OSNews

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.

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

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

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?

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.

> 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.

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.

> I for one am glad that I can have OSX's font rendering approach in at least one Windows application.

You forgot Adobe Reader

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.

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.

Tell me why you want a "new tab" button when a double click on the tab bar does the trick ?

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.

Why can't I, when every other browser has one?

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

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

"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\<username>\Application Data\Apple Computer\Safari\WebKitPreferences.plist

On Vista, it is:

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


Source: http://webkit.org/blog/168/gdi-text-on-windows/

Edited 2008-03-25 23:21 UTC

Which looks absolutely *HORRIBLE* in Safari 3.1. From nice, smooth-looking fonts (even at <12 pt) to skinny, jagged, 80s-era fonts.

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.

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.

And not add anything to all other browsers that use shared libraries? Ever ldd Firefox?

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.

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.

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.

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

Your comments looks like a flamebait but you have a point. Safari lacks a lot of features compared to other browsers.

Give FF3 a try and see. Firefox team claims FF3 has a much faster javascript engine.

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)

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

same issue on different pc, I suspect an extension , but firefox should isolate that imho

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.

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.

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.

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.

Try Safariadblock for mac/safari.

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 (-)

When the 'develop' menu is checked in menu bar, there is a user-agent option, I just saw it.

Perhaps this will answer your question:

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

Long story short: Safari honors embedded ICC profiles.