[Kerrigan]

Safari:
Buggy
Doesn't support Thinkpad scrolling mechanism (like iTunes)
Crashes
Interface doesn't feel at home

IE:
Bizarre interface
Slow


Any other cons to add to these lists?

[Rumor]

IMO, the only option for Windows is Firefox.

IE has problems pulling proper CSS.

[exca1ibur]

Something to think about...

Safari - Beta
IE - Final

One should have problems, the other... no excuse.

[ghporter]

I gave up on IE in Windows a long time back. And I haven't even bothered with Safari for Windows because of all the bad press it's had, plus the fact that I haven't seen anything that says all the sites that don't like Safari on a Mac would do any different. Firefox all the way. It may not have the most Mac-like interface, but at least it works on almost all of the sites in the world.

[torsoboy]

safari... I can't use ctrl-enter to put the www and .com and around the URL. both IE and firefox support this. it bugs me to no end to not have it.

[imitchellg5]

IE. Its speed is enough to disqualify it as well as the interface. That being said I don't enjoy Safari a ton, but it will get better with time I am sure.

[EndlessMac]

I would say both. I always used Firefox or Opera when I was using Windows. I never liked IE all that much and I barely use Safari on Mac so I don't see a major reason for me to use it on Windows.

Unless Apple can make Safari perfect and bug free on Windows, I think it's a bad idea to even offer it. A good amount of Windows users already have a bias against Macs so if Safari has bugs it just gives them another reason to say why Macs suck. You know Windows users will be overly critical about Safari on Windows so any little problem will be exaggerated like they already do for OS X.

I think the iPod and iPhone are better ways to get PC users introduced to Apple if they can't try out OS X. I have a friend who is kind of a Mac hater but she owns an iPod and enjoys it.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

safari... I can't use ctrl-enter to put the www and .com and around the URL. both IE and firefox support this. it bugs me to no end to not have it.

Just press enter without ctrl. Seems much easier to me.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by EndlessMac 

Unless Apple can make Safari perfect and bug free on Windows, I think it's a bad idea to even offer it.

IT'S A BETA!!!!! It's SUPPOSED to have bugs!

It's not done yet. Until then, don't slam Apple for having bugs in the beta. If there are major bugs in the final release, THEN you have a legitimate complaint.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by EndlessMac 

Unless Apple can make Safari perfect and bug free on Windows, I think it's a bad idea to even offer it.

It's never stopped every other software company on earth from producing software.

[EndlessMac]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

IT'S A BETA!!!!! It's SUPPOSED to have bugs!

It's not done yet. Until then, don't slam Apple for having bugs in the beta. If there are major bugs in the final release, THEN you have a legitimate complaint.

I was speaking generally that if Apple wants to release something on PCs then it has to be perfect because it gets criticized more from PC users so I wasn't talking specifically only about the Safari beta version but rather any Apple software for PCs. Yes I do realize a beta does have bugs to work out. I wasn't implying that the beta version is the best that it's going to get. I wasn't really complaining but rather trying to make a statement about the mentality of PC users towards Apple.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It's never stopped every other software company on earth from producing software.

Yes that's true but Apple gets criticized a great deal more than a standard Windows program from PC users so any minor problems is exaggerated. You should hear some of the stuff PC users say about Quicktime and iTunes. For them it just confirms their belief that Macs suck. I didn't think Apple would place themselves into such a tough market considering even Firefox is still in the minority when it comes to web browsers on the PC. Apple can do whatever they want...I'm just curious about their motives.

[imitchellg5]

PC users of all people though should understand that betas are buggy.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

IT'S A BETA!!!!! It's SUPPOSED to have bugs!

It's not done yet. Until then, don't slam Apple for having bugs in the beta. If there are major bugs in the final release, THEN you have a legitimate complaint.

Releasing something to general public is the same as no longer calling it "BETA". They just call it beta so that people like you will stand up for them for some reason and so that that can be their excuse for everything.

If it's not ready for general use, don't do a big press release saying everyone should download it and use it.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Just press enter without ctrl. Seems much easier to me.

Uh, no. This just causes a "page cannot be found" type of error. Because I use openDNS doing that works okay at home, but anywhere else it just gives an error.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

Uh, no. This just causes a "page cannot be found" type of error. Because I use openDNS doing that works okay at home, but anywhere else it just gives an error.

