The web has been abuzz the past two days with the ‘news’ that it was supposedly illegal to run Safari for Windows on anything but an Apple-branded computer. It was obviously a mistake, so I decided to run no story on it. Now, however, it has specifically been fixed by Apple; Ars decided to phone Apple PR, and they fixed the issue. The WebKit guys also offer a fix for the ‘fuzzy fonts’ issue on Safari for Windows.
It’s about time they fixed the font issues. Sure, Windows font rendering may not be the greatest but it’s what Windows users are most used to. I don’t understand why they haven’t fixed it till now. Font rendering on Safari was an issue people have been complaining about for months.
Who knows? There has been instructions to change the font rendering to match the Windows way and all it required was changing one line in one file. Shouldn’t have really required much effort from them
But, it just may be that they hoped that it’d attract more people: “Looks and feels exactly like OSX all the way down to fonts!”. It just didn’t work. The fact is that if you are used to certain kinds of fonts, and 99.9% of apps you have running render them certain way and then when you press alt+tab to Safari and the fonts look totally different..it just breaks the feeling of consistency.
Users of Safari on Windows are not necessarily Linux users and you’re probably asking too much to open a text file and to change a value. People would have to do some research and to find out what value to change, to begin with. It doesn’t look the way they want, they don’t do anything to change it.
Users of Safari on Windows are not necessarily Linux users and you’re probably asking too much to open a text file and to change a value.
Sure cause no one who uses windows has ever had to open a configuration file of any kind and change anything.
By god we’d all be lost in the woods without a GUI for everything!
I guess the Apple people like blurry fonts. Anyway, if they thought they would attract Windows user with the OS X look and feel + the fuzzy fonts, they lost (at least with me). I dislike the OS X look & feel, Aqua and the OS X fuzzy fonts.
OS X fonts are not “blurry”. If you use OS X, the fonts look just fine. However, a Windows application should behave and look like a Windows application and not something utterly foreign. They’ve taken some steps to alleviate this (e.g. window resizing from all corners and not just the bottom right corner) and this fix for the font rendering cannot come soon enough.
Sorry, but the font issue is not fixed, they are working on it for future releases (activating a hidden preference for something in development is not fixed), but I congratulate them for listening, they have time working on GDI support before 3.1 version was released.
No that this thing will make me change from Firefox, I still prefer a full open source browser, but I will sure install it for testing purposes on a Windows VM, I only hope installing only Safari does not try to force me iTune too
Can you define what you mean by open source? What isn’t open source enough about webkit?
http://webkit.org/blog/
WebKit is only a portion of Safari (the more complex I know), Safari is an application with a lot of no open source code using WebKit. On Windows WebKit maybe a few DLLs, while Safari is more than those few files, things like the entire UI around the Web page area (or chrome) is proprietary code. I am not saying that is bad, only that I prefer a browser like Firefox that all the binary code they distribute is opensource based (with the exception of their need to link to the OS libraries it needs to work).
A lot of people confuse WebKit “opensourceness” with Safari, so I hope this clarifies that confussion
The browser engine itself is open source, but the rest of the app is not. Okay, I can see your logic. So you would be open to using something like Swift on the PC?
Thanks for the link, it is good to know about that project. And in my case I am a Linux user (that is the reason I made a reference to test Safari on a Windows VM, just for compatibility testing what i code). On Linux we have Epiphany that now can run with WebKit too (using a different compile time option), it is nice to have options.
WebKit still does not give me compelling reasons to move from Firefox (the same happened to me with Konqueror/KHTML and the Mozilla suite nos Seamonkey), the only place I will be happy using a WebKit based browser is on a mobile device, for example one based on Google Android, but I still think Gecko is in good track to be able to run on smaller devices. It is not only love for the browser, is love for the underlying technologies like XUL, XPCOM, Tamarin (the work in progress JIT oriented JavaScript VM)
This is what is nice about options, each one target different tastes; diversity is what made living entities great, the same happens with software
I personally take a pragmatic approach to Open Source. I’m not dogmatic about it’s use and if a commercial and closed source program does the job better, I’m definitely going to be using it over the open source equivalent.
