Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 20th Jun 2007 09:26 UTC, submitted by TB
Internet & Networking "Apple's Safari is making its way to the Windows platform with the serious intention of making a dent in the market. As brilliant as the people are at Apple, I can't help but laugh at their, to put it politely, delusion. Before I ramble on too much, here are my five reasons why Safari will fail on the Windows platform." My take: Safari on Windows isn't here to take over the Windows browsing market. It's here for the iPhone.
Thread beginning with comment 249269
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE
by Nelson on Wed 20th Jun 2007 14:39 UTC in reply to "RE"
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

Their Applications for Windows are just plain horrible.

They ignore the Windows Visual Style, that's a big no-no when it comes to User Interface design. It looks awkward and performs often slower than an Application which doesn't draw the Non client Area.

When they announced Safari for Windows, I was excited. It seemed like a good standards compliant browser and any competition is welcome.

What I have a problem with, is Apple touting this as the "Fastest bested omgyougottahavethisthing web browser" and then delivering this steaming pile of shit to users.

On it's website, they say it's the most secure browser yet HOURS after it's beta release bugs were found. I realize that all Beta applications have bugs, but the mistakes they made were so elementary that they simply cannot be excused.

The pages render faster imho, but at what cost? Usability? It's cool that Safari is lightweight, but it would be better if it had a few more things that more modern browsers like Firefox have.

With the security update, they seemed to have fixed a few of the bugs and made some of the crashes go away but it's still pitiful in comparison to even IE7.

Apple is a great company, and over time they'll give this some elbow grease and make it work.

Until then however, they simply cannot say this is even near the best browser.

So I disagree with the point of the article that "Safari will fail on Windows", that's untrue it's a good browser once you see past it's initial pitfalls due to it being a Beta release.

I think that after a few months maybe a year or so, we'll begin to see the browser Apple wanted us to see when they showed it off at their Apple convention.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE
by mallard on Wed 20th Jun 2007 15:27 in reply to "RE"
mallard Member since:
2006-01-06

>They ignore the Windows Visual Style, that's a big no-no when it comes to User Interface design. It looks awkward and performs often slower than an Application which doesn't draw the Non client Area.

Even Microsoft ignore Windows' visual style. Office, Media Player, IE7, Visual Studio, they all use custom UIs.
In Windows Vista, you can almost pick any two bundled applications and find two different UIs.

>On it's website, they say it's the most secure browser yet HOURS after it's beta release bugs were found. I realize that all Beta applications have bugs, but the mistakes they made were so elementary that they simply cannot be excused.

Elementary? I trust that you make a living writing web browsers then?
Seeing as Safari is secure on the Mac, the Windows bugs were obviously introduced during porting. Not knowing exactly how that process goes, I can't really comment on how "elementary" these mistakes are.

My guess (and it is just a guess) would be that the port is based on the old OpenStep for Windows (OPENSTEP Enterprise) APIs. To get a modern Cocoa app to run on that would require the writing of Windows versions of several Mac OS X frameworks.
It is likely that these frameworks are currently in a very early state of development and therefore include many "elementary" bugs, such as buffer overflows and the like. (When porting software, it is common to write "minimally-functional" libraries in order to get the application running, then go back and improve the stability/security/performance of these libraries at a later date, often when preparing a final release).

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE
by elsewhere on Wed 20th Jun 2007 16:05 in reply to "RE"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Elementary? I trust that you make a living writing web browsers then?
Seeing as Safari is secure on the Mac, the Windows bugs were obviously introduced during porting. Not knowing exactly how that process goes, I can't really comment on how "elementary" these mistakes are.

My guess (and it is just a guess) would be that the port is based on the old OpenStep for Windows (OPENSTEP Enterprise) APIs. To get a modern Cocoa app to run on that would require the writing of Windows versions of several Mac OS X frameworks.
It is likely that these frameworks are currently in a very early state of development and therefore include many "elementary" bugs, such as buffer overflows and the like. (When porting software, it is common to write "minimally-functional" libraries in order to get the application running, then go back and improve the stability/security/performance of these libraries at a later date, often when preparing a final release).


The flaws were not all simple coding errors or buffer overflows. For instance, the URL handling exploit was simply a design flaw, and one that has no legitimate reason for existing today. Not for a company that claims to be committed to security.

Regardless of whether the vulnerabilities are being found as the cobwebs are blown out of an old framework, it's inexcusable for a *beta* product to have flaws this easily found. It means that the product was not properly tested during the alpha stage, or more likely, it never really had an alpha stage and was rushed to market in order to cash in on the iPhone hype and dev conf. It also implies that the entire framework the product is built on needs to be broken down and examined, which means that this is in fact not a beta product nor anywhere near production ready, at least one hopes.

It's also worth pointing out that due to the code sharing, some of the flaws discovered in the Windows version were then found to apply to the OSX version as well. That should be an alarm bell for both Apple and their OSX user base; if Apple wants to expand Safari's footprint by dumping shared code on a Windows platform, they'd better be ready to batten down the hatches on their own platform as well.

Does the world need another browser? Who knows, I'm just happy that Konq/KDE has benefited from Apple's involvement with KHTML. People can have pissing contests all they want over which browser is best, it's a moot point.

But if Apple is going to start claiming the vaunted "Most Secure Title", they had damned well better be ready to walk that walk, and not just talk the talk. Windows users don't fall for that any more, not after years of being abused by Microsoft who once made similar claims before actually investing in the resources needed. Safari being broken, several times over, on it's first day of release isn't a coincidence or something to be dismissed because "it's a beta.". On the contrary, I suspect it's a sign of things to come. Apple better be ready.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE
by BluenoseJake on Wed 20th Jun 2007 17:58 in reply to "RE"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"Seeing as Safari is secure on the Mac, the Windows bugs were obviously introduced during porting. Not knowing exactly how that process goes, I can't really comment on how "elementary" these mistakes are. "

There is no real evidence that Safari is secure on the mac, it is OS X that is providing the security for Safari, because of it's Next/BSD/Unix heritage and the fact that there is no real incentive for malware writers to bother with OS X. To state that the errors were introduced during porting is just nonsense

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE
by Nelson on Wed 20th Jun 2007 21:20 in reply to "RE"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Sorry, that's just untrue. On Vista Media Player, IE7, AND Visual Studio use the Common Windows UI.

And yes, the bugs were elementary. Why don't you LOOK at the nature of the bugs? I'd understand if it was some obscure exploitation in a certain component of the Browser but something as obvious as this is simply unacceptable.

Now, do you agree they're elementary or not? I really don't know your stance.

Reply Parent Score: 1