News, info, and opinion by Mac users, for Mac users.

June 18, 2007

software

3 Reasons that Safari on Windows has a fighting chance

Posted Jun. 18, ’07, 2:37 PM PT by Pat Nakajima
Category | Software

Recently, the question has been asked more and more: Why should Windows users use Safari? After all, PC users who would use the term “savvy” in relation to their computer skills have already taken the time to install Firefox, and recommend each and every one of their friends do the same. Now. Before they steal anymore of your credit cards and/or soul.

So who’s going to use Safari on Windows? I submit the following groups of people who would be ideal candidates for such a switch:

  1. People who appreciate anti-aliased text. Firefox’s text looks pretty similar to Internet Explorer’s, jaggies and all. Safari for Windows brings over the beautiful smoothness that we’ve taken for granted on OS X for so long. While on this point, I should also mention people who are tired of the standard Windows web fonts, and care to experience fonts like American Typewriter, or my current favorite, Lucida Grande.
  2. People who want to try RSS for real. Web-based readers force you to create an account, and Firefox’s live bookmarks are no substitute for a real RSS reader. Safari for Windows includes the great RSS support we’ve had on OS X since Safari 2.
  3. People who don’t use the term “savvy” to describe their computer skills. Before iTunes for Windows, savvy PC users lectured others on the merits of WinAmp (skins, plugins… sound familiar?), while non-savvy users just used what came with their computers: Windows Media Player. Then came iTunes for Windows. After Apple’s invasion into the Windows jukebox software market, the savvy and non-savvy began using the same app. Sans skins. Sans plugins. But with the Apple experience.

So while the 1337est Firefox users are going to stay with Firefox, I wouldn’t count out Safari for Windows yet. While some have pointed out various bugs, the huge “Public Beta” header on the download page gives the user reason to download with caution anyway. All in all, I think it’ll pretty interesting to watch Safari try to infiltrate the hearts and minds of Windows users, and foolish to discount its chances in the meantime.


9 Comments

Ward Author Profile Page said:

I'll note that both Windows XP (and on), and thus Internet Explorer, as well as OS X have anti-aliased text. The difference is that OS X uses sub-pixel antialiasing, which results in more print-like but subjectively slightly blurrier text. Windows forces things into the pixel grid. See this article for more info. Thanks to Gruber for the link.

June 18, 2007 3:43 PM
Al said:

I would also suggest the many dual users, ones who use OS-X at one place and Windows at another, like me. If they are also like me, they already hate IE, so Safari gives them the chance to standardize.

June 18, 2007 4:16 PM
Eric said:

I'm sorry, but I feel morally obligated to debunk your 3 reasons...

1) Ask a Windows User - Mac text is ugly. Ask a Mac user - Windows text is ugly. Font rendering preference has much more to do with what people are used to seeing, and less about the subtle estetics between the two font rendering systems. See Joel On Software for this: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html

2) "Nobody" uses RSS, and by "Nobody", I mean only 4% knowingly use RSS. Much of the RSS use is done through the Yahoo-style content aggregation portals, which is transparent to the browser. Having a "better" (in your opinion) RSS reader will attract some single-to-small double digit group of the 4% who knowingly use RSS. By 4%, I am quoteing a Yahoo study from less than a year ago (http://publisher.yahoo.com/rss/RSS_whitePaper1004.pdf), which also states that only 12% of Internet users are even aware of RSS. Take out the existing Safari (for Mac) users in this pool, and those who are not already content with their existing RSS reader, and you've got about 8 more RSS users. Thanks Safari!

3) Oh boy, that wonderful Apple experience. You know what they call people who love the Apple experience? MAC USERS! Every single person that I've shown Safari on Windows to has just thought it is plain ugly. Why? Because it doesn't look like a Windows application - the thing they have been trained to like. They changed the font rendering system (hence the "ugly" fonts), and they whole application has this grey title bar that blends into the rest of the application -- something that disrupts the pretty Vista experience.

