Comments for Has Apple tripped up with Safari?

Hugo, about your security comments. Safari has been around for a few years now, if the crossplatform hacks would be so easy to run they would have ben exploited long time ago. The fact that Mac OS X runs practically unaffected by viruses, like Linux, is proof that the engineers at Apple are staying on top of things. I'm not saying that the system in unbreakable, it just has decent security. The Mac platform is surely smaller than the Windows installed base but by all means it's not small. Several industries are practically dominated by Apple. Hollywood is one. Go on a set or talk to any of the creative pros in the field, the majority of them use Macs. There many millions of Macs out there and they are growing pretty fast. If anything, they are an untaxed source of "proxies" as the virus creators like to refer to their victims.
Again, if the exploit was so easy it would have been used a long time ago. It's true that Apple could be relying on Mac security for Safari but I don't think this is the case of the Windows port. Apple is very aware of the security holes of Windows and it would unreasonable to think that they will not address them in the final version, when Safari will be certified and completely tested. Once again, this is beta software, it's expected to have faults.

BTW, when Safari was first released I questioned the move too. Thinking that the tested and proven Firefox was already out and being a OSS would have made sense for Apple to just take it, re-brand it and re-release it like Netscape/AOL did.
There is a solid reason for Apple to have its own browser. When MS stopped development of IE for Mac, talk about buggy software which never worked properly in the SHIPPING version, some people questioned the viability of the Mac now that it didn't have an officially supported browser.
Apple had to provide the solution as long as it provides the OS. It has to be in that way or the whole platform would depend on another supplier. And that is not something that you want to have if you are in Apple's shoes. Apple has to be able to integrated and control Internet/Web technologies in its OS. It's just that simple. That's the reason for developing Safari. Porting it to Windows is a different deal altogether but the fact that Mac OS now runs on Intel for sure simplifies this task a bit. The strategy behind this move is probably to support Apple products in the consumer market, for products to come and for the iPhone. It could be also that they just want to make the browser more relevant in an effort to force web designers to take action and write code that is Safari-compatible. All those client and server browser sniffers out there are mostly testing for two players. Apple is set now to create a third pole of influence. By using iTunes as a advertisement system. That's pretty good strategy.

hannibal, I agree that crashes are probably the very last thing that you would do to software, and that beta versions are meant to crash. However, I think there's been a lot more crashes for me than my friends...

Of course I'd give it another shot when its final release comes out. Who knows what might happen?

PERFORMANCE

First, the Wired "benchmark" isn’t really a benchmark. It’s some guy loading pages while holding a stopwatch. Nor does Google serve the same content to each browser. As such, the results cannot be used to claim Safari will always be slower on DHTML or general browsing functions.

Jobs actually used an industry standard web benchmarking tool to come up with his stats. You can download this benchmark and verify the results yourself.

http://tinyurl.com/2mz422

Second, I don’t see average page loads for each browser. If the test was only run a few times per page, it’s not accounting for bandwidth variations over time.

Third, it’s only testing a specific set of pages. As you can see, Safari was faster on one particular page. Given a larger set of pages in different applications, Safari on Windows could have come out ahead.

For example, Safari on Windows and Mac OS X clearly out performs IE7 and Firefox on the DHTML bubble mark when running on my system.

http://bubblemark.com/dhtml.htm

Safari Windows: 93fps
Safari Mac OS X: 98fps
IE7 (Windows): 62fps
Firefox on Windows: 64fps
Firefox on Mac OS X: 73fps

GRAPHICS

This is addressed here.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html

As a switcher from Windows in 2003, I prefer the Mac text rendering over Windows.

SECURITY

This was rushed to allow developers to test their sites for the iPhone. And it's Beta. Also, you can be sure security researchers were chomping at the bit to rip Safari to shreds, which results in a better product.

STABILITY, BUGS AND OMISSIONS

I've installed Safari for Windows on XP when it was released and it's only crashed a few time. There were installation conflicts with other third-party fonts that cause problems on some system. And, it's a Beta.

"...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."

Revolting? These are not core features, they are extras, many of which are supported using different key sequences. CTRL+'+' and CTRL+'-' to change font sizes. And Safari has excellent plug-in support because it shares the same plug-in API as Firefox.

