Safari for Windows

Safari for Windows

I thought there would be a thread for this already, but I didn’t find one...

So Apple announced that Safari 3 will be ported to Windows. A beta version is available, too:

http://www.apple.com/safari/

And I doubt these performance tests are anywhere near representative...

Brilliant. This overcomes the hurdle in web designing that one can't test in Safari without buying a Mac pc. Thanks for the notification.

And those performance results seem fishy to me too, but oh well, I suppose one could argue that results can vary depending on things at the user's end.

i was about to post something on that ... how come apple says that opera is slower than ie7, when so many people say that out of the 3 major ones it is the fastest ... ?

/edit: just installed it ... not gonna keep it. reason: doesn't support scrolling with my thinkpad.
well done, apple ... well done!

Well, I just tested Safari a little bit... seems more Alpha than Beta. Half of the web pages I visit render incorrect, all "font-weight:bold" is just not displayed, the UI is sluggish, Safari crahes very often...

Definately not beta, in my opinion.

adding a bit to the post above ... something that opera should incorporate as well is the glow of a textfield as soons as you start typing in it. another one would be the inline search ... seriously something helpfull .

things that safari lacks: speed improvements - it's not faster than my opera 9.21 (subjectively of course).
the design is nice, but why can't you have a drop down history at your "back" button?
it doesn't have an ad-blocker, not even add-ons like userjs.
the bookmarks page is way too big ... i couldn't manage to have just a bar on the side.

now if you find some ways to change that ... well done ... but then the next big flaw: too hard to find out for someone like me .

my suggestion: stick with opera and stay happy.

I tried loading celluloco.com on both browsers (a site with loads of photos)

Safari 3 beta: 1:30sec

Opera 9.20: 1:28sec

So I have not seen the speed Apple is claiming there.. but I'm no pro beta tester so.

& does it have a tab for "new tab" like Opera has? I did not see it. I had to go to "File > New tab" & it gave a blank page so I had to go to "History > Home" to get my homepage

That's way too many steps there.

Well Safari on Windows will certainly help Apple gain some (lots) of market share ..& I LOVE apple.. however I love Opera too! so I don't want Opera to lag behind at all!

Even if those statistics on the Apple website are pure propaganda it's still gonna hurt Opera's rep. We need some damage control here.

I wish an expert could do a really extensive test to see the results. I want an unbiased account of the facts & how this may affect the market.

I should think our friends in Oslo are working overtime now

Just installed it. It seems pretty much the same as Safari for Mac -- or more precisely, the same as the Webkit nightlies I've been testing from time to time. (There are some nice CSS3 capabilities that, so far, only Webkit has implemented. I really like box-shadow, for instance.) A bit clunkier when you have to go outside the window itself (resizing, for instance), but then all of Apple's Mac-alike software seems just a little bit off on Windows.

I'm not really sure what the target audience for Safari on Windows is. Even on the Mac, it was never aimed at power users. In terms of feature set, it's always been leaner than Firefox, which has been leaner than Opera, and Safari doesn't have extensions. It will probably get dual-platform users who have gotten used to Safari on the Mac. It will probably get IE users who want something simple. I haven't looked into memory usage, but it'll probably pick up Firefox users who want a leaner program *and* a leaner interface.

I don't think Opera's core userbase is likely to be switching to Safari in droves, but it's clear from Firefox's success that the general audience -- the one that wants something simple that "just works" -- is larger than the audience that currently forms the bulk of Opera's users.

Could someone of you who has a English version of Windows please take a screenshot of German news page www.heise.de ? Because in the heise forums some people say that Safari on non-English Windows versions has more bugs than on English Windows versions, for example Safari on German Windows doesn’t display the headers on heise.de.

So, could please someone take a screen? Thanks in advance.

hmmm... CSS. good one.. I will see how my Opera Blog pages look on it.

I thought this quote interesting from Jeff Mincey (screen name "jmincey") on the Macworld forums.

Originally posted by jmincey:

I don't think this is about market share for web browsers. What good does it do Apple for a free product to have market share on a competing platform?

What I think this is more about is to increase support for open web standards in XHTML, audio and video streams, MPEG, AJAX, and also for Apple infrastructure technologies. It's also a means to prevent or slow any choke-hold Microsoft would have in this same regard (vis-a-vis Windows Media).

I'm sure Apple considers this an investment in protecting web standards and that it's not really about market share as such at all -- notwithstanding public statements from Apple.