Safari for Windows does exist for some pretty good reasons, but market share of Safari on Windows isn't one of them.

1) The availability of Safari on Windows will significantly improve the Safari experience for Mac users. Safari users on Mac are still experiencing the "2nd Class Web" experience. What I mean by this is that when I run out and build a web site, I don't test on Safari because it is too much of a pain to go buy a Mac for this reason alone. So it doesn't get tested. Now that I can install it on my Windows machine (for free!), it has a much greater chance of being tested! Considering the small percentage of users who have Macs + Safari compared to all of my Windows/IE/Firefox/(Opera anyone?) & Mac/Firefox/Opera, it doesn't make much sense. I can test the rendering engines of Firefox and Opera and expect them to be the same on the Mac. Why would I want to spend $1500+ for a Mac so I can use a Web browser to test?

2) iPhone! Yeehoo! Go buy an iPhone! Deveopers, build applications for it on the new iPhone SDK (a.k.a. they slapped Safari on the phone). If Apple wants critical mass of applications on the iPhone, they need developers to develop for it. And developers need tools. If there is Safari for Windows, every Windows developer can easily develop for the iPhone experience without that whole "gotta go buy a mac to test a web site" issue.

3) (and finally) To give the "ice water to a user stuck in hell" gift to Mac users who have to operate in a Windows world. This will allow Mac users who are stuck at work on a Windows PC to keep in touch with their "Mac" side. It will also keep them from drifting back to Windows if ever there were an opportunity -- in case someone tries to have you drink some of that Windows or Linux Kool-Aid.

June 18, 2007 4:17 PM
Urban Lindeskog said:

Well, actually Windows got system-wide sub-pixel anti aliasing in ClearType: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearType

Although not enabled by default, it's there just a click away.

I'm a FireFox person much thanks to some really useful Add-Ons like NoScript and FlashBlock (and tabs, of course).

Safari certainly feel snappier, and I like that there are greater competition.

On the down-side there is the fact that Safari doesn't use the standard Windows UI elements, however ugly they may be. The result anyways, is a clash of designs that detracts both from Safari and Windows. The same is true for iTunes and for that matter, many other media players.

I can handle two different UIs on my Mac and PC -two separate platforms. But two different UIs on one screen is just confusing, inconsistent and ugly.

June 18, 2007 4:42 PM
Adam Noce said:

But safarie doesn't support all of google apps. Including features in google mail and docs.

And since I use both daily, I just can't switch to safari as much as I want to.

June 18, 2007 7:13 PM
Grandpa Bill said:

Safari seems to be as fast as IE7 and Firefox. Not as fast as Opera. Opera is the best browser available. The wonder is why more people haven't discovered it.

June 19, 2007 5:32 AM
jayH said:

@al: is true. i hated using IE at work so th eminute steve launched the beta for windows i downloaded it and loved it lol IE hasn't been used since... i noticed that since i installed safari here at work, IE uninstalled EVERY plug in it had... did safari do this to make IE even worse?

anyway, here's another reason, i just read today: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6191815.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=zdnn

June 19, 2007 7:47 AM
Jack said:

I agree with Pat. I couldn't switch to a Mac until about a year and a half ago due to work. I would be a person who used safari on windows ( I used firefox at the time...it is too much like IE). As a mac user now, I have both safari firefox installed...and I tend not to use firefox. I like safari. The text and picture rendering is better, and it looks niced. And yes, I love the RSS reader. I'm not an RSS power user, and the RSS reader in Safari is just right.s

@Adam: yes, Safari 2 cannot do certain things like use blogger or Vox. But what about Safari 3. Certainly they have fixed this?

@Pat: seriously, I don't like beta's, so could someone at macuser see if safari 3 does WYSISWG editing at places like blogger and vox?

June 19, 2007 7:52 AM
Jeff at www.thenewsroom.com said:

Hey, this is an actual positive video from AP! http://thenewsroom.com/details/422936?c_id=wom-bc-js

June 23, 2007 7:37 AM

Leave a comment

 



Visit other IDG sites: