First Thoughts
If it seems like this isn't a very positive review of Safari, it's not for the lack of trying. We were impressed with Mac OS X 10.4, and happy with Safari there, however that's not enough. Currently Internet Explorer and Firefox are the dominant web browsers, for Safari for Windows to make a place for itself it needs to form a user base by taking users from those two web browsers. Given what we're seeing with Safari 3 today, that's hard to imagine.
As we mentioned previously Safari needs a hook, but at this point it doesn't have one. Internet Explorer is included by default with Windows, and it's the most compatible browser and currently the only browser that supports a sandbox mode on Windows Vista. Firefox has its versatile extension system that allows profound levels of customization and is completely cross-platform. Safari has its inline search, and that's the most notable feature. When we ask the question of "why should we use Safari instead of Firefox/IE?" we come up blank, there's just not enough different about Safari worth going through the effort to switch browsers.
When we ask the question of "why should we not use Safari instead of Firefox/IE?" we come up with the interface problems, and they make a very solid case. Given the current interface problems, it's very hard to use Safari, and no one likes using a hard to use application if there's an alternative. We have to come to the conclusion that unless/until Apple straightens out the interface issues with Safari, we won't recommend it over the current web browsers available for Windows.
This is problematic for Apple. Although we have other theories on Safari that we'll get to in a moment, we're not ready to be so bold as to proclaim that Apple doesn't intend for this browser to be used on Windows by the masses - if that was the case they wouldn't have made it WWDC's "one more thing" or have giving it such prominent billing on their website. So why they've ported the Mac interface over so perfectly remains a mystery as it will hurt adoption of the browser. Perhaps it's another Trojan horse to entice Windows users to use Mac OS X by showcasing how the Mac interface works? Perhaps it's just a genuine Apple blunder by not taking in to consideration how much trouble the Mac interface can cause in a Windows environment? Or perhaps it's something else.
Early-on we mentioned that there have been several more diabolical theories proposed on and off the show floor at WWDC about Safari. The current front-runner of these, and one that we partially agree with, is that Safari for Windows isn't meant to be a browser, it's a developers' kit. As best as we can tell, Safari for Windows is a perfect port of Safari for Mac OS X straight down to the font smoothing; for anyone needing to do compatibility testing with Safari they no longer need a Mac to do it.
This makes website designers' lives much easier as they can test for what amounts to Mac compatibility without a Mac. Additionally, any significant adoption of the browser by Windows users will help drive designers to test for such compatibility, which in turn helps Apple achieve greater compatibility with the default Mac browser.
But it was also announced at WWDC that the only kind of third-party development allowed for the iPhone would be web-based applications under Safari, with these applications designed around the so-called Web 2.0 technologies. If Safari for Windows is a perfect port, as is Safari for the iPhone, then it would be possible to not just test web pages for rendering problems under Mac OS X and the iPhone, but it would be possible to develop applications for these platforms, the iPhone in particular. Given the current situation, this theory makes a great deal of sense based upon what we have encountered with Safari for Windows.
Wrapping things up however, we're left with a slightly sour taste on the whole situation. From a Windows end user perspective, Safari isn't even worth downloading in spite of the hype. From a developer's perspective, it's a useful way to put together web sites and web based applications for Apple's two major platforms. One way or another Apple seems to be in things for the long haul, and given Apple's past software efforts on Windows this probably won't be the last time that they make a big push for Safari on Windows. Let's hope however that things are a little more sensible the next time.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
28 Comments
View All Comments
crimson117 - Thursday, July 12, 2007 - link
<quote>For all of the positive aspects we've mentioned above, what good are they if we go mad trying to use the application?</quote>As a long-time windows user (haven't had an Apple computer since the IIe), I was put-off enough by the font smoothing and other oddities in Safari to uninstall it right away and stick with Firefox.