Hmmm, I wonder how this will affect Opera users... Certainly a speed competition on Windows - but being on 2 platforms really isn't the same as being on most platforms (Opera, FireFox). I'm not entirely sure who would use Safari on Windows save Mac users who also sometimes use Windows.

Given the amount of posts I see of Mac users using Firefox or Opera, I expect that the savvy will continue using one of those browsers, while the unsavvy will end up with IE on windows anyway.

This might help push more web standards, as what I've heard Safari is very picky on that.

Hey, just was looking about a similar subject
On XPSP2
Tried it, first function used show all bookmarks: crash and closes...
FIRST function used, not kidding Must have been lucky.
Second function used, add bookmark, crash, add folder bookmark, crash, show all history, that's so much fun : crash... héhé... so, I agree with them, it's much faster then opera... in terms of crashes...

It's seems that AppName: safari.exe AppVer: 3.522.11.3 ModName: corefoundation.dll
ModVer: 1.434.6.0 Offset: 000097cd
does not like my system...

So there is still some work to do. Also I don't like apple windowing. I like to have at least some windows width... I lke to be able to resize my windows using also top left and top right borders...

Also, how are they testing things in terms of speed ? They launch it and just use a hand chronometer ?

I stay wy opera for now... and hum, probably some longer time.

Maybe some official could post some counter tests and don't let apple tell something that may not be true...

There are truths, lies and benchmarks. Try with real browsing for a few days, welcome back to Opera next week

I have to say, Opera slowest for HTML? While I don't use IE7 for various reasons, I can only think that either the benchmark is testing something with little bearing to real life percieved speeds, or Opera was doing it's purported hang before contacting the site (some users experiance this).

Am I the only one who thinks YMMV A LOT on a normal windows machine vs one bootcamped on an iMac?

All that said, it was really HTML rendering that Opera lost out on in the benchmarks, which seems odd to me - not many sites are only HTML, DIGG for instance is more js than HTML...

Of course, now we've got another competitor, and someone ought to either be looking at the HTML performance in the benchmark for 9.5, or at least having an updated benchmark test and of course looking to improve Opera's performance.

All that said, Safari looks like it has less than IE7 does in features, I'm not sure that level of minimalism will catch on in Windows. In fact, so far I've seen that the people most interested in new things are staying strongly with Firefox because of extensions.

One more interesting thing claimed on DSLR:
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18487671

Try dragging a tab off the tab bar; the tab will come off and make itself a new window. And vice-versa!

How does Safari do the drag from taskbar back to window? I thought that was a Windows limitation? If it isn't Opera ought to look at that cause that's the hardest thing with detached pages...

Originally posted by jp10558:

One more interesting thing claimed on DSLR:http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18487671Try dragging a tab off the tab bar; the tab will come off and make itself a new window. And vice-versa!How does Safari do the drag from taskbar back to window? I thought that was a Windows limitation? If it isn't Opera ought to look at that cause that's the hardest thing with detached pages...

Opera already had this feature some years ago:
How to detach and attach a tab to Opera window?

Interesting like Apple copies features from their competitors (in this case Opera) What an innovation!

Originally posted by el_esponjoso:

Opera already had this feature some years ago:

Oh? I was under the impression I had to use the windows panel to re-attach a page. It doesn't work for me to leftclick on a detached page's taskbar button and try to drag to the Opera tabbar or Opera window.

Well the viceversa part doesn´t work in Opera

In case anyone's interested, I posted some thoughts on the issue in my blog: Safari on Windows: What effect will it have on Opera?

Installer layout broken on large font machines? Check. (anyone who runs large fonts is used to dealing with this ****)

Stupid 'value added' (Bonjour???) crapware? Check.

Annoying auto-updater as a standalone crapplet/service? Check.

Ignores the native UI to use it's own? Check.

Ignores the system metric and font settings so all the menus are too small and %/EM and PT sized fonts don't scale up? Check.

That last one is interesting because Safari uses the OSX font rendering engine instead of the windows one - in fact it looks like large portions of OSX are API wrapped to run the program instead of a true 'windows native' version of the code - this is nothing new since Firefox runs atop XUL and a great many applications are built atop Trident's rendering engine... But Leopard was supposed to make the entire UI vector based with all elements fully scaleable. Did that get the axe yet? (I say yet because I've suspected all along this would get pulled from Leopard before release - I'm willing to bet that's why it's been pushed forward 8 months)

On a positive note, you can choose NOT to install the "Bonjour" crapware and auto-updater. One of the first options the installer gives you. I'm all for auto-updating, but I think Opera and Firefox got it right - do it when I run the ****ing program, don't install another crap service to sit there chewing CPU and memory for something that shouldn't even happen but every few months.