That said, while Safari isn’t open source the WebKit rendering engine is and that’s what is more important. What would you rather have? A bloated browser that suffers from performance problems but is crossplatform and thus performs just as poorly on all platforms? Or a browser that looks and feels native, while using a browsing engine that is widely available. See for example the difference between Firefox and Camino.
Having Safari on Linux would be a really stupid idea (IMHO of course). On the other hand, having Epiphany or Konqueror using the WebKit engine would be absolutely fantastic. I am glad that it is the latter that is happening and I can’t wait for their release.
I think you should learn how to use the updater or uninstall it, it’s that simple.
I in a few clicks took Safari out of the updater (do the same with iTunes)on my wife’s laptop. I dont even use Windows anymore yet I was able to keep control of the issue. Please stop blaming software being forced on you and take control of it. Do you let people walk through your house because you left the door open?
yea, do not run the updater and you risk your security because the current critical bugs fixes will not be notified to you. I only hoped the Safari standalone install do not try to advertise me any other software, it is not a matter of “you can disable it” is a matter I do not want advertising of new programs on my computer ever, what we will have next, updates about the new laptops from Apple. but I was just expressing and opinion and I think it is not a crime “yet” to hope for something
“But you can just opt out!” -Spammers Everywhere
That would be nice.
Fuzzy fonts might be good for graphics artists and DTP people and you can get used to them quite fast. But if you have to work on different platforms a lot it really shows… Having the fonts main pixels on real pixels on the display is just soo much better for reading.
Same for me! I don’t work in DTP or graphic design, and I find OS X’s fonts unprofessional, obnoxious. As I said in a previous post, the OS fonts should be clean, and graphic design applications could have fuzzy fonts if professionals like it better. Or even better, set fonts as clean for OS X as default, and optionally fuzzy, for those who want it.
In one sentence you say that OS X’s fonts are “unprofessional”. In the next you say “graphic design applications could have fuzzy fonts if professionals like it better”… and how exactly can the appearance of a typeface be “obnoxious”?
Edited 2008-03-27 23:26 UTC
Mate, its just an example of the fact that the Apple haters are running out of things to legitimately hate Apple over – first it was proprietary, then it was expensive hardware, then it was lack of a decent operating system, then it was hardware support – and now it is whining about fuzzy fonts. Its pathetic and childish but there are those on osnews who have jumped on this ‘bandwagon’ because all the ‘cool kids’ do it.
I’ve owned Mac’s since 2001, and I can tell you that this whole ‘fuzzy text’ is BS. I’m sitting here right now using Safari on Mac OS X 10.5 on a MacBook, and I certainly don’t see fuzziness. I look around at my desktop, and the rest of the UI, and again, I don’t see fuzziness. Yes, there is a difference in rendering, but it certainly isn’t to the point where by my eyes are bleeding. The way some people act here, if they see a single character rendered by MacOS X their eyes will explode.
evidently you are suffering from “besieged” syndrome
safari on windows should use windows fonts (as IE for OS X should use OS X fonts) and windows rendering font engine. Firefox for linux should follow specific rules too, as it looks bad in KDE for example. Openoffice for linux should also follow specific rules, so should WMP or IE for windows.
This is really stupid Apples mistake. Apple should fix it. That is all.
It is not a question which font rendering is better. I doubt that you can discuss what is better for professionals unless you are in typography field (but then again you would not use fonts bundled with OS but something more expensive).
In general safari 3.1 for windows is crap:
1) EULA issue (no biggie)
2) font rendering (annoying)
3) severe security hole (dangerous)
4) forcing safari installation during QT upgrade (pitiful)
Of course these mistakes will be sooner or later fixed, but current safari version is not worth mentioning.
Interesting, and when I raise issues about the crap effort on Mozilla’s part to properly integrate Firefox with Mac OS X I find my post with points deducted to -50. How can you honestly say with a straight face that some how this safari issue is as bad as you make it out to be.
I claim its a small issue, a difference in opinion, you on the other hand find the need to jump to the other end of the spectrum and declare it absolutely crap browser! Pardon, but this is Apple’s first browser for Windows – compare that to HOW LONG Mozilla had to fix those damn issues with Mac OS X. How long did Microsoft have to FINALLY make Office work like a proper Mac application?
