SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 74 of 74
  1. #51
    SitePoint Addict dAEk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    224
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Even if Apple removed the beta label from it, it's still not quite ready:

    Safari for Windows...
    • lacks support for common browser plugins (Java applets for instance).
    • has memory issues.
    • is not very stable.
    • isn't very feature rich.


    I know the Mac version of Safari lets you install extensions but what about the Windows version?
    David Shamloo-Ekblad

    Go Habs! | For music addicts: Last.fm, SongMeanings

  2. #52
    SitePoint Enthusiast jeffbax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    92
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DelvarWorld View Post
    Boy I sure hope it doesn't. Safari produces the weirdest bugs when doing QA for development. Bugs that don't make sense and no other browser even comes close to displaying.
    Thats an extremely odd claim considering at this point its pretty safe to say that Safari has the most accurate rendering engine around... I've had far more bugs in IE and Opera than Safari ever gave me.

    Ignoring WebKit would be extremely foolish, as it is the vast majority of Mac users, quite a few KDE guys, and is quickly becoming the dominant mobile browsing engine (via Nokia and Apple) next to Opera.

    Thats a lot of audience to cut out.

  3. #53
    ☆★☆★ silver trophy vgarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    in transition
    Posts
    21,235
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    So, looks like a "no" huh

  4. #54
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    288
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    If they end up changing things on Safari for Windows so it looks (renders, font-wise) like Windows, then it loses its appeal to me as a web builder. I was simply not testing for Macs until this came along (and Konqueror I have found is just not an accurate measure of Safari, same rendering engine or not), meaning my sites users are getting a better browsing experience (there are times where only Safari raised a hissy fit over new code, back to the validator, and hey, there's a missing tag which Opera and FF and of course IE completely covered up!). Plus I need to know how much pink-feather-boa Safari's gonna add to my forms. The submit buttons look like freakin candy or something.

    That and whiteheat has posted some images with text inside where Safari's font rendering was the only way to make the text truly readable, where any browser for Windows made the letters so thin and broken you could not read it.
    Sure, it can go the other way (everything looks bold and fuzzy) too, but again, I don't want them fixing this, because I don't surf in Safari, I test in Safari, and average folks are likely only going to switch in large numbers to Safari if
    -it ends up with some sort of advantage for average users
    -the average user is a former Mac user and likes the familiarity of Safari
    -for some reason the Windows user doesn't want IE, FF, or Opera
    So does safari currently render in the same way in both Mac and Windows? I want to use it for test purposes too, but if they render differently then there will be no point in doing that.

  5. #55
    ☆★☆★ silver trophy vgarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    in transition
    Posts
    21,235
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Zoom123 View Post
    So does safari currently render in the same way in both Mac and Windows? I want to use it for test purposes too, but if they render differently then there will be no point in doing that.
    I've never noticed a difference between the Mac and Windows versions as long as it's the same version number on both computers.

  6. #56
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,582
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There are a few minor differences (or at least with the beta version compared to 3 on the Mac), but they are minimalistic. The largest one being the font differences. Other than that, nothing that really needs to be concerned with.

  7. #57
    Into another Dimension liam_uk7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Great Britain
    Posts
    74
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's apple, it will catch on...
    Function - Great Design Meets Great Functionality

  8. #58
    Non-Member Musicbox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    india
    Posts
    1,331
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    safari will not catch up faster it will take time for safari to become like firefox.

  9. #59
    ☆★☆★ silver trophy vgarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    in transition
    Posts
    21,235
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicbox View Post
    safari will not catch up faster it will take time for safari to become like firefox.
    "like firefox" in what way? I don't think either browser is trying to be like the other.

  10. #60
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,582
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If anything, I'd say "like Firefox" in that they have begun to provide real competition for IE on Windows. Other than that, it's not really fruitful to compare them.

    I think their biggest audience is likely to be Mac users who also have to use Windows. For them, it'll probably feel a lot like home.

  11. #61
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Apple was successful with bringing iTunes to the PC because of the iPod. The PC has far superior browsers in Firefox, opera, and Flock. I would even go as far as saying IE is better than Safari. Mac users can keep their crappy browser. We dont want it.

  12. #62
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chesterfield
    Posts
    26
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't even use Safari on my Mac, I use Firefox and wouldn't switch. I only ever open it to test sites in.

    I can't see it taking off on Mac unless they offer it as a bundle with iTunes downloads like Quicktime. Even then people who don't want to use IE will go for Firefox or Opera and all the clueless people who think IE is the internet will continue to use "The Internet".

    I'm normally a huge fan of Apple but I can't see this working out.

  13. #63
    l º 0 º l silver trophybronze trophy lo0ol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Palo Alto
    Posts
    5,329
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hypertimer View Post
    would even go as far as saying IE is better than Safari. Mac users can keep their crappy browser. We dont want it.
    We're gathered here today to mourn the passing of hypertimer's geek cred. While it struggled to survive for the first few posts of its life, it ultimately succumbed when it compared the most standards-compliant browser on the planet to the worst browser on the planet, Internet Explorer.
    .
    Zach Holman
    good-tutorialsblogtwitterlast.fm

  14. #64
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,582
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think Opera beats Safari by just a hair in that department, though I will admit it's standards-compliance is exceptional.