Have you installed any hacks? Because Safari normally fills in .com for you automatically.

[shifuimam]

IE:
I have to use 6 at work, and it's fine. Certain intranet websites have zero Firefox support, which is slightly forgivable since IE is the only certified browser app to use on work machines. I use 7 at home for testing websites. CSS rendering is still nonstandard, which is unfortunate. It's stable enough, though.

Safari:
Uses its own "special" font rendering - let me use ClearType, dammit. If I want OS X style text smoothing, I'll use OS X. Don't detract from UI standards.

Another UI issue: don't force me to resize my window from the bottom right only. This is an OS X thing. This is not a Windows thing. When I loaded Safari for the first time ever on my desktop, it loaded at 1024 pixels tall, which meant I had to try and move the top of the window above the top of my desktop just to resize it.

CSS rendering is more flaky than IE, since at least there are simple CSS hacks to force IE to display things the way it's supposed to. I'd rather see Apple drop their own engine in favor of a more standard one, like the Mozilla engine. It makes no sense to me to try and introduce a third rendering engine on top of the two most standard ones (Mosaic and Mozilla). How is it helpful to force web designers to have to validate against yet another engine that, like Mosaic, doesn't exactly follow W3C standards 100% of the time?

However, my biggest compaint with Apple apps for Windows is definitely the UI. Apple's trying to go to a unified interface in Leopard, yes? One where windows look the same and behave the same across the board, right? This is good. Inconsistencies in a GUI operating system are a death knell for usability. In Apple's effort to make their Windows apps as OS X-like as possible, they have removed UI consistencies such as text smoothing, form controls (scrollbars, buttons, menus, etc.), and even how the window can be resized.

I expect apps in OS X to behave like OS X apps. I expect apps in Windows to behave like Windows apps, and I do not appreciate any application (from Apple or anyone else) detracting from UI consistencies that have been around since Windows 3.1. It's even annoying that Firefox uses its own form controls, but at least you can change that with skins, and make the controls look just like the standard ones in Windows or OS X.

iCal is definitely the killer app for OS X - the others (the Finder, iPhoto, iTunes, Safari, etc) have not impressed me. But if iCal were released for Windows, as much as I like it in OS X, I wouldn't use it if Apple tried to force me to use what they saw as the "right" UI instead of following Windows UI standards for Windows applications. It's an unfortunate downfall of Apple's mentality.

[Chuckit]

Shifuimam, can you come up with test cases to demonstrate that Safari is the one that's rendering CSS incorrectly?

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

Releasing something to general public is the same as no longer calling it "BETA". They just call it beta so that people like you will stand up for them for some reason and so that that can be their excuse for everything.

No, you are wrong. There are MANY companies, NOT JUST APPLE that release public betas. They call it such so that the general public will test the software. When it's no longer in beta, then Apple will release it without the "beta" designation.

Then, and ONLY then, will people have legitimate complaints about it being "buggy."

And they're not just calling it a beta so "people like me" will defend them.

Also, you need to stop assuming that everyone defending Apple is a "fanboy." I am NOT a fanboy. I do criticize Apple where criticism is due.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Shifuimam, can you come up with test cases to demonstrate that Safari is the one that's rendering CSS incorrectly?

I will concede that I have used Safari for Windows very little. I've only used it to look at a couple websites that I've designed myself, including this one:

Tommy's Toys - Welcome to Tommy's Toys!

It works spectacularly in IE and Firefox. The menu tabs work but display completely incorrectly in Safari. It was just disappointing. The UI inconsistencies, however, are much worse in my book.

[Chuckit]

So the reason you say Safari is fails to support the standard is because it doesn't support -moz-border-radius? I don't really think that's fair. It would probably display wrong in Firefox if you'd used only -webkit-border-radius — is that a strike against Firefox?

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

No, you are wrong. There are MANY companies, NOT JUST APPLE that release public betas. They call it such so that the general public will test the software. When it's no longer in beta, then Apple will release it without the "beta" designation.

Then, and ONLY then, will people have legitimate complaints about it being "buggy."

