OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/19520/_Safari_3_1_on_Windows_a_True_Competitor_Arrives_Seriously_ Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2012, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:41:47 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif OSNews.com http://www.osnews.com No way http://www.osnews.com/thread?306578 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306578 I will *NOT* use Safari on Windows until they adopt the native Windows look and feel (scroll bar, widgets, title bar, etc...) and fix their fuzzy fonts for good. I'm on Windows, I'm not on a Mac. Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Liquidator) Comments RE: No way http://www.osnews.com/thread?306580 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306580 Exactly!!! Text looks horrible.

Fonts are still a problem. In fact, for me, the fonts are a deal-breaker. Safari 3.1 for Windows continues to use the Mac OS X font anti-aliasing approach rather than the native font anti-aliasing system in Windows (ClearType). The result is text that is often fuzzy, particularly smaller text. Sometimes small text looks bold when it isn't. Setting Safari to "light" anti-aliasing produced the best results for me, but the text was still inferior to what one would see in IE or Firefox on Windows. Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (gonzo) Comments About speed http://www.osnews.com/thread?306581 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306581 Safari is fast to render HTML. It is what they mean by a *fast* browser.
About loading time, take care than IE is loaded at boot time and remain in memory until the computer is down, this is why it is so fast. Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lego) Comments Actually http://www.osnews.com/thread?306583 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306583 I dont like Vista/XP's ClearType either. So either way it does not matter to me. However; I will be willing to give anything a try.

I have Mac's, PC's (Vista/XP/ME), and Linux Machines and they all generally have a huge "suck" factor. So I am lucky I dont like any of them but I use them none the less. Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (m1s3r4bleg0d) Comments RE[2]: No way http://www.osnews.com/thread?306584 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306584 I agree. Fuzzy fonts are fine for professionals who work with printed material, that's all. For all other users, it's pretty bad. I think fuzzy fonts should only be handled by specific applications aimed at printed graphics (ie: Adobe InDesign), and not the operating system itself. Granted that InDesign could render fuzzy fonts, but why all the rest of the OS X and all Mac applications? Windows and Scribus work nicely in this respect: Windows has clean fonts, while Scribus has fuzzy fonts because it's aimed at printed media. Safari shouldn't have fuzzy fonts, be it in OS X or in Windows. As a side note, personally, I prefer the default font rendering of Windows to ClearType on my LCD screen. It looks clean ;) Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Liquidator) Comments Comment by SJ87 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306586 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306586 Having tried the Safari 3.1 on Windows Server 2008, I must say it's pretty darn good if judged by rendering speed and general joy of browsing. Still, I too am longing for native looks instead of iMetal or whatever it's called on Mac. (I mean I would, if I was a Windows/Safari user.) Blurred fonts weren't a problem for me after setting antialiasing to the lowest level.

It's also nice to notice that it finally supports my homepages' JavaScript code, which didn't quite work in some beta release I had previously installed. Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (SJ87) Comments Comment by BlackTiger http://www.osnews.com/thread?306587 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306587 I like Safari... like "a one more browser".

I like how Safari renders pages, I like (sometimes) even how text is looks like... I like resizeable text areas.

BUT I HATE SAFARI! I've recently removed it from my PC.
No plugins! Horrible and ridiculous bookmarks management (useless and buggy)! No mouse gestures! No Flash/Ad-crap removers...

It's worse than IE5.5!

I'm with FF (except 3.0 betas). Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (BlackTiger) Comments JavaScript performance is amazing! http://www.osnews.com/thread?306588 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306588 I used to think that Firefox had a fast JS engine, at least on Windows. (The Linux JS engine in FF 2.x is just horrid!)

Then I tried Safari. Wow, what a difference! FF 2.x even on Windows is just slow as molasses compared to Safari.

Browsing around Gmail, Zimbra (ajax interface), our in-house AJAX sites, Google Reader, Slashdot, even OSNews shows just how poor the FF JS engine really is.

It can take up to 30 seconds for Firefox 2.0.0.12 to delete 30 messages in GMail (50 messages per page), but Safari 3.1 does it in 2. It can take FF up to 5 seconds to delete a single message in the middle of a conversation and another 3-5 to load the previous message. Safari does it all in 2.

