Safari for Windows Marketshare Triples

[clevin]

The fact it actually renders text which looks better than IE and Firefox on my screen is not a shortcoming (More noticable with larger font sizes, these look jagged in the other two).

thats a quite subjective evaluation and most windows users would probably make opposite statements.

Im not sure if we can expect windows users to look at the font AA "the mac way".

PS. some(or most) mac ppl do argue that they think OSX font AA is better, however, easy to read on screen has never been mentioned as a reason. Rather, most argue that the OSX font AA looks closer to what you can expect from printed result, which, IMHO, is a very fragile argument.

 

[kornyboy]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

Is this based on the number of downloads? If it is I can't give this much credit since usage does not directly compare to number of downloads. I have safari and IE on my Mac but don't use either of them unless I'm in a situation (very rare) that my preferred browser doesn't work. I really only use Safari on the iPhone (lack of options plus I kind of like the iPhone's version$).

 

[elppa]

thats a quite subjective evaluation and most windows users would probably make opposite statements.

I know, but I did say “on my screen”. I don't really care about what “other Windows users” say, just what looks good to me. Also Windows users now have the option in Safari of using the native font anti aliasing should they choose.

I don't believe it is most Windows users either. Maybe those who try Safari for a few minutes will get this impression. There are of course people whose opinions will be different. BUT the point I am trying to make is it is not the case that all Windows users hate the way anti-aliasing works on a Mac, some are big fans:

Take these comments from Windows users:

When I just started using Safari - I wholeheartly agreed with your earlier observation - but after a few days I have to admit I have defected especially after seeing Safari's font rendering with fonts other than Arial and to some extent Verdana. Take Georgia - Go to Wired.com and click on any article. Not only is Safari's rendering superior for larger fonts (IE7 has a lot of jagged edges) - but even on smaller sizes (the article text font) Safari is a delight to read, while IE7 just elongates the characters vertically a little bit - and the RGB noise is also visible to some extent. Or take Trebuchet, or any other font. I have to admit - the consistency of Apple font rendering technology has put in me in their camp. (Come to think of it the Copyright message on your blog is shouting RGB noise in IE7, but looks pretty clean and more readable on Safari)

As a long time windows user I must also say I much prefer the Mac philosophy of rendering fonts. It took a little while to grow on me but now that it did I can't go back. Often I look at a web page in Safari and I'm not even sure if I'm looking at HTML text or text in a inlined JPG.
It's only now that I really appreciate the aesthetic pleasures of good typography.

When I first moved to OSX from Windows (which isn't too long ago. About 1+ years), the difference in the font rendering didn't bother me much. So I chose to remain neutral in that issue.

Then when I first tried viewing Safari on Windows side-by-side with IE/Firefox, I realised that the font rendering differences are huge. But which did I prefer? No idea. So I chose to remain neutral in that issue.

Couple of months later, when I found myself doing web development and web design, I played around with all the different fonts (Helvetica, Palatino, Georgia) available on OSX and Windows. Suddenly, and unexpectedly, I found myself picking a side. OSX is the clear winner.

Windows' rendering engine completely thrashed the original typeface of the fonts, especially on some of my favourite fonts, like Palatino. I nearly cried when I saw how ugly a lot of my fonts look on Windows. I have no idea how a beautiful font like Palatino end up looking so different.

But yeah, if you don't care about fonts, then you most likely won't understand how I feel. I know, because I didn't care about fonts 1 year ago.

Been playing around with safari for the last day.

Prefer the font rendering to windows, my resolution is running at 1680x1050 and its far easier to read text within safari.

I'd usually move firefox over to my secondary monitor, running a lower resolution in order to comfortably read a site.

This font rendering for me alone is enough reason to ditch firefox for safari.

I guess it is a matter of personal preferences, but when it comes to reading text, Apple's font rendering to me is so much more pleasant that I can't even imagine why someone could prefer MS' one. Seriously, no possible comparison. And notice I am NOT a mac user.

well, i came to this site when looking for a way to improve windows font rendering. i was sitting here on my mac thinking how darn beautiful the fonts look, wishing i could have the same on my vista machine in the other room.

some(or most) mac ppl do argue that they think OSX font AA is better, however, easy to read on screen has never been mentioned as a reason.

