect high levels of security from Apple products on Windows. Safari is the most hackable (it's parsing tons of wild code), unlike anything they've done before for Windows. They're not the ones that secured their own OS either... The people that made BSD get the credit for that.

Apple have to prove themselves, in my eyes, if nobody else's.
#3 /* 2 years, 1 month ago */
Yes, this would be because Apple is totally based on Unix. I'd be interested to hear Steve Jobs' comment on this, him being a very important person at Apple. Because, if Safari is that hackable, then perhaps Apple should take a hint from Linux and come with Firefox pre-installed instead of Safari.

Maybe.

But then, if they could just improve their security by *taming the code*, it would become far less hackable.

And I think that another reason Apple might be letting its guard down is that:

Mac OS has the upper hand on virus protection since no one seems to bother to hack Mac, Windows being more used.

Maybe the lack of security in Safari is based on the fact that Mac OS get so little viruses and trojans & malware?

:D:D:D
:D:D:D
#4 — Author comment /* 2 years, 1 month ago */
OSX has a tremendous upper hand as a platform over Windows. It inherited the Unix model from BSD. I'm certainly not saying that they should dump Safari in favour of something else (well I think that wouldn't be a bad plan but that's not what I'm saying here), just that they needed to spend a lot more time with the relevant expertise getting Safari locked down on such a weakly protected platform.

What you say is right. Because OSX is a small platform, almost nobody tries to hack it. There's no gain in looking for hacks for it if you can only get 20 computers out of it, when looking for XP hacks might get your botnet an extra 20,000 machines.

But that changed as soon as Safari looked as if it might be coming to Windows. People are finding cross-platform attack vectors (something I'm sure Apple weren't expecting) which endangers its own image on security.
#5 /* 2 years, 1 month ago */
I'm pretty sure that the primary reason for Safari on Windows is for iPhone development & compatibility. From that standpoint, they have to include OS X's font rendering, since that's what the iPhone uses, and you want to see how your web app will actually look.
#6 /* 2 years, 1 month ago */
Yes, I agree that Apple is also putting its own OS in a big risk. Especially by releasing a beta Safari that has barely been tested and has probably been rushed out just to make the Mac-Fans cheer. If people manage to find a cross platform hack {for example I've already heard that there's a chance that someone could easily execute a Remote Code from their browser *straight to your computer* if you know how}

If I had to give a piece of advice to Steve Jobs, I'd say it would be:

Observe windows. Notice how many people try SUCCESSFULLY to hack it, and how, by just hacking into one computer on a server, can potentially destroy a whole network of computers. Notice how many more people are actually using Windows, despite how insecure it is. Take note that more people are actually trying to hack Windows than Mac, because Windows is so widely used.

Like you said, *Because OSX is a small platform, almost nobody tries to hack it. There's no gain in looking for hacks for it if you can only get 20 computers out of it, when looking for XP hacks might get your botnet an extra 20,000 machines.*

The *server situation* is an example of how easy it might be {on a server with poor security} to destroy a whole company, which is similar to your example.

If I were to run a huge company {which I don't}, I'd definetely make all my workers use Macs. It's not really to do with the fact that I'm a big Mac-Fan, I just like the security of Macs and the fact that so little people actually bother hacking it.

My friends also tell me that Mac as an OS has more complex coding than Windows, making it much harder to hack. If this is so, then I think the only reasons for using Windows are:

They have more software and games
They used to write software for the Mac
Mac did not do too well in its prime. They were often rushing to meet extreme dealines, and sometimes let a few bugs pass, if Jobs thought they weren't showstoppers {not to say that Windows doesn't let any bugs pass!}

I think that Safari for Windows, although it was a great excitement at first, is now probably putting millions of users at risk of having their computers hacked. Because of ONE security flaw, found within 24hrs of the first release of Safari for Windows, millions of users are at risk.

Especially if any employee happened to download Safari onto their office computer. That would be fatal if it got hacked.

I suppose the average user won't really mind about these things. I mean, probably 1 out of 30 of my friends actually know what this means. I wouldn't expect an average user to understand this. But I think that, in order to keep up Apple's reputation for being secure and stable, Jobs should have released a patch for Safari for Windows AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. I'm not sure how late it was released, but I'm sure that the time used to make a patch was more than enough time to hack a few unfortunate users.

Again, most, if not ALL of this chaos was caused by lack of good planning. If they had resisted the Mac crowd for just a few days longer, they could've let testers test it on computers that were designed for this stuff. Then so many people wouldn't have been put at risk.

However, what's done is done. I guess all that Jobs can do now is to spread word of the patch as quickly as possible and hope that the people who downloaded Safari for Windows {I was one of them, I admit I really got excited over this} are responsible enough to understand that this is only a BETA, and that there are bound to be bugs, and that it is totally their responsibility to check for updates on Safari as often as they think needed.
:D:D:D
#7 /* 2 years, 1 month ago */
Hugo is on the money! It is BETA!

If Firefox did this much right, nobody would be so critical. Apple makes something like this and forgets to write BETA in 72pt Bold before Safari in 12pt normal, and we seem to forget.

BTW font-rendering on Mac is so much better, I cannot get what you are talking about its being inferior to Windows. It looks more like printed page. Complain to Windows that they have had such poor rendering for so long. That is like complaining that Dannon water is not as good as tap water because it does not taste the same. Sheesh!
#8 /* 2 years, 1 month ago */
Well, you call Safaris text rendering fuzzy, I call Windows text rendering jaggy. I don't see, why MS in the year 2007 still isn't able to remove jaggy type with their "antialiasing"...
"From day one" certainly doesn't mean "day one of the Beta" but "day one of the final release". People wondering about security holes are just naive. Then again, the MacOS version of the Safari 3 beta doesn't have most of these security problems, so perhaps it is more a question of the underlying OS's stability…
#9 /* 2 years, 1 month ago */
From what I've read on here and on 456 Berea St., this probably should have been labeled "Alpha", not "Beta". (The close button doesn't work in the Mac version? Seriously.) Nonetheless, it'll probably be worth looking at again when the final release comes.
Cross me and be thagomized.
#10 /* 2 years, 1 month ago */
Hmm...I'm not a Mac user so I have no idea about the bugs of the BETA in Mac.

Yes, perhaps, like Firefox, it should've been named Alpha instead of Beta, in BOLD. My reason for that would be that I have a habit of downloading a lot of Beta programs for real-time use, and I tend to have a very good opinion about them. Now I usually stay away from Alpha's, as I know they're not even safe to use yet!

So perhaps they could have changed the name to Alpha and make a note to all downloaders that it's only Alpha {or a VERY EARLY UNSAFE version of Beta}
:D:D:D
1 to 10 of 49 < 1 2 3 4 5 >

Don't just sit there like a lemon! Reply!

Got something to say? Now's the time to share it with the author and everybody else that reads this posting! Lemons need not apply.

edtBOX - xHTML: yes - bbcode:no
Home | Advertise | About | Contact | Legal © Oli Warner 2001—2007 Proud 9rules member