Apple Safari 4 Beta - Not For Windows 7

[Guest Reimar]

Apple Safari 4 beta - not for Windows 7

Safari 4 beta work only in Windows XP and Vista. Apple has released to public beta its Safari 4 web browser, and I thought I’d give it a hands-on spin to see what all the fuss is about. Here are my first impressions and review.

Installation:

Quick and simple. The install file — offered with and without a QuickTime bundle, thankfully — is 25.5 MB. On install, three boxes are auto-checked: Desktop shortcuts, “Install Bonjour” and auto-update. I’m not a fan of auto-check tactics, so if you’re trying to avoid installing Bonjour, for example, don’t get too click-happy too soon.

The Look:

It’s slick. Not extraordinarily pretty, but Safari 4 does attempt to break up the monotony that is Windows with an updated interface that isn’t a complete Mac knockoff like Safari’s previous iteration (those who skin their PCs like Macs will be disappointed).

The Interface:

One thing I notice, at least using XP’s classic theme: the tab boundaries are pretty hard to differentiate. There’s just not enough of a strong visual boundary between them, especially considering how narrow they are horizontally. Otherwise, the tabs are nice, but they automatically expand to fill the entire title bar (no transition) which I don’t like. Some people don’t like the fact that Google Chrome doesn’t immediately auto-fill the tab space; I do, especially when there are only one or two tabs open in the window.

Download:

Apple Safari 4 beta (link 1)

Apple Safari 4 beta (link 2)

[Wash]

I downloaded the Beta 4 from the Apple site and installed it even though it did not list Windows 7 as one of the supported versions.

It installed with no issues and seems to work properly and in fact I have noticed no anomalies at all in it's operation

I did wrong in downloading but so far have not been burned by the risk I took.

[Plus]

Safari 4 does attempt to break up the monotony that is Windows with an updated interface that isn’t a complete Mac knockoff like Safari’s previous iteration (those who skin their PCs like Macs will be disappointed).

I, for one, find endless grey of any Mac program to be distinctly dull. I don't know how many people skin their PCs like Macs, who cares.

On Opera skins site Leopard integrated skin has only a hundred thousand downloads comparing to nearly three million of KDE's.

Face the fact - it's just another minor browser, doomed to relative obscurity. The revolution of having Safsri on PCs hasn't materialised.

[sniffdog]

At first glance, I like it. The Cover-Flow technology from Itunes is very handy (and attractive) to go through your bookmarks or history.

[sniffdog]

Fact is, whatever Reimar says and irrespective where it comes from, it was copied .... not written by himself. Would the original writer care?

BTW The (short) review I gave was from my own experience .... download it is my advice.

BTW 2 When I downloaded there was no option of getting Quicktime ... just plain vanilla .....

[Gary A]

Safari Beta is fast and looks pretty good. The only problem I have found is that Hotmail doesn't like it.

[slackula]

Safari Beta is fast and looks pretty good. The only problem I have found is that Hotmail doesn't like it.

According to a new ZDnet post it is the fastest browser of all when it comes to handling java script:

(It should be noted that the tests were run on a PC running XP SP2)

Source: Safari dominates browser benchmarks

I have been using Firefox for years but I will probably give Safari 4 a look once it is out of Beta, but I doubt I'll make the switch because I have grown so accustomed to Firefox add-ons like flashblock, the web dev toolbar and others that I am not allowed to talk about here.

[Gary A]

Safari Beta is fast and looks pretty good. The only problem I have found is that Hotmail doesn't like it.

According to a new ZDnet post it is the fastest browser of all when it comes to handling java script:

(It should be noted that the tests were run on a PC running XP SP2)

Source: Safari dominates browser benchmarks

I have been using Firefox for years but I will probably give Safari 4 a look once it is out of Beta, but I doubt I'll make the switch because I have grown so accustomed to Firefox add-ons like flashblock, the web dev toolbar and others that I am not allowed to talk about here.

For a number of years I have had a love/hate thing for Firefox. A new release usually works great for a while and then starts to dog down and sometimes even freezes. Right now I am using Chrome for my default browser. I went ahead and paid for AdMuncher. It works great for every browser available. When Safari releases and corrects the Hotmail problem, I'll give it another try.

[Guest Reimar]

Some test about the speed of Safari 4 Beta:

While Opera 9.63 put in a good CSS rendering score of 10 microseconds (ms), after a 250 ms load time (the interval spent in preparing JavaScript to run), Safari 4 blew right past Opera with a 7 ms render time and a 54 ms load time. This compared to 26 ms render time and 177 ms load time for Google Chrome, 61 ms render time and 400 ms load time for Firefox 3.0.6, and a lumbering 131 ms render time and 555 ms load time for IE7. That means IE7 was 17 times slower than Safari at CSS rendering.

