Slashdot Mirror
Safari on Windows, Leopard Debut at WWDC
comm2k writes to mention that Apple has announced a Windows version of Safari along with Leopard, the new version of Mac OS X at this years World Wide Developers Conference in San Francisco. "He said Safari was 'the fastest browser on Windows', saying it was twice as fast as Internet Explorer. A test version of Safari for Windows XP and for Vista is available for download from the Apple website. Apple is hoping to replicate the success of iTunes, which has proved enormously popular on both Macs and Windows machines."
* Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) - ...of course. This was the main focus of the keynote. A "feature complete" version of Leopard was demonstrated, and all WWDC attendees receive the current, feature complete beta of Leopard and Leopard Server. Demos, movies, and more information about all of the many new features are available here. No one outside of the conference will receive these builds (but can be expected to receive later seeds). Leopard is still on track to ship in October. Leopard is $129, or $69 edu/govt (as usual). Free/cheap upgrades to Leopard will likely only for hardware purchased within month prior to its release (also as usual). (See also Leopard Server).
Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server press releases with more info.
* iPhone third party development - iPhone, previously thought to be completely closed, will have development possible via rich "Web 2.0" applications. Details on this are a little sketchy, and it's not what some hoping for a full iPhone SDK wanted, but it appears that all external app development will happen via web apps. However, it also appears such apps will appear as and have the look and feel of other iPhone apps. While this is news, it appears analysts are interpreting this as "new bad news", even though there was no expectation previously that iPhone would be an open platform, since it appeared that it would be closed, and this announcement is actually a positive development over the previous situation. iPhone is also still in schedule to ship on June 29 at 6pm via Apple retail stores and AT&T corporate stores. Still no news on specifics for online sales, preordering, etc.
Press release with more info.
* Safari Mac OS X and Windows - Safari is now available, in its 3.0 beta form, on Mac OS X 10.4.9 and Windows XP/Vista. At first glance, Safari is much, much faster than it was previously on Mac OS X, and includes a range of new features. This is the same version of Safari that will ship on Leopard and (essentially) iPhone. Safari is now also available on Windows; this is obviously going to be used as a channel of development for iPhone, since all external iPhone apps will essentially be Safari web apps.
Press release with more info.
* No new hardware, but the Apple Store and the rest of the Apple web site has a new look (which was why the Apple Store was down, which some see as an indication of new hardware announcements).
* Keynote summary
* Keynote archive will be available later today here.
Dear PC users,
It's no secret iTunes turned to shit as soon as Apple had to start catering to PC users. It was version 4.1, if memory serves, around the time they let you cavedwellers into our music store. The demand for PC compatibility is the major reason iTunes is still a Carbon app, according to insiders, when every other iApp has since been rewritten in Cocoa to behave like a decent Mac application.
Now there's Safari 3's bastard child, Safari 3 for PC. Although the Mac flavor sits gracefully on the desktop with its Cocoa brethren, the Windows version sticks out like a cold glass of Metamucil in the men's room at Penn Station. Technical limitations of Windows ensure Safari looks shittier even than most other PC applications. It won't be long before the fecal tide comes sloshing to Safari on Mac, as happened with iTunes before. You PC users, crashing the party again with your filth.
Frankly, we think Apple should revoke PC compatibility from across its entire product line. Only when the last PC user is forced from our platform shall we enjoy freedom, again and at last, from your tasteless, backwards demands.
Love,
Mac users
Glad they based it on Konqueror - Now how about contributing to KDE and or making a version for Linux? -bms20
Seems to be some font weirdness to me -- i had to mess with the font smoothing options in Preferences. Otherwise it seems to be fine on major sites....
i'm pretty sure i can get lynx running through cygwin.
I've already crashed Safari on Windows three times, but I was being pretty hard on it. You have to remember that this is still beta before you start bashing it, though.
Your tongues can't repel flavor of that magnitude!
Well, there goes even more of Opera's meager market share. Still, I can't wait to get home from work and give it a spin, though I highly doubt it'll replace Opera for me. First Post?
No, Apple is not trying to replicate iTunes' success. Nobody on windows would give a crap if iTunes wasn't the main way to get things onto an iPod. From what info was given about apps for the iPhone, Safari is the SDK. Any greater market share for WebKit is just gravy.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
Yeah that's what we need, another browser to take into consideration when making a website. Like I really want to make changes to one page then check it in Safari, IE7, Firefox, and Netscape 9.0. Everyone should pick between Firefox and IE7 and boycott the rest before it slows website development down to a crawl
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
Apple continues to take and take from the Linux/OSS community and give little back. This latest snub of Linux just continues the trend.
Anyone else using it too? Not too sure about the font smoothing, but the rest of it does seem pretty nice so far!
I'm using it on my work PC, running a fairly standard Windows XP SP2 install, and tried both the version with Quicktime and the version without. Both versions crash on startup, with the problem being - according to Microsoft's Visual C++ debugger - an illegal instruction on COREGRAPHICS.DLL.
It might just be my PC, or it might be an AMDism (I'm using a 1GHz AMD Athlon.) Anyone getting similar results?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Safari has always been based on KDE's KHTML, and they do contribute back to the community via the WebKit project.
See also:
KDE adds Safari feel to desktop Linux - The KDE Project has released a significant update to its K Desktop Environment software that includes refinements to the Konqueror Web browser derived from collaboration with Apple's Safari browser team.
KDE's Konqueror Browser Reaps Safari Benefits - In a perfect example of how open source and proprietary software can benefit each other, Apple got a significant headstart by basing Safari on established technologies like KHTML & Konqueror. And in return, Apple's contributions back to the open source community have benefitted Konqueror.
I've just played with Safari on Windows and it's cool. I'm unsure about the menu bar at the top though, and the extra 20 vertical pixels or so that it takes up - that just doesn't look as clean as it does on OS X. Windows needed another browser to give IE a run for its money, and this is it.
:-)
And it supports rich text editing in GMail
I hope it will be supporting the plugin framework that Safari on OS X does, I like things like the Inquisitor search plugin.
Follow me
First thing I downloaded onto my newly bought Mac Mini was Firefox. Safari was just plain unbearable. Speed doesn't count for much, when proper rendering is not there.
I would like to die like my grandfather did - sleeping. And not screaming in terror, like his passengers.
Pretty pissed there is no details on the new enterprise stuff though, want network backups, iCalendars ...
and a new iWork would have been neat, but thats more for consumers.
Oh and the iPhone SDK is such a cop out. Shocking.
Trouble with the beta already at work on Windows XP. We have a proxy that requires domain authentication (which works fine with FF). As soon as I started Safari up, it prompted me for the credentials... I entered my domain\username and password and clicked OK - crash with a memory error immediately.
I also tried clicking Cancel on the proxy authentication window and got the same result.
Not going to knock the beta too much for that though given the circumstances... I'll be trying it at home minus any proxy later on. I'm hoping for better results.
I tested my usual tab load under (newly opened) FF and Safari; safari took about 40% more memory and was a bit of a CPU hog too.
No difference in rendering speed was perceptible. (Understandably so; render speed is unlikely to be the bottleneck on modern machines, for non-pathological pages.)
Safari for Windows?
Not a radical new 16-core desktop? Not a 19" Macbook Pro? Not a 30" iMac? Not an Apple-branded virtualisation solution?
Nooooo, SAFARI FOR WINDOWS>
I must ask here.... what the fuck!? Who would care about this announcement? And I say that as a Mac fan!
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
...RLY?
