Safari for Windows!

[codemaniac]

I don't see the point. May be to increase the Safari statistic on web page rank ?

Who knows.. but for now, start thinking about Need For Speed 2008. Oh wait, I shouldn't have said that, because now the development of PureBasic is going to stop for a while

[Fred]

GTA 4 will be here before

[thefool]

GTA 4 will be here before

I CAN'T WAIT

[Num3]

Beta 3 is out
The rendering issues seem to be gone now

Gonna use it for the day, to see how it works out!

[Brice Manuel]

Why did Apple anyway wanted to port Safari to Windows?

Why Not?

Unless their operating system gets portable (meaning that you can install it to nearly any machine and doesn't rely on special hardware)

OT, but I have bought Tiger from Amazon, downloaded the "special" version and have tested it on three of my PCs, with a variety of processor and hardware configurations, one even being rather old. I haven't run into any major issues.

There is just so much good browser on Windows,

Please enlighten us to these many browsers? They just don't exist for Windows.

Other than IE, The vast majority of browsers for Windows are based on IE's control and have the same security issues, compatibility issues and shortcomings of IE as they are IE based.

Opera is nice (my personal choice).

FireFox started out great, but has become somewhat bloated over the past couple of years and slower than previous versions. Plus it is still open-source which for a browser is not always a good thing. There are several browsers that are based off of FireFox's control, but these are still FireFox based browsers.

I don't see much of a selection for browsers for Windows, we only have these three that I am aware of? I am not aware of any other browsers for Windows that uses their own rendering engine?

Apple wants to give it a go? I am all for it, the more the merrier. Competition is a good thing. First impressions, I like Safari, but I can't completely disable the font smoothing and it makes the text too hard to read on my CRT even when set on "light". This is the only reason I am not using it. Fix that and this long-time Opera user would switch to Safari

[WishMaster]

Plus it is still open-source which for a browser is not always a good thing.

Sorry, but you are a fool if you really think that.
(BTW: Opera is also based on a FLOSS Toolkit...)

[Trond]

Plus it is still open-source which for a browser is not always a good thing.

Sorry, but you are a fool if you really think that.

Why not? Opera, Safari and even IE has much more polished UI than Firefox. To me that's important, and it seems true for almost all open source programs.

(BTW: Opera is also based on a FLOSS Toolkit...)

Simply wrong.

[Brice Manuel]

Plus it is still open-source which for a browser is not always a good thing.

Sorry, but you are a fool if you really think that.

So you think installing a known trojan on your system is a good thing? Seriously, if a browser is open source, it is impossible for it to ever be considered anything appproaching secure as the evil-doers have all the source necessary to counter-act any protection implemented into the browser :roll:

I am the first to admit I am biased and very anti-AOL, but by your "rebuttal" of my comment about FieFox, you still have not explained how FireFox being open source makes it more secure than Safari or Opera?.

[WishMaster]

(BTW: Opera is also based on a FLOSS Toolkit...)

Simply wrong.

So Qt ist not availible under the terms of the GNU General Public Licence (GPL) like hiere at trolltech.com?

So you think installing a known trojan on your system is a good thing

Firefox is a „known trojan“?

Seriously, if a browser is open source, it is impossible for it to ever be considered anything appproaching secure as the evil-doers have all the source necessary to counter-act any protection implemented into the browser

I thought here in the PB forums there were programmers which knew that security problems in programs are caused by errors in the program and there normally is no „protection implemented into the browser“ :roll:

my comment about FieFox, you still have not explained how FireFox being open source makes it more secure than Safari or Opera?

Being „open source“ doesn't automatically mean being secure. But especially in a project like Firefox there are very many coders which kind of proofread its code. You just need to take a look at the appropriate statistics provided by security companys.
Oh, and as you mention Safari being closed-source: Just go to http://webkit.org/. Safari uses Webkit, an open source (GPL) HTML rendering engine based on KDE's KHTML.

[Trond]

(BTW: Opera is also based on a FLOSS Toolkit...)

Simply wrong.

So Qt ist not availible under the terms of the GNU General Public Licence (GPL) like hiere at trolltech.com?

Opera isn't based on QT. The linux version (and only the Linux version) uses QT for windows and menus. (Which is why Opera for linux sucks.) That's all. Opera uses it's own GUI toolkit called "Quick".

[ts-soft]

Opera, Safari and even IE has much more polished UI than Firefox. To me that's important, and it seems true for almost all open source programs.

I have test the new IE7, the first i have searched for the menue. If the
Design not the default, this waste only my time. I will only surf in the
Internet. With windows is it so easy, all programs have the GUI Elements on
the same place, no problems to found anything.
Firefox uses the default design like the most windows programs. This is more
important than looking like bonbons. I have to working with programs,
polished UI is like eating from nice plate, not really usefull

[Trond]

Opera, Safari and even IE has much more polished UI than Firefox. To me that's important, and it seems true for almost all open source programs.

