Safari 4 released, it is almost identicle interface as Google Chrome [Archive]

dracule

February 25th, 2009, 12:24 AM

I downloaded Safari 4 Beta for Vista today and WTF it is almost identical to Google chrome..

Look at this picture:http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/bto/20090224/safari_4_vs_chrome.png

they put the tabs on top just like google
they put those 2 buttons (page ad settings) just like google
that page icon almost looks identical to the one in google chrome too.

Not only that but they merged their "add book mark" and "go" button into the main URL field just like google.

The home page is now a a grid of your most visited sites just like google

You can drag tabs off and make them their own window just like google

there are so many similarities it is uncanny.

on top of it all they both use Webkit so the actual differences between Chrome and Safari are EXTREMELY small now.

Skripka

February 25th, 2009, 12:26 AM

FYI-this is a public beta....that being said...Apple *did* rip on Chrome and Opera quite a bit.

Bart_D

February 25th, 2009, 12:39 AM

@ OP: Good one......you almost had me. It's only a beta version.

OZFive

February 25th, 2009, 12:44 AM

You can drag tabs off and make them their own window just like google

gotta scratch this one off your list, this feature has already been a part of the OS X version of Safari 3

Google got it off Safari.

Skripka

February 25th, 2009, 12:47 AM

gotta scratch this one off your list, this feature has already been a part of the OS X version of Safari 3

Google got it off Safari.

As I recall a "detach tab" command was a part of other browsers before Safari3 came around. Either way "creative borrowing" seems ripe-regardless of where the 1st seen instance of said idea originated.

RichardLinx

February 25th, 2009, 12:50 AM

It's just a browser..

Bart_D

February 25th, 2009, 01:01 AM

It's just a browser..

....which is what you're on right now.

Mohamedzv2

February 25th, 2009, 01:30 AM

It is just a browser...and it looks a lot worse too...

jimi_hendrix

February 25th, 2009, 01:59 AM

hmm cnbc said you should invest in apple because everyone loves safari and all the other mac apps (that the less knowing user is stuck with when buying a mac)...but it seems like opera should start selling itself then since it seems to be >= safari now </rant-and-imo>

doorknob60

February 25th, 2009, 02:01 AM

Meh, never really loved the Chrome interface. Kinda funny that they did that though lol.

Sealbhach

February 25th, 2009, 02:05 AM

How bout this new Gazelle browser from Microsoft? It's supposed to have its own kernel so it will be like a mini OS. So far just vapourware but let's see.

.

jimi_hendrix

February 25th, 2009, 02:17 AM

How bout this new Gazelle browser from Microsoft? It's supposed to have its own kernel so it will be like a mini OS. So far just vapourware but let's see.

.

that sounds interesting...

Sealbhach

February 25th, 2009, 02:37 AM

More detail on that:

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/248184/microsoft-toughens-up-browser-with-gazelle.html

.

schauerlich

February 25th, 2009, 03:09 AM

Google and Apple have a history of working closely together. It doesn't surprise me that they'd try to combine their image with Google's.

tikal26

February 25th, 2009, 03:20 AM

The funny thing is that they claim to have the html video and audi tags, but all the test sites use ogg so I don't know what good is it for

garbx

February 25th, 2009, 03:27 AM

cprofitt

February 25th, 2009, 03:30 AM

Apple just can not innovate.

Mr. Picklesworth

February 25th, 2009, 05:00 AM

Good, the tabs on the top thing may catch on. Then we can go to tabbed windows being a window manager feature (see Fluxbox) and forget this mess ever happened.

Grant A.

February 25th, 2009, 05:03 AM

I rather like that tangoey interface, which browser is that on the bottom?

FYI-this is a public beta....that being said...Apple *did* rip on Chrome and Opera quite a bit.

Well, they are all webkit-based browsers. The only thing that really sets them apart is their interface.

BGFG

February 25th, 2009, 05:09 AM

More detail on that:

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/248184/microsoft-toughens-up-browser-with-gazelle.html

.

Well if web2.0 is going to catch on, browsers need to start taking their steriods...

dracule

February 25th, 2009, 05:14 AM

I rather like that tangoey interface, which browser is that on the bottom?

Well, they are all webkit-based browsers. The only thing that really sets them apart is their interface.

google chrome is on bottom.

smartboyathome

February 25th, 2009, 05:15 AM

Apple just can not innovate.

At least not with Steve Jobs gone, it seems. Steve Jobs did help Apple do some pretty inovative things.

bashveank

February 25th, 2009, 05:45 AM

Apple just can not innovate.