I don't think that IE has much to fear from this. I think the project most in trouble by Safari on Windows is Firefox.
Firefox is already very easy to get and setup. And most people who have switched from IE have decided to go with FF.
I'm one of those people who think FF is getting bloated. Just look at the preferences panels... they used to be simple and clean, even nicer than what Safari currently has, but with each version, they've been getting more and more like the kludgey ones in IE and Mozilla (pre seamonkey).
And if Safari starts getting bundled with iTunes, then watch the install base soar, and the Firefox user market shrink.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Safari for the PC is interesting for three reasons: (1) if widely adopted, it would force more web apps to become Safari friendly. Google apps, for example, often don't work with Safari. (2) Safari is the developemnt platform for iPhone apps. And by releasing Safari for the PC, the developer base just multiplied enormously. (3) Just the fact that iPhone apps are build from HTML and Javascript is going to shake up the mobile web scenario.
At the beginning was at.
Safari 3 supports SVG! While the SVG compatibility is not that great, it's more than nothing.e =o and http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=541164451&size =o
For screenshots see http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=541164449&siz
In bringing iTunes to Windows, Apple broadened the market for song downloads (which, admittedly, they don't make that much on) and iPods (which they do make money on). I don't see a similar market opportunity in a free browser.
And if they just want to expose Windows users to The Macintosh Experience, I'm not convinced that a (probably buggy) public beta of a Web browser is the way to do it.
So, I just don't see what their play is here, other than a thumb in Ballmer's eye. Am I missing something?
Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make them all yourself.
this will be another kick in pants to all the web developers out there who don't/can't/won't test their sites in anything other than IE before deployment. Developing an intraweb app for a controllable and known set of apps, and something else altogether to build a customer-facing website that tells 20%+ of your audience that they're not welcome the minute they land on your homepage. Now, with the ability to test in all the major browsers right from one OS, there's no excuse not to have cross-browser functionality.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
I think the new coverflow feature for the Finder would probably be most useful for looking at pr0^D^D^D certain types of material...
in a Terminal window. Obviously that command does not work on Windows.
Instead, open %APPDATA%\Apple Computer\Safari\Preferences.plist in your favorite text editor. Add:
and save it. Restart Safari. You now have a nifty "Debug" menu in the top menu bar, complete with the Javascript Console.
On one hand I would like to see some competition and many browsers would force developers to use something called the w3c standards which they no longer follow. Or I should say the browsers do not.
However if this steals marketshare away from firefox it will make many web developers give up on anything non IE.
- eg
89% IE
10% firefox
sounds better to make a business case to a phb to support a website site that is w3c compliant and supports firefox vs
89% IE
6% Firefox
4% Safari
Which tells the phb that only IE matters as the rest are niche players that do not make significant marketshare to be worth the investment.
Many website developers both love and hate Firefox as it is because they have more work but the hope is firefox3 will be acid2 compliant and will force IE 7.5 in the future to be as well.
http://saveie6.com/
It's locked up (CPU consumption at 95%+ for a long time with nothing to show) on me a few times already and that's without stress testing.
I'm behind a corporate firewall, and while I can browse external sites I can't get to any internal servers. Sounds like a bug in the proxy handling.
Also, the edge window size controls don't show up.
- Jasen.
Does "Wide" apply to World or to Developers? Haha.
There are just so many darn features and plugins for Firefox I have fallen in love with; however I am giving Safari an open-minded try right now. Off the top of my head, the glaring absence of the equivalent of an 'adblock' plugin is a show-stopper for now.
I don't think it's nitpicking in this day and age to ask that a web-browser be skinnable as well. This theme reminds me of everything I hate about the Quicktime player. And what tab is open? Oh... the one that is just a *slightly* different shade of gray. And where are my UltraMon buttons?
Safari for Windows: Don't want it
iPhone: Can't have it yet
10.5: Can't have it yet
Where's the ultraportable MacBookPro? Or the other junk you advance order from the show floor with 10,000 of your closest friends?
I like how as soon as Safari for Windows was announced, Slashdot was flooded with news stories about it.
Safari for Vista isn't compatible with Aero effects.
and it seems to be working great so far. Noticeably more responsive that Firefox scrolling up and down slashdot pages.
Actually I found this more interesting: http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?st ory=14285
I grabbed the Safari 3 Beta for MacOS X, installed it, restarted, and opened Safari. Unfortunately, no window comes up. Apple-N doesn't bring up a new window. However, Apple-T *does* (along with a new tab). From there, no sites will load. Safari just pretends as though I didn't do anything. Clicking a bookmark bar button will set it "down", but it wont come back up or load anything.
Wild and crazy!
Anyone else having these sorts of problems?
Anyone know where the iBench test site can be found? The only link I found ( http://www.veritest.com/benchmarks/i-bench ) is dead.
I bet that went over like a turd in a punch bowl. Talking to a bunch of Cocoa developers at WWDC, who have been listening to Apple sing the praises of Cocoa for years, and then heard about how iPhone was running "real Mac OS X" "with Cocoa" in the iPhone announcement.
Now, Apple is telling us nice job learning Cocoa. But, for what we consider our biggest product ever, you should forget that and use Ajax. Welcome to web development.
Also.. sorry about delaying Leopard, but look at why we had to delay it.. We've got Safari for Windows!!!
A link to Apple. You know, just in case anybody wants to try it out. As to why you want to use Safari at all I don't know, it has always been the first thing I've replaced whenever I've used a Mac...
2 comments: Running Safari on Win 2000 so take the XP requirement with a grain of salt. Also, looks good so far (better than on my mac at home), and although I have not slammed it yet, it does seem pretty snappy. As to why Apple would do this: easy - iPhone. 3rd party iPhone apps need to be written against Safari/webKit. Have to give the windows developers a version of safari to use. In the end it probably was not that hard since the webkit portion of safari was already part of iTunes. Kinda cool. The Apple Collective. Prepare to be assimilated.
All I want is a browser that can (by DEFAULT) display MATHML (needing to download some fonts is OK), pass ACID2, and work with Java applets. XHTML should be viewable using Content-Type "application/xhtml+xml"
I enjoyed Jobs's sniping at recent Windows versioning:
"We've got a basic version, which is going to cost $129. We've got a Premium version, which is going to cost $129. We've got a Business version, $129. We've got an Enterprise version, $129. And we've got the Ultimate version, we're throwing everything into it, it's $129. We think most people will buy the Ultimate version."
Wow, very disappointing. The stacks look like crap, and the finder is a better, but still too congested. Neither are hardly anything to hide as "AMAZING SECRET FEATURES". Where is an announcement of Windows integration / ZFS magnitude? Someone please help me not be totally disappointed AGAIN (See: MacWorld '07).
TODO - Insert Creative/Witty Signature
Steve promised in an interview with Walt Mossberg that there was going to be large investments in desktops, but nothing materialized. Other than the 8 core bto option Apple hasn't really updated any of it's desktops in a year, and the mac mini is hilariously underpowered for what it costs. Come on Apple, phones are great, and the new macbook pro is tempting even though I would have to get rid of my powerbook, but we really need new desktops more than youtube on my tv or $600 phones!