I agree that other companies do it (more all the time even), but I don't agree that you should expect a product that has been released to the general public to have many problems. Sadly people (like you) are accepting more and more mediocre product and even encouraging them by so energetically defending the practice.

Apple has enough money to do their own QA work; when they have a good stable product they should release it then instead of having a big press release when they first get the code to compile.

Originally Posted by Person Man 

And they're not just calling it a beta so "people like me" will defend them.

Also, you need to stop assuming that everyone defending Apple is a "fanboy." I am NOT a fanboy. I do criticize Apple where criticism is due.

That's funny that you were thinking I was calling you an Apple fanboy when I didn't even think of it until you called attention to your possible fanboyism. I was just lumping you in with the others that encourage crappy publicly released software.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So the reason you say Safari is fails to support the standard is because it doesn't support -moz-border-radius? I don't really think that's fair. It would probably display wrong in Firefox if you'd used only -webkit-border-radius — is that a strike against Firefox?

It was more the giant space between the white content area and the orange navigational tabs that was annoying me.

There's a hack in the CSS that uses an image instead of the Mozilla-specific tag for the rounded corners in IE - while I don't expect Safari to necessarily be compatible with that hack, I do at least expect it to use the same dimensions and spacing that the other two rendering engines use. With or without the rounded corners at the top of each tab, the size and spacing should have been the same.

[besson3c]

shifulmam:

I'm not a big Safari fan, but I do agree that using the moz-border-radius is not a good way to do what you are trying to do. I found a page reviewing all of the rounded corner techniques:

CSS Rounded Corners 'Roundup' | Smiley Cat Web Design

I looked at several of these and eventually ended up creating my own library around this implementation:

More Rounded Corners with CSS - Schillmania.com

It is used exclusively on this site of mine:

Witz Apple Certified Training



If you want to bitch about Safari, bitch about its Javascript quirks. I'm also working with a web app served in straight XML 1.0 that Safari chokes on.

[besson3c]

It is not foul play for Apple to release a buggy beta so long as they make it clear that it is a beta, but at the same time it does not serve Apple's best interests to release a product this flawed. First impressions are important, although maybe they aren't trying to win desktop browser converts more so than they are providing a sort of SDK for the iPhone.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

IE has problems pulling proper CSS.

Yes. That.

and they put the refresh buttons to the right, instead of next to the back/next buttons. I dislike how tabbing/favorites are implemented, but use it only for testing so not a big deal. We haven't got permission to load safari on windows yet, although I have asked.

Saying ie6/7 is fine because it works with certain intranet sites... would those intranet sites just happen to be Sharepoint based? aka, also from Microsoft? In which case, I really hate web applications that "only work" using certain browsers. If it's web-based, it should work on all browsers.

/hates sharepoint

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

It was more the giant space between the white content area and the orange navigational tabs that was annoying me.

That's kind of a curious thing, because Safari's rendering seems to be correct for the size (0.2 em) that I believe was specified for the link. Firefox's rendering looks more like 0.1 em. Anyway, if you want pixel-precise positioning, I would suggest pixels rather than ems as positioning elements.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by EndlessMac 

Yes that's true but Apple gets criticized a great deal more than a standard Windows program from PC users so any minor problems is exaggerated. You should hear some of the stuff PC users say about Quicktime and iTunes. For them it just confirms their belief that Macs suck. I didn't think Apple would place themselves into such a tough market considering even Firefox is still in the minority when it comes to web browsers on the PC. Apple can do whatever they want...I'm just curious about their motives.

It's called them being insecure fanboys.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Yes. That.

and they put the refresh buttons to the right, instead of next to the back/next buttons. I dislike how tabbing/favorites are implemented, but use it only for testing so not a big deal. We haven't got permission to load safari on windows yet, although I have asked.

Saying ie6/7 is fine because it works with certain intranet sites... would those intranet sites just happen to be Sharepoint based? aka, also from Microsoft? In which case, I really hate web applications that "only work" using certain browsers. If it's web-based, it should work on all browsers.

/hates sharepoint

Here here. It's just MS trying to control the status and the market/web all over again.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It is used exclusively on this site of mine:

Witz Apple Certified Training

Awful coding and design, sorry. I mean, you created an ID and DIV just to style some header text instead of styling a H2 or H3 class. That was the least of it's problems.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Awful coding and design, sorry. I mean, you created an ID and DIV just to style some header text instead of styling a H2 or H3 class. That was the least of it's problems.