Two steps ahead of everyone else and you're a martyr, one step ahead and you're a leader.

MikeTheC

February 25th, 2009, 06:27 AM

It's just a browser..

http://www.pythonline.com/files/pythonline/images/HolyGrail038.preview.jpg
It's only a model.

schauerlich

February 25th, 2009, 06:30 AM

Well, they are all webkit-based browsers. The only thing that really sets them apart is their interface.

Uh. No.

1) Opera uses Presto, not WebKit
2) That's like saying the only thing that sets apart OS X and FreeBSD is the interface.

Lunx

February 25th, 2009, 06:41 AM

Uh. No.

1) Opera uses Presto, not WebKit
2) That's like saying the only thing that sets apart OS X and FreeBSD is the interface.

Beat me to it

Opera/9.63 (X11; Linux i686; U; en) Presto/2.1.1

Presto 2.2 should be pretty damn good from all reports too. I did try the alpha of Opera 10 last year and was pretty impressed by it (very fast). Had a few bugs with email and feeds, so I changed back to 9.63 (but it was alpha after all, could hardly expect it to run perfectly).

crimesaucer

February 25th, 2009, 06:56 AM

Good, the tabs on the top thing may catch on. Then we can go to tabbed windows being a window manager feature (see Fluxbox) and forget this mess ever happened.

I feel the same way. It frees up space with the tabs integrated into the title bar..... and on a nice emerald theme I bet it would look real good.

amitabhishek

February 25th, 2009, 09:48 AM

Dear o' Dear!

ZuLuuuuuu

February 25th, 2009, 11:10 AM

I am highly dissappointed with Apple these days. It is obvious that they are inspired by Google Chrome heavily (Although some of the features thread starter gave was already in Safari or does not come from Chrome but from other browsers).

The saddest part is, almost all the features that make me use Safari on Windows are gone! Font rendering use now Windows rendering engine. The beautiful Mac style buttons are gone. The interface of Safari 3 was the best, clean, elegant interface of all browsers but they now have the Chrome interface which I don't like!

Apple is gonna make a huge mistake. All they needed to do was to make extension writing for Safari 3 easier for programmers, or to make Safari open source (it is already a free (as in beer) software and uses an open source rendering engine so why not?). And it would become the number 1 browser in the world. But instead of that, they are turning Safari into a crap, stolen software.

They are started doing it in Microsoft way!

Starlight

February 25th, 2009, 05:33 PM

That looks cool, I think some browser that's available on Linux should use such an interface as well. Opera would be a good candidate for that, because it's a very good browser, but currently the interface elements take a lot of the screen space...

bashveank

February 25th, 2009, 05:54 PM

For those interested:
Safari 4 benchmarks (http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49301219,00.htm)
http://www.cnet.co.uk/i/c/blg/cat/software/safari4_benchmarks/pc_benchmarks1.jpg

Safari 4 hidden preferences (http://swedishcampground.com/safari-4-hidden-preferences) - Move the tab bar back to underneath the address bar, bring back the blue loading bar, disable url or search completion, etc...

Stan_1936

February 25th, 2009, 06:02 PM

^^

The beta is bound to be lighter than the final release.

bashveank

February 25th, 2009, 06:04 PM

^^

The beta is bound to be lighter than the final release.

This is an Apple product, not a Microsoft one.

Skripka

February 25th, 2009, 06:06 PM

This is an Apple product, not a Microsoft one.

It isn't Microsoft specific. Betas of anything are usually faster than the final. Opera 9.6 as an alpha was wicked fast...by the time it was a stable final, it's speed is where it is now.

Polygon

February 26th, 2009, 05:49 PM

also, a good point i read about is that safari 4 now breaks 2 decades of consistent mac OS user interface design (with no title bar on the top, but instead tabs)

pbhj

February 28th, 2009, 05:13 AM

You can install the Safari 4 beta over WINE on Linux (http://alicious.com/2009/safari-4-on-linux-with-wine-update/), I've blogged about it at that link, works well too. If you're wanting tabs to work though you're out of luck but there is a partial fix for Safari's tabs (http://alicious.com/2009/safari-4-on-linux-tabs-fix/).

Thirtysixway

February 28th, 2009, 06:26 AM

Meh, never really loved the Chrome interface. Kinda funny that they did that though lol.

I really like the chrome interface. I downloaded a firefox skin to look like it :popcorn:

I haven't tried out the new safari but its javascript engine is supposed to be very fast I heard.

joninkrakow

February 28th, 2009, 11:03 AM

they put the tabs on top just like google
they put those 2 buttons (page ad settings) just like google
that page icon almost looks identical to the one in google chrome too.

This is one of those things were you have to look below the surface--beyond the obvious to understand what's happening. You see, Google Chrome is not yet available for the Mac. It's vaporware. What this new feature of Safari is, is Apple's way of telling Google, that if they won't get around to releasing Chrome for Mac OSX, then Apple will do it themselves--and up the anti in the process. As a result, I wouldn't be surprised to see Chrome for Mac appear sooner than expected. If we are lucky, we'll also see a release for Linux too because of this. But why the fussing? Google is using Webkit, which Apple has been developing as OSS, which is itself based on khtml. If Apple picks up something back from Google. Are we going to complain?

-Jon

joninkrakow

February 28th, 2009, 11:08 AM

Font rendering use now Windows rendering engine.

Actually, it's still there as an option. Look in the prefs. I'm not sure where, because I'm not using Windows, but I saw it when i installed it on my Wind the other day, and turned it on.

As to the widgets, I looked, but it seems we are stuck with the ugly Windows interface. I bet that this is a trick from Apple. Force Windows users to use a genuine Windows interface for the beta, and bring it back as an option in the final. ;-)

-Jon

Giant Speck

February 28th, 2009, 11:27 AM

This is one of those things were you have to look below the surface--beyond the obvious to understand what's happening. You see, Google Chrome is not yet available for the Mac. It's vaporware. What this new feature of Safari is, is Apple's way of telling Google, that if they won't get around to releasing Chrome for Mac OSX, then Apple will do it themselves--and up the anti in the process. As a result, I wouldn't be surprised to see Chrome for Mac appear sooner than expected. If we are lucky, we'll also see a release for Linux too because of this. But why the fussing? Google is using Webkit, which Apple has been developing as OSS, which is itself based on khtml. If Apple picks up something back from Google. Are we going to complain?

-Jon

That's a good way of looking at the issue. It really sucks that Google only released Chrome for Windows. I have a feeling we won't see any Google applications for Linux until Google decides to release it's own distribution.

billgoldberg

February 28th, 2009, 11:35 AM

Vince4Amy

February 28th, 2009, 11:38 AM

Well coming from someone who doesn't like Apple, this browser isn't bad! It finally respects the system theme!, unlike older versions of Safari and Google Chrome which pastes Aero borders even though I'm using Windows Classic.

Google is crap on Windows too now, it insists that I install the Google Updater crapware, erm no!? and even when I disable it in services it comes back when I launch another google product, I'm sorry but if that's the attitude then Google products aren't staying on my computers.

zekopeko

February 28th, 2009, 02:02 PM

forrestcupp

February 28th, 2009, 03:16 PM

Can you get an adblocker for safari 4?

on top of it all they both use Webkit so the actual differences between Chrome and Safari are EXTREMELY small now.
Safari was using webkit before chrome even existed.

Skripka

February 28th, 2009, 03:40 PM

Can you get an adblocker for safari 4?

Safari was using webkit before chrome even existed.

Only only by an ad proxy (such as Privoxy) at this point...the 3rd party extensions out there probably aren't compatible with it yet.

Vince4Amy

February 28th, 2009, 03:48 PM

yes! how dare they install an updater for their products! i don't want a patched version of a program that could prevent my computer from getting infected by a worm/virus/trojan! i mean really! /s

What's wrong with "A New Version Of The Software Has Been Released, Click Here To Update", I don't want stupid services running all the time, especially something like google updater which is constantly checking online without my permission.

It also makes installing software over the network a task because Google products seem to default to this crappy updater to actually install the software in the first place.

Skripka

February 28th, 2009, 03:50 PM

What's wrong with "A New Version Of The Software Has Been Released, Click Here To Update", I don't want stupid services running all the time, especially something like google updater which is constantly checking online without my permission.

It also makes installing software over the network a task because Google products seem to default to this crappy updater to actually install the software in the first place.

Especially with the shenanigans Apple has pulled on piggybacking other software on "updates".

Vince4Amy

February 28th, 2009, 03:51 PM

Especially with the shenanigans Apple has pulled on piggybacking other software on "updates".