Monstar L
It looks like you can chat to ghosts with their video chat. Well done Apple for going beyond the grave.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
I know Windows apps aren't known for conforming to the OS standards (in the guise of sticking out) but I can't say I'm impressed with the brushed metal look being mandated on Safari. I wouldn't mention it if you could disable it. But no, you *have* to use this one skin! Not only does it look out of place on my desktop, but the menu text is antialiased where it shouldn't be - I don't use anti-aliasing because I prefer the higher contrast. In fact, all of the fonts in Safari are funky. The text is much thicker than Firefox. Plus, all the form widgets on websites are OS X-style, which, again, isn't the OS it is running on. The other thing that threw me severely is you can only resize the window from the lower right, not from any edge of the window. (Regardless of which approach you think is better, going against the conventions of the host OS generally only hurts the users.)
If you take a look at this screenshot you can see Safari for Windows failing to work for me. That is on a Dell Latitude D620 behind our corporate firewall.
Before I turned the corporate proxy settings off in IE it would launch and chew through RAM while not responding. I had to kill it once it reached 600MB used. After turning the proxy settings off, what you see above is what I get.
I haven't tried it on a public network connection yet, but I'll give that a go tonight. Hopefully it'll fix the problem.
>> Not an Apple-branded virtualisation solution?
I, for one, am very happy Apple chose not to compete with Parallels / VMware. Apple and MS have already stomped on the toes of too many app developers in the past.
Now how about contributing to KDE and or making a version for Linux?
Perhaps you missed the memo.
Maybe you missed this one too.
As for developing a version for Linux, why would Apple do that when KDE and Mozilla are already there and serving the needs of Linux users? I see no need for Apple to do more than contribute to KDE, which it is doing. There are no shortage of great browsers available for Linux users, and it would be a waste of money for Apple to devote resources to a small, already saturated market.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Either jump in and make OSX available for any x86 compatible or forget it.
Ballmer is going to be throwing a lot of chairs today...
Safari for Windows is the biggest threat to IE ever. The reason is simple: it's going to be bundled with iTunes. If Apple really wanted to kick Microsoft in the balls, they'd make the iTunes installer put Safari as the default browser -- or give it as an option during the install (with the default being yes, natch). That means suddenly, everyone who buys an iPod ends up using Safari as their default browser instead of IE. If Safari transparently migrates over their bookmarks and settings, a lot of those people, if not the majority, would be likely to stuck with Safari.
It's the same "bundling" that got IE as the majority browser used against Microsoft for a change. All of a sudden, WebKit is the platform for web development on Macs, PCs, and the iPhone. That would would definitely cause a lot of heartburn in Redmond.
Apple has a chance to give Microsoft a major kick in the balls... the question is whether they'll go that route or not. They're doing exactly what Microsoft has always wanted to do -- dominate an entire ecosystem from desktops to laptops to mobile to the television. This is what Bill Gates has been trying to do for the past 20 years, and Apple has done it in just about 5. It's an incredibly smart move on Apple's part, and a major blow to Microsoft's hegemonic ambitions.
It takes forever to load DrudgeReport.com -- clear evidence that Safari is part of the liberal computing conspiracy.
So we should expect to see another knock-off update to IE in about three... two...
[an error occurred while processing this sig]
No, Apple is not trying to replicate iTunes' success.
Agreed - the browser marketshare thing is just a front for getting millions of people to beta test their application development framework - YellowBox for Windows is back. Next year you can have real applications on the iPhone (and Mac, and Windows).
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
* Rendering is noticeably slower than Opera, despite lofty speed claims on their website.
* The application itself loads very slowly on Windows.
* The application window draws very slowly on Windows, for example, restoring/maximizing the application window takes about half a second.
* The interface annoyingly emulates the look and feel of application windows in OSX. (It's an attractive design, but it is not appropriate for Windows users expecting Windows functionality.)
* Example 1: No draggable window borders.
* Example 2: The designers went so far as to hide the standard button/icon in the top left of normal Windows applications, and though the missing button is still accessible with Alt+Space, only the Close option is available.
* Example 3: Something is wrong with the default Safari font. It's either not the default Windows font or it's smoothed weirdly somehow.
- Flash doesn't work despite reinstalling the flash player. This might actually be a feature.
- Took 100MB of RAM (as reported by Task Manager) to render some tab groups.
- OTOH, it's very fast to start: faster than Firefox, IE and even Opera.
- Crashes on some non-Latin font pages (IE, Firefox don't on the same system)
- Fonts look great on my LCD. Arial actually looks decent, unlike Windows' default elongated look.
Go somewhere random
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Windows Safari fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of Windows Safari (public beta 3) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to render a 17 kbyte html page. 20 minutes. At home, on my blueberry iMac running Chimera, which by all standards should be a lot slower than Safari, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this render, Office will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even Notepad is straining to keep up as I type this.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various versions of Windows Safari, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen Windows Safari run faster than its Mac/Gecko counterpart, despite Windows Safari's faster rendering engine. Netscape 4.76 runs faster than this KHTML-derived browser at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that Windows Safari is a superior browser.
Windows Safari addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use Windows Safari over other faster, cheaper, more stable browsers.
There are add-ons for Safari too, but they tend to be buggy and slow down Safari considerably. I stick with Firefox unless I have no other choice.
The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
hangs when you try to install under [crossover] wine
It's amazing how when Microsoft programs something for the Mac platform, it always ends up being the best, but when Apple programs something for Windows, it ends up always being the worst.
Quicktime is not just a system-killer which forces people to have to completely reinstall Windows, but it's buggy and slow as hell. If you use Windows... do yourself a favor and NEVER use Quicktime.
Same thing with iTunes: a buggy POS which screws your system stability. And to add insult to injury, it also forces you to install Quicktime.
So I agree with this Apple d00d 100%: Apple, please stop writing Windows software.
Tsk, I hate to burst the bubble, but no, Safari will not see widespread or even casual acceptance across the Windows Universe, and no, the developers who only design sites for IE will not start making things compatible with other browsers.
Face it, for 99% of the population a browser is a browser is a browser, and whatever is installed now is what they will use until they buy a new computer.
Three Squirrels
Yeah, that's the most likely explanation I could think of too. They could decide to require developers to get a Mac to develop reliably for the iPhone, but they're not stupid. But if iPhone web apps are likely to rely on any special/quirky features of Safari, they would have to get Safari onto more development platforms.
Any Web 2.0 developers seen anything new, enticing, and exclusive to Safari 3 they might try to get developers to support?
While I'd love to give Safari for Windows a shot and post some thoughts, the text in the browser window (not just the website text - the window itself as well as any text I try to enter). I think it's a font issue but I have no idea how to rectify it. -_-
"God is nothing but a public static final variable x." - my roommate
I just tested that because I don't want to reboot my Mac right now, but it looks like it is still missing mid-click autoscrolling, which has always made me dislike Safari.
I like music
While I may not agree, more power to them. Hope whatever angle they're shooting for works out for them.
In the late 90s, Apple had to ship IE as the default browser on all Macs to keep Microsoft happy. Now Apple can move on to Microsoft's turf with a browser for Windows and there's nothing Microsoft can do about it.
--Mike Perry, Untangling Tolkien (LOTR chronology)
Where's iLife? No only was there no spreadsheet for the Mac, there wasn't even a mention of iWorks for iLife for that matter. Again, Google offers their Writely (or whatever it is called) for free, they offer a spreadsheet for free, and Apple can't even get one of those working, period.
Some new hardware would have been nice -- I know three people who are waiting to upgrade their PowerBook 12" but will not do so until a new 12" laptop comes out (this is coming from a 12" iBook, the new MacBooks are simply too large). But this gig was all about software, so we'll ignore that for now.
Still, Google is kicking Apple's ass in some major applications because they are free and you don't have to worry about a backup (or so Google says), and judging by the pre-conference hype, people are starting to notice. Apple should either make a real service out of
It is supposed to be different, it's a different way of creating applications. Even the most simplest of person would relize that.