Sure, the default "skin" for Safari is a horrible dark grey. But the in-page widgets are just so much nicer than the default FF or IE widgets (for buttons, scrollbars, etc), and remind me of the theme I use on my KDE stations.

The only thing I don't like about Safari 3.1 so far is that there is nowhere to put a master password for the saved-passwords feature. A big no-no in my books.

Haven't noticed the "fuzzy fonts" issue yet, but I disable all the sub-pixel hinting and whatnot as I'm on an ancient 15" CRT. Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (phoenix) Comments Even on my Macs I use Firefox http://www.osnews.com/thread?306589 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306589 So I doubt I'll use Windows Safari any more than I use Mac Safari.

Mostly it's about extensions, specifically FlashBlock and AdBlock Plus... when Safari can do that, we'll talk.

Safari isn't terribly stable on my iPhone, though. Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (yakirz) Comments RE: No way http://www.osnews.com/thread?306591 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306591 Look how long QuickTime has had its non-native look on Windows... I really don't think Apple cares at all. They probably figure they'll get a few more Mac sales by people using their Windows programs, thinking "oooh, this is pretty," and getting a Mac as their next machine. Consistency is surely not one of Apple's priorities, especially on some other company's operating system. Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (UZ64) Comments RE[3]: No way http://www.osnews.com/thread?306592 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306592 is it not a matter of taste or "getting use to"?

I use as much OS X, Linux(Gnome) and Windows. I really prefer OS X fonts over windows fonts, I even prefer Gnome fonts over windows fonts. The only exception is when fonts are smaller than 9pt, IMO, cleartype does a better job.

But a couple of years ago, when Linux fonts were terrible and I was using windows most of the time(2003), I did found cleartype's fonts better.

I dough it changed that much, I only add OS X experience.Edited 2008-03-25 18:10 UTC Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sanctus) Comments RE: Comment by BlackTiger http://www.osnews.com/thread?306594 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306594
BUT I HATE SAFARI! I've recently removed it from my PC.
No plugins! Horrible and ridiculous bookmarks management (useless and buggy)! No mouse gestures! No Flash/Ad-crap removers...

It's worse than IE5.5!

It's funny how so many people mention "extensions" or "plug-ins" as a must-have feature in a browser, otherwise it sucks. A well-designed full-featured browser (ie. Opera) has no *need* for extensions. However, you do mention flash/ad blocking and mouse gestures, so in this case... well, choose a browser the way you choose everything else: use the one that has the features you want. Simple, eh?

Extensions AREN'T everything. They can be nice, but they're certainly not the best thing since the introduction of the Internet. Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (UZ64) Comments RE[3]: No way http://www.osnews.com/thread?306596 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306596 > For all other users, it's pretty bad.

Speak for yourself.

I for one am glad that I can have OSX's font rendering approach in at least one Windows application. Does it looks different? Yes. Is it worse? Not necessarily. It looks weird and fuzzy in the beginning, but very nice once you get used to it. I am happy I'll be able to use my regular font set in OSX (Myriad/Palatino/Consolas) which is not very usable on Cleartype (yes, I think OSX treats Microsoft fonts better than Clearype).

Besides, what is a standarized Windows look? Between a mix of GTK, XUL, Office widgets, XP widgets, IE widgets, skinnable apps and I don't know what else, there is no such thing as a consistent look and feel in Windows anymore. It really sucks how consistently inconsistent Windows is nowadays, but frankly, I gave up caring.

> As a side note, personally, I prefer the default font rendering of Windows to ClearType on my LCD screen. It looks clean ;)

To me, it looks jaggy when rendered "OK", or just wrong. There are fonts in 8-11 points that get deformed (Consolas, Bitstream Vera) or faded out (Myriad Pro, Palatino to a lesser degree). Plus, scaling between point sizes is not consistent. Somehow, in Cleartype, changing from Consolas 8 to 9 points means to only change the uppercase letters and spacing between lines, while 9 to 10 fonts is a big bump in font size (and therefore, see a lot less text). I need to change font sizes consistently because the Windows laptop and LCD monitor have very different DPI, so to me it is a deal.

Its subjective, see? You have your preference, fine. But don't imply that some approach is better just because you are used to it. Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (VManOfMana) Comments RE[4]: No way http://www.osnews.com/thread?306598 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306598 is it not a matter of taste or "getting use to"?