I guess what your used to plays a role, I have used OS X since 2001 and I believe it is the best, most readable system. I believe that advantage will continue as dpi in monitors increases (mapping fonts to a pixel grid is not the best idea when the pixels are so small). Microsoft only just introduced anti-aliasing by default in Vista. Previously clear type was only an option.

I did see a story about “Fonts on Windows look better than a Mac”, which featured a screenshot which looked like nothing like any Mac screen I have seen.

Here's one more thing: Chinese and Japanese characters get anti-aliased on the Mac and look great. On Windows, they don't because the pixel grid system will mess up certain characters. Probably doesn't bother you — but we shouldn't always be so Western centric.

 

[clevin]

......

thats fine, there is never 100% this or that, lets wait for the result in next 3 months, or whenever safari on windows reaches meaningful, out of uncertainty marketshare numbers, then we can guess or speculate what most windows users want, rather than picking 5 or 100 out of ~1 billion of users

PS. Im sure whenever you pick 1 who like it, there are another 10 who don't, we don't need to play this type of game, lets just wait for the fact to reveal itself.

Here's one more thing: Chinese and Japanese characters get anti-aliased on the Mac and look great. On Windows, they don't because the pixel grid system will mess up certain characters. Probably doesn't bother you — but we shouldn't always be so Western centric.

..My digging shows that your info probably is only for XP, not vista.

Is this based on the number of downloads? If it is I can't give this much credit since usage does not directly compare to number of downloads. I have safari and IE on my Mac but don't use either of them unless I'm in a situation (very rare) that my preferred browser doesn't work. I really only use Safari on the iPhone (lack of options plus I kind of like the iPhone's version$).

No, I think NA's numbers are mostly based on usage, rather than installation. Still, 0.7-0.21, all empty airs, hardly out of uncertainties of the methodology.

 

[elppa]

thats fine, there is never 100% this or that, lets wait for the result in next 3 months, or whenever safari on windows reaches meaningful, out of uncertainty marketshare numbers

Where have I said Safari will take market share in this thread?

All I said was that it was a capable browser and when working in Windows I prefer to use it. Altogether not too controversial I would have thought.

I don't think many people are going to switch browsers just because of the font rendering. It's just not a big enough issue to a lot of users. So I imagine the browser share on the PC for a while will lead by IE and Firefox.

PS. Im sure whenever you pick 1 who like it, there are another 10 who don't, we don't need to play this type of game, lets just wait for the fact to reveal itself.

I covered this myself if you read my post:

There are of course people whose opinions will be different

The point wasn't to “play games” as you insinuate. The point was to show that there are people (besides me!) who like the way anti-aliasing works in Safari. I don't know where you get your 1 in 10 figures? Sources?

I suggest you settle down a little. I'm not saying anything bad about Firefox, IE or any other browser on Windows. I was just pointing out what Safari brings to the table.

 

[carfac]

Apple has changed Software Update and it is now listed as a new application, rather than an update.

Oh, and that makes it OK then? Sorry for being OT, but this whole situation pisses me off, and it is WRONG. The box should not be checked at all Anything else is underhanded, devious, sneaky, slimy and just plain wrong.

[/OT]

 

[elppa]

Oh, and that makes it OK then? Sorry for being OT, but this whole situation pisses me off, and it is WRONG. The box should not be checked at all Anything else is underhanded, devious, sneaky, slimy and just plain wrong.

[/OT]

Completely agree.

Even though they have split the box, the Application is called “Apple Software Update”. Update being the key word. There is no place for new software.

 

[clevin]

I suggest you settle down a little. I'm not saying anything bad about Firefox, IE or any other browser on Windows. I was just pointing out what Safari brings to the table.

exactly, I was merely saying that font AA you mentioned has 10x more negative than positives among windows users.

Its essential for apple to realize what majority (dominate majority) of windows ppl need or like, not use exception to fool itself. Its very important to obtain the whole picture, and look pass the personal opinions, yours, or mine. Its indeed for apple's own good.

Its not like apple and some mac users haven't have enough cool-aid.

There really is no argument, just plain intention to clear the things up.

 

[MrGouda]

I had to switch back to Safari when Firefox started acting up on me. It would sometimes draw images in weird places like, on top of the screen overlapping the address bar.