You know, there might have been a reason for doing that, but I guess that doesn't matter...

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You know, there might have been a reason for doing that, but I guess that doesn't matter...

I can't see any reason for it in your stylesheet or javascript. Wrapping text in a DIV ID to style it is poor coding. You did a good job with the curved corners, although the overall design is below average and poorly aligned.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

I can't see any reason for it in your stylesheet or javascript. Wrapping text in a DIV ID to style it is poor coding. You did a good job with the curved corners, although the overall design is below average and poorly aligned.

I can't believe I'm defending myself to Obi Wan, but just in case you aren't him and this might amount to some productive conversation...

The site is WordPress based, which is why I wrap text blocks in div tags, as this way one can edit the text in WP without clobbering the text attributes. I've enabled the heading WordPress plugin which allows the person who is maintaining the site to set their text to H1 - H6 for their own purposes, and I wanted to separate this from the classes I've used.

If, by design, you mean graphic design, that is not my work... The programming is, which includes the calendar and courses database.

You know Obi Wan, it's particularly bad form to be so critical of other people's work without posting your own for our scrutiny.

[PaperNotes]

Oh it's Wordpress!!! I never touch that, erm young Jedi???

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Oh it's Wordpress!!! I never touch that, erm young Jedi???

Sorry, I thought you were another member called Obi Wan's Ghost.


What CMS do you like?

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Sorry, I thought you were another member called Obi Wan's Ghost.


What CMS do you like?

None because if I want a site to work flawlessly in all browsers and appear the same then everything must be hand built from scratch. Building a custom CMS is easy.

I don't have as much as a problem with IE7 as some are saying above. IE6 was a headache. Safari4Windows is fast but I wouldn't use it over IE7 on Windows because it isn't stable and text rendering is not nice to look at. I voted IE7.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

None because if I want a site to work flawlessly in all browsers and appear the same then everything must be hand built from scratch. Building a custom CMS is easy.

I've done a ton of custom CMS building, but when you are trying to make site owners self-sufficient it is often difficult to keep on adding features to their custom CMS while keeping these changes in sync with the features and bugs you've addressed with your same code blocks on other sites (especially if they are on a separate host without SSH access). With an over-the-counter CMS in an OS with good package management, it is often much easier, IMO, to get the user on the upgrade cycle of the CMS vendor so that these upgrades are trivial, and so you aren't spending your time reinventing the wheel.

There are several sites where I haven't done this and simply setup a custom CMS though, I guess it depends on what sort of relationship I want with the customer in the long haul and whether you want to hear from them again

[Kevin]

Is Text rendering any different in the OS X version of Safari than it is the Windows?

If not, then no, not it doesn't suck.

If it is different, I wonder why they just didn't use Window's version.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Saying ie6/7 is fine because it works with certain intranet sites... would those intranet sites just happen to be Sharepoint based? aka, also from Microsoft? In which case, I really hate web applications that "only work" using certain browsers. If it's web-based, it should work on all browsers.

Some are Lotus Notes databases that are web-accessible; others are custom sites built with InterWoven TeamSite and good old Java web programming.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

If it is different, I wonder why they just didn't use Window's version.

I wonder the same thing. Safari does not use the same font smoothing/text rendering that the rest of Windows uses. This doesn't really make any sense to me - again, UI inconsistencies. Oh well.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Some are Lotus Notes databases that are web-accessible; others are custom sites built with InterWoven TeamSite and good old Java web programming.

Microsoft Java or Sun Java?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

This doesn't really make any sense to me - again, UI inconsistencies. Oh well.

I thought that was the standard on Windows.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Is Text rendering any different in the OS X version of Safari than it is the Windows?

If not, then no, not it doesn't suck.

If it is different, I wonder why they just didn't use Window's version.

The whole reason Safari exists on Windows now is the iPhone. The version of font rendering on the iPhone is the version that is present in OS X is the version that is present on Windows Safari. That's the whole point. Sites that you design for the iPhone will look IDENTICAL IN EVERY WAY on all versions of Safari.

