why mac software should stay on macs

[primal]

http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/12/0120230&from=rss

An anonymous reader writes
"David Maynor, infamous for the Apple Wi-Fi hack, has discovered bugs in the Windows version of Safari mere hours after it was released. He notes in the blog that his company does not report vulnerabilities to Apple. His claimed catch for 'an afternoon of idle futzing': 4 DoS bugs and 2 remote execution vulnerabilities."

Separately, within 2 hours Thor Larholm found a URL protocol handler command injection vulnerability that allows remote command execution.
:munch:

http://erratasec.blogspot.com/2007/06/niiiice.html

[Eberbachl]

Its a good thing it's Beta

Perhaps there's a reason it's still Beta?

[primal]

Its a good thing it's Beta

Perhaps there's a reason it's still Beta?
yeah cause its still written on the same sdks for windows everyone else's are.... LOL

[Marcus]

Not even Mac users use Safari. :lol:

[Rixter]

Not even Mac users use Safari. :lol:
I'm a full time Mac user and I only use Firefox..... Safari sucks

[Eberbachl]

Safari works fine on my Macs.

I use Firefox on Windows, but mostly Safari on my Macs.

Why does it suck Rixter?

[Rixter]

With Firefox i can open several tabs at once and just select which website I want to view.
i only use Safari when I need to acesss my company's web services.
I have also used IE on the Mac but still prefer Firefox... like all Mac things its user friendly.

[Archangel]

I tried it at work today... ugh. I suspect it would be better on a Mac - some of my biggest issues with it were the way they used the OSX look and feel, which doesn't fit on a Windows machine. You can only resize the window from the bottom right hand corner, and you don't even get a resize cursor there. And while some of the effects are nice, they're way too sluggish without an accelerated GUI - in fact the whole UI is slow.

I have a feeling that maybe it's not Apple's forte and they should stick with what they do best - whatever that is :-P

PS. What is up with the fonts? Ergh...

[Eberbachl]

With Firefox i can open several tabs at once and just select which website I want to view.

...err... Safari does tabbed browsing.

Just turn it on in preferences ;)

Personally - I hate tabbed browsing - that's what expose is for.

...but it's there if you want it.

Firefox fonts are horrible on a Mac - Safari's are great. Firefox has horrible square 1990's-esque buttons on web pages etc....

Firefox is much more desirable than IE on Windows, but on a Mac, I'll mostly take Safari.

Safari's much prettier, and I get the feeling it's a little quicker too.

I have Firefox installed, just in case a web page doesn't work nicely under Safari, I'll open it in Firefox. I can remember that happening only once, but that website's fixed now anyway.

Actually - I have IE and Netscape installed too on one Mac - I have a particular application that only works on IE :(

;)

[Liam]

I've had safari installed for about three hours now...

It's ugly.

After being open for three hours it's refusing to display... according to the browser uptime extension for FF this session has been open for 23 hours.

[Eberbachl]

Hello....Safari on Windows is Beta.

Expect bugs and vulnerabilities to be present.

[Archangel]

Firefox fonts are horrible on a Mac - Safari's are great. Firefox has horrible square 1990's-esque buttons on web pages etc....
I disagree, the font rendering in OSX isn't as good as FreeType or that ClearType thing they have in Windows. It seems they've brought their renderer to Windows with Safari, which hasn't had a good result.

And my buttons look fine in Firefox. They're not hideous and square by any means - and much nicer than the awful things IE does with buttons.

[Quetzalcoatl]

I agree with Eberbachl! Firefox is not pretty on OSX, Safari is nice. Aesthetic, simple, and quick.

The only problem is that half of uni's websites don't support it, so yeah, I've got Firefox installed too ...

And why would you use Safari on Windows when you could just buy an Apple? ;)

[Chris Madeley]

I agree with Eberbachl! Firefox is not pretty on OSX, Safari is nice. Aesthetic, simple, and quick.

I agree too.

The only problem is that half of uni's websites don't support it, so yeah, I've got Firefox installed too ...

My uni too!

I don't see what apple's trying to achieve though. I haven't used windows safari (don't have windows!) but firefox on windows is excellent.

Possibly just for developers to test their web pages on the browser to check compatibility with the upcoming iphone (which supposedly runs safari).