Also, Firefox 2 look doesn't look as nicely in Leopard than Safari, it doesn't use the unified toolbar like most Leopard apps. Although Firefox tumps Safari in that it has tons of extra add-ons for it.

 

[elppa]

My digging shows that your info probably is only for XP, not vista.

Not so sure?

 

[clevin]

Not so sure?

is that XP? or vista?

Of course, I will try to find a way to do some test as well. if possible...

 

[elppa]

Both browsers running on Vista Business.

They are screenshots from my MacBook I took just now.

The first is Firefox 2 (identical in appearance to IE 7).

The second is Safari 3.1.

 

[clevin]

Both browsers running on Vista Business.

They are screenshots from my MacBook I took just now.

The first is Firefox 2 (identical in appearance to IE 7).

The second is Safari 3.1.

huh, too bad I has no windows at hand

That looks like bitmap font to me, is there no truetype japanese font in windows vista?

 

[elppa]

huh, too bad I has no windows at hand

That looks like bitmap font to me, is there no truetype japanese font in windows vista?

There is (Meiryo), but it the default for displaying webpages in IE 7 on Vista is MS PGothic. In Firefox it is Arial Unicode MS.

All browsers have the same fonts available to them on the Vista system.

Safari does the best job for now.

Also: A little unrelated, while exploring all this I noticed this little gem:

I can imagine the conversation now @ Redmond:

UI Designer A: Why not make a selection box to show the fonts?

UI Designer B: Great Idea!

UI Designer C: Much better than a drop down menu that everyone else uses!

UI Designer A: How many typefaces should we show in this box?

UI Designer B: Well, most people hundreds of typefaces on their computer.

UI Designer C: Bearing that in mind — how about four?

UI Designer B: Sounds good.

UI Designer A: Four it is then!

UI Designer B: How about we offer no way to resize this box as well!

UI Designer C: That's great, I'm sure all our users will all appreciate clicking the up and down arrows endlessly searching for right typeface. Another one of those WOW! moments…

UI Designer A: That all makes perfect sense, let's sign it all off and break for lunch.

 

[hayesk]

Oh, and that makes it OK then? Sorry for being OT, but this whole situation pisses me off, and it is WRONG. The box should not be checked at all Anything else is underhanded, devious, sneaky, slimy and just plain wrong.

[/OT]

I don't think anybody really cares. This is off-topic anyway. Even though it may have automatically downloaded because the user didn't notice, do you really think that same type of user is going to even find the Safari icon to launch it. The user has to notice that Safari has been installed and then has to willfully decide to launch it instead of their preferred browser for it to have any relevance to marketshare or this thread.

 

[elppa]

I don't think anybody really cares. This is off-topic anyway. Even though it may have automatically downloaded because the user didn't notice, do you really think that same type of user is going to even find the Safari icon to launch it. The user has to notice that Safari has been installed and then has to willfully decide to launch it instead of their preferred browser for it to have any relevance to marketshare or this thread.

But those people may have been less likely to try it had Apple not been so aggressive in pushing out the browser via software update.

Opening an Application (sorry — program) that just got installed on your machine vs willingly going and downloading that program require slightly different levels of effort.

 

[hinchesk]

What about the toolbars?

It's hard, not impossible for some, to argue that Safari marketshare is negligible at this point... in comparison to Firefox and IE. That's not to say that things can/won't change. It'll be interesting to see if Apple can innovate in the web browser market... without innovation little will change... people need a reason to switch. Lack of IE development created room for FF to gain marketshare.

Personally, Safari won't be a realistic alternative until Yahoo or Google develops their toolbars for Safari on the PC. From other users' comments there's more than a few people in the same boat.

 

[MarkusFrost]

I'm sure Apple will be thinking about the possibilities of encouraging iPhone and iPod Touch safari users to make Safari their main PC browser as well. I'd rather they used that method than craftily slipping new software onto unsuspecting users computers and opening themselves to charges of supplying bloatware. I think (and hope) Apple will only be using this trick once, but it certainly has created both a buzz on the Intenet and a boost to Safari use so I think its fair to say its been a successful strategy.

 

[Erwin-Br]

I can imagine the conversation now @ Redmond:

UI Designer A: Why not make a selection box to show the fonts?

UI Designer B: Great Idea!

UI Designer C: Much better than a drop down menu that everyone else uses!

