PDA

View Full Version : You can get Safari for Windows now



Glom
2010-Feb-19, 06:36 PM
The iGlom just installed Safari on my PC. Now I have all the five big name browsers.

Nothing special really. There's no new tab button when you only have one tab open because when you only have one tab open, the tab bar disappears and the new tab button is on the tab bar.

For some reason, it is selective about when it recognises CSS 3 border radius property. It works on my website, but not on my PC homepage.* It's weird because both Safari and Chrome use webkit. Still, good anti-aliasing on images and it gets the icons right on my homepage, which Firefox certainly fails at.

The new tab page (or Top Sites as they call it) is cool. There are twelve rather than eight slots and they are arranged in this cool Asgard looking viewscreen thing complete with reflection, making it much more cool looking than Chrome's equivalent. However, it doesn't include a recently closed tabs bar though there is a link to the history.

*Just checked. I put "border-radius" in the homepage, but "webkit-border-radius" on my website.

cjl
2010-Feb-19, 07:55 PM
It's been available for a while. I briefly tried it, but all of the text is rendered in a way that looks blurry (at least to me).

Tensor
2010-Feb-19, 08:09 PM
Glom, you can change the number of sites on top site to six or 24. When you are on top sites, click on edit. You can chose large (six) or small (24).

mugaliens
2010-Feb-19, 08:25 PM
I tried it a while back, but the iMugs anti-software use policy manager gave it the boot before full trials could being.

sarongsong
2010-Feb-20, 06:28 AM
Free Safari 4 download for Mac + PC (http://www.apple.com/safari/download/)

captain swoop
2010-Feb-20, 04:09 PM
You can add a 'New Tab' button to the toolbar. Well, you can on the Mac version

tdvance
2010-Feb-20, 07:19 PM
It's been available for a while. I briefly tried it, but all of the text is rendered in a way that looks blurry (at least to me).

Coding horror guy had an article on that phenomenon:

there are two schools of thought for rendering on-screen fonts:

antialiased makes shaps fit what the "artist who invented the font" more faithfully, and fonts made to fit the bitmap precisely at a given resolution look clearer and easier to read to most people.

Apple has preferred the former, and Windows/PC, the latter. Applers tend to prefer the artistically-faithful rendering, but PCers tend to prefer the more readable rendering. (in a different article, Coding Horror Guy said that PCers see a computer as a screwdriver, and Applers see a computer as an accessory---an exaggeration, but it does at least give the directions if not the degree).

HenrikOlsen
2010-Feb-20, 07:35 PM
I'm currently switching back and forth between a Vista machine and an XP machine, and in Vista the fonts are anti aliased in a nice unobtrusive way that makes things look really blocky in XP.

cjl
2010-Feb-20, 08:57 PM
Coding horror guy had an article on that phenomenon:

there are two schools of thought for rendering on-screen fonts:

antialiased makes shaps fit what the "artist who invented the font" more faithfully, and fonts made to fit the bitmap precisely at a given resolution look clearer and easier to read to most people.

Apple has preferred the former, and Windows/PC, the latter. Applers tend to prefer the artistically-faithful rendering, but PCers tend to prefer the more readable rendering. (in a different article, Coding Horror Guy said that PCers see a computer as a screwdriver, and Applers see a computer as an accessory---an exaggeration, but it does at least give the directions if not the degree).
Vista and 7 use sub-pixel rendering and antialiasing as well, it's just a different implementation (and one that I happen to prefer). It's called ClearType. It works pretty well too - here's a comparison of how old versions of Windows would render text compared to ClearType:

http://www.mezzoblue.com/i/articles/03.7.25.cleartype.png

captain swoop
2010-Feb-20, 10:34 PM
Turn off the anti alias for small sizes, that's what I do

tdvance
2010-Feb-21, 12:10 AM
Vista and 7 use sub-pixel rendering and antialiasing as well, it's just a different implementation (and one that I happen to prefer). It's called ClearType. It works pretty well too - here's a comparison of how old versions of Windows would render text compared to ClearType:

http://www.mezzoblue.com/i/articles/03.7.25.cleartype.png

CH guy had some opinions on ClearType too--works well on LCD panel, not well on CRT. I don't know why, though.

GeorgeLeRoyTirebiter
2010-Feb-21, 10:22 AM
Sub-pixel antialiasing works better on LCD monitors because (at native resolution) the sub-pixel grid corresponds with the individual LCD elements, while on a CRT monitor the pixel boundaries never match the individual phosphors (even on an aperture grille CRT). This means the relative positions of the "sub-pixels" on a CRT can't be predicted.

Apple's Quartz sub-pixel antialiasing is similar to Adobe's CoolType (used in Acrobat). It relies on extra information in the font file to keep parts of the font proportional and aligned to the sub-pixel grid after antialiasing, a technique called hinting. For example, this ensures that all vertical stems seem to be the same width, or that round and square letters are the same height.* This method works best with PostScript Type 1 or CFF OpenType fonts, but still does reasonably well with TrueType or TTF OpenType fonts. Contrary to what Coding Horror Guy thinks, text on the Mac is not unhinted.

Microsoft's ClearType uses a different hinting method, called grid fitting or instructing. It uses machine code in the font file to force the font's outlines to the sub-pixel grid prior to antialiasing. Earlier versions of the Windows TrueType renderer used whole-pixel grid fitting, and only antialiased at larger text sizes. ClearType was actually included with XP, but was turned off by default. If you're still using XP, you can switch it on and tweak its settings using MS's online ClearType Tuner (http://www.microsoft.com/typography/cleartype/tuner/Step1.aspx), or by downloading the ClearType Tuner PowerToy (http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ClearTypePowerToy.mspx). ClearType works best with TrueType fonts, and fails miserably with CFF OpenType fonts.


...and fonts made to fit the bitmap precisely at a given resolution look clearer and easier to read to most people.

This is, to put it bluntly, complete nonsense; it's the exact opposite of what was found by the Clemson study that CHG mentions. That study tested ClearType sub-pixel grid fitting and antialiasing vs. whole-pixel grid fitting without any antialiasing (or, to put it another way, text on Vista vs. text on Windows98). The whole-pixel aliased font is the one that "fits the bitmap precisely." Once sub-pixel antialiasing and filtering have been applied, a font no longer aligns with the pixel grid. That's the whole point of sub-pixel techniques—they can increase the effective resolution (in the horizontal direction only, but it's still better than nothing).

Unfortunately for the fanboys on both sides, I don't know of any peer-reviewed study of the readability of ClearType versus Quartz or CoolType. Such a study would probably have to be performed on people who don't normally use a computer, otherwise almost everyone would find whatever was most familiar to them to be the easiest to read.

As for my personal preferences, I think that ClearType works quite well at small text sizes, but gets terrible jaggies at sizes larger than about 12 pt, especially with round letters like o and e, whereas Quartz is a little fuzzy at small sizes but looks fantastic for larger text. I'm not the only Windows user that thinks that ClearType is awful at larger text sizes: Microsoft Word 2007 turns off ClearType for all text 24 pt or larger, switching to the old method of whole-pixel antialiasing without grid fitting, even if the "Always use ClearType" option is checked. I'd like to make Firefox do something similar.



*To correct for an optical illusion, round letters on the printed page need to be slightly larger in order to look the same size. Thus the letter O will be a little taller than the letter E of the same font and point size. The coarseness of the pixel grid, however, means that the text renderer needs to somehow force these letters to be the same height at small sizes, even when antialiased.