    On of the biggest things that bothers be about Apple, especially with their software on Windows is their bundling. I download Safari on it's own to test with. However, if I was just a typical user and went to download iTunes and it put Safari on as well, I'd be quite annoyed. It's already annoying enough when Quicktime gets added and starts cluttering up my system tray.

  15. #65
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Nelson BC
    Posts
    2,310
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Q: Why did Apple call their browser Safari?

    A: Because iExplore was already taken.

  16. #66
    Designer
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Manila
    Posts
    590
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by lo0ol View Post
    We're gathered here today to mourn the passing of hypertimer's geek cred. While it struggled to survive for the first few posts of its life, it ultimately succumbed when it compared the most standards-compliant browser on the planet to the worst browser on the planet, Internet Explorer.
    LOL

  17. #67
    SitePoint Addict Sgt. Baboon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    396
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by vgarcia View Post
    I've never noticed a difference between the Mac and Windows versions as long as it's the same version number on both computers.
    Working on a site a few months ago revealed differences. I don't remember exactly what now, but it has something to do with the way it displayed some divs. The Safari Mac was not using the div width, while the Windows version displayed fine.

  18. #68
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    27
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, I don't have Mac and I just used Safari in Windows Vista for a week. I was quite surprised that some of my sites looked funny in it when it was completely OK on both IE and latest Firefox, plus the codes are all W3C-compliant.
    Top Hosting Center
    Web hosting solutions for you and your business -- we have it.
    At THC, we match any prices GUARANTEE!
    ROCK Support 24x7

  19. #69
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quit the spam jole.

  20. #70
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Kingsport, Tennessee, United States
    Posts
    154
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I am a windows and mac user. I use both daily. I use safari on both machines for browsing. The latest version of safari improves on several things. In my opinion its the best browser right now for windows or mac unless you just want to have a lot of extra features that will not be needed by most users.

  21. #71
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mike_thc View Post
    Well, I don't have Mac and I just used Safari in Windows Vista for a week. I was quite surprised that some of my sites looked funny in it when it was completely OK on both IE and latest Firefox, plus the codes are all W3C-compliant.
    I've noticed that there are discrepancies in rendering between FF and Safari (always discrepancies in IE) usually however they are minor, off by one or two pixels. At that point though which browser is actually compliant?

    I use safari for all my browsing by the way because its really speedy and I like the interface. FF I use only for development, I can't stand how slow its become.

  22. #72
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Columbia, MO
    Posts
    13
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    In my day job, I use Windows Safari as little as possible. Usually I'm just making sure whether/not things look good-similar-reasonable on Safari as compared with IE & FF, and to see if greater than trivial JavaScript works or doesn't.

    I'll back up what a lot of people have been saying RE: instability; mine crashes mysteriously and constantly. But it's a tool, it generally works almost exactly as it does on a Mac (when it does work), and I personally like seeing a nicely-put-together UI on Windows for a change. Cheap thrills I guess.

    And although I love its usefulness from a web testing perspective (although I'm dubious as to how true-to-Mac its rendering is, especially of text), I don't see a lot of reasons your average Windows pleb would want to switch. Windows Mac: see Opera. Neat, full of features, and miniscule market share.

    I disagree that its rendering engine will be the de facto for all mobile content. Gimme a break. It is now, arguably. But that state of affairs won't last. The only thing their mobile toys have over others is the hardware & GUI. One that's [more] commoditized, what'll everyone be using then? Answer IMHO: the cheaper of the two nearly identical alternatives, depending on features.
    Garvin

    Smooth Operator
    Snappy Dresser

  23. #73
    l º 0 º l silver trophybronze trophy lo0ol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Palo Alto
    Posts
    5,329
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by brainphat View Post
    I disagree that its rendering engine will be the de facto for all mobile content. Gimme a break. It is now, arguably. But that state of affairs won't last. The only thing their mobile toys have over others is the hardware & GUI. One that's [more] commoditized, what'll everyone be using then? Answer IMHO: the cheaper of the two nearly identical alternatives, depending on features.
    Yeah, I agree. The iPhone+iPod Touch combination is growing dramatically, with some estimates hitting nearly 50 million units by the end of next year. Other platforms like Android will probably take over the market instead. I mean, AT&T is likely moving most of their mobile phones over to Android when they flip the switch on their 4G network. The commoditized version of whatever Android uses for its web browser might very well reign supreme.

    So, given those points, yes—Webkit might be the de facto for all mobile content.
    .
    Zach Holman
    good-tutorialsblogtwitterlast.fm

  24. #74
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    58
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I would have to say... not a chance in hell! with IE have over 70% market share and Firefox having the rest..I personally think that there is not chance.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •