Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




Safari

Two thoughts related to Apple's Safari launch:

1) Safari is currently a very trimmed down, feature-lite app that has received a substantial amount of praise from early users. Is this an example of application bloat really not being necessary (i.e., as opposed to Joel's contention that 80% of the users use 20% of an app but it's a different 20% for each user)?

2) I've read a number of posts here from engineers looking for projects. Here's a no-brainer: port Safari/KHTML/Konqueror to Windows. Granted it's not a weekend project, I've seen small groups of engineers do some pretty amazing things. I wouldn't be surprised if such a product, well done and with one or 2 features missing from IE, could be sold to 1 million people at $25/per.

pb
Friday, January 17, 2003

Safari is not open source.

Konqueror's dependance on Qt makes a Windows port extremely difficult. Qt is highly portable, but the Windows version is not GPL compatible.

Apple has already done the heavy work in abstracting Qt from KHTML, a Windows port is underway.

http://khtml-win32.sourceforge.net/

Bryce
Friday, January 17, 2003

Look at the phoenix browser. Its allmost the same just based on mozilla instead of KHTML.

http://www.mozilla.org/projects/phoenix/

Martin Schultz
Saturday, January 18, 2003

One thing is for sure, Konqueror (Safari) is much faster than Mozilla, Galeon, and Phoenix. Also, they're getting their act together in the rendering department (It was horrible in the past).  Mozilla based stuff is great, but better have something greater than 600 Mhz to fend off that sluggish feel. 

On Linux, Opera is King.

BDKR
Saturday, January 18, 2003

Pheonix seems fast on a 300 mhz machine here. And opera seems to crash to often on my linux machine.

Martin Schultz
Sunday, January 19, 2003

In my opinion, Safari does not prove that the other browsers are bloated.  Safari is still very new, so people are still evaluating it compared to the other Mac browsers.  In my experience, Safari is quite stable and provides a solid set of basic features.

But remember the many raves of Mozilla when it was first released?  I think the same is happening with Safari; people like it because it's new.

Brent P. Newhall
Monday, January 20, 2003

Safari == 1996.
Cool, let's try the latest browser.
Rendering is super fast.
Basic functionality is totally broken. (simple example: any reference to http://localhost/whatever gets turned into http://whatever/. like url handling is a new and unknown art or something.)

I imagine the final version will be interesting. But as of now it's just another wacky browser with its own set of bugs to support, and everyone's using it because they drink the kool-aid.

mb
Monday, January 20, 2003

Safari == 2003. Safari's the first product in a long while to come out with significantly *fewer* features than the competition. Very, very refreshing.

http://localhost/etc. is neither "basic functionality" no "totally broken".

Safari is already performaing better than other browsers despite being riddled with debug code, having not been tuned and dealing with the slow MacOS display method.

It's more like k-meleon with a native interface than Phownix with the still bloated XUL.

pb
Tuesday, January 21, 2003

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home