3 ms·

Safari's available for Windows and the Mac. That means that 99% of computer users can use Safari. Since when was "things are prettier" a bad thing? I do extens

Safari's available for Windows and the Mac. That means that 99% of computer users can use Safari. Since when was "things are prettier" a bad thing? I do extensive Windows testing using browsers, and Safari's rendering engine is leagues ahead of everything else, its developments tools are more polished than Firebug and easier to figure out, and it's one of only two browsers that fully supports HTML 5. Firefox renders things shittily (even on the Mac, which has possibly the best rendering engine out there available for all apps by default, it fails Acid 3 at the moment, and while Firebug's great for some things, at other things it fails hard.

mpk 17y ago
"Safari's available for Windows and the Mac. That means that 99% of computer users can use Safari." Firefox is available for Linux, OSX and Windows. It's open-source to boot and is available in different builds and brands for different systems. That means that 100% of developers can use Firefox, regardless of the OS they choose to run.
- zimbabwe 17y ago
  If I develop in a single OS, it doesn't matter to me where else my browser's available. So if I design things without using Linux, Safari's sufficient, and there's no disadvantage to my using it. Two browsers can each be good without one rendering the other entirely useless. Safari's development environment is in many ways better than Firefox's, so why not use it when you've got it (which is 99% of the time)?
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    I spend less than 99% of my time under either Windows and OSX. In fact, it's a pain to work in an environment without proper software management (and no, macports and Fink are not enough, at least not for me)
- rbanffy 17y ago
  "Firefox is available for Linux, OSX and Windows" It's also available under Solaris, AIX, *BSD, IRIX, HP-UX... That makes it very close to 100% of the desktop and laptops around. The only software I know runs on more platforms is Emacs, which I had on my WinCE-based IBM workpad z-50.
trezor 17y ago
What's with the defensive attitude? I'm saying that things being pretty is not my primary concern when looking for development tools. It's OK if they are pretty, but that's pretty far down on the list of things I care for. As for Safari's rendering engine, I see you claim that is "leagues ahead of everything else" on Windows. Are you talking about text-rendering? In that case I would like to comment on how it is different from all the other software on Windows. Running its own anti-aliasing it just stands out and looks weird. If you are talking about speed, I honestly don't care. Same reason I am completely yawning over Chrome. If you are talking about CSS3 feature-set, I honestly don't care either, because using any CSS3 features while people are still using MSIE would be messing up the experience for about 50% of your visitors. As for Safari being "one of only two browsers that fully supports HTML5"... You know that HTML5 is only a draft at this point? The spec isn't even finalized. The Acid 3 test even admits this much, saying it's testing features which may or may not end up in a official spec. Excuse me for not caring very much for Safari, when Firefox is my main browser and does everything I need. I'll test my shit in Safari, but that's as far as I'm willing to go with exposure to craptacular Apple software on Windows.
- zimbabwe 17y ago
  It looks "weird" because it uses a much better method of anti-aliasing. The Windows system is worse than shit. It is hell for designers because it's impossible to make fonts look anything other than shit without turning them huge, and even then they look like shit. Safari is the shining exception. I'm not defensive. You're the one who just got into a little minirant. I was explaining why I prefer Safari for development and you returned with the little gems like "Excuse me for not caring very much for Safari, when Firefox is my main browser and does everything I need." You know, some of us here don't comment just to "beat" you. Sometimes we comment because we honestly think you've raised a point worth debating and discussing. I'm sorry for responding to you like you wanted a debate, instead of assuming you were a prick. If you are talking about speed, I honestly don't care. If you are talking about CSS3 feature-set, I honestly don't care either, because using any CSS3 features while people are still using MSIE would be messing up the experience for about 50% of your visitors. So there's no room for graceful degradation, then? If CSS3 lets me craft a better user experience for some users, then I'll give it to them. It's why we don't primarily design for IE 6 and its crippled users. We give other users what they want, then focus on stepping down. As for Safari being "one of only two browsers that fully supports HTML5"... You know that HTML5 is only a draft at this point? The spec isn't even finalized. The Acid 3 test even admits this much, saying it's testing features which may or may not end up in a official spec. Safari supports what there is at the moment. That's better than Mozilla's "We don't need to do anything re:HTML 5 and our competitors are evil for supporting the standards" line that they touted last year. I'll test my shit in Safari, but that's as far as I'm willing to go with exposure to craptacular Apple software on Windows. Ignore all the other stuff I commented on, since it's obvious you'll just disagree and neither of us will get anything out of it. What makes Safari craptacular? Safari 4 on Windows has a native feel, it runs 3x faster than Firefox, uses less memory, has a smoother interface in many ways, and has quite a few features (including that anti-aliasing) that Firefox lacks. Perhaps it's not your choice for a web browser, which is totally coo', but I resent your calling it craptacular and implicitly insulting all the Windows users who think Safari 4 is worth their using.