Still, I have to say this is more than welcome and for a Beta, it's not bad at all if for no other reason than it means a couple hundred less watts power use for me - It means I can (assuming they keep the OSX and Windows versions rendering engines on the same *****ing codebase) retire my DellMac (Dimension 8200 running 10.4.8 - it's on a KVM) and NEVER have to touch OSX just to test one browser ever again. This is a huge boon to web developers on a budget who cannot justify the cost of owning a Mac, or people like myself who cannot actually get any real WORK done on in MacOS without cursing it to the 9th circle of hell.

I'm seeing across the web a lot of conflicting reports about speed - I'm suspecting it could be hardware related. Trying to run OSX on a standard PC you have the issue that not all PC CPU's have SSE2 or SSE3 - I'm wondering if they are calling those functions and emulating them if missing, which would explain why CPU consumption is way up and speed is way down for some people. (Which I'm not encountering at all on my A64 4000+ San Diego, which DOES support SSE3). I know iTunes under OSX requires both SSE2 and SSE3 unless you hack the tar out of it, and even then it never quite runs right - and Rosetta likewise requires it... if we are looking at some form of API wrapper and port of significant portions of OSX, that could be the cause of people seeing slowdowns.

It could also be a 2d video acceleration issue. I'm on a 640 meg 8800GTS - there is no such thing as video slowdown on my card... Older video cards, or worse integrated chipsets may be seeing major slowdowns and/or video corruption. I know SIS video chipsets for example have rendering problems on bold and italic fonts if their 2d acceleration is turned up all the way. (In XP/2K - display properties > settings > advanced > troubleshoot, turn down the slider one notch, corruption goes away)

Some people are also claiming memory and cpu use WAY out of league with what I had been seeing on the desktop - this leads me to believe certain modules are being loaded and/or unloaded based on the available hardware... Some people are reporting 100-120k footprint if you start it up with nothing but google showing - where my own results are around 55K, just under double what I consider the norm for other browsers (28-29K)

This led me to try it out on my 1ghz P3 laptop with Intel 815 video - and it's pretty much unusable. Agonizingly slow, 50% cpu use ALL THE TIME, EVEN WHEN MINIMIZED... So... Yeah, hardware. Anything lower in specs than a Mac Mini probably isn't going to run it very well... While if you have a modern video card and CPU it screams along quite niceley - Fact is there are a LOT of PC's out there with less CPU than the mini. Not everyone has sunk money into Pentium D's, Athlon X2's or Core processors yet... and how many PC users are still stuck on crappy integrated video? I think in addition to the minimum specification, they should have included a recommended spec of Celeron D or higher CPU with SSE3 support.

You have less than that, and I suspect Safari on PC is NOT for you. The Celeron D or better being the 'you must be this tall' stick. I'm going to try it on a few more machines, I'll post up my results here to see if it is indeed something like emulation of missing CPU functions. I'm interested to see what a non-SSE3 but semi-modern CPU like a A64 3000+ or Pentium 4 does to it, much less non-SSE2 cpu's like the Athlon XP. I've really got the feeling a SSE emulation layer is one of the root causes of it being slow on some machines.

I also at first thought the Windows version was faster than the OSX one, as beta 3 seemed way peppier and responsive on the same hardware than it is under OSX (since I am also set up to dual boot to 10.4.8 JAS) - turns out that's a definate my bad, as I was comparing 3 Beta Windows to Safari 2 OSX... There are MAJOR speed improvements in Safari 3 over Safari 2 which should be REALLY appreciated both by developers who's AJAX was almost unusable due to the ridiculously slow DOM implementation (those problems SEEM to be gone!), and by those already using Safari as their day to day browser.

As a browser for the PC, it sucks. It's like five steps backwards from IE and FF, much less compared to Opera on simple things like user interface. You cannot customize a damned thing, selecting text is like dealing with a epileptic crack addict, bookmark management is like a trip in the wayback machine to 1997. This is NOT a good day for PC browser users, it is a day of celebration for developers who no longer have their hardware dictated to them to support Safari, or end up running hacked copies because they cannot justify the cost of a nuetered overpriced pile of junk like the mini, much less more capable apple hardware.

