With the OS X progression proving more competent than Windows Vista and the sequelae, everyone suffers platform anxiety. Or platform smugness, if you're on the other side. Apple today made available it Safari 3.1 browser for Windows, in a manner too sly and intrusive for some competitors' tastes. But whatever the ethics or etiquette of delivery, I can see why Apple did it. It changed my mind, anyway, in that on at least one important dimension--maybe the most important one--Apple software simply runs better. As if it runs on code somehow 'better,' because what else could be involved. This version of Safari is written for Windows, so no excuse about the advantages of a younger operating system succeed.

I am using it now, as the speed for me makes up for the lack of features. Firefox 3, beta 4 is supposed to be almost as fast, but I find no comparison. Safari is instantaneous. I don't know whether the bottleneck in all the other products--from IE 8 to Opera 9.5 (second to latest beta) to the aforementioned Firefox 3, lies in the speed of reading html or the speed of connection [could that be?] . If it derives its speed _from_ it lack of features, that would be somewhat disappointing.

This being the kind of flagship product that sets a model for developers, it sets a very high standard for software performance. It also conveys a very deep-seated minimalist design philosophy. Personally, I find the aesthetics boring, compared to what I can supply on Windows with Window Blinds. But the minimalist design philosophy cuts much deeper than that. Efficiency is prized over power. I think that might be of the essence of what you buy into when going Macintosh, the emphasis extending even to hardware design, where minimalist mouse-design tradition now means that the user must hold down the control key to open in a new tab with one click.

But it is possible that software that runs well is more important than features. With regard to browsers, that's my momentary sense.

Stephen, I think the controversy just got a lot less boring (grin)!

Safari is noticeably faster than anything else I have seen.

My only complaint is that when I brought in my bookmarks from Firefox and tried to put them on the toolbar, somehow they all got Google-ized addresses, and I had to go through and change each one by hand.

But the speed...! It is an unbelievable difference.

And I don't think Mac's marketing is anything worse than the M'Soft's approach. At least the CEO of Firefox's kid had the option given to her of downloading Safari.

I find the new Explorer has more emphasis on looks than efficiency, even if it does have tabs.

Recent Firefox versions have been more buggy than previous ones.

And as for Opera, ever since trying to get help on one of their so-called "community" forums run by, and having to deal with, some of the most arrogant and obnoxious folk I have ever met on-line, I really lost any respect for their efforts (of course that was also after I had lost all my mail using the Opera client).

So I wish Mac well as it overtakes the competition.

Thanks for the tip, Stephen.

Daly

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

With the OS X progression proving more competent than Windows Vista and the sequelae,
everyone suffers platform anxiety. Or platform smugness, if you're on the other
side. Apple today made available it Safari 3.1 browser for Windows, in a manner too sly
and intrusive for some competitors' tastes. But whatever the ethics or etiquette of
delivery, I can see why Apple did it. It changed my mind, anyway, in that on at least one
important dimension--maybe the most important one--Apple software simply runs
better. As if it runs on code somehow 'better,' because what else could be involved.
This version of Safari is written for Windows, so no excuse about the advantages of a
younger operating system succeed.

I am using it now, as the speed for me makes up for
the lack of features. Firefox 3, beta 4 is supposed to be almost as fast, but I find no
comparison. Safari is instantaneous. I don't know whether the bottleneck in all the
other products--from IE 8 to Opera 9.5 (second to latest beta) to the aforementioned
Firefox 3, lies in the speed of reading html or the speed of connection [could that be?]
. If it derives its speed _from_ it lack of features, that would be somewhat
disappointing.

This being the kind of flagship product that sets a model for
developers, it sets a very high standard for software performance. It also conveys a
very deep-seated minimalist design philosophy. Personally, I find the aesthetics
boring, compared to what I can supply on Windows with Window Blinds. But the
minimalist design philosophy cuts much deeper than that. Efficiency is prized over
power. I think that might be of the essence of what you buy into when going Macintosh,
the emphasis extending even to hardware design, where minimalist mouse-design
tradition now means that the user must hold down the control key to open in a new tab with
one click.

