To be honest, my first response when I heard that Apple had made a beta of Safari for Windows available for download was … a disappointing yawn. A web browser is just a tool and I find it hard to drum up much enthusiasm for new browsers any more. If you look at the top four browsers out now (Internet Explorer 7, Firefox 2.0, Opera 9 and Safari 2/3), there’s really not much to distinguish between them. They all do pretty much the same thing in pretty much the same way, they all have their quirks, and they all seem prone to the “leaky bucket” syndrome when it comes to security. The idea of having “yet another browser” installed, with all the associated care and feeding that goes with the deal (especially making sure that you’re using the latest patched version) just didn’t seem worth the hassle to me. Nevertheless, I downloaded a copy, installed it onto a Vista installation and took it for a spin.
OK, so the Safari download is nice and small (under 8MB) and the installation is fast (mine was done in about a minute). Apple claim that it’ll run on both XP and Vista and that you’ll need a system with at least 256MB of RAM and a 500MHz Pentium CPU or better. This might be the case, but once I got Safari 3 beta installed, I remembered one of the reasons why I disliked Safari on the Mac and why I’ll still dislike it on Windows - that butt-ugly silver-grey interface. It looks especially rough on Windows Vista where I’m used to the nice Aero glass look.
Looking beyond the interface, Apple has posted twelve reasons they think why we’ll love Safari. Let’s examine each one here one by one.
Blazing Performance
Apple claims that Safari is fast - twice as fast as Internet Explorer and 1.6 times as fast as Firefox 2.0. Looking at
Apple’s website the claim is that Safari is faster than IE7, Firefox 2.0 and Opera 9 when it comes to rendering HTML, executing JavaScript and at launching the browser.
Personally, I think that it takes about the same time to launch all four browsers on my Vista box (under 1 second) and while I can say that web pages feel like they load up faster, I think that this is due to the fact that the page seems to be composed off-screen. This results in a lag between clicking on a link and seeing the page. Page loading feels faster and certainly looks smoother, but my inkling is that this is nothing more than an illusion. I’m taking Apple’s performance claims with a big pinch of salt.
Elegant User Interface
OK, it’s a minimalist look, but I still think it looks awful. Why hide useful features like the status bar and yet show that Bookmarks Bar?
Also why when the top three browsers all offer tooltips to help explain the user interface does Apple not follow this convention? Likewise, it’s annoying that you can only resize windows using the handle at the bottom-right of the window.
The black text on a grey background motif reminds me of a tombstone on one of those old Hammer House of Horror movies. I was pretty sure that there would be a way to ditch the existing skin, but if there is, I can’t find it. I guess I can understand a look where the interface is subdued because then you can use color to selectively draw the eye to important things, but I don’t see that trick being used in Safari.
Edit:
First, a little history, for the benefit of those who weren’t around during the infamous “browser wars.” Believe it or not, there was a point, a long time ago, when Netscape Navigator dominated the market. At around version 3 the browser was, for the time, excellent. HTML was simple and relatively pure. Eyeing Netscape’s success in a field that they had previously shown no interest in (Bill Gates himself once dismissed the Internet as a passing fad), Microsoft released their own browser, Internet Explorer (IE), with the sole intention of dislodging Netscape.
IE quickly became popular. Then came a period of flurried activity, with the two browser manufacturers releasing updates to their browser on ever-decreasing time scales. New HTML tags and DHTML extensions were created and then loosely documented. A designer could use these elements, but at the cost of having them fail in the competitor’s browser. A split started to form as pages designed for one of the “big two” browsers would not work in the other.
Netscape released Navigator version 4 in 1997. It was a very poor browser, laced with bugs and new abilities that broke backwards-compatibility. What caused most pain among developers was that it happily blundered into advanced CSS and JavaScript code that it should have had the sense to ignore. Microsoft released the superior Internet Explorer 4, and the tide started to turn very quickly.
Eventually it became obvious that Netscape were fighting a losing battle. Because IE came pre-installed on every Windows machine, most users just used that instead of seeking out alternatives (this is the same problem that plagues any competing browser to this day). By the time Internet Explorer 6 was released, its market share had grown to a high of about 95%.
In the years that followed, lazy or ill-equipped web designers began to design their sites to work only in IE, as making a site look the same in other browsers required a lot of knowledge and effort. This only encouraged users to stick with IE, no matter how many advances were made in other browsers. Even when Netscape belatedly released the vastly improved Navigator 6 in the year 2000, it barely made a dent in the market.
And so, the war ended. Lying in its wake was a web of incompatibilities and sites that only worked in a certain version of one browser. HTML had been blown off course as a structural markup language and was now bloated with presentational elements like the much-maligned font tag. It took years to even begin to undo the damage that had been done.
Happily, things have finally started moving back towards a level playing field. Internet Explorer’s dominancy is no longer absolute, and web surfers now have lots of choice when deciding which browser they should use.