• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Safari 5.0 - Your verdict?

Recommended Posts

Xtreme $niper    51

Oh I agree with you that iTunes library management is excellent, but the issue with sluggishness isn't just me; if you search on any forum you'll most likely find people who have had a problem with it. I do have a lot of music on my hardrives (over 50gb worth) so that may be part of the problem, but WMP/Winamp/fobar2000/Zune have absolutely no problem handling it so I expect the same from iTunes. I mean I'm sure if I was on a Mac, iTunes will be able to.

I'm going to assume that the issue of sluggishness is because the program is just cross-complied over to Windows and that Apple tries to keep the UI the same, but at least with Safari 5 they've tried to make it feel more like a Windows application so hopefully this continues and iTunes gets a similar update too.

True, I remember foobar2000 being some really lightweight app that was really barebones... and Winamp was always like that... I think the main reason for the sluggishness is probably the UI, like you said. But who knows, maybe this latest release actually fixed it like they claim. It's super smooth on the mac, that's for sure.

I like it alot except I wish the URL bar would also double function as a search bar. That honestly would be my chief complaint. Apart from that, everything else is super nice. Love the reader function. Will I be switching over from Chrome though? The answer would be no.

First reason is the superbar, and the second reason is Chrome's new bookmark sync function. Its nice, its simple. And lastly Chrome still feels snappier than Safari.

I agree about the superbar, though I was under the impression that they added that functionality in Safari 5... I guess they were just advertising history searching from the bar, not search engine searching...?

The downside to Chrome's bar is that everything you type in goes to Google (in realtime) so they can suggest completions for you. That can be a privacy concern sometimes, I guess. All that info being transmitted every second can be either analyzed by Google themselves or even sniffed out on a wifi network.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Growled    3,881

It's a good browser but I just didn't like it. Back to Chrome 6, for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quillz    1,011

Too bad it still doesn't respect the Graphite interface setting though...

I found this. It's unofficial, of course, but should work well enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glen    48

Looks like they're making baby steps forward, and forward momentum is always a good thing. However, as a Win7 user, I find the alternatives (Chrome, Opera, FireFox) are much better for my use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.Neo    1,834

I found this. It's unofficial, of course, but should work well enough.

Thanks, but it doesn't really match graphite either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rawr_boy81    41
To be fair, by the time Safari for Windows came out, along with the whole automatic install shenanigans thing, I was already a Mac user so I never experienced that. However, aside from that...

The stink that came out of it was nothing less than people making a deal about nothing; the situation was that Apple automatically ticked an option as part of the update process even though the software wasn't installed (hence, doesn't conform to the definition of an update. How can you update something that doesn't exist?). With that being said it is amazing how there is no hysteria made when Adobe forces toolbars and other crap the throat of end users when downloading Flash, Acrobat or Shockwave. Both of them provide options that are ticked by default but apparently one is more 'evil' than another? talk about double standards!

The main reason why I like iTunes is because of the library management. My whole music library is in one, super-organized place that I can back up on the fly without even blinking. The issue with it being sluggish is something I never really experienced, and I have 2000+ songs so I have no idea what kind of hardware people were running at the time. I was on a 3.0 Ghz P4 w/ HT and 1GB of RAM. Not a super-beast of a machine, but it seemed to handle iTunes well. Granted, I do understand that scrolling was sometimes sluggish, but I didn't consider that a deal-breaker. I had the thing minimized on random more often than I was browsing my library.

I think the greatest problem is the fact that Windows version of iTunes always feels as though it is an after thought, a "well, I guess if we must" and basically ship something that compiles; not always as reliable as it would be in the Mac OS X world. Personally this whole thing could have been avoided at Apple used MTP from the start and provided iTunes for Mac and used Windows Media Player on Windows, and maybe ship a AAC encoder that plugged into the DirectShow/Media Foundation instead. It would have created a integrated experience for the WIndows and Mac user. Would the experience be different? yes but who gives a crap - a Windows users want their applications to behave like Windows applications and Mac users want their Mac applications to behave like Mac applications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.Neo    1,834
yes but who gives a crap - a Windows users want their applications to behave like Windows applications and Mac users want their Mac applications to behave like Mac applications.