That doesn't mean you have to like it, but your example are just hair pulling stupid examples.
I think the font looks great.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
From my blog:
:-)
:-(
:-)
----------
I will mostly talk about the UI compared to Safri on OS X and other Windows apps, but I'll also point out a couple new Safri 3 features.
It requires XP or Vista, so I won't be using it at home, where I'm frozen on W2K.
It doesn't have a Windows-style title bar--it uses the 'unified' look of iTunes. Also, the top left and right corners are slightly rounded. Clicking in the top-right corner of the screen when maximized does not close the window. There is not a clickable control in the top left corner. I would have preferred a standard Windows window--among other things, the menu items just seem to 'float' in a big sea of grey.
HTML form textareas can be resized. (Sweet!!!) Form elements have a somewhat OS X-y look. Radio buttons and checkboxes look like their OS X counterparts. Dropdown menus are rounded and shiny but are not quite Aqua-y. I can't compare to Safari 3 on OS X yet--the installer requires a reboot.
The installer includes a Bonjour component for Windows.
Text controls work as they do on a Mac. For example, if you're in a text box, the 'up' arrow brings you to the beginning of the line and 'down' brings you to the end.
It rounds the edges of a text box and gives you an 'x' icon (for 'clear') if you specify input type="search", same as you'd get in Safri on OS X.
Tabs can be dragged around, just like Firefox (stock? or requires an extension?) or Safari with Saft, which I love for that reason and many others. (Hopefully, they can keep making Saft once 10.5 is out.)
Preferences are under the Edit menu. The Preferences window has rounded top corners, 1-pixel grey rules on the top and bottom and 2-pixel rules on the sides. So do other windows, like the 'Private browsing' warning. Those windows have 100% Aqua controls internally.
Don't use it for production work--I lost the first draft of this post to a crash.
It has the menu option to spellcheck text areas but it doesn't seem to work.
The 'report a bug' icon is shown by default.
It has one feature that Safari for OS X will never have: a 'maximize' button. It also throws away other Windows features. For example, windows can only be resized by dragging the bottom-right corner. Grabbing the status bar (also off by default, grr) won't move the window like it does in OS X. Grabbing any metal in the bookmarks bar or above moves the window.
----------
Overall, I think other posters here are right--this is nothing more than an iPhone SDK for Windows. Despite what Steve said this morning (about browser share, etc.) I don't think he gives a shit if anyone uses Safari on Windows for any other purpose. Just like iTunes for Windows only exists to sell iPods and things from the iTunes store, Safari/Windows only exists to a) show people how pretty Mac apps are, resulting in hardware sales,* and b) building apps for the iPhone.
* and I'm sure the number of Macs sold due to "prettiness of Safari on Windows" will be countable with the fingers of one hand. This is nothing more than an iPhone SDK.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Best of all, Safari brings a color-managed web-browser to Windows!e mbeddedJPEGprofiles.html
Images created in AdobeRGB and other color spaces are finally rendered correctly (at long last!).
Try http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/
It's just an initial take, but so far Safari on my XP box feels about 30 times faster than my OS X install. I don't know if that neccesarily a good thing. Hey Apple, how about showing your core users some love?
Adblock is the browser. Therefore Safari will go dormant on my drive till I hear from an adblock for SafariPC.
I'm sure there will be many threads here comparing features and performance to existing browsers available for Windows. I'm not interested in that. What I'm trying to figure out is how porting Safari to Windows will improve Apple's bottom line.
When Apple developed a Windows version of iTunes the justification was obvious. It was developed to sell more iPods.
I see no obvious reason for a Windows version of Safari. How is it going to generate additional revenue for Apple? Apple did not develop this just to have a greater market share for their browser. There is no money in that. The speculation one forum is that there must be a yet to be disclosed functional tie-in between the iPhone Safari and the PC/Mac Safari. But, besides being able to sync your PC bookmarks with your iPhone bookmarks, I can't think of any advantages.
Anyone have some insights on how this development will put money in the bank at Apple?
This is a classic Mac vs. Windows troll post that just replaced the terms to suit the situation. All he's trying to do is get attention.
It's therefore strange that Apple feel they can simply ignore UI guidelines when they feel like it on other platforms. First it was Quicktime, then iTunes and now Safari that sport Aqua like widgets. It's not just the "brushed metal" appearance, but even the scrollbars. iTunes has a sluggish non-standard interface and part of it must be attributable to its desire to reinvent every single widget including the scrollbars.
While I think Windows users tolerated it for iTunes (since they have no choice really if they use an iPod), the same cannot be said for Safari. I think it would stand a better chance if it tried to blend in. Inflicting some horrid non-standard UI on Windows users will just see them using IE, Firefox or even Opera. Though I wouldn't put it past Apple to start bundling Safari with iTunes in future.
Perhaps this is even a stealth way for Apple to dump OS X altogether. After all, if they build Cocoa & Carbon layers on top of Windows, the ultimate question is why bother with OS X at all?
Confused, so first they snagged the source tree for KHTML and KJS from KDE. Then modified it, renamed it WebKit, based Safari, Mail, etc on it. Then they're re-releasing it back into the wild as OSS.
I've just finished playing with both betas and here are the differences I've seen so far.
.Mac. I'm actually surprised at the lack of this option.
General Preferences: New default search engine option. It does not have the Open "safe" files after downloading option found in the OSX version..
Appearance Preferences: Font smoothing option. (This option is a standard system preference under OSX)
Bookmarks Preferences: Non of the "Address Book" bookmark options are available. No option to synchronize bookmarks using
Tab preferences: The same except for the key names. Ctrl instead of command. Alt instead of option.
Advanced preferences: Proxies option is grayed out.
No Safari application menu. "Quit" moved to File Menu and renamed "Exit"; "Private Browsing...", "Reset Safari...", "Empty Cache...", "Block Pop-Up Windows", and "Preferences..." moved to Edit menu; "About Safari", and "Report Bugs to Apple..." moved to the Help menu.
File Menu: Missing "Mail Contents of This Page", new "Print Preview" option (in OSX this is part of the Print dialog.), "Save As..." does not have a shortcut key.
Edit Menu: Shortcut added to "Delete"; Shortcuts changed for '"Find Again", "Find Previous" and "Hide Find Banner".
View Menu: Many of the Text Encodings available in the OS X are not included. 25 under Windows, 37 under OSX.
History: Not sure if this is changed or not. OSX Window offers date sub menus such as "Earlier today...". Have not used the Windows version long enough to see if they appear.
Help: Shortcut for help changed to F1
User Agent under Windows beta: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en) AppleWebKit/522.11.3 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Safari/522.11.3
User Agent under OS X beta: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/522.10.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Safari/522.11
I have found Safari anything but fast on a Mac platform - What a sales pitch. I'll stick to Firefox. C'mon Mac fans, stop thumping your chests, this is just a web browser and not a spectacular one at that. Now that said I have used OSX for over a year and really like most of it. But I find Safari to be the weakest app on the desktop. And of course I use it all the time.
I think it is. Why is there this requirement to make one application look different to everything else? You don't get people complaining that their email applications, their spreadsheets, their word processors and their anti-virus applications absolutely must be skinnable. They all rely on the operating environment's look & feel, which is usually customisable. Why isn't this enough for web browsers as well?
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Why do I say that? Safari as well as the email client on Mac OS X, does NOT list the URL of the link you are about to click on at the bottom of the screen. IMHO, that is a *serious* security risk from other browsers like Firefox or even IE.