[Rixter]

I have Firefox installed, just in case a web page doesn't work nicely under Safari, I'll open it in Firefox. I can remember that happening only once, but that website's fixed now anyway.

Actually - I have IE and Netscape installed too on one Mac - I have a particular application that only works on IE

I guess thats the main thing that some sites work better with Safari, as my company's web service will only work with Safari on the Mac and IE on the PC as thats all the software will support.

What OSX version are you running and on what sort of MAC.

Im running Firefox.2.0.0.4 and OSX10.4.9 on a MacBook Pro and have no speed problems.

Its really horses for courses....:thumb: :thumb:

[Eberbachl]

I disagree, the font rendering in OSX isn't as good as FreeType or that ClearType thing they have in Windows. It seems they've brought their renderer to Windows with Safari, which hasn't had a good result.

The Safari fonts on Windows won't be the same fonts that Mac Safari users see.


And my buttons look fine in Firefox. They're not hideous and square by any means - and much nicer than the awful things IE does with buttons.

Web page buttons might look fine on Firefox in Windows, or any of the various *nix's - but they're horrible on a Mac. Safari's are light years ahead.

[Eberbachl]

I guess thats the main thing that some sites work better with Safari, as my company's web service will only work with Safari on the Mac and IE on the PC as thats all the software will support.

What OSX version are you running and on what sort of MAC.

Im running Firefox.2.0.0.4 and OSX10.4.9 on a MacBook Pro and have no speed problems. Both machines run OS X 10.4.9.

Its really horses for courses....:thumb: :thumb:


I use Firefox 2 on my 1.42ghz/1GB RAM Mac mini, and my Core 2 Duo 2ghz/2GB RAM Macbook.

I didn't say that I experience speed problems with Firefox.....just that Safari is prettier, as functional and I feel it's a little quicker.

[Archangel]

The Safari fonts on Windows won't be the same fonts that Mac Safari users see.
Why not? It's definately not using Windows' builtin font rendering, so there has to be _something_ doing it. If it's not what Safari uses on OSX, then what is it?

[Rixter]

Safari's much prettier, and I get the feeling it's a little quicker too.


Sorry my mistake I took this as a speed issue. :thumb:

[Eberbachl]

Why not? It's definately not using Windows' builtin font rendering, so there has to be _something_ doing it. If it's not what Safari uses on OSX, then what is it?

..no idea. Don't really plan to find out either. I hardly use Windows these days , and I'm not likely to install Safari on it for the rare occasion that I do.

[recurve boy]

Someone at work installed it today.

It looks really ugly in windows. What is up with the fonts? Maybe they took the Mac stuff and had to hobble it because they don't have hooks into the graphics card and didn't port Core Image?

Firefox is really **** on Mac. This is why Camino exists.

I use safari. It is far more standards compliant than every other browser except Opera. I can develop stuff for Safari and pretty much know it will work in Firefox and IE.

[mike]

Had a look at Safari today at work (downloaded it and installed it on my machine - love having admin status because its the only way to make a Win network work for everyone).

First impression, "OMG my PC has turned into a MAC AAARRRRGGGGGHHHH!!" But then used it to browse and it seemed ok.

Still, firefox is easy and works. I'll probably stick with firefox for now.

[Marcus]

Firefox is really **** on Mac. This is why Camino exists.


I used Camino for a few months, it was crap. On animated GIFs it would wait till each gif did a animated rotation before putting a letter down while typing. Just putting a post on the forum would take 10-20 times longer than normal.

[Ozzy]

Don't understand any of all this computer tech jargon.
Anyway, I have safari on my new mac. Works fine.
What's wrong with it then ?

[Archangel]

Don't understand any of all this computer tech jargon.
Anyway, I have safari on my new mac. Works fine.
What's wrong with it then ?
It might work adequately on a mac. The Windows version is completely awful, because it uses the Mac UI, which just feels 'weird' in Windows - eg. you can only resize by dragging the bottom right corner, every single other app I use you can use any side. In OSX that would be normal, so people get used to it.

And the font rendering is hideous, but according to Eberbachl it's not the same, so I guess the Windows port must be the poor cousin.

[Eberbachl]

It might work adequately on a mac. The Windows version is completely awful, because it uses the Mac UI, which just feels 'weird' in Windows - eg. you can only resize by dragging the bottom right corner, every single other app I use you can use any side. In OSX that would be normal, so people get used to it.