In one fell swoop, they have killed the only reason I was running cracked copies of OSX on non apple hardware. People want to use Safari, I'll code my pages to support them - but I'll be damned if I'm going to run Apple's crap ikea-like hardware to do so.

Originally posted by jp10558:

One more interesting thing claimed on DSLR:
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18487671

Try dragging a tab off the tab bar; the tab will come off and make itself a new window. And vice-versa!

you can do that with Opera. Try it! Drag a tab to the taskbar and it becomes a seperate window.

Those stats on their front page are totally wrong. They underrate Opera's performance, and they overrate Firefox's startup speed. So I can hardly believe their estimates of their own browser's performance. Poor show.

<semi-off-topic>
FWIW, Bonjour is actually useful if you have a mixed network and your printer happens to be attached to a Mac. I imagine if you have Mac OS boxes with web servers on them, it would be nice for Safari to auto-detect those as well.

Just because *you* don't have a use for zeroconf doesn't make it worthless.
</semi-off-topic>

Installed under Windows Vista, Safari is really limited compared to Opera 9.xx...

Originally posted by knipjo:

It's seems that AppName: safari.exe AppVer: 3.522.11.3 ModName: corefoundation.dll
ModVer: 1.434.6.0 Offset: 000097cd
does not like my system...

Out of curiousity, what's your CPU and Video card? I'm trying to put together a list to see what a more realistic minimum would be. I just tried Safari on a pre-XP athlon with VIA integrated video, and I was getting the same results as you with it crashing... Which is the opposite of how it works on my primary desktop (see above)

Hm, can anyone confirm who has a English version of Windows that the headlines on engadget.com are *not* missing? Some people report that only non-English versions of Windows have problems with displaying headlines.

EDIT: Does it behave like that on an English version of Windows? http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/105/safari1fi0.gif

if people give importance to speed, opera should do as well on its own homepage. Just give stats table, with the truth, and give different sources to show that there's no lies behind those numbers!

I'm just disgusted by how Safari webpage can tell Opera slower than firefox and ie7 in html rendering.
I did try this beta, and for now, it renders fast but certainly not significant difference with opera, as the numbers told it. Im even not sure it's faster. What can be sure is that a fast rendering is useless if it's completely buggy, and that's the case for the moment.

Moreover, lots of people is happy to see safari arriving on windows, because developping will be easier for webdesigners and developpers, who will be able to check in safari easier, i just hope the rendering will be the same than Safari on Mac. Otherwise, the harrassing compatibility work will be even more difficult. For the moment, with this alpha called beta, it simply isn't. Not very cross-platform...

One other thing of course is now going to be watching security vulnerabilities. According to some posts on astalavista.net forums, there are already several remote code execution exploits for this beta. I wonder if we'll start seeing more attacks now that Safari is on windows (that affect OSX version as well)?

Only 28 MB to download ? :-D

apple.com/safari - 350+ kb
apple.com/safari/download - 250+ kb
the browser - 8 mb

No thank you apple!

they are finding flaws all ready

http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9728500-7.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

but no big deal I guess... it's only a beta.

Originally posted by wupperbayer:

Hm, can anyone confirm who has a English version of Windows that the headlines on engadget.com are *not* missing? Some people report that only non-English versions of Windows have problems with displaying headlines.

Seems OK here. Windows XP SP2, English.

Does it behave like that on an English version of Windows? http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/105/safari1fi0.gif

Are you asking whether it crashes when typing in the search field on eBay? If so, no it's not crashing, either on ebay.com or on ebay.de.

The missing headlines might be related to the SIS font problems Deathshadow mentioned.

Tested: removed.

Originally posted by Kelson:

Seems OK here. Windows XP SP2, English.

OK, thanks. A German news page now confirmed that the problem is indeed the language of Windows. If it’s not English, headlines, bold and italic font are not displayed and Safari crahes every time you open the bookmarks. That makes me wonder if Apple even tested Safari for Windows before they released it...

Originally posted by GoustiFruit:

Are you asking whether it crashes when typing in the search field on eBay? If so, no it's not crashing, either on ebay.com or on ebay.de.

Yes, and if there’s no text at all on eBay’s page visible, like on my PC. But I guess that is also related to the localization problem.