I am not trying to troll here, but this is one of the reasons why I do not use Safari on my Mac that often and basically the only reason why I use Thunderbird on the mac instead of the mail client supplied. I do not want to be looking in the sources of the email all the time to see if some email from PayPal is a fraud or the real thing. Aside from spoofing, I also need the URL sometimes when developing web applications. It is faster to just see the URL and not having to have to click it all the time.
Safari by default comes with better order of tabs than Firefox, but the URL thing is something that would prevent me from using it at all. Maybe someone can point me to make the URL visible before clicking??
As far as the fastest browser (RTFA), err, isn't that the domain of Opera? I find Opera to be the fastest browser on any platform. After all, Opera has to run on embedded devices where Safari will probably never do.
- Nice smooth interface, takes up less space than Firefox.
- Definitely beta software. I get occasional and sporadic crashes. These are not currently consistently repeatable.
- Font rendering is nice, including Unicode characters.
- Unicode characters that I have fonts for no longer display as boxes in the title bar (they still do in Firefox).
- Transitioning to pages sometimes takes significantly longer than it should. It will stall before loading the page.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
But I thought that resolution independance was the big deal at WWDC. I mean the advertisements promoting it and all of those workshops going on this week... But nothing mentioned at the keynote.
Did I miss something?
Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
You do know that Cocoa uses Carbon for some functions? And that the Carbon now has services right???
Frankly if Safari can better integrate with Windows then it will be a grate thing for Apple. Might get some lazy web designers to do testing with Safari.
Now where is my Linux version?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Apparently not:
:(
$ wine Downloads/SafariSetup.exe
fixme:exec:SHELL_execute flags ignored: 0x00000100
X Error of failed request: BadWindow (invalid Window parameter)
Major opcode of failed request: 1 (X_CreateWindow)
Resource id in failed request: 0x3a
Serial number of failed request: 13
Current serial number in output stream: 15
Just think: 50% of all people are below average.
sftp on windows is best provided by filezilla, putty sftp, or through cygwin.
I typically install cygwin on every windows system I use, just so I can log in remotely through ssh, and use sftp. It's a nice end-run around the windows domain stupidity.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Sure, ill switch, if they can pry firefox out of my dead cold hands
Why is it that Excel (and Office in general) are wonderful mac apps and even programmed following the base platform standards, yet Mac apps that are ported to the PC always stand out like a sore thumb. I'm clearly not the only one that hates QT -- why does this app need to be in the systems tray? Is it possible to uninstall/kill quick time. Either the macs folks don't know how to program for the PC or want to kill the platform with bad software.
I think the difference is that Microsoft needs to SELL office on the Mac whereas Apple has to give away it's PC software.
And by the way, did the PC need yet another browser (beyone IE and Firefox)?
What other motives there are I have no idea. Some clever integration with iTunes? Some new technology which Apple will release that runs only in Safari?
Whatever their reason, it is not simply to make Windows users happy with wider browser choice.
... try and maximize Safari-on-Windows on your secondary monitor and see what happens.
And why are the Minimize and Maximize options in the window menu disabled? The Alt+Space, X / Alt+Space, R keyboard shortcuts don't work.
WWDC is a Developers conference. While new Macs HAVE appeared here before its not the norm and thus it is not unusual for there to not be any introduced here today.
Relax, they're coming.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
... and PC Safari has already crashed. Given how terrible the Windows iTunes is, I don't know why I even tried.
I don't think it's nitpicking in this day and age to ask that a web-browser be skinnable as well.
No, in this day and age, why do we still have skinnable apps? They're the single biggest step back ever taken in interface design, and many an app has become an usuable mess due to skinning.
The sooner this cancer is wiped from the body of software development, the better.
if they just want to expose Windows users to The Macintosh Experience, I'm not convinced that a (probably buggy) public beta of a Web browser is the way to do it.
It can't be too much worse than the buggy public beta that their OS is.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Hm, it seems that the proxy support is currently disabled, which makes it literally unusable for me (while at work ;)
Wow twitter. As always, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think.
Those of us who stuck with the best version of Windows (2k) are out of luck.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
....the part where Steve said that Safari is the SDK for iPhone apps didn't you?
(^_^)
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
The Safari you used on Macs was either Safari 1 or 2.
The Safari introduced today is Safari 3. For both Macs and Windows.
Safari 3 is a lot faster than Safari 2.
Understand now?
I don't think it can be made much simpler than that for you to understand.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
If you have SafariStand installed when you install Safari 3.0 on the Mac, it will cause Safari 3.0 to fail in weird ways (like not display most web pages)
Uninstall SafariStand by removing ~/Library/InputManagers/SafariStand
I also uninstalled Saft, as it gave an error message when Safari started up, but did not fully test if it had any other impact.
I was thinking the very same thing!
On top of that, it allows users to use the same web applications that they use on the iPhone on their Windows system. It will complement iTunes, in a way.
While I'm sad that you can't code for the bare hardware of the iPhone, I don't think it's a very bad decision of Apple to limit iPhone's 3rd party apps to web applications, since that means you get instant desktop compatibility.
Think of all those schweet Dashboard Widgets, they will now presumably work on the iPhone and on your Windows desktop as well!
I think this is also a good time to point out http://gears.google.com/, the javascript SDK that Google made to support offline browsing of e.g. Google Reader. Definitely something awesome to have on the iPhone for rich Web 2.0 applications.
iPhone/Safari web applications will definitely not suck.
Wout.
Why is Safari's font rendering that ugly? I just tried the Windows version, but every page looks plain horrible.
if i had mod points, i'd mod you as a troll. what's your point? you obviously show your bias and usually bias and zealotry shows a bit of ignorance as well. i'd say you're the one with the FUD blindfold.
I don't think I've ever seen my fonts look so nice in Windows. I'm a Mac user primarily, but this is sure a boon for wek geeks who don't want to own/set up multiple operating systems. I also hope this spurs some development for Safari and I have a feeling it'll increase its share.
The only thing that matters is using real standards, not M$ fakes which will burn you because they churn so often and are split into several minor sub categories. Show your PHB this one day.
May 2007
IE7 19.2%
IE6 38.1%
IE5 1.5%
Fx 33.7%
Moz 1.3%
S 1.5%
O 1.6%
After you get past the browser divisions, you start to see plug-in differentiation which is always worse in the haves and have not world of non free software. There is no 90%, not even a 50%. Developing to a specific browser is worse than developing to a coin toss.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Actually, they will have at least 3 seperate versions not even including the educational discounts or other such promotions. This is based on the current 10.4 prices.
OS X Leopard 10.5 - $129
OS X Leopard 10.5 Family Pack - $199
OS X Server 10.5 - $499 and up
They could prove me wrong and implement all of the server niceities into the consumer version and grant a new license that allows you to install on any systems you own but I seriously doubt that will happen. I'm fairly certain that when I upgrade to the Ultimate version that it will cost more than $129.
This is kind of exciting! I'm a long-time Firefox user, but I'm getting tired of the bloat and the gmail-related memory leaks. Although I know these are tentatively going to be fixed in Firefox 3, I'm interested in seeing what Safari has to offer. I've installed it and it looks really pretty and all, but I'm kind of agitated by the fact that there doesn't seem to be an easy way to customize its keyboard shortcuts: I'm all about ctrl+tab to switch between tabs... this ctrl+shift+] crap doesn't really float my boat.
