Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Safari for Windows









Cian

Well-known member
Jul 16, 2003
14,262
Dublin, Ireland
Wait until 3.2 comes out, the current font rendering is really, really, really fuzzy but 3.2 is going to use ClearType like the rest of Windows.
 








The Clown of Pevensey Bay

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
4,346
Suburbia
Because Apple have never thrown it in your face before?

Do you know, I believe you're right.

Yes, the font rendering could be a bit improved, I suppose, but the image rendering is really good and seems faster than IE or Firefox.

And it doesn't crash like a twat like IE does.

And the buttons have round edges. Mmmmm, round edges.
 


It's the world's worst browser on a Mac!

It's not the best (although there is much about it I like), but it's far better than IE, which is horrible (clunky) on a Mac, although it's OK on a PC.

I have to use both, because there are some tortoises who haven't yet got their websites working properly with Safari (particularly one or two I use for work).
 


Arthur

Well-known member
Jul 8, 2003
8,778
Buxted Harbour
It's not the best (although there is much about it I like), but it's far better than IE, which is horrible (clunky) on a Mac, although it's OK on a PC.

I have to use both, because there are some tortoises who haven't yet got their websites working properly with Safari (particularly one or two I use for work).

IE for Mac was discontinued about 5 years ago, it's no wonder it doesn't scrub up against the modern browsers (including it's self on a PC).

It does beg the question though who in their right mind would have a Mac and use IE out of choice?

Firefox 3 is out in June, I haven't upgraded to the beta versions yet simply because I can't operate without my extension (which won't yet have been ported to v3) but the initial reviews I've read seem to be very positive.
 




Cian

Well-known member
Jul 16, 2003
14,262
Dublin, Ireland
IE 5.2 for the Mac was much better than IE 5.x for Windows but its still antique and only runs in emulation on new Macs.

Firefox 3 is meant to be significantly faster and uese less system memory than Firefox 2, I've used some trial versions on Linux (where its the only decent browser to begin with) and its rather impressive.
 


Grendel

New member
Jul 28, 2005
3,251
Seaford
Firefox 3 is meant to be significantly faster and uese less system memory than Firefox 2, I've used some trial versions on Linux (where its the only decent browser to begin with) and its rather impressive.

The latest beta apparently outperforms Safari 3.1 on OSX, which I'd imagine is a little embarrassing for those gimps in Cupertino.
 


Cian

Well-known member
Jul 16, 2003
14,262
Dublin, Ireland
The latest beta apparently outperforms Safari 3.1 on OSX, which I'd imagine is a little embarrassing for those gimps in Cupertino.

Apple are currently pushing the fact that 3.2 will have 100% support of the current webstandards.org CSS3 test and Firefox 3 won't.... considering IE still has 70-odd percent share and fails it woefully we don't need to be too concerned about the weirder elements of it being used.
 








Benny Seagull

Active member
Jul 5, 2003
1,625
London
Firefox 3 is meant to be significantly faster and uese less system memory than Firefox 2, I've used some trial versions on Linux (where its the only decent browser to begin with) and its rather impressive.
when does this become available? i've just downloaded safari but something about it doesn't seem right. brilliant on a mac but windows? the skin is so dreary and the scroll bars are not to my taste. worth a try though.
 








Superphil

Dismember
Jul 7, 2003
25,704
In a pile of football shirts
There needs to be a new version of it coming out, cos the current one is poo. Have to say, I've tried 'em all, inc on OSX, and I still prefer to use IE7, in Vista too.
 








Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
63,033
The Fatherland
...as standard on the mac.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here