But it is possible that software that runs well is more important than
features. With regard to browsers, that's my momentary sense.

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

where minimalist mouse-design
tradition now means that the user must hold down the control key to open in a new tab with
one click.

I can't speak for the Windows version, but Mac OS X has always supported (though not required) two-button mice.

I can use the two-finger click on a MacBook to open a tab with one click (this is equivalent to right-clicking, which should work if you have a mouse rather than a trackpad).

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

delivery, I can see why Apple did it. It changed my mind, anyway, in that on at least one
important dimension--maybe the most important one--Apple software simply runs
better.

"Apple software simply runs better." - pleeeeeeeeeeaze ...

I am using it now, as the speed for me makes up for
the lack of features. Firefox 3, beta 4 is supposed to be almost as fast, but I find no
comparison. Safari is instantaneous.

I never get this speed thingy, are you people just clicking on the links all the time or are you actually sometimes read the context of the websites you browse?

In IE, Firefox, and Opera for Windows, one would usually assign the middle click (third button), where Apple uses control-click. The right-click brings the context menu in Windows and Safari 3.1 for Windows. Using Safari, I am mostly using the context menu to open in a new tab. A solution would be to make the assignment to the third mouse button using third party software.

David Dunham wrote:

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:
>where minimalist mouse-design
>tradition now means
that the user must hold down the control key to open in a new tab with
>one click.

I
can't speak for the Windows version, but Mac OS X has always supported (though not
required) two-button mice.

I can use the two-finger click on a MacBook to open a tab
with one click (this is equivalent to right-clicking, which should work if you have a
mouse rather than a trackpad).

Daly de Gagne wrote:

I find the new Explorer has
more emphasis on looks than efficiency, even if it does have tabs.

IE 8, in its first public beta, make efficiency-related changes, that and security almost exclusively. I'm using it as my operative version of IE, although occasionally it crashes (estimate, once every other day).

Recent Firefox
versions have been more buggy than previous ones.

And as for Opera, ever since
trying to get help on one of their so-called "community" forums run by, and having to
deal with, some of the most arrogant and obnoxious folk I have ever met on-line, I
really lost any respect for their efforts (of course that was also after I had lost all
my mail using the Opera client).

They're quite astounding, and their sysop is a tyrant. They suppress any criticism of their product on their boards, which I think has resulted in their ignoring obvious simplifications to the browser. I think they're floundering now; basically, Firefox is causing their slow death. Their operative browser is almost as slow as IE 7, and they don't seem to be able to get 9.5 out of beta.

So I wish Mac well as it overtakes the
competition.

Thanks for the tip, Stephen.

Daly

quant wrote:

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:
>delivery, I can see why Apple did it. It changed my mind,
anyway, in that on at least one
>important dimension--maybe the most important
one--Apple software simply runs
>better.

"Apple software simply runs better." -
pleeeeeeeeeeaze ...

Either it runs better, or they do an excellent job of creating that appearance, in which case it would be interesting to know how, even if it turns out to be mass hypnosis.

>I am using it now, as the speed for me makes up for
>the lack of
features. Firefox 3, beta 4 is supposed to be almost as fast, but I find no

>comparison. Safari is instantaneous.

I never get this speed thingy, are you
people just clicking on the links all the time or are you actually sometimes read the
context of the websites you browse?

For example: I want to check what's new on OutlinerSoftware. I click to get here, and I prefer that it happen immediately.

>I never get this >speed thingy, are you >>people just clicking on the links all the time or are you
actually sometimes read the >>context of the websites you browse?

For example: I
want to check what's new on OutlinerSoftware. I click to get here, and I prefer that it
happen immediately.

ehm, people usually use RSS for things like that (which is well executed in Safari btw.)

Well, IMO, it's pathetic from Apple to use Microsoft's methods to force their software upon users (IE, WM player). Just try to install QuickTime and it tries to force you to install iTunes (which then when updating tries to install Safari), another useless driver for iPod, automatically installs Apple updater, etc ...

And back to Safari ... (not as speedy on Windows as on Mac) cannot block flash, bad window/tab opening, terrible smudged fonts ...