In the S.P. Kane test, which uses a battery of common JavaScript tasks executed in sequence, Safari also blew past its competitors with a score of 174 ms, versus 348 ms for Chrome, 381 ms for Opera, 499 ms for Firefox, and a thumb-twiddling 1533 ms (a second and a half) for IE7. If you can imagine the sound of CBS' famous 60 Minutes stopwatch in your mind, Safari can complete a battery of JavaScript instructions in the interval between two of those ticks, while you could count eight of them before IE7 got its work done.

While Firefox 3.1 is due to include the TraceMonkey JavaScript interpreter, whose initial internal tests are said to reveal orders of magnitude greater speed than with the 3.0 series, no public beta has been released yet with TraceMonkey included. Now may be a good time.

Finally, in the all-important Acid3 test, yes, Safari 4 turned in a perfect 100% score. This compared to an 85% for Opera, 79% for Chrome, 71% for Firefox, and an appreciably pitiful 12% for IE7.

The full test can be read HERE

[ronz28]

I downloaded Safari 4 today and find it is the fastest browser for stockcharts.com but couldn't get bloomberg tv video player to play live tv however tfnn.com did work ok for live audio. It works fastest for this website too. I just wonder how secure it is? I will still use different browsers for different websites until I learn more about their pros and cons. I wish I could use Safari on everything as it is really fast.

[sjaak327]

I have never liked safari, even on leopard, I prefer firefox, it might be fast in some areas, it might be slower in others, regardless of speed, I simply don't like the application, and installing it on Windows 7, which has a great browser (IE8) seems to be not needed.

[Sabum]

Simply put Safari 4 is beautiful, if you take the time to look at the cover flow bookmarks and the topsites page with giant screen shots of your favorite websites laid out for you 6, 12 or 18 and a time... it cant be compared to anything else, its beautiful.

[ronz28]

Charlie Miller, the security researcher who won last year’s Pwn2Own hacker contest, is predicting that Apple’s Safari browser will be the easiest target this year.

Source:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2748&tag=nl.e550

I guess that answers the question on security of Safari so I won't be using it further.

[sniffdog]

Interesting seven page browser test .... Again Safari Beta 4 wins ..

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/...ay_and_tomorrow

[phazey]

The topic title is misleading. Win7 is not released yet - it's like saying Safari 4 will not be compatible with OSX 10.6 Snow Leopard...... knee jerk post imho.

[Guest Reimar]

The topic title is misleading. Win7 is not released yet - it's like saying Safari 4 will not be compatible with OSX 10.6 Snow Leopard...... knee jerk post imho.

As the downward and even upward compatibility at all by Apple/Mac! But that's what the Apple/Mac user liking! That don't means that the Software or OS for Apple/Mac is bad but it means that Apple/Mac didn't care about their customers valet!

In final the whole Apple/Mac software cost the customers much more than the software for Windows!

Cheers.

[phazey]

I'm simply stating that unreleased *beta* operating systems (that can change over time until RTM) are right to not be listed as compatible.

ps.

In final the whole Apple/Mac software cost the customers much more than the software for Windows!

OSX is free with Macs. Windows costs a premium if you're offered an alternative (read OSS) operating system(Dell/Eee pc etc)

Safari 4 will be compatible with Windows 7 - just like it will be for 10.6SL - but as those OS's are not yet finalized, it's right for the vendors to say it's not.

EOT

[ThaiLife]

I'm simply stating that unreleased *beta* operating systems (that can change over time until RTM) are right to not be listed as compatible.

ps.

In final the whole Apple/Mac software cost the customers much more than the software for Windows!

OSX is free with Macs. Windows costs a premium if you're offered an alternative (read OSS) operating system(Dell/Eee pc etc)

Safari 4 will be compatible with Windows 7 - just like it will be for 10.6SL - but as those OS's are not yet finalized, it's right for the vendors to say it's not.

EOT

Well put, and to the point .

[Guest Reimar]

I'm simply stating that unreleased *beta* operating systems (that can change over time until RTM) are right to not be listed as compatible.

ps.

In final the whole Apple/Mac software cost the customers much more than the software for Windows!

OSX is free with Macs. Windows costs a premium if you're offered an alternative (read OSS) operating system(Dell/Eee pc etc)

Safari 4 will be compatible with Windows 7 - just like it will be for 10.6SL - but as those OS's are not yet finalized, it's right for the vendors to say it's not.

EOT

Not really! You pay a lot more for the Computer's of Apple/Mac than for a PC. Since Apple/Mac is mainly an Hardware Producer, they also sell the software (OS) which is needed to get that hardware to run separately.

I remember the Time that there were a Mac Clone (if I remember right it was a UCOM) which was cost just 40-50% of the real Mac. And its was faster than the real. Was working with Mac OS as well!