I have test the new IE7, the first i have searched for the menue. If the
Design not the default, this waste only my time. I will only surf in the
Internet. With windows is it so easy, all programs have the GUI Elements on
the same place, no problems to found anything.
Firefox uses the default design like the most windows programs. This is more
important than looking like bonbons. I have to working with programs,
polished UI is like eating from nice plate, not really usefull

Well, I haven't tested IE 7. But: Firefox should be more like a default windows program, that's what I mean by unpolished UI. It simply has a lot of UI bugs and inconsistencies. I don't mean polished as in "looking nice" (Firefox does that), I mean polished as in working right (which almost no open source program does, including Firefox).

[WishMaster]

Though I personally prefer the Konqueror over Firefox, I don't understand your accusations against Firefox. I haven't noticed any “UI bugs and inconsistencies“ yet.
Could you please show some example?

> (which almost no open source program does, including Firefox)
That's definitely nonsense. No sane man judges a program by its licence...

[Trond]

Though I personally prefer the Konqueror over Firefox, I don't understand your accusations against Firefox. I haven't noticed any “UI bugs and inconsistencies“ yet.
Could you please show some example?

Sure:
- In Linux, it draws "native" menus, but lacks 1 pixel at the bottom so it looks totally crazy with some themes.
- In Windows, it randomly uses scroll up/down arrows in context menus, even when there is plenty of space available.
- Context menus are sometimes resized after they are created.
- Middle click on a page displays the "no image" icon before the actual scroll icon appears.
- Clicking in the address bar for Windows didn't select the text in Firefox 1.x. In 2.x they "solved" it, but the text is selected on mouse release instead of mouse down. Clicking the down arrow does not select the text.
- In Firefox 1.x they couldn't even position the file dropdown menu correctly, it was about 5 pixels to right. This went through several releases.
- In early Firefox 1.x versions for Linux, Firefox segfaulted if you right-clicked in the downloads window.
- Group boxes (Frame-3d-like) are used incorrectly and inconsistently in the preferences (they are called group boxes because they should group items, Firefox "groups" one item all the time). And they couldn't even make smooth rounded corners.
- All checkboxes: they weren't even able to draw dotted selections lines correctly. In the corners there are sometimes double dots. And the dotted selection line is drawn clashed into the bottom of the letters j and g while there is plenty of space at the top.
- There are tons of alignment errors like the one with the checkboxes.
- Sometimes extension preferences windows opens with the size set to 0x0.
- Mouse gestures doesn't always work. It seems to be a problem in Firefox and not in the mouse gesture extensions because it doesn't seem like the mouse clicks ever reaches the extension.
- Click and hold on a deactivated menu item. Now you can't move to other menus without releasing the mouse button. This is a bug.
- The context menu isn't always displayed at the point of click. In fact it's NEVER displayed where you right click. Wow, impressive.
- Move your cursor quickly from the page and to the title bar over the menu. The menu title remains highlighted.
- Dialog default buttons are drawn as not default if another button is depressed. Any depressed button is drawn as the dialog default. Simply wrong.

The problem is that these things are not exceptions.

[WishMaster]

In Linux, it draws "native" menus, but lacks 1 pixel at the bottom so it looks totally crazy with some themes.

No.

In Windows, it randomly uses scroll up/down arrows in context menus, even when there is plenty of space available.

No Windows here so I can't tell

Context menus are sometimes resized after they are created.

No.

Middle click on a page displays the "no image" icon before the actual scroll icon appears.

No.

Clicking in the address bar for Windows didn't select the text in Firefox 1.x. In 2.x they "solved" it, but the text is selected on mouse release instead of mouse down.

Clicking in the address bar shows a cursor in it here. A double click works fine to select the address.

In Firefox 1.x they couldn't even position the file dropdown menu correctly, it was about 5 pixels to right. This went through several releases.

But it's solved now.

In early Firefox 1.x versions for Linux, Firefox segfaulted if you right-clicked in the downloads window.

But it's solved now.

Group boxes (Frame-3d-like) are used incorrectly and inconsistently in the preferences (they are called group boxes because they should group items, Firefox "groups" one item all the time). And they couldn't even make smooth rounded corners.

The round-corner-issue is a problem of the toolkit - and actually not a serious one.

All checkboxes: they weren't even able to draw dotted selections lines correctly. In the corners there are sometimes double dots. And the dotted selection line is drawn clashed into the bottom of the letters j and g while there is plenty of space at the top.

No.

There are tons of alignment errors like the one with the checkboxes.

No.

Sometimes extension preferences windows opens with the size set to 0x0.

That might be an error of the particular extension.

Click and hold on a deactivated menu item. Now you can't move to other menus without releasing the mouse button. This is a bug.

No. it works all fine here.

The context menu isn't always displayed at the point of click. In fact it's NEVER displayed where you right click. Wow, impressive.

In fact, it's always displayed where I right click.

Move your cursor quickly from the page and to the title bar over the menu. The menu title remains highlighted.

No.

Dialog default buttons are drawn as not default if another button is depressed. Any depressed button is drawn as the dialog default. Simply wrong.

Errr...what?

The problem is that these things are not exceptions.

The problem is that there aren't any problems.