Stephen, I am glad to have my Opera experience confirmed by one other person. I think it may be more than a coincidence that this sysop or moderator's name sounds similar to Herrod, as in Kind Herrod, and we remember what a jolly fellow he was.

I actually had a few conversations with Opera's corporate office about Herrod, and though they said the right words and sounded almost genuinely concerned, nothing changed.

And I still don't have my mail.

I used to have uniformly high respect for Scandinavian culture, believing it to be somehow more refined and socially civilized than North American culture. Perhaps Norway is the exception to that -- or perhaps in Norway, being a techie or a geek equate to having a sense of intellectual and more superiority.

Anyhow, the forums that constitute the so-called community for Opera do more to tick people off than anything else the company might do. They should be called the Opera un-community.

Having said that, I found two or three people on the forum who were genuinely helpful. But I didn't understand some of the forum process, and I virtually begged Herrod to explain it to me, assuring him I did not mean to question his superior status. I was studiously ignored by Herrod, but some of his centurions managed to get in some cheap verbal shots that apparently had royal approval.

I suspect in five years Opera will go the way of Navigator. Incidentally, I preferred the last version of Navigator to Firefox, even though it used the same engine. More scripts kept working on Navigator; I think Nav was a tad faster; and it seemed just a little better put together.

If I could get the Google toolbar for Windows Safari I would have no reason to use Firefox.

Daly

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

Daly de Gagne wrote:

>
>I find the new Explorer has
>more emphasis on looks than
efficiency, even if it does have tabs.

IE 8, in its first public beta, make
efficiency-related changes, that and security almost exclusively. I'm using it as
my operative version of IE, although occasionally it crashes (estimate, once every
other day).
>
>Recent Firefox
>versions have been more buggy than previous
ones.
>
>And as for Opera, ever since
>trying to get help on one of their so-called
"community" forums run by, and having to
>deal with, some of the most arrogant and
obnoxious folk I have ever met on-line, I
>really lost any respect for their efforts
(of course that was also after I had lost all
>my mail using the Opera
client).

They're quite astounding, and their sysop is a tyrant. They suppress any
criticism of their product on their boards, which I think has resulted in their
ignoring obvious simplifications to the browser. I think they're floundering now;
basically, Firefox is causing their slow death. Their operative browser is almost as
slow as IE 7, and they don't seem to be able to get 9.5 out of beta.
>
>So I wish Mac well as
it overtakes the
>competition.
>
>Thanks for the tip, Stephen.
>
>Daly

quant wrote:

ehm, people usually use RSS for
things like that (which is well executed in Safari btw.)

So, the availability of features and services to compensate for speed make speed immaterial?

From the standpoint of efficient features, I think iRider is best. Yet I use it only for some specialized purposes, without even being able to articulate why. I'm concluding that the subliminal annoyance comes from its slowness.

Well, IMO, it's pathetic
from Apple to use Microsoft's methods to force their software upon users (IE, WM
player). Just try to install QuickTime and it tries to force you to install iTunes
(which then when updating tries to install Safari), another useless driver for iPod,
automatically installs Apple updater, etc ...

I can't stand Apple the company myself. But I like Opera even less, yet I find I use it the most. The e-mail and newsgroups integration is the draw.

And back to Safari ... (not as speedy
on Windows as on Mac) cannot block flash, bad window/tab opening, terrible smudged
fonts ...

>ehm, people usually use RSS for
>things like that (which is well
executed in Safari btw.)

So, the availability of features and services to
compensate for speed make speed immaterial?

not at all, I just think you didn't pick up the best reason to support your "speed" argument here.

As with all of the software, it's a matter of preference. Even if I were to accept the statistics on Apple's site, the html speed of Safari in seconds being 2.09, Firefox 3.6, IE 4, ... the speed would come relevant only if you we clicking/opening/loading websites hundreds or thousands of times per day ... not impossible, but certainly not my case ;-)

I use Safari, but it's not because of the speed... my main reason is because it's the only browser (on any platform) at the moment that's color-managed. If your monitor has a calibrated color profile, photos with embedded color profiles -- basically anything out of a digital camera these days -- look truer because they're displayed properly. This may only matter to photography and design nerds, but it's nice.