You must be referring to add-ins, which are specific to Firefox and are popular with advanced users. Most people can surf the web quite we with out them. Also, developers can enable a debug menu that gives you some of the same functionality.

http://rakaz.nl/item/enabling_the_debug_menu_on_safari_for_windows

And, while it's not as nice as Firebug, Safari 3 for Mac OS has a inspector panel, which doesn't seem to have made it to the default installation of Windows yet.

http://www.duckwizard.com/2007/06/13/safari-on-windows-dom-inspector/

It's real-world testing. Benchmarks test abstracts great but when the results show a complete reversal when using a real, widely used application, you have to question the validity of the benchmark.

It's real world testing on a grand total of four pages of a single web app by a guy with a stopwatch. There are dozens of AJAX sites out there that could show different conclusions. Where are the real-world results for these sites?. The wired benchmark is simply FUD.

I'm not saying it's wrong that OSX uses that font model but it should stay on OSX. Making Windows users use it isn't cool.

Safari's font rendering is more accurate on smaller font sizes and it's the only browser that supports industry standard ICC color management profiles for images on Windows. If more accurate representations of images and text isn't important to you, then I can see why you'd prefer to stick with Firefox. But don't assume that everyone shares your opinion.

Also I don't have a problem resizing browser windows on the Mac since the Zoom button automatically sizes the window so the content fits perfectly in the window. Guess I could see how you'd be annoyed because Windows maximize / minimize button doesn't share this same behavior.

"It's not, it's junk. It's a rush-job to try and tempt people into developing for a massively expensive, untested and unproven product: the iPhone. There's no merit for it as a real desktop browser.

Wow. No merit as a real browser? And you're an expert on everyone's browser preferences because of what?

I use Safari for my daily web browsing experience on the Mac (and now Windows) yet use Firefox when I'm trying to debug web pages. Am I some kind of anomaly in the space-time continuum? I can see how you might not like Safari, but claiming it has no merit and is not a "real browser" based on a rushed Beta really isn't being objective. It's clearly showing bias toward what YOU prefer to use.

If this were a major revision to a pre-existing release of Safari on Windows, I'd agree with you. However, this is the first release Safari on Windows. Period. And it's far from being the disaster everyone makes it out to be. I've been using Safari on Windows for ASP.NET development in Parallels on XP and it's been very solid. Most of the problems are with the installer, not the actual application.

As for tempting iPhone developers, are you implying that Apple is somehow forcing everyone to develop iPhone apps by releasing Safari? There are already nearly two dozen sites specifically designed for the iPhone. Releasing Safari on Windows simply makes developing iPhone apps, which people were going to do anyway, easier for web developers on Windows. And it makes it easier for traditional site developers to make sure their site works in Safari without buying a Mac.

I'd also note that Safari 3 shares the same open source rendering engine as KHTML and is a strong competitor to Firefox. It also supports extended CSS3 background and border properties, including RGBA color definitions, and supports multiple background positions that even the GranPracideo beta doesn't.

http://24ways.org/examples/rounded-corners-the-css3-way/rounded.html

Far from "junk" in my opinion. In fact, I use it as my primary development browser, test and debug on Firefox, then perform a final test on IE. Firefox and Safari render nearly identically in most cases.

Similarly, some of the content enhancing plug-ins like AdBlock or SiteAdvisor make life for every user so much nicer... I wasn't just talking about devel plugins.

I have seven extension installed in Firefox. I only use four of them and they are developer oriented. After installing the AdBlock extension in Firefox, I didn't notice any difference between viewing CNN in Firefox vs. Safari, so I took a quick look at the config window. It's obviously geared toward advanced users, not "every" user. And I simply have no use for toolbars or services like SiteAdviser since I've never had a problem with spyware or malware while browsing online. Safari comes with a built in pop-up blocker, which is all I use on my Mac.

Breezy, although your comment may be more of a brainstorm-style than a carefully laid out comment, this is what I'd be looking for if I were a developer.

You see, for people working on Firefox, a few thoughts here and there are what really improved Firefox. That's why the developers ask users for any comments, suggestions and complaints.

Although I'm a complete dummy when it comes to web developing, it is indeed an interesting subject to learn and talk about. ESPECIALLY when it comes to porting Mac apps {lots of graphics, plenty of eye candy, very easy to use and intuitive} to the Windows world where, in my opinion, things can get ugly.