Difference is that generally taken Apple actually acts on that analogy on the Mac, while Microsoft basically does whatever they hell they want with their interface design on Windows. Why expect third-parties to provide a consistent interface experience when not even Microsoft can't be really bothered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shadrack    601

Basically anyone who uses Windows has no real reason to be using Safari other than for the text rendering options. Mac users can use it because it's one of the best for their platform. On Windows it's generally bad, same applies to iTunes.

Safari is pretty decent on windows. I'd use it over IE or Opera. But I like chrome the best on windows. For Mac I saw that general usage used less processing power in a benchmark so I figure that is better for battery life. If it weren't for that I'd use chrome for Mac too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rawr_boy81    41
Difference is that generally taken Apple actually acts on that analogy on the Mac, while Microsoft basically does whatever they hell they want with their interface design on Windows. Why expect third-parties to provide a consistent interface experience when not even Microsoft can't be really bothered?

I understand but Apple should take the moral high ground rather than simply 'going with the flow' because it gives Apple a bad rep in the Windows world - that they can't be stuffed putting effort into their Windows apps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raa    1,605

I think it's progress, good for the Mac side.

Chrome is its ultimate contender imo, and i'd prefer to use that. Maybe not all the time on Mac though ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jos    4

Definitely faster over Safari 4. Glad to see that Apple is still being competitive in the web browser space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.Neo    1,834

I understand but Apple should take the moral high ground rather than simply 'going with the flow' because it gives Apple a bad rep in the Windows world - that they can't be stuffed putting effort into their Windows apps.

It gives them a bed rep among tech savy people like over here. The average Windows user that just wants an iPod or iPhone doesn't really seem to care. At least I've never heard a real complaint on the streets. Except from, again, the more tech savy user. And those people should realize that not even Microsoft cares about providing a consistent user experience on Windows before they start ripping on Apple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Negi    23

And those people should realize that not even Microsoft cares about providing a consistent user experience on Windows before they start ripping on Apple.

I'm curious. How exactly does Microsoft not care about providing a consistent UX on Windows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mockingbird    2,992

I like it alot except I wish the URL bar would also double function as a search bar. That honestly would be my chief complaint. Apart from that, everything else is super nice. Love the reader function. Will I be switching over from Chrome though? The answer would be no.

First reason is the superbar, and the second reason is Chrome's new bookmark sync function. Its nice, its simple. And lastly Chrome still feels snappier than Safari.

Good lord, you want your whole life broadcasts to Google?

The only feature I like about Safari is "Safari Reader", otherwise I wouldn't even bother installing it.

post-315846-12760478624987.png

Anyone see something wrong with this picture?

post-315846-12760470136876.png

Where is my OK and cancel buttons?

post-315846-12760470228331.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Elliott    235

Where is my OK and cancel buttons?

post-315846-12760470228331.png

When you make a change, it's saved. No "Apply", "OK", or "Cancel"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quillz    1,011

I'm curious. How exactly does Microsoft not care about providing a consistent UX on Windows?

I'd like to know this, too, considering that Microsoft revised its entire HIG prior to the release of Windows Aero.

Apple doesn't exactly conform 100% to their own HIG, either. Both Microsoft and Apple could stand to pay a bit more attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.Neo    1,834

I'm curious. How exactly does Microsoft not care about providing a consistent UX on Windows?

Zune Software, Microsoft Office 2010, Windows Live Messenger, Security Essentials, basically every new application version that has also been released for Windows XP. You're telling me those applications provide us with a consistent UX? Not to mention the the multiple different variations of Ribbon interfaces on Windows by Microsoft.

Apple doesn't exactly conform 100% to their own HIG, either. Both Microsoft and Apple could stand to pay a bit more attention.

True. But at the very least iTunes 9 still resembles Mac OS X' Aqua. The same can't be said of the Zune Software and Windows Aero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luis Mazza    172

Safari 5 is not yet Firefox, so it is kinda beautiful, but definitely not better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Negi    23

Zune Software, Microsoft Office 2010, Windows Live Messenger, Security Essentials, basically every new application version that has also been released for Windows XP. You're telling me those applications provide us with a consistent UX? Not to mention the the multiple different variations of Ribbon interfaces on Windows by Microsoft.