(I'm not sure if the Windows version supports color management. It'd be nice if it did too.)

As for the two button issue, the real motivation in my view is not simplicity or minimalism... it's to encourage OS X interface conventions. On Windows, the dominant interface convention is "subject-verb". That is, you click on an object (the subject) and then right click to select which "verb" to perform on that object. On OS X, property sheets are the dominant interface convention. You select the object you want to modify, then select items from its property sheet, generally floating to the right. Interfaces which depend too heavily on the subject-verb metaphor are generally not seen as respecting OS X conventions, since context menus on OS X are supposed to represent exceptional actions. These conventions do matter... consistency in feel and behavior is what makes Mac applications easy to pick up quickly.

That said, all Mac laptops now support two finger right click to make life easier for people switching who instinctively reach for context menus.

-- Chris

Having just completed the switch from Windows to Mac, I found this discussion of the new Safari interesting. In 2006 Jeffrey Zeldman had a blog on Safari's superior handling of fonts and CSS. http://www.zeldman.com/2006/11/27/safari-beats-firefox/ Another site has a discussion on Safari's handling of color photographs http://www.flickr.com/photos/darknesis/1424292900/ (Safari uses color management, and, given Mac's use in the design world, if you've set up your system with color management, that matters.)

In my case I purchased a Mac Pro primarily to assist me with composing orchestral works and operas, as well as to create virtual realizations of the orchestral sounds. So power and an efficient operating system were my main concern. To my surprise I discovered that OS X has its own audio system (core audio) built into the operating system. This was providing better results than I had been having with Windows XP, but the real surprise came when I realized that OS X came with its own format for handling virtual instruments. Windows typically uses VST for this purpose, so that if you create a virtual cello section, it is processed through VST (developed by Steinberg). All my scores were set up for VST, so when I discovered that I could also set them up to use OS X's Audio Units (AU), I could do a direct comparison.

The short story is that AU simply blew VST away. All problems that I had had with loud climaxes for full orchestra overwhelming the system during playback simply disappeared. The sound was also better in other more subtle ways.

So one of the things that I have been discovering is that Apple's efforts to control many aspects of the whole system (from the operating system, hardware, audio system, and so on down to encouraging the use of Cocoa in writing software) have real performance benefits. Frankly, I am still a bit stunned by the improvement over my high-performance XP PC (which goes into storage today).

Randall Shinn

That's very interesting. Seldom can anyone articulate exactly what it different about the Macintosh interface.

Interface convention and minimalism aren't necessarily counterposed, if the convention implements a minimalist design philosophy, as I think it does here.

Would you provide a few examples of exceptional actions?

Chris Thompson wrote:

As for the two button issue, the real motivation in my view is not simplicity or
minimalism... it's to encourage OS X interface conventions. On Windows, the
dominant interface convention is "subject-verb". That is, you click on an object
(the subject) and then right click to select which "verb" to perform on that object. On
OS X, property sheets are the dominant interface convention. You select the object
you want to modify, then select items from its property sheet, generally floating to
the right. Interfaces which depend too heavily on the subject-verb metaphor are
generally not seen as respecting OS X conventions, since context menus on OS X are
supposed to represent exceptional actions. These conventions do matter...
consistency in feel and behavior is what makes Mac applications easy to pick up
quickly.

That said, all Mac laptops now support two finger right click to make life
easier for people switching who instinctively reach for context menus.

-- Chris

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

But the
minimalist design philosophy cuts much deeper than that. Efficiency is prized over
power. I think that might be of the essence of what you buy into when going Macintosh,
the emphasis extending even to hardware design, where minimalist mouse-design
tradition now means that the user must hold down the control key to open in a new tab with
one click.

In fact, you DO obtain a Windows-style context menu, although I didn't find the feature documented.

Security flaws found in Safari for Windows
'Highly Critical' and unpatched

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/03/25/security-flaws-found-safari