How about you stop whinging about non-existent problems and realise that what ‘pain’ you experience as a Window user is nothing compared to the half baked, half-assed ports provided for MacOS X, not only by the open source community but by the likes of Microsoft.
So, you’re saying that because other companies/developers deliver shoddy work, Apple is allowed to do the same, and we should all just accept it? This is a common ‘argument’ delivered by pro-whatever people (not just Apple), and it’s an argument that usually indicates weakness of position.
Look, the fonts issue is a legitimate one for the sole reason that just about everyone (except for a few) complained about it, that it bothered them. This alone makes it a legimate issue that Apple should have adressed. It was raised the second the first Safari:Win beta was released.
Personally, I barely use Windows, but I would never use Safari on Windows (despite Safari being my favourite browser) simply because it is not a proper Windows application. Windows already is an inconsistent mess, there’s little incentive for me to add yet another look/theme/behaviour to it.
No, he’s just pointing out that the fonts issue is blown out of proportion. This is especially true when considering how poor the ports of many Linux/Windows/etc apps to Mac OS X are.
This is a slightly different case with Safari of course. While the issues plaguing OS X applications (like OpenOffice and Firefox) is the lack of effort expended into the port, the Safari team seems to have expended a lot more effort than necessary into their product by needlessly porting over the OS X text rendering engine to Windows.
None of this excuses the poor font rendering of Safari on Windows, but to put things in context by comparing it with the typical stuff released by companies for OS X Safari is actually a bloody good port.
It’s not blown out of all proportion at all. The screen fonts on a Mac at the somewhat smaller sizes that most people view them at are terrible, and using them on a day to day period over a a few hours is not a pleasant experience. Why they then ported this to Windows one can only guess.
Linux had this problem for absolutely ages, until fontconfig improved, and distributors started paying much more attention to their default fonts and settings. I’m posting this from a eeepc, and the screen fonts are great to look at at small sizes. They have to be.
Irrelevant. Crap screen fonts are a Mac feature.
Whether someone wants OS X style fonts is up to them. Some people like it, some people don’t. There is no clear problem with either font rendering option. The only thing you can say, however, is that when turning off font smoothing, OS X’s fonts look undeniably terrible at small sizes, due to it mashing the letters together. Though, this isn’t usually an issue, since most users keep font-smoothing turned on at all times (the default is for any font size greater than 4).
That link you mentioned in some of your other posts has hints for making unsmoothed fonts work better at low font sizes, if you so prefer. It seems almost like among geeks, particularly ones who have used older operating systems moreso than the newer ones, font antialiasing is generally less preferred than in the general population. Many (normal user) people I’ve spoken to about Macs have actually pointed out how much they love the way the fonts look. I, personally, hate any non-smoothed font on Linux or OS X, however Cleartype on Windows is, in my opinion, the most difficult to read. On Windows, therefore, I never turn on any sort of font smoothing.
The issue here is less of OS X’s font rendering being inferior, but more that Safari on Windows doesn’t match everything else.
Font smoothing doesn’t make it look any better. All it gives you is double vision.
Maybe you should try getting some glasses.
You have no clue whatsoever what font smoothing does, or how it makes smaller screen fonts look.
Edited 2008-03-28 18:37 UTC
Having worked with machine vision and computer graphics for a 2 years, yes I do understand how anti-aliasing works. Jagged fonts aren’t exactly readable and the anti-aliasing process while doing what is equivalent to “double vision” enhances the readability.
But nevermind that right? Apple products are crap and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fanboy.
I is not about haters etc.
It is the just a different philosophy about how to render fonts. Either exact positioning but that might lead to small fonts not ending up on real pixels.
Or about readability so that so that the font pixels end up on real monitor pixels.
Microsoft has even patented the way they do it.
It is complicated and only the trained eye can see it. If you only use MacOSX you wont notice .. like i said you can get used to either way very easy.
there are numerous articles about that on interwebs .. just read.
You might want to enlighten yourself and climb down a few feet off the OS X bandwagon:
http://www.atpm.com/12.01/paradigm.shtml
http://www.atpm.com/8.09/images/pcp-font-smoothing.gif
http://www.atpm.com/7.10/images/pcp-fonts.gif
If you want a Mac’s fonts be be decently readable in any way, increase the size of the font. A lot. If you don’t they will look like crap all day long.
