Safari on international versions of Windows seem to be unstable, Apple, even if Safari is a beta, did a bad frist impression over the world.
That is very bad, because people expected a product almost ready for market.

Hi

That is a silly comment because there is no way to verify it. Sure you read some comments about Safari not working properly on Windows. However, generally only the people with 1) a problem, or 2) who are anti-Apple are going to complain. People who are happy are probably not making a big stink. Moreover, much of the bad press is because so called security experts are making it their mission to embarrass Apple. This is not to say there are not problems with the Windows build, just to say nobody other then Apple has a good idea of the extent of such problems.

For what it is worth, I have Safari running on a Mac and on XP, it is running flawlessly on both. In fact, Safari on XP is rendering at least one Kaplan related site that Firefox was unable to do.

PS:

Nice article on the Color abilities.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Safari on international versions of Windows seem to be unstable, Apple, even if Safari is a beta, did a bad frist impression over the world.
That is very bad, because people expected a product almost ready for market.

Hi

The people who will even notice are a small set of people. The people who care about this is even smaller.

Prints for sale

www.vaughanprint.com

All the red prints are actually green

Quote

Guest wrote:
The people who will even notice are a small set of people. The people who care about this is even smaller.

I care, I dare say every designer and artist out there cares, people who are visually orientated care. People who willy nilly mix plaid and striped clothing won't care. And yes the hoi poli of web surfers happy enough with Windows system colors won't care. That being said people see the differences even if they are not aware of the subtleness.

"All colors are the friends of their neighbors and the lovers of their opposites." ~ Marc Chagall

I am running XP via bootcamp and have Safari Beta set as my primary browser and for a Beta release I have no complaints. I can say that websites look much better in Safari vs Explorer, text is cleaner and graphics just look better. Yeah there are some quirks that need to be worked out but jesus, this is Beta people! As for the XP version VS the OS X version, OSX Safari is a much better performer, then again I have been using Safari since it was released in OS X so I guess I really can not be qualified to compare it to Explorer other than the visual aspects and user experience of it.

Just my 2 cents.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I am running XP via bootcamp and have Safari Beta set as my primary browser and for a Beta release I have no complaints. I can say that websites look much better in Safari vs Explorer, text is cleaner and graphics just look better.

Um... yea. Subjective opinions and all, I just don't see what you're seeing. Safari renders colours differently from IE, that's the only difference I've noticed. Graphics looked the same to me. Subjectivly, on a 5 mb/s internet connection I noticed no increase in speed in Safari over IE. For a beta release that was suposed to be designed from the ground up for security, it sure seems like Apple neglected some basic error handling techniques that would have helped insure the security of their browser.

Quote

Yeah there are some quirks that need to be worked out but jesus, this is Beta people!

Yea, like implementing basic error handling routines, or maybe adding an "update now" option under the help menu, so people don't have to be bombarded with annoying message to install quicktime and itunes when using their auto-update software. Or perhaps they could add a meter telling you how much longer it would have taken IE to display the page you're looking at.

Terrin,
I am a Mac user ( I have two at home ) but work with Windows (and Linux) all day. I have the Safari 3 Beta for Windows running on Windows XP at work and my experience has been that is DEFINITELY beta. It is a joy to use when it works ( the thing is FAST!! ) but it crashes under heavy use. I (notice I said I not you ) would not depend on this as my (again talkin about myself) main browser until Safari 3 (final) is released.

Safari 3 BETA for OS-X hosed both of my Macs (a G4 Mac mini and a MacBook) and I spent over an hour recovering from that experience.

These are the facts of my experience. They are not a statement or judgement about Apple or OS-X or Windows XP.

Let the facts be the facts.

http://islandinthenet.com

i can verify that safari 3 on my mac (Powerbook G4 10.4.9) had trouble typing japanese in my yahoo! japan email account. because i use that account all the time, i had to switch back to safari 2. i had no trouble typing japanese into the browser on my google account but, my yahoo japan account had issues, and that is a BAD thing because yahoo is widely used in japan.

no to mention some of my widgets didnt work...