And fact is that the software for a Apple/Mac is just more expensive as for a PC, beside that there is much much less software for an Apple/Mac available than for an PC!

Anyway, it's useless to argue with an Apple/Mac freak because even existing fact's are ignored.

Cheers.

[nikster]

First, Safari 4 is still beta. With Apple, that means it's not a final version. It's not like Google where betas are as good as production versions. This one is going to have bugs.

Second, Win 7 is obviously not supported because there is no official Windows 7 release.

I tried it on Mac OS X and found it beautiful and fast, I really like the front screen with quick links. However, it was also buggy, as expected from a beta, so I uninstalled it again.

In addition, I didn't like that I had to restart OS X in order to use it - Apple seems to be going down the Microsoft way here where the browser becomes deeply integrated into the OS, which is just plain wrong. I am sure if they wanted to they could make it a bona fide separate application without losing any functionality or performance. And that's what they should do.

[Guest Reimar]

First, Safari 4 is still beta. With Apple, that means it's not a final version. It's not like Google where betas are as good as production versions. This one is going to have bugs.

Second, Win 7 is obviously not supported because there is no official Windows 7 release.

I tried it on Mac OS X and found it beautiful and fast, I really like the front screen with quick links. However, it was also buggy, as expected from a beta, so I uninstalled it again.

In addition, I didn't like that I had to restart OS X in order to use it - Apple seems to be going down the Microsoft way here where the browser becomes deeply integrated into the OS, which is just plain wrong. I am sure if they wanted to they could make it a bona fide separate application without losing any functionality or performance. And that's what they should do.

You're just right with that!!

But what I was talking about was the cost of the Apple/Mac products or the products and software for an Apple/Mac.

Take MS Office for example. The Home and Student Version for the Apple/Mac (Office 2008) is app. US$ 50 more expensive than for the PC (Office 2007). This is just one example about a third party product. Same applies for the most other other products as well.

I didn't had tell that the software Apple/Mac producing is bad, I just told that the downward and even upward compatibility isn't as good as for the PC Software.

Just take the Apple/Mac in house program Safari (as we talking about Safari in this thread): you can't use the latest version of Safari in OS-X 10.4 while I can run IE 7 even on Windows 98. And the same applies for many other programs.

Ok, if you have money enough and don't like to compare, it's up to you what system with which software you use and if you find the software for you for the Apple/Mac it's just fine. But start to compare the available Software/Programs for the Apple/Mac with the available for the PC, the Apple/Mac is on the loose.

Again, that didn't means that the Apple/Mac is bad, I didn't tell that and I didn't mean that.

Cheers.

[nikster]

Oh no, don't get me wrong, apart from the fact that the hardware is more beautiful, working on the Mac also saves me countless hours in tinkering with the OS. Saves me large amounts of time, and thereby, money. I tried Windows, and I was quite the expert. It still took lots of time. With the Mac, most things just work.

I don't like tinkering with stuff just to make it do what it should do in the first place. If I were to apply my current hourly rate, and assuming I paid $200 more for my Mac than I had for a Windows machine - a point of heavy contention of course because of the included software, and the high end hardware, but let's assume you are right and there is an Apple tax just for the sake of the argument. The $200 would amortize on the first day of ownership.

Ever set up a new Windows machine? It takes three days until you have everything back as before - if you are fast and know what you are doing. Mac? Three hours of unattended copying, if you have a lot of stuff like me - just as long as it takes to copy 200GB of data over USB to the new machine. Then, everything is as before - applications, settings, the background, even custom installed preference panes and other stuff. If I never had to tinker with Windows again, this initial saving would be worth two more Macs all by itself. Time is money, at least for some of us

Then, I have to continuously tinker with Windows to keep it running well and then re-install everything after 18 months when the system has reached the point that everything has gotten really slow. Mac? Never have to re-install it. It doesn't slow down over time.

I am not saying I never have to tinker with my Mac but it's exceedingly rare, whereas on Windows it's the norm, something you do every week or so. IT departments love it of course, it keeps them busy.

So what's more expensive? That depends entirely on how much your time is worth. Some people really enjoy tinkering and for those Linux is a great deal. Others needs Windows so they have no choice. For me, I like to get work done - and in that, the Mac is way cheaper than Windows.

[Gary A]

What Windows version are you talking about? I don't have to tinker with my XP Pro. If you want to talk about tinkering and putting in lines of code, try Linux. I have tinkered with different Linux distros and have yet to find one that works as plug and play. I actually compare Apple and Linux as being very similar because my normal Windows software don't work on either system. And NO. I refuse to run two systems when everything I use works on XP. I have read several posts that complained about Apple and an EVDO modem not working. I installed the EVDO software on my PC, plugged in the modem and it worked straight out of the box.