Just so we're clear about this, your bone of contentment is that the interfaces aren't consistent on Windows XP?

And what's wrong with the Ribbon interface? What exactly isn't consistent about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Gibs    3,865

The stink that came out of it was nothing less than people making a deal about nothing; the situation was that Apple automatically ticked an option as part of the update process even though the software wasn't installed (hence, doesn't conform to the definition of an update. How can you update something that doesn't exist?). With that being said it is amazing how there is no hysteria made when Adobe forces toolbars and other crap the throat of end users when downloading Flash, Acrobat or Shockwave. Both of them provide options that are ticked by default but apparently one is more 'evil' than another? talk about double standards!

I think you're slightly misinformed. If you left the option checked during iTunes installation to allow automatic updates, then Safari would be automatically downloaded and installed the next time an iTunes update was found. If you didn't then everytime it detected a new update, it would ask you if you wanted to install Safari. Bug or not it was rather annoying.

Adobe gives you the option and if you un-select it then it never asks you again, and nor does it automatically download the toolbar for you.

And those people should realize that not even Microsoft cares about providing a consistent user experience on Windows before they start ripping on Apple.

Well things like Office may not share the exact same UI look as Windows, but they still fit in extremely well. Office 2007 looked pretty much like any other application that uses the ribbon interface on Windows 7, and Office 2010 takes this further. Yes they look out of place on Windows XP, but then again XP looked like a child designed it with some crayons. Microsoft did users a favor by extending XP's support timeline but that doesn't mean they have to go the extra mile to make sure things look and work perfectly on it. You don't see people complaining about how Office and Zune look like on Windows 95/98/2000 do you? If you want to remain on an almost 9 year old OS, thats your problem.

As for ribbon inconsistencies? Where exactly did you notice these?

With Apple making software applications for Windows, its a different story. Those applications look completely out of place, hell even the toolbars are different; you don't have to follow Microsoft's HIG to the dot, but at least make an application that fits in with the OS it runs on. That said, Safari looks and fits in a lot nicer with this update and hopefully iTunes gets a similar update as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rawr_boy81    41

I'm curious. How exactly does Microsoft not care about providing a consistent UX on Windows?

Check out Windows Vista, there is a different widget kit depending on the application you use; the font add/remove is using win16 widgets, notepad and wordpad each use a different widget kit and so on. I can understand the need to keep the old libraries for backwards compatibility but there absolutely no reason why the bundled applications with Windows aren't using the latest the latest widget kit and not taking advantage of Direct2D and DirectWrite instead of hugging onto dead and decrepit Windows components whose only existence should be for backwards compatibility and no more.

Windows is a spaghetti of different widget kits in use because of the evolution of Windows; you can't force third parties but you sure as hell should ensure that all of the divisions of Microsoft are on the same page and all the components are using the most up to date API's instead of what is happening today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Negi    23

Windows is a spaghetti of different widget kits in use because of the evolution of Windows.

And the only example you provide for that is... Notepad and WordPad. Da dum.

Actually I think it makes a lot of sense. Ribbon for productivity apps (WordPad, Paint, Office), but not Notepad because, well, there'd be nothing to put on the Ribbon...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sn00pie    2

So far so good. I like 5.0!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Explore    2

As much as I like safari. It acts strange with my Macbook airport.

When I first upgraded to Snow Leopard. My internet would randomly disconnect and I would have to manually reconnect every time. Normally a few times a day. But i noticed it only does it when i use Safari 4/5. It dosen't do it to me when i use Chrome or Firefox. Is it a problem from my OS or the browser because the Windows laptops around are still fine on the same network.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marshall    15,357

I don't think I will be downloading it because I can't stand Apple's UI, it's so drab and lifeless. Judging by the screen shots I've seen I take it Safari 5 isn't skinnable natively either?

Otherwise I'll stick with Opera until IE 9 makes it's presence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.