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
i can verify that safari 3 on my mac (Powerbook G4 10.4.9) had trouble typing japanese in my yahoo! japan email account. because i use that account all the time, i had to switch back to safari 2. i had no trouble typing japanese into the browser on my google account but, my yahoo japan account had issues, and that is a BAD thing because yahoo is widely used in japan.

no to mention some of my widgets didnt work...

Of course, you DID report all this to Apple--right? Posting comments here will do nothing to improve the software.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I can say that websites look much better in Safari vs Explorer, text is cleaner and graphics just look better.

I have found the exact opposite. Comparing the same sites side by side the text is fuzzier in Safari when compared to FF or IE. With embedded fonts, Safari has the nasty habit of applying bold for no reason at all, and this is leads to the letters bleeding together a little bit. That's the only complaint I have so far, haven't noticed anything else yet.

If you read Apple's Safari for Windows website (you know the place where you find the download at), you will notice that Apple specifically states that there are several features not yet implemented in the beta, one being internationalization.

Quote

Guest wrote:
i can verify that safari 3 on my mac (Powerbook G4 10.4.9) had trouble typing japanese in my yahoo! japan email account. because i use that account all the time, i had to switch back to safari 2. i had no trouble typing japanese into the browser on my google account but, my yahoo japan account had issues, and that is a BAD thing because yahoo is widely used in japan.

no to mention some of my widgets didnt work...

Quote

Anonymous wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
I can say that websites look much better in Safari vs Explorer, text is cleaner and graphics just look better.

I have found the exact opposite. Comparing the same sites side by side the text is fuzzier in Safari when compared to FF or IE. With embedded fonts, Safari has the nasty habit of applying bold for no reason at all, and this is leads to the letters bleeding together a little bit. That's the only complaint I have so far, haven't noticed anything else yet.

What you're seeing is the fundamental difference in the ways that Apple and Microsoft render fonts. See:

http://mezzoblue.com/archives/2007/06/12/a_subpixel_s/

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html

According to the second article, Microsoft's philosophy is aimed at making the fonts clearer on an LCD screen, while Apple's philosophy is that the font should look like it will in print.

Which is "better" may well depend upon what you're used to, as well as the particular situation.

As Marc Zeeder points out at MacOpinion, Apple's real reason for releasing Safari for Windows may not be to get more Google ad revenue, increase Safari's "market share," and certainly not to challenge IE. Instead, Marc said, it's to give Windows developers a platform to test their sites and web apps for compatibility, not only with OS X on Macs, but the iPhone. Apple's not really trying to get people to use its Windows software but to sell iPods, iPhones, Apple TVs, etc. I recommend reading Marc's article.

Quote

gslusher wrote:

Quote

Anonymous wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
I can say that websites look much better in Safari vs Explorer, text is cleaner and graphics just look better.

I have found the exact opposite. Comparing the same sites side by side the text is fuzzier in Safari when compared to FF or IE. With embedded fonts, Safari has the nasty habit of applying bold for no reason at all, and this is leads to the letters bleeding together a little bit. That's the only complaint I have so far, haven't noticed anything else yet.

What you're seeing is the fundamental difference in the ways that Apple and Microsoft render fonts. See:

http://mezzoblue.com/archives/2007/06/12/a_subpixel_s/

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html

According to the second article, Microsoft's philosophy is aimed at making the fonts clearer on an LCD screen, while Apple's philosophy is that the font should look like it will in print.

Which is "better" may well depend upon what you're used to, as well as the particular situation.

As Marc Zeeder points out at MacOpinion, Apple's real reason for releasing Safari for Windows may not be to get more Google ad revenue, increase Safari's "market share," and certainly not to challenge IE. Instead, Marc said, it's to give Windows developers a platform to test their sites and web apps for compatibility, not only with OS X on Macs, but the iPhone. Apple's not really trying to get people to use its Windows software but to sell iPods, iPhones, Apple TVs, etc. I recommend reading Marc's article.

It's more than that. The "philosophy" comment is only applicable to default fonts. When a website embeds a font, it is specifically to control the appearance of the font. FF & IE (FF is not a Microsoft product) both display embedded fonts as they were intended. Safari is not doing this.

