Tales from the Evil Empire

Bertrand Le Roy's blog

News

Ads Via DevMavens

ASP.NET AJAX UpdatePanel Control: Add Ajax interactivity to your ASP.NET 2.0 web pages


follow bleroy at http://twitter.com

Bertrand Le Roy




Add to Technorati Favorites

Blogs I read

My other stuff

Is Safari on Windows a good thing or a bad thing?

The first thing most web developers probably thought this morning when they learned about Safari for Windows was "oh man, yet another browser to test in". And yes, for the moment, that's what it amounts to. Coincidentally, I have spent a good part of last week making the history management in Microsoft Ajax work in Safari 2.0.4. I got it to work fine (after much Apple cursing), so the first thing I tried after I downloaded Safari 3 beta was my history tests. And sure enough, it breaks in new, unexpected ways. History management is pretty much a big hack that is different on about all browsers (Firefox and Opera are the nicest ones here, with predictible, similar behaviors). And sure enough, Safari 3 brings a totally unheard of model. I didn't find a way yet to create a new entry in history from script that doesn't navigate away from the page. None of the old Safari tricks work anymore (they were probably and rightfully considered bugs and were fixed). They weren't replaced by the more rational things that work in Firefox and Opera. Even the iFrame trick that we use on IE doesn't work because Safari now crashes if you try to dynamically add a frame to the DOM. If anybody here found a way to do that, I'd love to hear about it.

But there is at least one thing to like about this new version: Apple is going to release it for MacOSX Tiger (the current version of their OS), which means that thanks to auto-update, the horrible, horrible browser that is Safari 2.0.4 is going away in the not so far future. When I say that it's a horrible browser, that's entirely from an Ajax developer's perspective. Your mileage may vary, but the latest Webkit, even with its flaws, fixes the most serious problems that plague Safari 2, and the new Safari 3 is based on that better codebase.

Another thing to like is that it seems like the behavior of the browser on Windows is very very close, if not identical, to the behavior on MacOS. That doesn't entirely remove the need to test on both platforms, but at least it promises to make it possible to automate test runs on all Windows browsers as part of your integration process. This way, you'll catch most Safari regressions earlier, and that's only goodness.

So sure, it's never fun to have yet another browser to test, and this release has its problems that hopefully will get fixed (I filed several bugs already today, and the total lack of error feedback doesn't help), and others that probably won't (why can't they respect the conventions of the host OS?) but I'm convinced that in the long term, we'll all benefit from this move from Apple. But there may be a few difficult months ahead of us as we work around new Safari 3 bugs and still have to work around old Safari 2.0.4 bugs.

What do you think?

Posted: Jun 11 2007, 05:16 PM by Bertrand Le Roy | with 30 comment(s)
Filed under: , ,

Comments

foobar said:

Safari 2 was a piece of junk.  I don't expect much better from Safari 3.

It took a herculean effort from the Mozilla group to release Firefox, and contrary to the anti-IE crowd it's still buggy as hell.

It will take an equally mighty effort from the WebKit to just stamp out the horrible bugs from their product.  I wonder if that OSS movement has it in them, or if they'll just get bored and do something else with their time.

# June 12, 2007 12:31 AM

Sebastian said:

One thing which was not mentioned exactly but what is quite logical from now on is that Safari 3 will be also available for Tiger. Even if not with all the eye candy included in the final Leopard.
# June 12, 2007 1:05 AM

Matt said:

> This way, you'll catch most Safari regressions

> earlier, and that's only goodness.

Totally agree with you there, it will be worth it in the long run.

# June 12, 2007 1:50 AM

Maciej Stachowiak said:

If you're seeing regressions in the beta, please report them, with test cases, to . Better now than when the final ships. We've done our best to fix the AJAX history bugs we knew about, if there are more we'd love to know.
# June 12, 2007 5:17 AM

Philip the Duck said:

You say "why can't they respect the conventions of the host OS?"... Have you tried asking MS's own Office 2007 team this?! I realise many new Windows GUI features debut in Office (from the original combobox in Word 2.0, which appeared *later* in Win3.0 to the cool new ribbon UI, which I'm sure will find its way into Windows soon), but simple things like colour scheme / theme should really take the OS conventions & user preferences into consideration, shouldn't they? If I came out with an application that didn't work or look like any other Windows app I'd be crucified for not following the Windows Style Guide, yet the Office 2007 team seems to have thrown the WSG out the window! Anyway, I agree that Safari for Windows has got to be a good thing. Good on them!
# June 12, 2007 6:09 AM

Guy Sherman said:

I'm quite glad its out on windows, now all the developers whose excuse for not testing their sites in safari was that they didn't have access to a mac can make their sites work (Which, by the way, is not hard)!
# June 12, 2007 6:34 AM

Scott Williams said:

I tried it on a .net app here and about half of the functionality was there. I the tried it on a classic app that one of my clients is still using and I couldn't even get passed the login screen. With a large base of people used to using IE, I don't see it getting widespread acceptance without some major changes.
# June 12, 2007 7:05 AM

Shaun Newman said:

quote: "oh man, yet another browser to test in", erm... any developer worth his salt and ready to build cross browser would have already included testing for all the major browsers including Safari surely? As it is a standards compliant browser (like Firefox for the main part) anyone developing to the standards would have won half the battle. It's IE that is the weak point in all this as it follows it's own damn standards :0)
# June 12, 2007 8:31 AM

Tim said:

This is a good thing ONLY if Safari for Mac vs Windows work the same way. What a nightmare if we have to test for Safari on Windows & Mac. From looking under the hood, Safari on Windows does identify itself differently then on a Mac which scares me to start.
# June 12, 2007 9:36 AM

Brennan Stehling said:

I tried out Safari on WinXP yesterday and while some of it may be faster I did not like that it did not mix in well with the native Windows applications. It seems contrary to the Apple mindset. They should produce an interface which is consistent with the platform. Every application that goes to MacOS X is encouraged to follow their UI guidelines. They should at least do the same with Safari on Windows. I realize Quicktime and iTunes also have the unusual brushed metal look along with other inconsistent look and feel differences but I think people treat media players as the kinds of applications that can break out of the normal constraints. Beyond that I find the brushed metal interfaces to be sluggish. I also do not like having to resize the window with only the do-hicky lower right side. Regular windows apps let me adjust the window from any side but that is not true with Safari. I hope they make it conform more to the WinXP and Vista experience. Things feel better when they are consistent.
# June 12, 2007 1:03 PM

IceMan said:

It's a "could-not-care-less"-thing. Safari will not have a marketshare over 2% on Windows.
# June 12, 2007 1:22 PM

Bertrand Le Roy said:

Maciej: thanks for the response. As I've said in the post, I did already report any bug I found. I know what it's like to ship software and hope I'm not being too harsh. I'd love to hear how you see history management in the new version. It certainly wasn't obvious from my initial experimentation yesterday and I'm glad to read you have a story, I would just love to know it. Feel free to drop me e-mail through the contact form of this blog.

Philip the duck: No I haven't. I thought that the Mac Office integration was pretty good but apparently I'm wrong. If it's that bad, I won't defend it but that doesn't make the Safari integration good.

Shaun: first, Safari 3 on Windows is a different browser, and one more that you'll have to test on. It's a different platform and it's a different version number. It's also very, very different from Safari 2. Mostly for good, but definitely different. You *will* have to test on both, so that's one more.

Second, the view that writing to the standards gets you halfway there is in my opinion very naive because this "second half" is by far the most complex and difficult. And it's the one that will break with a new browser and that will require additional testing. So short term, new browser => more work. But it's ok, that's part of the job and as I thought was clear from the post, I really think long term it's a good thing.

Third, I'm not defending IE. I do report bugs to them too.

Tim: so far so good in our own short experience. They seem to be very consistent. Safari 3 for Windows actually identified in our browser API as Safari with version 522 (IIRC) with no modification. It's actually a good thing that they would show the platform in the browser string if you *need* to differentiate them. You will have to do some testing on the Mac still, but as a less frequent routine which will probably very rarely report problems.

# June 12, 2007 2:29 PM

Steve said:

It's a great thing.

I think MS should get out of the browser business, they murk it up too much

# June 12, 2007 8:08 PM

Kearns said:

Somehow it just won't install on my XP upgraded to Vista Professional machine. Complains something related to VBScripting based on the error it gets
# June 12, 2007 10:24 PM

Bertrand Le Roy said:

Kearns: you should report it to Apple. Bugs can be filed at http://www.webkit.org.