No, that doesn’t help. As you can see in the comparison of this screenshot and this screenshot, it definately has something to do with Windows’ language (first screenshot is on German Windows, second on English).

I don't know how well it will work, but I found one suggestion while reading the comments on WebKit's announcement.

Apparently the crash is caused by Safari trying to load local language files. For some reason, the beta only shipped with the file for English. If you copy the English language file to the place it's expecting to find yours, then it'll be able to load something (even if it's the wrong language) and won't crash. Unfortunately, it seems like it doesn't fix the invisble bold/italic problem.

No middle click to close tab.
Shortcuts hardly customizable.
blhe

Originally posted by xErath:

No middle click to close tab.

I agree, that's one thing I can't live without when it comes to tabbed browsing.

OK I installed it... and it CRASHES ON STARTUP! Goddammit, I really wanted to play with this (and it's especially useful for web dev).

In the 'technical information' dialog box on crash, it mentions coregraphics.dll, so I guess this is related to my graphics card/display settings? I've played around with my graphics card a bit already, can anyone reccommend anything to try?

And yeah I don't believe that HTML benchmark for a second... every time I open IE or FF I get annoyed at how slow they are.

Safari for Windows, 0day exploit in 2 hours

http://erratasec.blogspot.com/2007/06/niiiice.html
http://aviv.raffon.net/CommentView,guid,54A1DB79-0ECB-4F13-99AE-45BAB70C4256.aspx#a0ac5417-013d-43ae-9abc-7d265113892c

Please, DON´T INSTALL this piece of software so buggy and insecure

Yeah, I tested Safari too... I'm considering a Macbook (I've never used a Mac before) but if Apple is trying to lure more people to their camp with this ported Safari, perhaps they should've fixed at least the most blatant bugs.
Beta or not, the browser crashes when I try to bookmark a page and the websites I tried were messed up in Safari!
Thank god there's Mac version of Opera, so I won't be in trouble if I end up buying a Macbook.

Nawww, there is no worry... I think they pushed to get the new Safari out cause of the whole iPhone thing. The want the dev community to get used to it I think. (a version of Safari 3 will be on iPhone) By the time the final version comes out I'm sure it will be really stable & full of features.

So go ahead & buy that Macbook - you can't go wrong.

Whether the final Safari 3 will be better than Opera or not remains to be seen... but it has a lot of ground to cover, cause Opera is way ahead of the game.

It's all about marketing though and from the way the news spread, it will be interesting to see whether stable Safari gets even more market share than Firefox in the coming months.

The conspiracy theory in me says they released the buggy version to generate publicity.

Originally posted by IIee:

Yeah, I tested Safari too... I'm considering a Macbook (I've never used a Mac before) but if Apple is trying to lure more people to their camp with this ported Safari, perhaps they should've fixed at least the most blatant bugs.
Beta or not, the browser crashes when I try to bookmark a page and the websites I tried were messed up in Safari!
Thank god there's Mac version of Opera, so I won't be in trouble if I end up buying a Macbook.

Go ahead, throw your money away on a slow baby sized hard drive, anything approaching a normal amount of RAM, rebranded parts from the cheapest vendors available (go Lite-On, Panasonic and the Seagate division formerly known as Connor!) all just to get 0.2mhz and a sterile white veneer reminiscent of a hospital ward in a cheap nylon that cracks if you look at it the wrong way, maglock 'safety' power cords that catch fire, and 'cooling' so pathetic you might as well just tape up the vents, it's not like they do anything. You know, that Apple 'quality' people tout so highly.

Having worked as an Apple service tech, and having SEEN the insides the G3 and G4 iBooks and Powerbooks - I really feel sorry for anyone who actually spent money on them and wouldn't trust them to design ANYTHING. Underclock the CPU's so you can run them without heatsinks, instead putting a layer of insulating foam between each of the THREE layers of RF Shielding so there's zero airflow anywhere? That's an iBook. (you can rip out the dialup adapter and insulation, add a heat sink, and 'upclock' 30-50% safely) - CPU overheating so bad from lack of cooling it burns a hole clear through the dialup adapter? That's the iBook and Powerbooks... Disabling one pin on the PCMCIA slot to call it a 'airport' slot, just so it only works with your own cards? Firing an unused signal on the DVD IDE connector meaning standard off the shelf drives don't work (you can get around this by shorting two pins on the cable)?