Speaking of philosophy, Apple's Windows programming is an interesting approach. Rather than conform to Windows programming standards as most every application provider does (unable to resize windows on Apple apps like you are on every other app, etc) Apple tries to force an OS X like interface on a Windows machines, thus breaking the continuity of the user experience and forcing the user to fumble around as they have to adapt to a different paradigm in midwork. However, whenever an application is ported from Windows to OS X, and the programmers don't follow Apple's UI standards, people go nuts. It seems that a frustrating and confusing experience for users on Windows is intentional on the part of Apple.

BTW, Apple's rendering on the PC in Safari is NOT the same as the rendering on the Mac. So it's not even that they are making it the same in both places.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
It seems that a frustrating and confusing experience for users on Windows is intentional on the part of Apple.

Did you bother to read the last paragraph of my message? Apple may not care if people use Safari on Windows--it may be primarily so that Windows developers can check how a site will look on the iPhone.

Did you bother to read the whole post? That comment wasn't exclusive to Safari, it's true for all applications that Apple has released on Windows. You cannot resize Quicktime or iTunes in the normal manner used for almost every other application.

Not to forget, on Windows Quicktime is the only video player incapable of doing fullscreen playback. Apple deliberately makes you buy Quicktime Pro if you want to do that. Greed!

Quote

Guest wrote:
Not to forget, on Windows Quicktime is the only video player incapable of doing fullscreen playback. Apple deliberately makes you buy Quicktime Pro if you want to do that. Greed!

Hey, don't get your panties in a bunch over Apple charging for a full featured app. Plenty of publishers offer limited versions of their software for free and charge for a full featured version. Apple isn't some sort of money grubbing greedy corporation because they do that, they're a money grubbing greedy corporation because they insist on 50%+ margin on anything they sell.

Quote

daemon wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
Not to forget, on Windows Quicktime is the only video player incapable of doing fullscreen playback. Apple deliberately makes you buy Quicktime Pro if you want to do that. Greed!

Hey, don't get your panties in a bunch over Apple charging for a full featured app. Plenty of publishers offer limited versions of their software for free and charge for a full featured version. Apple isn't some sort of money grubbing greedy corporation because they do that, they're a money grubbing greedy corporation because they insist on 50%+ margin on anything they sell.

Name one other video player that requires you to pay for fullscreen playback. It's so bad the rumor kicked up now that the next release of QT is going to include fullscreen playback for free. That is LONG overdue.

Quote

daemon wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
Not to forget, on Windows Quicktime is the only video player incapable of doing fullscreen playback. Apple deliberately makes you buy Quicktime Pro if you want to do that. Greed!

Hey, don't get your panties in a bunch over Apple charging for a full featured app. Plenty of publishers offer limited versions of their software for free and charge for a full featured version. Apple isn't some sort of money grubbing greedy corporation because they do that, they're a money grubbing greedy corporation because they insist on 50%+ margin on anything they sell.

hahahaha, nice, yeah, the iPods are at a 100% markup, the quicktime thing is just apple nickel & diming us.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Name one other video player that requires you to pay for fullscreen playback. It's so bad the rumor kicked up now that the next release of QT is going to include fullscreen playback for free. That is LONG overdue.

FWIW, I normally use VLC since it supports far more codecs by default anyway.

I am currently developing a web app. As any pedantic web developer I take pride in making my application work on as many browsers as possible.

My code has no HTML or CSS errors, it is all define in relative measurements so no matter what the window size or zoom level the page displays correctly. I made sure it renders correctly in IE5,IE6,IE7, Opera 9, FF2, FF1.5, Safari 3 Mac... But the alignment of elements in Safari 3 Windows is incorrect. Why is the rendering engine different between the MAC and Windows version?

Also I have some javascript that runs fine on all the above browsers including Safari Mac, but Safari windows only seems to execute half of the code...

If Safari Windows was identical in its rendering and javascript use as Safari Mac was then it would be a great tool for developers, but any developer who assumes they are going to render pages the same in both browsers would be wrong...

Don't get me wrong there are some great features in this browser, but I find that IE7 and FF2 render the majority of the websites I visit better. Also I have minor issues such as the mouse back button does not appear to be supported (I use it all the time)

There are other bugs related to the back button in various websites which need fixing but I suspect these will be dealt with over time.

Have you reported these bugs to Apple?