I looked at Vista and really didn't like what I saw. I am still using XP. I am quite interested in Windows 7 and if the user reports on the final release sound as good as the reports on the pre release, I'll be buying it.

I have also come to the conclusion that I am in Thailand. Somchai at the local computer shop rolls his eyes when he looks at a laptop. He can upgrade or repair my PC without any problems. Trying to get service on an Apple product is likely a nightmare.

[phazey]

Not really! You pay a lot more for the Computer's of Apple/Mac than for a PC. Since Apple/Mac is mainly an Hardware Producer, they also sell the software (OS) which is needed to get that hardware to run separately.

I've never known of Apple software being on sale without being aimed at Apple machines......I think it makes them kinda equal (ipod/zune, iphone/winmo excused) -

Anyway, it's useless to argue with an Apple/Mac freak because even existing fact's are ignored.

Excuse me, i'm no freak. SO i'll set you a 24hr challenge. Understandable if you won't go for this, but it's my point - or arguing against your point.

Go find a 733mhz Celeron PC with 64mb of RAM and integrated gfx - have a nice session of Halo (1) - tell me how you enjoyed it. Please.

If you did not enjoy that session, i can tell you why Apple/Mac - is actually superior, the same as Microsoft is in certain cases - But, please keep in mind one thing - I dont *hate* windows - I've just grown up when it comes to bytes for bucks...

PS: great discussion.

[Guest Reimar]

I'm not a gamer in any way!! I use the computer for working with various software. So, there isn't any way for an challenge for me!!

Anyway, there isn't a point for any challenge! I think that I've made clear that I didn't argue about the quality of the software and the hardware either! But I argue about 2 things mainly:

1.: Price compare to PC and

2.: avaibility of software which is much less for the Apple/Mac than for the PC!

A 3. point is the down and upward compatibility of the Apple/Mac!

The Apple/Mac is an excellent computer for Design works, I wouldn't deny that! Mainpoint for that is that the Apple/Mac uses Vector graphics while the PC uses Pixel graphics. Most of the printshops pp. are using printing machine which working with Vector graphics only. Pixel graphics need to be converted before can use in that machines. It's a question of costings!

Beside of that, the cost for the original software for the Apple/Mac is mainly much more expensive than for the PC! That's also a (-) point!

Again, the overall cost for to work with an Apple/Mac is much more high than for an PC! And cost is at all times a factor!

Cheers.

[Deksan]

I'm not a gamer in any way!! I use the computer for working with various software. So, there isn't any way for an challenge for me!!

Anyway, there isn't a point for any challenge! I think that I've made clear that I didn't argue about the quality of the software and the hardware either! But I argue about 2 things mainly:

Easy to take out a quality of the product and then to blame the price ... That sounds like a very fair comparison.

1.: Price compare to PC and

2.: avaibility of software which is much less for the Apple/Mac than for the PC!

List software application that are unavailable not by the application name, but by what they are supposed to do (Wordprocessor for example and not Microsoft office). Bring facts not big affirmation to support your comparison.

A 3. point is the down and upward compatibility of the Apple/Mac!

There is no application compatibility issue on mac, an application made 10.2 works on 10.5 which is a very nice work when you know that mac 10.5 supports two hardware architecture.

Try compare application installation and application uninstallation.

Reimar, i think you were rude to insult someone to be an "apple/mac freak" just because he disagrees with you.

[Guest Reimar]

Reimar, i think you were rude to insult someone to be an "apple/mac freak" just because he disagrees with you.

Excuse me, since when it means to be a freak about something to be rude?

I'm a freak of something and I think it's ok to tell that I'm a freak of that! And why not?

And now I insult you because I disagree with you on that terms?

[Deksan]

Reimar, i think you were rude to insult someone to be an "apple/mac freak" just because he disagrees with you.

Excuse me, since when it means to be a freak about something to be rude?

I'm a freak of something and I think it's ok to tell that I'm a freak of that! And why not?

And now I insult you because I disagree with you on that terms?

The freak word have for me a pejorative sense. When you cut the discussion with someone saying they are apple/mac freak, so there is no point to argue (justify what you are saying) it made me think even more that you werent glorifying him

It s weird because it s a thread about safari 4 beta released for every non beta OS that you have copy/pasted from it s orignal place :

http://keznews.com/5389_Apple_Safari_4_bet...t_for_Windows_7

Where in it s original website, ppl says that they have tried on windows 7 and it s working and that it s normal that it s not officially available from apple for a beta OS

So I dont even know if you have tried safari yourself but if you look at your post number 17 in the thread, you start attacking apple just because the forum user made an analogy to snow leopard being in closed beta and therefor safari 4 isnt available for download for snow leopard.

I mean come on ... The title of the thread is misleading, it looks like you copy / paste this news just to bash on apple. Also you should put your source when you copy/paste a foreign news.