Anyways, if anyone has additional info about Safari on Windows, I think that would make for some interesting discussion. And if anyone can tell me how to get it to mimic Firefox keyboard shortcuts, I think I will switch over entirely. For the time being...
...Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter.
Churchill
filezilla ... I typically install cygwin on every windows system I use, just so I can log in remotely through ssh, and use sftp. It's a nice end-run around the windows domain stupidity.
Yes, but that brings all the insecurity of Windoze to your file server. If you care enough to use sftp, you should not let a Windoze box touch it. To share with Windoze users, Samba, http and regular ftp are better.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Apple apps don't follow the Windows HIGs because their purpose is, in part, to get Windows users used to the look and feel of Mac apps. Whether this is a good idea or not is debatable.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
On the plus side, it's easy on the eyes. The Safari bookmarks implementation has always been smooth. And the adjustable Google search bar is better than most stabs at this on Firefox. It renders quickly, as claimed, though I can't say it renders perceptibly more quickly than Firefox.
Even on OS X, though, I don't run Safari. It's barely customizable in an age when Firefox extensions have completely rewritten the rules of browsing. Why would I want to see ads? Why browse the way some web site or computer corporation thinks I should?
This is like 1999, today.
Despite what Apple's Web site says, it installs on Windows 2000 just fine.
Hell, I'm typing this response in Safari 3 on Windows 2000.
and the back button on my mouse doesn't work. That's a deal-killer, almost as much as the lack of Adblock (is there a version for Safari?) I'd love to switch, the interface is nicer and SMALLER than Firefox, but I need my back button.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
Yup, VLC,Firefox,OOo etc are signs of FOSS leaving Linux..
Also if we have GTK+, QT libraries on windows, why would you need Linux...
But the Linux guys seem to be barking up the wrong tree as MS has already ported Office to Mac..possibly they are leaving Windows...
I know apple not following OS native UI guidelines is a very bad practice..but commenting that they are dumping OS X on a day they released a new beta version and have committed to at least one more version is a bit far fetched..
Nothing like blowing your own trumpet.
Posted from within Safari, when I browse sites using my ridiculously overpowered PC, the windows are slow to refresh, the main display itself has a terrible refresh rate when I drag the main window around on my screen, and drawing the site itself is slow and chunky compared with Opera's "draw immediately" option. You might be faster than Firefox (though I doubt it) but being faster than IE really isn't much to write home about.
Oh well.
Quicktime and iTunes are not even remotely "better than anything else out there". Give the trolling a rest already.
you're comparing Safari 3 on windows to Safari 2 on OSX... Get leopard [timemachine to october, and bring it back] and then compare...
Gravity Sucks
Safari 3 is compatible with Google Documents (Safari 2 isn't). Unfortunately, Safari 3 isn't compatible with Google Spreadsheets yet. Also, in Safari 3, the Preference to turn tab browsing mode completely off is gone. This seems to be so that web applications can use tabs in all cases (Google Documents uses them).
You mean something like the $999 Unlimited Client OS X Sever Tiger but for OS X Leopard? I'm sure that's what Apple meant by "$499 and up"
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I'm also on an older AMD (Athlon XP 2100) and the version without quicktime is working perfectly under XP SP2 for me. This installation of XP is only about 3 days old, though, and I've installed only 10 or so apps.
Safari's pretty slick. After my recent Itunes 7 nightmare (downgraded to 6 until Apple fixes all the showstopper performance problems in 7) I was wary about trying another beta Apple app, but it seems pretty quick and reliable for me so far. The fonts are taking some getting used to, though.
Are we forgetting a certain browser?
"He said Safari was 'the fastest browser on Windows', saying it was twice as fast as Internet Explorer."
So really it should read: 'the second fastest browser on Windows, after Opera' since IE usually runs like a snail on Valium. Please come back when you've tested it against a *real* browser.
Adventure, Romance, MAD SCIENCE!
Hear, hear. And that's why I'm using PithHelmet for blocking ads with Safari. It costs $10, but it also has a good pre-defined ruleset (naturally fully customiseable) that makes it mostly set-it-and-forget-it app, unlike Firefox's AdBlock extension. Sometimes I really even forget that ads exist!
For this reason I'm not going to test Safari 3 in my Powerbook just yet, as PithHelmet is not available for it. But now that it is available for Windows I'll certainly test it under VMWare/Win XP in my Ubuntu development box at work.
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
My hopeful, probably-not-accurate interpretation of that part was that iPhone Safari was going to have some sort of special API for interfacing with the phone hardware, letting you use things like Quartz extensions from your web apps.
I mean, really, if it's not that, and just Steve saying "see? You can write apps for the iPhone because iPhone can use web pages and you can write web pages!" then that's frankly a bit insulting.
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
Works just fine here on my MacBook.
Nice work Apple :D
Apple makes Safari run on Windows 2000, or when Safari can be installed on Gentoo. Then I'll be able to waste 10% of my time dealing with Safari's eccentricities for the benefit of the 1.5% of global users who actually use Safari on Mac.
I'm not upgrading Windows just because Apple says I should.
If Apple ships an app that's so out of place on a Windows desktop (seriously, even the scrollbars are OS X-style!), they better make sure you can skin it so it doesn't look like an eyesore.
If you install the Safari beta on XP, quicktime is also installed by stealth, with no opt-out. The installer also tries to install two other services: Bonjour and Apple Update, but at least has the decency to let you opt out. IMO installing a piece of junk like quicktime on a computer with out asking is unforgivable, so for me, its bye-bye Safari too....
and the mac mini is hilariously underpowered for what it costs.
What are you comparing the mini to? Give us some links so that we can determine for
ourselves how the mini compares.
*sigh* back to work...
I don't know that I agree that every application must be made skinnable (imagine the tech support nightmare), but I do agree that it's incredibly annoying that Apple's Windows apps don't make use of the Windows look & feel. I don't love Windows, but when you're used to a paradime, you want it to stay consistent. This was a big Apple theme back in the day, but they've broken their own rules with their Windows apps. As for Adblocking, it's a dealbreaker. I'm not going to use a browser that doesn't allow my to easily remove content that I find distracting/annoying/offensive. I understand that corporations like Apple and Microsoft might not be able to do that to advertisers, but for me, that's just a reason to stay with Firefox.
I just tried installing the Windows Safari in Fedora Core 6 through WINE. Installing works, however, I do get the error
"MSVCR80.dll" failed to initialize.
Anyone having more success?
Hacking the hosts file works fine, and there are third-party maintained hosts files you can just grab and use. I just wish there was a right-click solution for updating it like "block all images from this server" in Mozilla. Would also be nice to be able to block javascript on a by-site basis.
Not sure how long I'll give this Safari trial. I use Mozilla's image blocking a lot.
I think the "surprise" of this announcement for some of us was that it seemed to squash earlier rumors that Apple might just buy rights to Parallels or vmware and incorporate it as part of Leopard.
I heard some earlier talk about how Apple convinced Microsoft to adhere to some GUI design standards that they suggested, and people pointed out that it seemed really odd for Microsoft to adapt to Apple's suggestions, unless there was a bigger plan in the works (like Apple developing their own virtualization for XP/Vista inside OS X). Perhaps this was for the sake of better Quicktime integration or something, instead?
It now appears Apple is happy to let 3rd. parties handle running Windows inside OS X - and I agree that there's not much wrong with that. (Early adopters of Parallels would feel rather cheated having to pay twice for the same product, if it was bundled in as part of Leopard.)
I don't love Windows, but when you're used to a paradime, you want it to stay consistent.