Well.. yes, but no ;)

Sure, you can get used to fuzzy fonts and then be fine, but those fonts are still - fuzzy.

There's no reason for Safari to render (fuzzy) fonts as if it was desktop publishing application. It is not and fonts should be clear.

You don't see fuzzy fonts in the books or the newspapers, do you? Why should you then use them on the screen unless you're doing desktop publishing? Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (gonzo) Comments RE[4]: No way http://www.osnews.com/thread?306599 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306599 Its subjective, see? You have your preference, fine. But don't imply that some approach is better just because you are used to it.

It is not subjective.

You don't see fuzzy fonts in books, etc, do you? So why do you prefer to have them on the screen?

Doesn't make sense. And it is hardly a matter of taste. Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (gonzo) Comments Safari for Webmaster http://www.osnews.com/thread?306602 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306602 Maybe the main interest is we can test our websites on Windows with Safari, and the sites look perfectly for Mac user. Maybe it is the goal of Safari on Windows... Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lego) Comments RE: Comment by BlackTiger http://www.osnews.com/thread?306603 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306603 Your comments looks like a flamebait but you have a point. Safari lacks a lot of features compared to other browsers. Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (NxStY) Comments RE[5]: No way http://www.osnews.com/thread?306604 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306604 Yes, it is subjective.

What for you is fuzzy for me is easier to read glyphs in non-Microsoft (and Microsoft too) fonts; what for you is clean and sharp for me is jaggy and deformed. Thats where the "used to" part comes in. I use XP at work and OSX at home (since last October) on a daily basis, so I am used to both rendering approaches; yet I still prefer OSX text rendering. And in the same way I needed some time to get used to OSX, I needed some time to get used to Cleartype (not as much, though).

Following the print analogy, what do you prefer? Something printed in an inkjet printer or in a dot-matrix printer? To me, OSX rendering in low DPI is inkjet, while OSX rendering in high DPI is laser. On the other hand, Windows rendering without Cleartype is low-density dot-matrix and Cleartype is high density dot-matrix - nicer than low density, but still dot-matrix. Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (VManOfMana) Comments RE[5]: No way http://www.osnews.com/thread?306605 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306605 I wonder if Safari font redering is better when viewed on a high-res display? Anyone tried that? Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Buck) Comments RE[6]: No way http://www.osnews.com/thread?306606 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306606 Yes, it is subjective.

Nope. To say "I prefer fuzzy over clear" is just so lame..

As I said: you don't see fuzzy fonts in books or newspapers, so why do you prefer to have them on the screen?

Sure, you (and other Mac fans) are exception: you prefer fuzzy over clear text.

It's like saying I prefer to be an idiot, but hey it's OK, it is my preference.. Well, whatever makes you happy.Edited 2008-03-25 18:57 UTC Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (gonzo) Comments RE: Even on my Macs I use Firefox http://www.osnews.com/thread?306607 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306607 Try Safariadblock for mac/safari. Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (fye.) Comments RE[7]: No way http://www.osnews.com/thread?306609 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306609 Wow, nice job, ignore everything I say and spin into terms of your own argument. That's so, uh, cable news.

Care to quote where I said "I prefer fuzzy over clear"? I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth. Newsflash (since apparently your reading comprehension is a bit limited): I don't find OSX rendering to be fuzzy. If it was fuzzy I'd have problems reading it. Guess what? I can read perfectly fine. After being used to DOS, OS/2, Win9x, BeOS, Freetype, XP, Cleartype, Adobe (Acrobat Reader) and now OSX text rendering, it takes more than just the fact that I own an Apple product to prefer OSX rendering. Has it occured to you that maybe, just maybe, OSX users are perfectly fine with OSX rendering for the simple fact they see it every single day, in the same way you are perfectly fine with Cleartype because you see it every single day? That maybe there is no Apple fanaticism involved in this? Is that too hard to understand?

Pulling the "Apple fan" argument is so predictable. Newsflash 2 (in case you missed it): I have only used OSX for six months. I like Apple, but I am an Apple fan because I like their products; I don't like Apple products because I am an Apple fan. I already went thru my OS fanboy days, and that was for OS/2 while in High School. My Mac Book Pro purchase was a well-informed decision that took a good while of counting the pros and cons, and I am not the only person who has purchased an Apple computer based on well-informed criteria.