Apple wouldn't know cooling if it stripped naked, painted itself blue, and hopped up on a table singing 'look at what a big cooling fan I am'. They wouldn't know quality engineering from Bubba Ray's '53 pickup running on 'shine and faith... They are just really good at hiding what total CRAP hardware they use by putting it into boring sterile white box and then get followers by way of classic propaganda techniques.

If you are looking at the $2800 17" MacBook - do yourself a favor, save about a grand, and get a HP dv9500t with almost identical specs (ooh, 0.2ghz slower, BIG **** DEAL). Yes, for the price of the 15" bottom of the line MacBook, you can get better hardware than the $2800 17"... Way to go Apple.

Though I'd probably spend some of that surplus for a pair of high capacity 12 cell batteries.

Art fag form factor and veneers are not worth a grand - just like the color black is not worth $200.

Either way whatever you buy - I do NOT recommend buying the extra RAM or disk capacity from the manufacturer - sorry, no. $750 for 4 gigs of DDR2-667 from Apple? Even HP's $525 is over the top for a $225 part! $150 from apple for a 4200rpm (they still make drives that **** slow?) 250 gig drive, $200 from HP for a second 160gig? **** that. For that type of money I could get a Samsung 'FLASHON' in those capacities, otherwise those are $100 parts.

I'd be MUCH more receptive to Apple's OS if it wasn't tied to the total CRAP hardware they overcharge for. They SERIOUSLY need to get out of the hardware business because it is readily apparant to anyone who knows anything about engineering and market prices that they have no ****ing clue what they are doing - the only reason they can get away with it is the average consumer knows even less. They prey on the ignorance of the consumer... Which I find hard to believe people still fall for when we are talking a couple GRAND. Proves the old addage, more money than brains.

Besides, there's a reason Apple get's it's OSHA product certification from the 'often threatened with being shut down for shoddy practices' CSA - there isn't one bit of Apple hardware that would actually pass testing by Underwriter Laboratories.

@deathshadow
Since I never had to do with a Mac before I appreciate your comments. They are very informative.

Originally posted by deathshadow:

- the only reason they can get away with it is the average consumer knows even less. They prey on the ignorance of the consumer...

Looking now to their flagship browser I wonder if their consumer base isn't equally clueless like the average Windows user. Except maybe Safari's rendering speed which I can't confirm since after several crashes I gave up testing very soon, there was nothing to be impressed about the browser to say the least...

Originally posted by el_esponjoso:

Please, DON´T INSTALL this piece of software so buggy and insecure

FWIW, Apple just released version 3.0.1 beta with fixes for the various security holes discovered in the Windows version. (They pointed out that the holes don't affect the Mac version.)

That's impressively fast turnaround, especially for security fixes in a beta. I seriously expected them to wait until the next beta release to fix them.

AFAIK its only a security fix (this is the first time I can remember seeing a company release a security-only fix for a beta), so it'll probably still crash connecting to proxies and on non-English versions of Windows.

I've not read this entire thread so this may have already been mentioned but here is a technique to fix the "no visible text" issue with Safari 3 on Windows:

http://grupenet.com/2007/06/12/fix-font-issue-in-safari-for-windows/

It worked on my WinXP desktop machine and on my Vista notebook.

Originally posted by xErath:

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/safaribenchmarks.html

good article!

Interesting how it's not possible to get accurate benchmarks for Safari. I wonder if they wrote it that way intentionally?

It certainly confirms my opinion that I'm not going to bother with a browser if their published benchmarks are so inaccurate. I don't care if it's Apple or whoever, if they can't provide truthful information on their site that's not completely biased in favour of their browser, then I have no reason to trust their product at all.

Originally posted by james.faction:

Originally posted by xErath:

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/safaribenchmarks.html

good article!

Interesting how it's not possible to get accurate benchmarks for Safari.

It is possible, we've done them internally. This beta of Safari just made it somewhat difficult to use it in existing benchmarks due to its bogosities.

M.

If anyone believes those tests that Safari is faster, don't. They'll all lies...Safari is fast...on a Mac.

Originally posted by Moose:

It is possible, we've done them internally. This beta of Safari just made it somewhat difficult to use it in existing benchmarks due to its bogosities.M.

So, you planning to fire back with Opera 9.5 . . .?

Originally posted by jp10558:

So, you planning to fire back with Opera 9.5 . . .?

yeah good question ...by the way speed dial is one innovation I use so much.. it's really convenient & only Opera has it