Sort of like the paradigm of English spelling?
I work primarily in an environment in which the 5 primary browsers are #1 Safari, #2 IE 6/7, #3 IE 5 (Mac), #4 Netscape 4 point fricking 7 (I wish that was a joke), and #5 Firefox.
Basically it's just a hell of required operating systems and incompatible web/proprietary apps forcing certain unfortunate browser choices.
In all of this, this browser hell on earth, IE is by _far_ and away the biggest pain in my ass. Fricking Netscape 4.7 with it's awful awful awful javascript implementation is not as annoying as IE, and don't get me going on how IE breaks compatibility with fricking IE from version to version.
I am forced to make everything as absolutely minimalist and general as possible, and I can get it to a point where it works on everything except 1 of the 3 versions of IE I have to deal with, and it's pretty much a different version each time.
So yea, you're a complete troll. The goddamn standards were around before IE, and the only reason IE broke standards was to force people to have to use their crappy bizarro "standards" and make them rich.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
My take on it is it is a good START for apple, but there are a few minor annoyances to work out. First let me start off by saying I don't have any experiance with safari on Apple hardware or an apple OS at all ( unless you still consider that apple basic thing on the IIe years ago) so I don't know if this is how it normally acts or not. The first minor annoyance i have is window placement / remembering. I can't seem to get it to open all new windows maximised ( with firefox / mozilla ETC. all i have to do is close a second launched maximised window and it will always launch new windows maximised) secondly so far when it launches a new window, no matter what else is on the desktop the window is plopped directly centered ( no smart placing of new windows it seems)
Ok so there are a few annoyances, BUT i must say FONTS render very well. The fonts in safari are noticibly SLIGHTLY better rendered than FF / Mozilla, I couldn't tell you about internet explorer, haven't used it in a long time.
The bug report button is pretty cool, offers to send in a SS of the misbehaving page to the developers ( although you would still have to file a manual bug report if the page actually crashes the browser)
Also, combo boxes ( like the moderator boxes) look pretty nice, and the fade in / out of menu items is nice for eye candy.
another plus is virtual scrolling ( through the synaptics touchpad on my laptop) works well, I remember the old mozilla builds yet where it didn't work, good to see Apple got it right right away.
if anyone knows how to FORCE safari for windows to open maximised new windows ( no I can't just use tabs, i often flip windows between 3 monitors so i can have several different pages at a time for research) please feel free to post them here.
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
It's trivial to find a PC that is vastly cheaper than the mini and provides the same performance; you could also build one very easily. Would it be as tiny? Maybe not. Is it worth it to pay $100-200 for that form factor? Probably not unless you live in a coffin or perhaps a car. At which point you probably can't afford a mac mini anyway.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
i can list several players that are better than quicktime. one is windows media player, which doesn't run in the background all the time after installing it. winamp, mplayer, vlc also all come to mind. quicktime for windows is the 2nd worse media player, second only to realone or whatever it's called now. they used to both be pretty decent pieces of software, but now they just plain suck and are bloated beyond belief.
please me, have no regrets.
what browsing the web without Firefox + Adblock (plus Stylish & Greasemonkey...) looks like. :(
I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
OK, then it isn't too much to ask that a web browser *either* be skinnable or _at least follow the "look & feel" of the rest of the platform.
I've checked out safari for windows (I love konq at home on linux, but use firefox at work on windows), and although I mostly like it, I can't stand the default color schemes. It's just too hard to read.
"Hate is baggage. Life's too short to be pissed off all the time." Danny Vinyard -American History X
Apple apps don't follow the Apple HIGs, either. They have three different widget sets and things appear in different places and respond differently to clicks in each of them.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Yes AC, you are an arrogant, stupid idiot. Now moderators, go ahead and select "-1 Flamebait" for this post.
Okay, now that we've got that out of the way I can continue. Apple knows exactly what it is doing. And it will work. More and more people are finding out that many browsers are better than IE. If Apple can convince PC users to use Safari that will be one less barrier to switching over from PC to a Mac. The list is getting longer of basic applications that run on both the Mac and PC. The longer this list gets the easier and more appealing it will be for PC people to make the switch. After Apple gains a significant market share they will be in a position to take advantage of critical mass. Customers will start switching in droves. Then they can focus on making the best Mac apps (based only on Cocoa). Not just the best carbon apps so they can run on the PC too.
The more PC users use Mac apps the more people will feel comfortable switching. Ditto for Linux.
I suspect that their reasoning for doing this is to help Windows users to become familiar with the look, feel, and behavior of native Mac apps. This makes OSX seem less foreign to the windows users who might, then, be more likely to convert to Mac somewhere down the road.
Just a thought.
*sigh* back to work...
QuickTime was installed (feels like it is trojan-installed, I don't WANT IT!!), and I cannot resize the window from anywhere but the lower-right corner...ARGHH!!
I was willing to sort of forgive Apple for not supporting NTLM authentication on the Mac version of Safari (meaning that proxy logins and access to non-SSL IIS-based websites has to be done using passwords sent in the clear), but the Windows port does the same thing? Totally unacceptable.
Hey Apple, you're writing a Windows app. How about following the Windows UI guidelines, like putting your preferences menu option under Tools where it belongs on this platform? How about using the built-in Windows forms elements so your app fits in instead of sticking out like someone pasted screenshots of an OS X app onto my desktop? How about allowing me to resize the window from any part of the frame instead of the little spot in the lower right? How about letting me change the proxy settings?
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
I don't know if it's really so cool. It uses the OSX widget sets so it feels as out of place on a Windows desktop as a Windows app feels on a OSX one, and I don't think that having only that little bottom right handle to resize the window is an improvement over standard Windows apps, but I'm starting to dangerously approach religious issues :-) (but... no tooltips on buttons? Do I really have to click them to discover what they do?)
On the plus side, I can start testing for Safari and Konqueror compatibility from my development machine now, so this is a great day.
BTW, does Safari have anything close to Firebug for debugging web pages?
Ditto for me... I can't type in the URL bar or the search bar, either. The only way to go to any website is to hit Ctrl + O to bring up the Open dialog, then enter the complete address from there. Then I get to a page and there is little if any text. Most graphics seem to work fine, though. When I try to go to google.com, I see 7 different pulldown menus in the page, and several sets of buttons, as if the page is being rendered incorrectly several times within the window, and the Google logo isn't visible anywhere on the page... there is a blue box in the middle of the screen though.
Lots of people are complaining about font smoothing preferences or not being able to configure proxy settings, but I can't even get any text on any menus to be able to look at those settings. I guess I'll have to wait for Beta 2?
Also, it crashes when I close the window, and if I click on the "spider" button next to the URL bar, it freezes and pegs my cpu to 100%. I can, however, read text in an RSS feed. If I go to an RSS-enbaled page (cnn.com, slashdot, etc., I can click the blue RSS icon in the address bar and get a very legible display of the feed.
I don't see how anybody can think this anything but bad news for firefox. As part of the wannabe community who uses alternatives to microsoft products on Windows when possible, I think the marketing (as a "cool" Apple product) appeal of safari will result in it beating out firefox - especially with everybody so comfortable with itunes.
since windows isnt secure, you shouldnt even bother using secure file transfer, and instead use regular ftp. is that what you're getting at?