When I say ugly I really mean it. One prime excample is the Add/Remove Programs list. Takes forever to load. I mean, why do we even have to navigate there to uninstall a program in the first place? Can't we just have something like a 3rd party software that when you drag an icon over it uninstalls the software? There's stuff like that for Mac, but not for Windows, as far as research tells me.

Comparing Safari to IE, were Safari more stable, I'd use it any day over IE. As it is, at the moment, I don't find either of them to be efficient for my use. So I'm using Firefox. And boy does it work for me. 24/7 it's on and it never gets a break. Still running smooth as water.

If Safari had similar qualities to Firefox, I might consider switching to Safari. But I find that sometimes, the best software is OPEN SOURCE software. For example, the Apple company started with just that small bunch of people, where it felt more like experimenting than real work. So that was great in the old days. But now standards have risen, and the demand for better software is a putting constant pressure on all developers who care.

Now take Firefox. There's people all around the world developing for it. 24/7, ideas are being thought up, either by users or developers. The very next day they get put on a list, and they try to add it. Users make countless add-ons for Firefox. There's literally hundreds of people working at it non-stop.

And how does this happen? Because it's OPEN SOURCE. The source code is free for all to download and improve/change. Because of this, anyone can work on improving Firefox. This allows for much higher quality software, with ideas thrown in by thousands, if not more.

I've heard that Safari has add-ons for Mac but not for Windows. In my opinion, if I'm ever to switch to Safari on my PC, add-ons NEED TO BE PORTED. It's just that. There's many people like me who just don't feel comfortable without those daily add-ons that almost become part of the browser.

Yes. My first time using Safari, I felt that it was much cleaner and sleeker. Lack of add-ons, perhaps? I then remembered that add-ons slow down the browser, probably Safari's main reason for a minimalistic default, as with Firefox. So I went through all my Firefox add-ons and got rid of say, 20?

Afterwards, I noticed vast improvement. Web pages loaded faster, there was less lagging with the software, life was so much better :)

But even if add-ons make a browser slower, I think that Safari really needs a few, just to perfect that already-great browser {at least on a Mac}

For now, Firefox remains my browser of choice, at least until Safari for Windows gets much-needed treatment.

One could say that Firefox is better than IE for a multitude of reasons. Here are a few examples...

- Does not use ActiveX controls for plug-ins (Flash, etc.) so it's more secure
- Faster security patches than Microsoft
- Uses a open-source rendering engine
- Faster than IE
- Significantly more standards compliment than IE
- Not tied to the OS
- Had support for tabs earlier than IE
- Had built in privacy controls and pop-up blocker before IE
- Gives users an alternative and forces Microsoft to make better versions of IE
- Themes
- Better "FInd" interface

These things are core features that everyone can appreciate, including regular users that simply want to browse the web.

Now if your a developer or an advanced user, there is additional set of reasons why Firefox is better than IE.

- Extensions, such as AdBlock which can be configured to block specific content
- Superior web development extensions, like Firebug
- Advanced built in options for privacy, such as image blocking on particular sites, etc.

But in most cases, you need to be an advanced user to even understand how to set these options up. Casual or non-power users many not know how to use these features.

Now, let's see how Safari, in it's FIRST BETA release on Windows, fits into these groups

With the exception of themes and being completely open source, Safari intersects with the same set of advantages as Firefox in the first group. You can even download nightly builds of WebKit for Safari on Windows from http://www.webkig.org. Yes, the UI is different, which could be a turn off for some, but Safari does have more accurate text rendering at smaller sizes (which is the most common size on the web) and has industry standard color support. It's a tradeoff and a subjective choice, not a death sentence.

In the second group, Safari does not have a public extensions API or advanced developer tools, such as Firebug. Nor does it have built-in image blocking features. As such, advanced users and developers may prefer Firefox for debug pages or day to day browsing. However, this doesn't mean developers, such as myself, might not use Safari for day to day browsing and break out Firefox for hard-core debugging.

In other words, Safari clearly dosn't merit the claim that it is "junk", "has no merit" or is "not a real browser." Such claims come from the perspective of an advanced user, not the entire browser market as a whole.