I already answered to your book analogy. Go back to my previous post.Edited 2008-03-25 19:25 UTC Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (VManOfMana) Comments RE[5]: No way http://www.osnews.com/thread?306610 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306610 You mightn't see "fuzzy" fonts in a book, but you certainly don't expect to see pixelated fonts in a book either.
On the computer screen you don't have the resolution of a print, so either you go for one which is pixelated (though not very much) or one that tries to make up for that that difference with "fuzzyness". Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Ruahine) Comments RE[6]: No way http://www.osnews.com/thread?306611 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306611 It does. A MacBook Pro with the high DPI option is an example. The iPhone is another. Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (VManOfMana) Comments Safari 3.1 on Windows http://www.osnews.com/thread?306612 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306612 I've been using Safari 3.1 in Windows for the last two days. Its good but not great. The article mentioned one thing I found annoying. No new tab button. Thats ok, I know ctrl-T gets me a tab.

Other minor issues:
Copy and paste did not work a couple of times
No drop down address bar
In gmail the last email opened stays in the title bar
No extensions - I like my weatherfox on Firefox
No changeable theme
One page's search button didn't display correctly, but i didn't try it in another browser so it could be the website itself.

Aside from that it isn't bad I don't have an issue with the fonts like most people. They look ok to me. Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (TaterSalad) Comments RE[4]: No way http://www.osnews.com/thread?306613 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306613 I use a Mac at home and think the fonts look much better than on Windows, but when I fire up Safari on my work computer it looks horrific. Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (eggs) Comments RE: No way http://www.osnews.com/thread?306615 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306615 I cannot believe people still say this.

Do you not understand the REASON to use Safari is because it approximates the Mac and the iPhone?

There's no overly compelling reason to use Safari *anywhere* except for testing. Safari is the most featureless and least extendible browser even in the Mac world! You need an app like PithHelment or Saft.

If it rendered fonts like Windows, it would just be another "yet another browser." Now it's technically compelling, at least.

Why they can't add a "new tab" button as an option, though, is beyond me. That kills it for me right there. Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Adam S) Comments RE: JavaScript performance is amazing! http://www.osnews.com/thread?306617 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306617 Give FF3 a try and see. Firefox team claims FF3 has a much faster javascript engine. Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ljgshkg) Comments RE[2]: Comment by BlackTiger http://www.osnews.com/thread?306621 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306621 Good luck writing a "one-fits all"-browser. The reason why so many prefer extensions is because that way they can get exactly what they want.

Modularity is wonderful if done right. It allows for easy customization and development. If you are modular you do not need to bloat or strip either way, just pack some default basic stuff and then let the (power)-user do the rest.

I am a big fan of modular development and source abstraction. I cannot see why a browser should not be modular and extendible. The developer cannot choose the correct setup of his software for every potential user, but with modularity he is sure a lot closer to giving the users what they want. Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ephracis) Comments RE[5]: No way http://www.osnews.com/thread?306622 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306622 I personally like the font rendering in Safari, but for people used to the "Windows way" of rendering fonts (distorted but sharp) here are some interesting news:
http://webkit.org/blog/168/gdi-text-on-windows/ Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (PowerMacX) Comments RE: Safari 3.1 on Windows http://www.osnews.com/thread?306623 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306623 Totally agree with you.

But I have to add :

* extremely fast (+)
* no adblocker (-)
* search function nice, but a little bit slow, would be better without the effect (-)
* needs a user-agent option in order to be able to surf all website (-)
* no favicon in the bookmarks :'( (-)
* no full screen option (-) Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Manuel FLURY) Comments Safari Sucks http://www.osnews.com/thread?306624 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306624 It may catch up to Firefox 2.0 in a year or so. Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lefty78312) Comments RE[6]: No way http://www.osnews.com/thread?306625 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306625 I like the "fuzzy" fonts as well, but they do look quite out of place when you see them on a Windows desktop. Pretty distracting, IMO, but not something I'm going to whine about. Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (smitty) Comments Seriously - Not http://www.osnews.com/thread?306626 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306626 yeah, yeah, yeah... we already read about how that panned out - it is bug riddled, especially security bug riddled. I am not prepared to wait for Apple to fix security bugs for ever in the future, as you even have to do on the Mac platform in many cases. Apple is not famous for being quick on security, read your news items.... Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Googol) Comments RE[4]: No way http://www.osnews.com/thread?306627 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306627 > I for one am glad that I can have OSX's font rendering approach in at least one Windows application.