UI Designer A: How many typefaces should we show in this box?

UI Designer B: Well, most people hundreds of typefaces on their computer.

UI Designer C: Bearing that in mind — how about four?

UI Designer B: Sounds good.

UI Designer A: Four it is then!

UI Designer B: How about we offer no way to resize this box as well!

UI Designer C: That's great, I'm sure all our users will all appreciate clicking the up and down arrows endlessly searching for right typeface. Another one of those WOW! moments…

UI Designer A: That all makes perfect sense, let's sign it all off and break for lunch.

Hehe, funny. But to be serious, a drop down list wouldn't work well with the preview window of the font. A list would cover quite some space, even if you limit the amount of lines. Scrolling lists are not very intuitive either, when they're so long.

I agree the window could be bigger, though.

Option dialogs are rarely resizeable, by the way.

--Erwin

 

[elppa]

Hehe, funny. But to be serious, a drop down list wouldn't work well with the preview window of the font. A list would cover quite some space, even if you limit the amount of lines. Scrolling lists are not very intuitive either, when they're so long.

I agree the window could be bigger, though.

Option dialogs are rarely resizeable, by the way.

--Erwin

Some interesting points, but I don't agree with them all to be honest.

[1] You could use the items typeface to show the name of the font, this is common in Applications — Pages, Photoshop, Word. Or update the preview once they click, or both.

[2] The list would take up space, but that's good, because you can see more items at a time. Scrolling lists aren't that unintuitive — they are used to pick fonts in many applications — so it favours convention. Of course Safari uses the standard OS X font picker, which has search, preview and categories all built in.

[3] Option dialogs (including sheets) with lists are often resizable where appropriate on the Mac. I have provided a couple of examples to show I am not telling porkies!
Safari preferences -> Cookie Manager — Resizable.
Finder -> Connect to Server — Resizable.
Mail -> SMTP Settings -> Edit Server List — Resizable.
System Preferences -> Quicktime -> Advanced -> MIME Settings.

My experience is this:
PC dialogs tend to be modal and non resizable. Mac dialogs tend to be non-modal and resizable.

I prefer the more flexible Mac approach.

 

[clevin]

Safari preferences -> Cookie Manager — Resizable.
Finder -> Connect to Server — Resizable.
Mail -> SMTP Settings -> Edit Server List — Resizable.
System Preferences -> Quicktime -> Advanced -> MIME Settings.

My experience is this:
PC dialogs tend to be modal and non resizable. Mac dialogs tend to be non-modal and resizable.

Thats not quite convincing, I dont think you can make that generalization based on 4 or 5 limited cases.

Or you can clarify what exactly do you mean by "dialogs", since its quite a confusing term.

 

[elppa]

Thats not quite convincing, I dont think you can make that generalization based on 4 or 5 limited cases.

Oh, there are plenty of other cases, believe me. Take a look around your Mac. The point was not to show a comprehensive list, it was to show they do exist (some evidence is better than no evidence at all). Think back to when I listed Windows users who liked Safari, the point was to show that this type of user exists.

My job is not to convince you, only you can convince yourself. I'd suggest anyone reading to have a look round for resizable dialogs the future. You may find them if more places than you realised, but never noticed before — they can be really useful.

Or you can clarify what exactly do you mean by "dialogs", since its quite a confusing term.

Ask Erwin for their definition as well, as they originally talked about dialogs not being resizable — Erwin?

I'd take it to mean any UI Element which is not part of the main application or document (if it is a document based application) window (whether modal, non modal, or a sheet) which either requires (sometimes optional) action from the user or allows for user input.

I agree it is quite hard to define, but it is easier to work with examples. So I'd say the browser window in Safari is a window, the application preferences are in a window, but the open and save sheets are both dialogs and some of the options you access from the preferences (e.g. the local database manager) are dialogs.

I'd say sheets are a way of displaying a dialog which is relevant to a particular window, so any sheet is a dialog. It is modal is so much as you cannot access the window of the sheet, but it is non modal is the sense that if you have other Windows open at the same time you can access those — best of both worlds.

Of course not all sheets are resizable, many don't need to be (do you want to save this document…) but the ones which would benefit from being resizable generally are.

See this video for examples (It uses your favourite web browser — picked it out specially ).