3 ms·

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

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.

trezor 17y ago
First of all. 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. In that case, I guess I read your comment wrong. Sorry about that. It looks "weird" because it uses a much better method of anti-aliasing. It's still different from everything else on the platform. To me that's a bad thing. Maybe not to you, maybe not to designers, but to me it is. So there's no room for graceful degradation, then? There is. But in the meantime I've found that I can cover lots of browser shortcomings trough jQuery instead of CSS and browser-specific hacks. Definitely not ideal, but it works. When CSS3 gets here, I'll prefer that instead. Safari supports what there is at the moment. I'm not against progress, but even Firefox has limited HTML5 support these days, and it's really not a major selling point for me as of yet. What makes Safari craptacular? Safari 4 on Windows has a native feel I actually had to check this out. Seems you are actually right. Historically though Apple has always tried to cram the Apple look and feel down my throat when it is obvious I don't want a Mac, giving me a non-native interface. I resent that. That said, the fact remains that it is simply not what I am looking for in a browser (see my other post [1]). As for my main complaint (with regard to the software being crap), my Core i7 is the first machine which iTunes is actually responsive and non-laggy on. I was genuinely surprised when I discovered that. I had to get a 2GHz Dual Core machine before Quicktime could play things fullscreen without skipping. My 200MHz Pentium MMX could that without CPU load. When I refer to Apple software on Windows as craptacular, that is because they have quite a history for being just that. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=696002 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=696002
- zimbabwe 17y ago
  That all makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to reply!
encoderer 17y ago
Wow man, leave this crap on Slashdot where it belongs. Nearly every statement you've made about Safari has been subjective. You're entitled to that. But there's no reason to lose your lunch when somebody disagrees. I'll share my own subjectivity that the only thing "worse than shit" right now is your attitude about this. We're talking about a browser. And I'll tell you what... FF on Mac is absolutely horrible. I use safari on my mac (at home). When using Windows (at work), I use FF3 and Firebug. I don't mind going back and forth between them. And I have learned to accept that fonts do look fuzzy in Safari and the dev-tools in FF are sub-optimal.

trezor 17y ago

First of all. 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. In that case, I guess I read your comment wrong. Sorry about that. It looks "weird" because it uses a much better method of anti-aliasing. It's still different from everything else on the platform. To me that's a bad thing. Maybe not to you, maybe not to designers, but to me it is. So there's no room for graceful degradation, then? There is. But in the meantime I've found that I can cover lots of browser shortcomings trough jQuery instead of CSS and browser-specific hacks. Definitely not ideal, but it works. When CSS3 gets here, I'll prefer that instead. Safari supports what there is at the moment. I'm not against progress, but even Firefox has limited HTML5 support these days, and it's really not a major selling point for me as of yet. What makes Safari craptacular? Safari 4 on Windows has a native feel I actually had to check this out. Seems you are actually right. Historically though Apple has always tried to cram the Apple look and feel down my throat when it is obvious I don't want a Mac, giving me a non-native interface. I resent that. That said, the fact remains that it is simply not what I am looking for in a browser (see my other post [1]). As for my main complaint (with regard to the software being crap), my Core i7 is the first machine which iTunes is actually responsive and non-laggy on. I was genuinely surprised when I discovered that. I had to get a 2GHz Dual Core machine before Quicktime could play things fullscreen without skipping. My 200MHz Pentium MMX could that without CPU load. When I refer to Apple software on Windows as craptacular, that is because they have quite a history for being just that. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=696002 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=696002

zimbabwe 17y ago
That all makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to reply!

encoderer 17y ago

Wow man, leave this crap on Slashdot where it belongs. Nearly every statement you've made about Safari has been subjective. You're entitled to that. But there's no reason to lose your lunch when somebody disagrees. I'll share my own subjectivity that the only thing "worse than shit" right now is your attitude about this. We're talking about a browser. And I'll tell you what... FF on Mac is absolutely horrible. I use safari on my mac (at home). When using Windows (at work), I use FF3 and Firebug. I don't mind going back and forth between them. And I have learned to accept that fonts do look fuzzy in Safari and the dev-tools in FF are sub-optimal.