You forgot Adobe Reader ;) Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Manuel FLURY) Comments RE[2]: JavaScript performance is amazing! http://www.osnews.com/thread?306629 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306629 Hi,

I like FF and I use it for a while (version 1.0 plus I've tried the milestone version too)

But for months now, I have to admit that it become what it claimed it didn't want to be, heavy and slow

It hangs when using gmail (cpu 100% after some manipulations) , use a lot of memory (Safari seems to use more memory that FF yet but no high cpu load) Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Manuel FLURY) Comments RE: About speed http://www.osnews.com/thread?306630 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306630 Exactly, Back when I used Vista on my production machine, Internet Explorer would refuse to start for at least a minute after inital boot up and logon.

So to be fair to the competition, you should add about 30s to the startup time of IE when comparing to other browsers. Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (stestagg) Comments RE[3]: JavaScript performance is amazing! http://www.osnews.com/thread?306631 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306631 easy. Your installation is broken, because I don't know any system that hangs Gmail. That is also a more obvious conclusion as the one you have drawn ;) Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Googol) Comments RE[2]: No way http://www.osnews.com/thread?306632 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306632
Why they can't add a "new tab" button as an option, though, is beyond me. That kills it for me right there.

Tell me why you want a "new tab" button when a double click on the tab bar does the trick ? Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Francis Kuntz) Comments RE[4]: JavaScript performance is amazing! http://www.osnews.com/thread?306634 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306634 same issue on different pc, I suspect an extension , but firefox should isolate that imho Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Manuel FLURY) Comments RE[5]: No way http://www.osnews.com/thread?306635 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306635 Its just that you have something to compare against at work. Mac fonts are pretty bad, as bad as they are with safari on Windows. Its just that the bad fonts are bad everywhere on a Mac desktop. Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (andrewg) Comments RE[3]: No way http://www.osnews.com/thread?306637 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306637 I'd rather just 'ctr-t' personally but not having the button is bad from a discoverability point of view. Apple does a lot of clever things but you need to read about them, or have them shown to you or get lucky because they aren't very discoverable. Apple often sacrifices 'elegance' for practicality. The Macbook Air is a classic example. Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (andrewg) Comments nah http://www.osnews.com/thread?306638 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306638 nope, for me nothing arrives - first, NO bulgarian interface, and i`m bulgarian, 2nd - it installs some `apple software update` b-sht, i want to tell nice words about speed and quality, but no, i just think safari is crap. Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (k.g.stoyanov) Comments RE[3]: No way http://www.osnews.com/thread?306645 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306645 Why can't I, when every other browser has one? Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Adam S) Comments RE: No way http://www.osnews.com/thread?306650 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306650 "The latest WebKit in nightly builds has made good progress on a GDI text rendering mode (i.e., the text rendering matches your OS look/settings). We encourage Windows testers to try out GDI text rendering and file bugs that you find at http://bugs.webkit.org/.

To enable GDI text rendering, you will need to hand edit your preferences file, as there is no visible UI option in Safari 3.1 for this. You will need to set WebKit's "WebKitFontSmoothingType" preference to a value of "4".

The preferences file on Windows XP is:

C:\Documents and Settings\\Application Data\Apple Computer\Safari\WebKitPreferences.plist

On Vista, it is:

C:\Users\\AppData\Roaming\Apple Computer\Safari\WebKitPreferences.plist"


Source: http://webkit.org/blog/168/gdi-text-on-windows/Edited 2008-03-25 23:21 UTC Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (KugelKurt) Comments RE[3]: No way http://www.osnews.com/thread?306653 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306653 Hi Francis, I love you and Moustik!! You bastards, ah ah!!