That’s the thing, an Apple user (such as myself) will not see a difference at all or notice anything out of the ordinary if they are using OSX. Running Safari on windows on the other hand makes the difference in rendering technique quite apparent. I’m personally not a fan of Cleartype, but that is just me.
Those complaining about fuzzy fonts have either never used a Mac or are basing their opinions on the applications that Apple ported over to windows.
Alas for all the Mac fans, the issue is very real when it comes to screen fonts at around the sizes that people tend to view them at:
http://www.atpm.com/12.01/paradigm.shtml
You keep pointing to that site but I don’t see any valid user complaints about font blurring in OSX. I see a nice tip on how to get clearer fonts if you so desire. The article is not even criticizing the font smoothing all that much and they generally agree that in most instances it superior to windows.
Yeah why does he keep posting that link over and over? Does he think it proves something?
If you have something to add to the debate, by all means do so sweetheart. Denying that there isn’t a problem isn’t going to prove anything, although it is familiar:
http://discuss.pcmag.com/forums/2/1004388234/ShowThread.aspx
500 word essays saying nothing in particular, telling people there isn’t a problem. Even when evidence is provided, with pictures and examples from both Windows and Linux:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=682
what’s the reaction? Ou is a troll and no one knows what they’re talking about, painting over the actual content. Fantastic. I’ve never really got too involved with Mac fanboys before, but you lot really are funny.
Edited 2008-03-28 18:31 UTC
If you don’t see any criticism there (albeit it’s polite criticism) then you’re several apples short of an orchard. Seriously.
Repeat that sentence to yourself, with the highlighted word in mind, until you get it.
It did nothing of the sort. Screen fonts are crap in Mac OS. Which part of that did you fail to understand? When someone is sitting in front of a computer for several hours a day there should be no reason whatsoever to make screen fonts any clearer – because that’s what the user is looking at. Windows and even Linux manages to do it pretty successfully.
Edited 2008-03-28 18:15 UTC
Apoclypse, would you be interested in pooling your apples with mine, and together we could have an orchard?
A fruit salad seems achievable to me.
I don’t particularly care one way or the other, but it should be pointed out that professionalism is not defined by the preferences of professionals.
When flat panels are improved with Resolution Independence you’ll be bitching about ClearType.
Yes, i probably will
Cause then it wont make sense anymore. But now and today it does.
that is great and all but this is not funny:
http://secunia.com/advisories/29483/
if Apple force safari on any QT for windows update then at least make sure that software is without severe security issues.
Not to mention that installation of QT without safari is quite convoluted if during QT update safari can’t be deselected.
What do you mean? A security vulnerability that can be exploited by using a filename that’s “too long”? That’s pure comedy gold – or at least an example of laughable-ineptitude.
I run OSX, Windows, and Linux on a regular basis, and this means that I see different font aliasing schemes all the time. I like OSX the best. If there’s anything to hating on OSX’s style of antialiasing, it must be some very different running resolutions or very tiny typefaces, or just simple aversion to anything different.
I mean, I’m sitting here looking at the 1440×900 display on my MacBook Pro, and I regularly use 24″ widescreens at that resolution, and I do sometimes scale down to 1024×640, but I rarely see any typeface rendered small enough to be fuzzy, and if that’s the case, I’m zooming out to see layout, not read the text. Regular 10+ point fonts look great.
I think the real problem is not that the antialiasing methods are different, but that people like to have the same setting on all applications. I still remember when antialiasing was added to the Linux GUI toolkits that a lot of people really hated how it looked, nobody say much about it now. I did not want to see old GTK 1.x applications no antialiased and new GTK 2.x with it at the same time. I can run two different toolkits (QT and GTK) simultaneously even with not matched themes, but seeing two different kind of writing annoys me visually
Its not “fixed” – its just made to look like windows fonts.
Seriously there is no right or wrong here, its just a matter of personal taste.
Anyone who thinks the issue extends further is just obsessed with their own self importance.
The world is full of people who think that everyone else should change to suit them.
I hate windows fonts because their attempts at anti-aliasing them look plain weird. only the standard ms fonts look ok because they’re the only ones designed to be rendered the way microsoft does it. most other fonts will look a bit strange on windows.