mpk 17y ago

"Safari's available for Windows and the Mac. That means that 99% of computer users can use Safari." Firefox is available for Linux, OSX and Windows. It's open-source to boot and is available in different builds and brands for different systems. That means that 100% of developers can use Firefox, regardless of the OS they choose to run.

zimbabwe 17y ago
If I develop in a single OS, it doesn't matter to me where else my browser's available. So if I design things without using Linux, Safari's sufficient, and there's no disadvantage to my using it. Two browsers can each be good without one rendering the other entirely useless. Safari's development environment is in many ways better than Firefox's, so why not use it when you've got it (which is 99% of the time)?
- rbanffy 17y ago
  I spend less than 99% of my time under either Windows and OSX. In fact, it's a pain to work in an environment without proper software management (and no, macports and Fink are not enough, at least not for me)
rbanffy 17y ago
"Firefox is available for Linux, OSX and Windows" It's also available under Solaris, AIX, *BSD, IRIX, HP-UX... That makes it very close to 100% of the desktop and laptops around. The only software I know runs on more platforms is Emacs, which I had on my WinCE-based IBM workpad z-50.

trezor 17y ago

What's with the defensive attitude? I'm saying that things being pretty is not my primary concern when looking for development tools. It's OK if they are pretty, but that's pretty far down on the list of things I care for. As for Safari's rendering engine, I see you claim that is "leagues ahead of everything else" on Windows. Are you talking about text-rendering? In that case I would like to comment on how it is different from all the other software on Windows. Running its own anti-aliasing it just stands out and looks weird. If you are talking about speed, I honestly don't care. Same reason I am completely yawning over Chrome. If you are talking about CSS3 feature-set, I honestly don't care either, because using any CSS3 features while people are still using MSIE would be messing up the experience for about 50% of your visitors. As for Safari being "one of only two browsers that fully supports HTML5"... You know that HTML5 is only a draft at this point? The spec isn't even finalized. The Acid 3 test even admits this much, saying it's testing features which may or may not end up in a official spec. Excuse me for not caring very much for Safari, when Firefox is my main browser and does everything I need. I'll test my shit in Safari, but that's as far as I'm willing to go with exposure to craptacular Apple software on Windows.

zimbabwe 17y ago
It looks "weird" because it uses a much better method of anti-aliasing. The Windows system is worse than shit. It is hell for designers because it's impossible to make fonts look anything other than shit without turning them huge, and even then they look like shit. Safari is the shining exception. I'm not defensive. You're the one who just got into a little minirant. I was explaining why I prefer Safari for development and you returned with the little gems like "Excuse me for not caring very much for Safari, when Firefox is my main browser and does everything I need." You know, some of us here don't comment just to "beat" you. Sometimes we comment because we honestly think you've raised a point worth debating and discussing. I'm sorry for responding to you like you wanted a debate, instead of assuming you were a prick. If you are talking about speed, I honestly don't care. If you are talking about CSS3 feature-set, I honestly don't care either, because using any CSS3 features while people are still using MSIE would be messing up the experience for about 50% of your visitors. So there's no room for graceful degradation, then? If CSS3 lets me craft a better user experience for some users, then I'll give it to them. It's why we don't primarily design for IE 6 and its crippled users. We give other users what they want, then focus on stepping down. As for Safari being "one of only two browsers that fully supports HTML5"... You know that HTML5 is only a draft at this point? The spec isn't even finalized. The Acid 3 test even admits this much, saying it's testing features which may or may not end up in a official spec. Safari supports what there is at the moment. That's better than Mozilla's "We don't need to do anything re:HTML 5 and our competitors are evil for supporting the standards" line that they touted last year. I'll test my shit in Safari, but that's as far as I'm willing to go with exposure to craptacular Apple software on Windows. Ignore all the other stuff I commented on, since it's obvious you'll just disagree and neither of us will get anything out of it. What makes Safari craptacular? Safari 4 on Windows has a native feel, it runs 3x faster than Firefox, uses less memory, has a smoother interface in many ways, and has quite a few features (including that anti-aliasing) that Firefox lacks. Perhaps it's not your choice for a web browser, which is totally coo', but I resent your calling it craptacular and implicitly insulting all the Windows users who think Safari 4 is worth their using.