And the font rendering is hideous, but according to Eberbachl it's not the same, so I guess the Windows port must be the poor cousin.

I can only assume it's not the same, 'cause it's fine on my Mac ;)

[Archangel]

I can only assume it's not the same, 'cause it's fine on my Mac ;)
Open to debate ;-)

[Eberbachl]

Open to debate ;-)


:p

I'm looking right at it now, and it looks great :thumb:

[Archangel]

:p

I'm looking right at it now, and it looks great :thumb:
This (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000884.html) looks pretty much like my impression of it. As they say there, there's no 'best' way to do it, but it's interesting that our 'taste' is apparently quite different.

[Liam]

This (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000884.html) looks pretty much like my impression of it. As they say there, there's no 'best' way to do it, but it's interesting that our 'taste' is apparently quite different.

Same for me on my LCD and CRT.

[Marcus]

Apple's font rendering is far better there.

[Archangel]

Apple's font rendering is far better there.
See? I think it looks nasty. Maybe it's just what you get used to...

FreeType is still better than either though ;-)

[Eberbachl]

To me, the Windows fonts in those screenshots simply look thinner.

[Archangel]

To me, the Windows fonts in those screenshots simply look thinner.
To me the Mac ones look too fat, and too fuzzy (too heavily antialiased/hinted).

[Chris Madeley]

Do we need to set up a poll for which rendering is better?

I vote for safari.

[recurve boy]

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html

Typically, Apple chose the stylish route, putting art above practicality, because Steve Jobs has taste, while Microsoft chose the comfortable route, the measurably pragmatic way of doing things that completely lacks in panache.

It's funny, the more "print" way of type setting is more comfortable to my eyes. Windows typesetting has always given me the ****s even before I learned anything about typesetting.

Now, on to the question of what people prefer. Jeff Atwood's post from yesterday comparing the two font technologies side-by-side generated rather predictable heat: Apple users liked Apple's system, while Windows users liked Microsoft's system. This is not just standard fanboyism; it reflects the fact that when you ask people to choose a style or design that they prefer, unless they are trained, they will generally choose the one that looks most familiar. In most matters of taste, when you do preference surveys, you'll find that most people don't really know what to choose, and will opt for the one that seems most familiar. This goes for anything from silverware (people pick out the patterns that match the silverware they had growing up) to typefaces to graphic design: unless people are trained to know what to look for, they're going to pick the one that is most familiar.

Which is why Apple engineers probably feel like they're doing a huge service to the Windows community, bringing their "superior" font rendering technology to the heathens, and it explains why Windows users are generally going to think that Safari's font rendering is blurry and strange and they don't know why, they just don't like it. Actually they're thinking... "Whoa! That's different. I don't like different. Why don't I like these fonts? Oh, when I look closer, they look blurry. That must be why."

LOL

[Archangel]

It's funny, the more "print" way of type setting is more comfortable to my eyes. Windows typesetting has always given me the ****s even before I learned anything about typesetting.
Yeah, I read that. I'm sure Safari looks wonderful if you print out a screenshot of it, but funnily enough I'm more bothered how it looks onscreen...

[recurve boy]

Yeah, I read that. I'm sure Safari looks wonderful if you print out a screenshot of it, but funnily enough I'm more bothered how it looks onscreen...

Well that's the thing isn't it. If you read up on how and why printed pages are typeset, apart from looking good, a lot of what is done, is done because it is more comfortable to read and provides visual cues for character forms making it easier to recognise characters. Have you ever tried to read a poorly typeset book? It's impossible.

So why is on screen rendering different? Wouldn't it be better to conform to publishing methods?

[Archangel]

Well that's the thing isn't it. If you read up on how and why printed pages are typeset, apart from looking good, a lot of what is done, is done because it is more comfortable to read and provides visual cues for character forms making it easier to recognise characters. Have you ever tried to read a poorly typeset book? It's impossible.

So why is on screen rendering different? Wouldn't it be better to conform to publishing methods?
There is one enormous difference between the two: On a screen fonts have to be rendered into a grid of pixels. These different sub-pixel hint methods are trying to get around that where they can, but ultimately it's a fundamental limitation that tradtional print doesn't have.