I believe cleartype on windows does make things look ok but still not to the standard of Apple.
Have a look how Adobe CS software renders fonts and you’ll see how it should be done. Now try and tell me Adobe InDesign and Photoshop aren’t “professional”.
The huge difference is that InDesign and Photoshop render text destined for printing not for screen reading. There is plenty of studies showing that a font that works well on the printed page isn’t necessarily the easiest to read on a monitor, and vice versa.
In InDesign the overarching goal is that what you see on your screen should be as close as possible to what you get back from the printers. In a web browser the overarching goal should be that the fonts are as easy to read on a computer screen as possible. Trying to get tips from InDesign on how to render fonts in a web browser is simply not a good idea since they have two totally different goals with their font rendering.
No, it’s matter of consistency and properly adhering to existing standards. Unless there’s a very good reason to break consistency with the OS and other apps running on it, then inconsistency *is* a flaw in that context.
I opened my google page full screen in IE8 under Vista.
I am running parallels in it’s own space in Spaces on the Mac, so am able flick between Safari on the Mac and IE8 on Vista.
I wasn’t thinking about the font issue, but when I loaded up IE8 I found my eyes were straining to read the text (a little, not too much). I compared the same page on Safari and found it much easier to read.
Just to see if it was just me and my bias ways, I called over a work colleague who favours all things Windows and asked him. He thought the same thing as me…
Again, this is not saying one is better, my point is, I didn’t see what all the fuss what with the way fonts are rendered on the PC under Safari, I personally like them and don’t see any “fuzzy”ness to them, well, no more than ClearType (which I do have on as I like it)…
I get the feeling someone said fuzzy and everyone else decided it was real without really seeing much difference… Maybe some fonts have that look, but Arial/Helvetica look great as do a lot of others I have checked…
I’m using Safari now and it looks great to me. To me, OS X fonts render smaller and darker for the same point size as on Windows (I tested on 2003). Clear type has black fonts looking grey, but they still look great.
I guess Apple should add a check box to allow us to choose which rendering method we prefer…
Windows has been using ClearType since 2001 when XP first hit and Windows users are used to it. There is no point arguing which way is better. I think consistency outweighs it. Couple of years back when Java didn’t support ClearType everyone used to complain about it as well but they fixed it.
I agree, consistency is good, I am all for it, but not to the point of loss of innovation. If Apple (or anyone) can make a better font renderer, then I have no problem with that (and yes, that is debatable). And as i said in my original post, the option should be there to use the standard renderer for those who want it…
I think Apple wanted their renderer their because they believe it is better. Personally, I think it is. However, the option should be there to swap, and I think the option should be their to use standard Windows UI as well… Personally, I think Safari looks “wrong” on 2003 and Vista, but again, that is my own taste…
that all the comment threads are about the fuzzy fonts…
ah, silly me. i thought the illegal bit was about how apple pushed safari in the “updater”…
Edited 2008-03-28 08:35 UTC
I guess it’s because anyone with half a brain and a smidgen of intelligence knows that there is nothing “illegal” about running Safari on Windows. After all, it was Apple who pushed it onto the systems and it’s not like you had to jump through hoops to get it installed unlike other Apple products of dubious legality.
On the other hand, fonts provide people with something to bitch about and allows us to come across as being some sort of chic art critic.
i guess thats what separates geeks/nerds from the rest, i could not care less about fonts. but then i use linux
And I would have thought that the fact that Safari bringing down OSX at the Pwn2Own contest at CanSec West would have been brought up by now… Click a link, allow remote code execution, so it would appear they are bring the Windows experience to OSX at the same time they’re bringing the OSX experience to Windows…
Ok, but seriously, I’d be interested to know if that was platform specific or if it impacts the Windows version of well, but the flaw won’t be disclosed until Apple patches it. Understandbly. Still, I’m curious to know the degree and extent of code reuse between the Windows and OSX versions of Safari.
I’ve been using Macs since system 4.1 and I have no idea what this “fuzzy” reference thing is…
That said, to me windows (and linux) fonts have always been ugly and blocky I guess its what you’re used to…
I guess most people don’t read the EULA texts and simply click “I Agree”.
As an evidence, many Apple employees don’t know about their EULA either.