Also, didn't anyone consider that some of the text rendering features that set Safari apart from other browsers depend on using Apple's text engine and as such it is much easier to port the engine over to run identically with OS X rather than coding a custom one for Windows to use Windows' font smoothing?

[besson3c]

If Apple wants regular desktop use of Safari to pick up on Windows, not only do they need to address teh problems that have been raised, but perhaps they should also make using Cleartype a configurable user option? This way, developers could test their iPhone apps, and regular users can use the native Windows font smoothing.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Microsoft Java or Sun Java?

Hell if I know. All of our web servers - internal and external - run some version of Solaris, so I'm guessing it's Sun Java. But these aren't Java applications - they're JSP data-driven websites. There's a difference, from what little I know about Java.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I thought that was the standard on Windows.

Oh, I am aware that third-party apps don't always look the same. But the absolute basics - form elements, text rendering, and window resizing - are the same across the board. There are some discrepancies in form elements with open-source apps that use GTK (Pidgin, Firefox), but the developers manage to make them look very similar to standard form elements, as opposed to Apple using Aqua elements in a non-Aqua OS. Not only that, but Apple's the only one with Windows applications that force users to resize windows exclusively from the bottom right, and they're the only one to use their own text rendering.

Originally Posted by Person Man 

Also, didn't anyone consider that some of the text rendering features that set Safari apart from other browsers depend on using Apple's text engine and as such it is much easier to port the engine over to run identically with OS X rather than coding a custom one for Windows to use Windows' font smoothing?

(a)There shouldn't be differences in text rendering between browsers. It's not something that should "set Safari apart". Leave the text rendering to the OS, not the application.

(b)Why would Apple need to "code a custom text engine"? Every other application for Windows, whether it's written in C or Visual Basic or anything else (other than Java, but there are precious few Java applications out there used by normal consumers), just displays text. Period. The text is rendered differently depending on whether or not the user has enabled font smoothing, and what font smoothing they have chosen (Standard or ClearType)...but again, that's controlled by the OS.

Like I said originally - I expect applications in Windows to follow the same general UI standards that every other application in Windows follows. I expect applications in OS X to follow the same general UI standards that every other application in OS X follows.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

(b)Why would Apple need to "code a custom text engine"? Every other application for Windows, whether it's written in C or Visual Basic or anything else (other than Java, but there are precious few Java applications out there used by normal consumers), just displays text. Period. The text is rendered differently depending on whether or not the user has enabled font smoothing, and what font smoothing they have chosen (Standard or ClearType)...but again, that's controlled by the OS.

Apple is essentially using a stripped down version of Cocoa for Safari. It's the old "Yellow Box for Windows," basically.

It's easier for them to just port that over, than rewrite the rendering engine to use Windows' text generation engine. Also, Safari has access to some text rendering effects that are part of Apple's rendering engine, which may or may not be part of Windows'. In order for Safari to behave identically on all platforms, Apple has to use their own text engine, rather than spend the time to either use Windows' engine (and lose some rendering features), or write their own thing that uses Windows' engine but adds anything it may be missing.

[driven]

- Safari is brand new ... and *BETA*. It will improve.
- IE is in version 7, and sucks ... IMHO it sucks FAR worse than version 6. (At least version 6 didn't break our corporate web-apps)
- Safari still hasn't managed to compromise security like IE (and it's evil ActiveX)
- If Safari becomes massively fubared I don't have to reinstall Windows to re-install my browser.
- (Remains to be seen) Safari will probably allow multiple versions to co-exist, unlike IE.
- Safari renders a ton faster than IE, and it's only in Beta.

That said:
- Right now the only viable browser for Windows is Firefox. Some folks may like Opera, but it doesn't do it for me.
- Safari needs (repeat *NEEDS*) .mac bookmark sync, or else what's the point? (Other than to test iPhone apps)

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If Apple wants regular desktop use of Safari to pick up on Windows, not only do they need to address teh problems that have been raised, but perhaps they should also make using Cleartype a configurable user option? This way, developers could test their iPhone apps, and regular users can use the native Windows font smoothing.

Native Windows font smoothing is HORRIBLE compared to OS X's way of font smoothing though. Though only reason I'd see anyone want it changed is purely consistency.