Anyway, no, I don't have a tabs bar, so I can't double-click it until...I have two or more tabs open ;)

The "New tab" button is very convenient, I prefer it to Ctrl-T because I can open it without having to use the keyboard ;)

Firefox also doesn't have it by default. Opera and IE do ;) Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Liquidator) Comments RE[5]: No way http://www.osnews.com/thread?306655 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306655 Hmm, me thinks you need to configure your DPI, your resolution, your bit-depth, your monitor, and your fonts. Using Safari 3.1 on Windows XP on a 1280x768x16 resolution LCD, with Safari hinting set to Medium (sometimes Strong), I don't see the "fuzzy" fonts that everyone is talking about.

Personally, I think text looks a lot better in Safari than in Firefox on XP, especially when ClearType is enabled.

It is suggestive. Some people see "fuzzy fonts", other see "clear fonts". Some see "nice fonts", others see "ugly fonts". Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (phoenix) Comments RE[2]: JavaScript performance is amazing! http://www.osnews.com/thread?306657 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306657 FF3 hasn't been released yet. I don't run beta, alpha, pre-release, or release candidate software on my systems. I also tend to wait for the .1 or .0.1 or SP1 release before testing it.

I'll never understand the "try the latest -rc, it's the best thing ever" mentality. Unless it's a test system, it shouldn't run test software. Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (phoenix) Comments RE[6]: No way http://www.osnews.com/thread?306660 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306660
Hmm, me thinks you need to configure your DPI, your resolution, your bit-depth, your monitor, and your fonts.


And people say configuring fonts in X is a lot of work... Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender) Comments Forget the bad fonts, what about color rendering? http://www.osnews.com/thread?306662 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306662 I created a screenshot... Safari renders colors differently than every other browser and image editor on my computer:

http://twowheels.us/blog/?p=107

Any idea why? Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (twowheels) Comments RE: Forget the bad fonts, what about color rendering? http://www.osnews.com/thread?306669 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306669 Perhaps this will answer your question:

http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofil...

Long story short: Safari honors embedded ICC profiles. Wed, 26 Mar 2008 05:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (macUser) Comments RE[2]: About speed http://www.osnews.com/thread?306671 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306671 And not add anything to all other browsers that use shared libraries? Ever ldd Firefox? Wed, 26 Mar 2008 05:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Bending Unit) Comments RE[3]: JavaScript performance is amazing! http://www.osnews.com/thread?306688 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306688 If anything the FF3 beta seems to be more stable than FF2x for some users.

alpha/beta/etc releases in open source don't always correctly reflect the state of stability. I have run Debian Sid (unstable) for ages as a desktop and except for the incidental package conflicts it's more stable than my (final + SP1) Vista box. Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Blackhouse) Comments RE[4]: No way http://www.osnews.com/thread?306691 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306691

Anyway, no, I don't have a tabs bar, so I can't double-click it until...I have two or more tabs open ;)


Or you could instruct Safari to *always* show the Tab bar even when only one page is displayed, which has the advantage of your page "not moving" down when the second page is added, therefore creating the tab bar.

Having the tab Bar always visible is a "must" if you are constantly using multiple tabs. This can be accomplished by closing all the tabs and having only "one window", click on "View -> Show Tab Bar".

Good luck ;) Edited 2008-03-26 12:39 UTC Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Gryzor) Comments RE[3]: About speed http://www.osnews.com/thread?306693 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306693 No. Even shared libraries take time to load into virtual memory during application startup.
What happens with internet explorer, I think, is that it depends on several system services that are given the new Vista deffered startup option. This means that Microsoft can claim that you login 'straight to Desktop' in about 5 seconds. but in reality, it is not a usable desktop for about a minute. Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (stestagg) Comments RE[3]: JavaScript performance is amazing! http://www.osnews.com/thread?306695 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306695
I'll never understand the "try the latest -rc, it's the best thing ever" mentality.


If the software works, and makes your life easier, why get caught up in a name? Why deny yourself a useful feature that will speed up your work just because it hasn't been named in a way you like?

It's all about balancing how much easier your life will be with the new features vs. the cost if the software crashes (and let's face it software crashes can also happen with version 4.1 SP2).

For example the IDE I'm currently using is beta and crashes on me maybe once a week (but getting better on a weekly basis). However the new features it adds saves me a lot of time and hassle every single day I use it. So the few minutes I lose when it crashes is more than made up with the time I save. That's why I run beta software on my main workstation. Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dagw) Comments RE[2]: Comment by BlackTiger http://www.osnews.com/thread?306699 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306699
It's funny how so many people mention "extensions" or "plug-ins" as a must-have feature in a browser, otherwise it sucks. A well-designed full-featured browser (ie. Opera) has no *need* for extensions.