# June 13, 2007 12:08 AM

Lionel Richie said:

It does annoy me a little that Apple decided to use Aqua-style UI widgets, but I suppose the benefit is consistency between OSes -not just in the appearance of the application, but also in the appearance of sites the application displays. A large percentage of the site rendering errors I see when using my Mac are due to a windows-based developer having no idea how buttons, drop down lists etc work on other OSes.
# June 13, 2007 2:22 AM

Mark Perrin said:

I thing this is terrible news, I use OSX Tiger and to be honest i went with OSX because it just works better for me. I do not understand why apple is even bothering porting safari to windows, they should leave it with OSX. If a windows user wants safari, buy a mac you cheapo. I believe that the windows version should be a lower spec than the OSX version and the same with Itunes otherwise whats the point. Apple should make their own versions for their platform and customers the better version. Windows is crap. full stop! Id rather the Apple developers dedicate their time to Apple, why bother with Microsh1t.
# June 13, 2007 4:38 AM

Mac User said:

Bad Bad Bad !! Aple should stop wasting their time with windows. They should use their installed base with the ipod to force people onto osx. Leave itunes where it is on windows and only move it forward on the mac. It will still work just not as well as on the mac, thats the way it should be, isnt this obvious (its an Aplle product, it should work best on Apple hardware). Safari is just another case of Apple giving up one of its assets, however small. Whats next? iLife?
# June 13, 2007 4:41 AM

Bertrand Le Roy said:

Mark and Mac User: way to go, guys, let's "force people onto osx", even if they don't want to. You're showing a superb example of "thinking different". Congratulations.

# June 13, 2007 11:17 AM

InfinitiesLoop said:

Mac: Hi I'm a Mac.
PC: And I'm a PC.
Safari: *standing in the middle* And I'm Safari.
PC: Thanks Mac for letting me borrow Safari.
Mac: Oh no problem PC, I hope you like him!
Mac: *whispers to Safari* Remember, wait until he's asleep...
PC: I think we'll get along famously!

# June 13, 2007 2:31 PM

RichB said:

>total lack of error feedback Have you got the Safari Debug menu turned on? You can enable it on both the Mac and Windows versions (balk at the XML schema on Windows while you do it...). Alternatively, use Adobe AIR's webbrowser sample for some Firebug-esque debugging tools.
# June 13, 2007 3:17 PM

Bertrand Le Roy said:

Rich: I'd love to. I know how to enable it on the Mac but not on the PC. I was unable to find that info on Apple's web site. Can you explain, please?

# June 13, 2007 3:29 PM

Luis Abreu said:

Even though many are saying that it's fast, I'm saying that it sucks...i'm still waiting to see links rendered correctly (90% of the sites i tried opening on it just don't render correctly and i'm not talking about css positions and stuff like that; i'm talking about not seeing on the pages...)
# June 13, 2007 5:41 PM

Shawn Burke said:

Betrand, re the debug issue, see my blog, there's instructions there. http://blogs.msdn.com/sburke/archive/2007/06/11/apple-releases-safari-for-windows.aspx I'm fascinated by how much discussion this is generating. It's a browser, people. At the end of the day having it on Windows will only have the effect of helping web developers make sure their sites work on Safari so that Mac users have a browser out of the box that works more reliably either via fixing the sites or pushing fixes into the browser. That's fine with me.
# June 13, 2007 7:53 PM

Greg said:

BTW - I'm using JQuery and Thickbox and my iFrame's called into the DOM work without a hitch. jquery.com/.../thickbox

# June 19, 2007 1:03 PM

mark perrin said:

safari 3 after a few weeks sucks on both platforms, ive gone back to safari 2.0 on OSX and windows is welcome to this buggy load of crap.  Lets hope apple have laced the windows version with bugs on purpose to show those windows users just how buggy they can make vista.  LOL its like the secret poisoned pill disguised as a browser but laced with cyanide.

# June 25, 2007 4:12 AM

Chocolim said:

Anything is better than IE

# August 28, 2007 3:27 PM

HPC said:

Mark Perrin said:  

I thing this is terrible news, I use OSX Tiger and to be honest i went with OSX because it just works better for me. I do not understand why apple is even bothering porting safari to windows, they should leave it with OSX. If a windows user wants safari, buy a mac you cheapo. I believe that the windows version should be a lower spec than the OSX version and the same with Itunes otherwise whats the point. Apple should make their own versions for their platform and customers the better version. Windows is crap. full stop! Id rather the Apple developers dedicate their time to Apple, why bother with Microsh1t.

Aww. the proud Mac user feels a bit less special now..boohoo

You're the typical stuck up Mac user which makes me never ever consider a Mac. And yes I CAN afford one.

Apple makes good money from PC users dumbass so they'e customers as well.

# November 5, 2007 7:44 PM

Jasy White said:

but do you think Safari 3, is good to download on Windows.

# November 30, 2008 7:09 PM

Bertrand Le Roy said:

@Jasy: sure, Safari 3 on Windows is a very decent browser. I still find the Mac-isms and font rendering hideous but as a browser it's definitely one to consider.

# December 1, 2008 2:25 PM
Leave a Comment

(required) 

(required) 

(optional)

(required)