But I can see Apple's intentions here... if they're trying to get people to switch to Macintosh for their next computer, perhaps those people will prefer the look and thus be happy to get a Mac - not surprised when Safari renders significantly differently on Windows vs Mac.
zshift - Sunday, July 8, 2007 - link
I'm having a little trouble with the values you guys are getting on how much each app is using for ram. Under windows xp pro, safari on average uses about twice as much ram as firefox when multiple windows were open. In cases where firefox was using about 45MB of ram, I noticed that safari was edging onto 100MB. You guys should redo that test, and do it while having several tabs open. Also, it was never mentioned how much flash/java/etc. the test site used, so theres no way of knowing how effecient the browsers really are in real life settings.Ryan Smith - Sunday, July 8, 2007 - link
The test was each of our test pages(AT, ./, CNN, and the WH) open in separate tabs; this gives a good mix of flash-rich pages(AT and CNN) and simpler text-rich pages(./, WH).jay401 - Saturday, July 7, 2007 - link
Between Extensions and its more correct CSS rendering compared to IE, FireFox still brings the best browser experience to Windows.PrinceGaz - Sunday, July 8, 2007 - link
I'll stick with Opera as it is not only more standards-compliant than Firefox or IE (it passes the ACID2 test perfectly), but also much less prone to security breaches thanks in part to using proprietary code (rather than IE and Mozilla-related projects which re-use many modules), and also because Opera has such a small userbase (~2.5% I believe) that it just isn't worth the effort of writing totally new code to attack its users.Opera is fast, functional and safe. I do have Firefox as well as IE7 installed as well, but I prefer Opera for day-to-day browsing.
LTG - Saturday, July 7, 2007 - link
It seems the most basic Java applet does not work:http://demo.aurigma.com/ImageUploader40/BasicDemo/...">http://demo.aurigma.com/ImageUploader40/BasicDemo/...
I'm running Vista and Safari 3.0.2.
Does this work for anyone else?
BikeDude - Sunday, July 8, 2007 - link
FWIW: I have problems with IE and Java under Vista as well... The JRE isn't too happy when DEP mode is enabled. :( (I have no clue if it will help to disable DEP for Safari, but give it a spin if you have the time)Oh, I forgot to add: Java sucks. (I have to admit reinstalling JRE many, many times before I discovered the DEP issue -- I just couldn't imagine a modern piece of software not supporting DEP, the API has been there since before 1993 for Pete's sake!)
--
Rune
Griswold - Saturday, July 7, 2007 - link
This is problematic for Apple. Although we have other theories on Safari that we'll get to in a moment, we're not ready to be so bold as to proclaim that Apple doesn't intend for this browser to be used on Windows by the masses - if that was the case they wouldn't have made it WWDC's "one more thing" or have giving it such prominent billing on their website.That WWDC was rather dull and boring, they needed some flashy announcement and had this in the drawer - call it plan B for rainy days. It created alot of hoopla but in the end, its nothing to call home about. On the useful side are the points you mentioned.
Donkeyshins - Saturday, July 7, 2007 - link
...the nine zero-day exploits against Safari. Not an auspicious beginning.Justin Case - Friday, July 6, 2007 - link
Why is using 44 MB "better" than using 50 or 200?What exactly is the advantage of having several GB of RAM not being used by any application? A well designed program will use RAM as cache (for pages, interface elements, bookmarks, history, etc.), to speed up its operation.
One thing is checking how much RAM needs to be available for a program to run (or how well it runs when very little RAM is available), but simply checking how much RAM a program is using (when there's still a lot of free memory) tells you nothing about its efficiency.
I'd much rather use a program that's smart enough to load things I might want to use in the background (if enough RAM is available) than one that loads things only when I specifically ask for them, making it slower in exchange for not using RAM that's just sitting there.
Also, site "loading" times depend a lot more on the network conditions than on the browser, and the same browser will "load" the same site in different times, if you test it multiple times. What you might want to measure is how long it takes each browser to _render_ a complex page. Make sure everything is cached, hit "refresh" and time it. Or use the "back" and "forward" buttons. That way you take network delays out of the equation, and check how responsive the browser actually is.