Yes, these automatic updaters should be an optional feature!

forcecore

February 28th, 2009, 11:14 PM

Safari do not have full source code.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzHown8JRXU

Name change

February 28th, 2009, 11:23 PM

I'm not really into Safari. I just hope that merger of WebKit and KHTML will really happen (I read about it on Ars Techinca).
And that Konqueror gets better as it "already" is.
I can say that the 4.2.62 (The KDE-neon) version is really good.
But for some reason Youtube and some other flash sites don't work, but some flash sites does.

I don't understand all this fuss about Safari or Chrome.
There are other good browsers around.
And I'm really disappointed that Chrome will be developed in Gtk and not Qt.
because Qt looks nice in Gtk environment, but not vice-versa I have to use special theme for firefox to make it look like something similar to everything else. But other Gtk apps don't blend in at all.
(Ok I'll stop ranting now)

pluviosity

March 1st, 2009, 01:43 AM

Chrome is coming to Linux around the summer, if I'm not mistaken.

And it's going to use Gtk+.

Oh god no! GTK+ people already have Firefox. Cut us Qt4 people a break! (Opera doesn't count because it's still Qt3, proprietary, and doesn't feel right in use [my opinion]).

swoll1980

March 1st, 2009, 01:50 AM

Google is crap on Windows too now, it insists that I install the Google Updater crapware, erm no!? and even when I disable it in services it comes back when I launch another google product, I'm sorry but if that's the attitude then Google products aren't staying on my computers.

Quicktime got banned from my computers for this. I don't care how much I want to watch nova on pbs.com I'm not installing a program that not only comes with an updater I don't want, but also plant's it's little seed in my taskbars, control panel, and god knows where else. The only place I could go on my comp w/o seeing it was the uninstall programs menu, mysteriously enough the icon on the uninstall menu is different.

Danny Dubya

March 1st, 2009, 01:52 AM

Oh god no! GTK+ people already have Firefox. Cut us Qt4 people a break! (Opera doesn't count because it's still Qt3, proprietary, and doesn't feel right in use [my opinion]).
Opera's been ported to Qt4, and a Qt4 version of Firefox is currently being developed. Either way, it shouldn't make much of a difference... I doubt Chrome's GTK version will look or act any more native than it does on Windows.

Mr. Picklesworth

March 1st, 2009, 01:54 AM

Oh god no! GTK+ people already have Firefox. Cut us Qt4 people a break! (Opera doesn't count because it's still Qt3, proprietary, and doesn't feel right in use [my opinion]).

Actually no, Firefox is still using XUL; it does not feel or flow like GTK. It just looks like it thanks to some clever little hacks.

Hopefully the GTK focus for Chrome will make them more gutsy about integration, for example subscribing RSS feeds via dbus.

Skripka

March 1st, 2009, 02:04 AM

Opera's been ported to Qt4,

Not for all us 64-bit users is has not. Which really is obnoxious as people have been nagging the Opera devs to just release a 64-bit Qt4 build for quite some time---and they refuse to...they build for virtually everything else ....they don't even explain their refusal when asked-politely or otherwise, they just ignore the questions.

Danny Dubya

March 1st, 2009, 03:33 AM

Not for all us 64-bit users is has not. Which really is obnoxious as people have been nagging the Opera devs to just release a 64-bit Qt4 build for quite some time---and they refuse to...they build for virtually everything else ....they don't even explain their refusal when asked-politely or otherwise, they just ignore the questions.
Huh, can't believe I forgot about that (also use 64-bit). Well, that's the drawback of using a proprietary product, I suppose. Seems kind of foolish to flat-out refuse in such a manner though, given their... uh, position of 1% market share.

Vorian Grey

March 1st, 2009, 04:24 AM

I always thought Apple was the big innovators but in this case they ripped off Chrome. The original is always better.

Skripka

March 1st, 2009, 04:34 AM

Huh, can't believe I forgot about that (also use 64-bit). Well, that's the drawback of using a proprietary product, I suppose. Seems kind of foolish to flat-out refuse in such a manner though, given their... uh, position of 1% market share.

Yep, it is bizzaro...

http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/show.dml/2975248#comments

10 pages of comments on their last Alpha build, and roughly 5 comments/page begging for Qt4 64-bit...and never an answer for any of them. The best answer I found was an old email on a pubillc server by an employee saying they wanted to lessen the # of packages than expand it-ergo there would not be a 64-bit Qt4.

pluviosity

March 1st, 2009, 04:06 PM

Actually no, Firefox is still using XUL; it does not feel or flow like GTK. It just looks like it thanks to some clever little hacks.

Yes, I know about XUL and Fx. It's close enough to GTK+ to say that GTK+ people have it.