Lack of true Adblocking has kept me off of Opera for several versions now. I know there's an url.ini trick you can use but in Firefox it just works. Why should I switch?

--bornagainpenguin Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (bornagainenguin) Comments RE[2]: Safari 3.1 on Windows http://www.osnews.com/thread?306700 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306700 When the 'develop' menu is checked in menu bar, there is a user-agent option, I just saw it. Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Manuel FLURY) Comments I like it http://www.osnews.com/thread?306702 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306702 Its fast and sensible as a browser. Its also nice to see a browser embracing the latest and greatest w3c is throwing around!

http://webkit.org/blog/138/css-animation/

you know people are going to make some god-aweful websites using it but hopefully there will be some nice ones too!

People complaing about fonts, the abitlity to have downloadable fonts hosted on the webserver is a godsend and certainly somthing I will incorporate into clients sites (once a couple of other browsers pick up the ball) Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Adurbe) Comments RE: No way http://www.osnews.com/thread?306739 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306739 It is funny on how strongly people go I WILL NOT USE X because of some silly barly noticable reasons. I actually prefer Clear-Type over the Mac fonts... But in truth it doesn't bother me that much eather way. The Mac Fonts are Not that much fuzzier to make it hard to read, I would say Clear-Type is more crisp.

Yes clear type would be nice, but is is really such a big show stopper? Why don't you just tell the truth, I don't want ot be bothered by useing an other web browser.

Part of the reson for keeping the Mac Style font rendering is to assure the print is consistant across all versions of safari. So if you are making a page you want it to be pixel perfect across browsers. As for people who use it for normal web browsing, I would guess you would use safari to view Mac Friendly sites and get the sites to look like the Mac users who created them wanted.
There are good reasons for using these fonts but if you don't want to use an other web browser then don't. Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (theTSF) Comments safari and windows marrige problems http://www.osnews.com/thread?306823 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306823 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/26/apple_safari_eula_paradox/ Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (JrezIN) Comments RE[4]: JavaScript performance is amazing! http://www.osnews.com/thread?306828 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306828 Let's just say I've been burned too many times in the past running betas of this, that, or the other. Now I'm a lot more cautious on what gets installed on my systems. Especially my non-Windows systems (is it just me, or is the current definition of "release" for Linux distros a lot closer to the definition of "beta" in the past?).

Even using VMs to test software in beforehand doesn't always help.

I'm very much in the "if it's not broken, don't update it" camp. ;) Thu, 27 Mar 2008 01:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (phoenix) Comments RE[2]: No way http://www.osnews.com/thread?306829 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306829 Which looks absolutely *HORRIBLE* in Safari 3.1. From nice, smooth-looking fonts (even at Thu, 27 Mar 2008 01:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (phoenix) Comments Nomination For Badly Named Articles: http://www.osnews.com/thread?306890 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306890 "Safari 3.1 on Windows: a true competitor arrives (seriously)"

A true competitor to?

The bottom line for me is this: Safari doesn't have the *six extension I use every day out of the hundred or so. When I get a Mac, I'll still be using Firefox.

[*Scrapbook (My Favorite Extension), CookieSafe, Translator, Download Them All, FullerScreen, Tab Catalog, (Not needed for Mac), Toolbar Buttons.

BTW, Scrapbook is a often neglected must-have extension if you are doing any kind of research. It should be incorporated into Firefox, so should Cookie Safe.]

] Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (BrendaEM) Comments Comment by broch http://www.osnews.com/thread?306896 http://www.osnews.com/thread?306896 utterly funny:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/26/apple_safari_eula_paradox/

"Apple's Safari license says that users are permitted to install the browser on no more than "a single Apple-labeled computer at a time." This means that if you install Safari for Windows on a Windows PC, you're violating the license."

not to mention serious security issues. But hey Apple's software (according to not so log time ago posted ads) is very safe.

http://secunia.com/advisories/29483/


Maybe Ars Technica reviewer take look at safari one more time? Because at least now safari is a joke. Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (broch) Comments