Subjective Testing

As the newcomer to the Windows web browser market, Safari needs a hook in order to get a following. As we have previously discussed performance and have come to the conclusion that Safari is not significantly faster than most of the existing browsers, it will be up to the features and other subjective measures to make or break Safari. To that extent there are couple things we like about Safari, and several more that we don't.

Safari 3 in particular introduces a new inline searching feature that goes beyond previous highlighting abilities by removing the focus on the rest of the webpage that doesn't contain the word being searched for. This is far superior to Internet Explorer, which can only highlight a single instance of a word at a time, or Firefox which in spite of its multi-highlight ability can be hard to use in dense page situations. Compared to both of those situations, it's much easier to actually see the searched word on the page.

We're also generally fond of the RSS feature as introduced in Safari 2. It hasn't changed for Safari 3, nor does it need to however. RSS features in a web browser are still a bit unusual, and not everyone will be able to use them effectively, but compared to Internet Explorer and Firefox we're more impressed with how Safari handles it.

We're less convinced on the general flow of Safari, and a lot of that has to do with the interface of Safari which we'll get to in a moment. However we've also encountered issues where Safari is slow to respond, such as resizing the window or typing in to the address bar in one tabbed window while something loads in another tab. Both of these will be highly dependent on the browsing habits of the user, but they're definitely annoying when they occur.

The lack of a spell checker, in spite of the menu item still being there is also a disappointment for us. Because the spell checker is actually a part of Mac OS X and not Safari, we understand why Apple wouldn't have been able to easily bring it over, but at the same time leaving the menu is lazy. And more to the point we've suffered more than a few headaches reading forum and blog posts rife with poor spelling, and committed a few snafus ourselves.

Last but not least there's the issue that we and likely anyone else who has or will use Safari for Windows will have immediately noticed: the interface. Apple has a poor habit of sticking to interface guidelines - their own or otherwise - with previous ported applications like iTunes failing to look and act like a Windows application. For iTunes in particular this wasn't a significant problem since jukebox programs usually forgo interface guidelines, but this isn't the case for web browsers.

Apple did such a perfect port of Safari to Windows that it completely and utterly fails to act like a Windows application, and this isn't a compliment. The application window can only have its size adjusted in one corner, the minimize/maximize/close buttons fail to extend to the edge of the window, the title bar is not a different color than the menu bar, Apple uses their own font smoothing technique, the middle mouse button doesn't work on half the things it should, and we could go on. iTunes in spite of its transgressions manages to get most of this correct, so we know Apple can do this, this appears to simply be a case of stubbornness.


Buttons: iTunes(left) vs. Safari(right)

This isn't a case of actually caring what Safari looks like so much as it is being able to properly use Safari along side other Windows applications. The close button not extending to the edge of the window for example means that we can't scroll to the top-right corner of the screen when Safari is maximized and click to close the application in spite of the fact that we're not actually over the close button. The middle mouse button not having all of its features means we can't close tabs like we can in other browsers, or do a middle-click scroll like we can in any other Windows application. The use of a different font smoothing technique means that text doesn't look like anything else in Windows, and while we like this technique on Mac OS X it's distracting compared to everything else Windows. Safari even prevents the Windows taskbar from coming up when Safari is maximized and the taskbar is set to auto-hide, which frankly is unfathomable in the Windows world.



IE(Windows) font smoothing



Safari font smoothing

All of these interface differences make Safari genuinely hard to use on Windows. For all of the positive aspects we've mentioned above, what good are they if we go mad trying to use the application? If Apple doesn't redesign Safari to follow at least some of the Windows interface guidelines, it may very well have a short life span outside of Mac OS X.


Objective Testing First Thoughts
Comments Locked

28 Comments

View All Comments

  • Griswold - Saturday, July 7, 2007 - link

    As for the RAM, you're right to a certain point. There are far too many people out there who like to stare at their unused RAM and feel proud that their system is so slim, sleek and... slow, because everything has to be loaded from the slow disk. RAM is here to be used, not to be left unused. End of story.

    But reality often isnt that simple. When software starts to unnecessarily hog RAM, resulting in disk trashing when its needed elsewhere, then its time to have a closer look and criticise.

    Some older FF builds in the 1.5 days were like that. Have FF run for a full day and it would start to bloat up to several hundred megabytes thanks to caching too many previous visited sites in RAM. Manually reducing that number to a reasonable value trimmed down the RAM usage. Personally, I dont see that behavior in FF 2.x anymore.
  • Justin Case - Sunday, July 8, 2007 - link

    Like I said, simply checking how much RAM a program is using tells you nothing about its _efficiency_. Most browsers let you choose how much RAM they can use for cache. If it doesn't respect that value, it's not "bloated"; it's buggy.

    For example, something that Opera has done for a long time and other browsers have only recently copied is this: cache the _rendered_ pages in the browser history. That way when you press the "back" or "forward" button, the page is there _instantly_, regardless of complexity. This makes a huge difference in the user experience and is a good use of 4 MB of RAM. The latest versions of Firefox do this, too. Not sure about MSIE.

  • crimson117 - Thursday, July 12, 2007 - link

    "This makes a huge difference in the user experience and is a good use of 4 MB of RAM."

    I agree, as long as it releases ram it's not likely to use anytime soon.

    If I've been browsing for a while and then load up a game to play, but keep the browser open, then I definitely don't need 400 MB of cached renderings.

    Hopefully it would cache the rendered pages for the past few sites, but write to disk the render cache for older sites in my session to free up the ram.
  • Fede777 - Friday, July 6, 2007 - link

    In the Subjective Testing page it says
    quote:

    Buttons: iTunes(left) vs. Safari(right)
    but it should say
    quote:

    Buttons: IE(left) (on vista) vs. Safari(right)
  • Fede777 - Friday, July 6, 2007 - link

    My mistake, it's just that iTunes looks like safari on XP
  • cmdrdredd - Friday, July 6, 2007 - link

    The most interesting thing to me out of the whole article is the mrmory footprint chart. I never realized IE used so much memory as I don't check the usage.

    I downloaded Safari and it works quite nicely for me. I don't see one browser being vastly superior to another under normal usage though. I'm not so picky.
  • Nemokrad - Friday, July 6, 2007 - link

    Safari 3.0.2 was released two weeks ago today. How come you didn't use it?
  • Ryan Smith - Friday, July 6, 2007 - link

    This article has been complete for longer than two weeks. We had some unusual circumstances that kept us from publishing it on time.
  • solipsism - Friday, July 6, 2007 - link

    I saw that and was able to read the first page before it was removed.

    What were the "unusual circumstances" for not posting it?


    PS: AnandTech is a favorite read for me because of the detail that is usually spent on a topic/item but I found this review to be rudimentary. I would have like to see other speed tests done with heavy JS and Flash pages, a comprehensive overview of how WebKit differs from IE and Firefox engines, a detailed report of how Safari imported frameworks for OS X and not just a mention of the visual differences, and a comparison of HTML5 and CSS3 Open Standards used between the browsers. One in particular that Safari has is the ability to resize text boxes.
  • AnnonymousCoward - Sunday, July 8, 2007 - link

    I don't need that kind of detailed analysis. Since the interface sucks and the window behavior is like a stubborn Mac window, the deal is off.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now