If you care for information security, you should not let it onto windoze. If you let it onto Windoze, you should avoid using passwords because that will compromise other data you care about. Data security is only as strong as it's weakest link.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
While checking my user agent running Safari on windows, I ran across the iPhone UA listed on whatsmyuseragent.com:
Mozilla/9.0 (iPhone ; U; Mac OS X 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.12) Gecko/20070508 iPhone/0.98
Interesting, no? Mozilla 9.0
The windows Safari UA, by the way, is:
Believe it or not, Windows Longhorn Server/Windows Server 2003 is not included in Vista Ultimate.
As for the family pack, what bastards are they, offering 5 licenses for a largely reduced price?
Jerks.
It is nit-picking. In fact, I can't think of a more worthless feature than a skinnable web browser.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Many website developers both love and hate Firefox as it is because they have more work but the hope is firefox3 will be acid2 compliant and will force IE 7.5 in the future to be as well.
I don't know who tehse 'many' website developers are you speak of. Everyone where I work prefers Firefox.
FF3 being ACID2 compliant won't force MS to make IE better. If MS was actually concerned with the compliancy of competing browsers, IE would be a far different browswer than it is.
Interestingly, the Safari beta seems to be the second ACID2-compliant browser for Windows (after Opera). Nicely done, Apple!
It's a shame about the weird application chrome they decided to wrap around the app, though. *sigh* Apple.
Here's what I want to know:
l httpreq.html
Will Safari 3.0 support a JavaScript API to its XSLT Processor?
*This* wouldbe a major boost to speeding-up AJAX apps, as far as processing XML is concerned.
(XSL allows, for example: taking the XML returned from a web service, and transmuting it into HTML via XSL *rapidly*... It allows *rapid* sorting of tables client-side, in the browser, etc. )
It is true that you could build a library of "XSL" code that runs purely on Safari's JavaScript -- but this will never be as fast as compiled code. (Heck, you could write an XML parser in JavaScript, too -- or build an XMLHttpRequest object using JavaScript & iframes -- but I doubt many users would put up with the sluggish performance. The JavaScript automatic garbage collection, alone, can eat up CPU cycles/resources at unexpected times.)
This link is promising, but does not mention XSL:
http://developer.apple.com/internet/webcontent/xm
Does any Slashdotter (or Apple employee?) know the answer?
The calls are coming from inside the house!
---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
The biggest drag for me is that IE 6 (still, and for the foreseeable future) is the mandated application development platform in the corporate environment because: .Net3.0 is too wild. Forget any non M$ product - the customer already had licenses to M$ stuff, and have standardised on it.
+ The vast corporate market is already locked into windows, using IE 6.
+ Coupled with the very conservative approach of administrators, nothing is going to change soon, because the financial risk is too much. Even moving from IE 6 to IE 7 is seriously considered as too risky: "what if something breaks?".
+ Part of the problem is that a lot of non-FOSS software tends to be riddled with crazy stuff. Built at minimal cost, and patched together like a bad science project, corporate applications are sometimes written by people with poor design and coding skills. Furthermore, support for anything else _but_ the client's technology is considered a complete waste. So everything is built to IE 6's craziness.
+ There is no _way_ that many people will be allowed to install Safari on their work computer.
+ Therefore there's no way major consulting firms will even bother targeting anything besides IE 6. Even talking about XAML and
IMHO the lock-in is both brilliant and bread-dead: smooth as clockwork. It's comical how no-one will change because no-one else will change. It's all about the bottom line, and for that reason, we don't have the money to build things to proper standards (therefore we can never cheaply migrate), or even talk about cost-saving technologies. Yes it's more expensive long-term, but system administrators are not in the business on placing bets on where the industry will be in 5 years - they're deciding to standardise on technology that has matured over the last 5 years.
There will be no change until competitors and start-ups show real savings, and those savings eclipse the cost of migrating to open standards. That means re-writing million dollar apps, so don't hold your breath. IE 6 will be around like old COBOL code.
The home market is chicken feed in comparison. The best apple can do is chip away at M$'s mind-share.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
There are two packages for windows available. One with just Safari and the other one contains both Safari and Quicktime. If you just want safari get the package without Quicktime. It's the 3rd download choice. You do have me wondering though. I've had more trouble and crashes with Windows Media Player and Realplayer than I've ever had with Quicktime. What's the problem with Quicktime? I mean besides the interface being a bit non-standard, but then again when has any media player had a standard interface? How well Quicktime worked under Win 2k was one of the things that made me get an old 603e power mac to try it out and eventually switch.
Safari on Windows seems to use more memory than Firefox... I was hoping for a smaller footprint.
A sig is redundant.
Am I the only one who sees the irony in how Macintosh/Mac OS X users whine and moan when an app doesn't match the UI of the Macintosh, to the point where many developers don't think it's worth the effort, but then when Apple ports something to Windows, they keep the ugly, brushed metal, doesn't-act-like-or-match-anything-on-Windows interface?
Schnapple
- eg
89% IE
10% firefox
sounds better to make a business case to a phb to support a website site that is w3c compliant and supports firefox vs
89% IE
6% Firefox
4% Safari
Which tells the phb that only IE matters as the rest are niche players that do not make significant marketshare to be worth the investment.
That's because you're spinning it the wrong way. You should be presenting it as
10% W3C standards-compliant
89% IE
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
of course i suppose that reason couldn't have been to make it so that people had a choice in media players, giving third parties more of a chance rather than let MS bundle a FREE program into windows that most people who just didn't care used exclusively.
prove to me that WMP is running whenever my computer is on, and i'll believe you. now i can believe this with IE since IE basically runs explorer, which is always running... but media player is separate as far as i can tell. why else would they have only been forced to unbundle WMP and not IE? IE would seem the logical choice of the 2.
please me, have no regrets.
Safari: It's the fastest browser on Windows, but the slowest on a Mac. Comedy gold.
IMAGE VERIFICATION IS EVIL!
I've tried it next to Opera. The speed differences weren't noticable, and Opera has a whole lot else going for it.
The stability in Windows is just fine. Security could do with some work, but is acceptable in Vista. The "amazingly beautiful user interface" can be replicated especially if Cocoa / Carbon APIs mean apps port almost unchanged. As for fervor - well the switch to Intel didn't exactly spark a revolt.
I think Apple could switch quite easily. One day might see a version of OS X (or OS 11) running natively over Vista, or through some virtualization layer that it shares with Vista. Speculation of course, but it's fairly clear that Apple is less about computers and more about gadgets. Developing MacOS was critical at one point, but I suspect it's a drag on the balance sheet these days.
Yuck!!!! No thanks!
It does seem pretty speedy. But is there an easy way to benchmark it on our own within windows, rather than relying on apple's stats? I always just use fasterfox's page load timer on firefox, but don't know if there's anything similar that would work on the windows port of safari.
(Excel 2.0 was the first Windows version, after two years on the Mac. Just sayin'.)
I recall reading after Apple first ported QuickTime to Windows, that it was abstracted such that a significant amount of classic Mac OS was effectively ported with it... so QuickTime could run "thinking" it was on a Mac... Whether that still points to a partial explanation for the performance of some Apple software on Windows, I'll leave to others.
The Microsoft Mac software made by their Macintosh Business Unit has been generally fair to good at the time [Office apps, IE], while software made by other teams at Microsoft have totally sucked [Windows Media Player].
As long as your browsers compete while striving honestly for standards-compliance, having a wider choice is a good thing.
There are a few on the Mac side, too.
it gives a stupid error.... fuck!! Way to go Apple! Keep on trying...
Yes, why would you need Linux. Those apps you cite - VLC, Firefox, Ooo probably have far more users on Windows than they do on Linux. And as such why does a Windows user need to switch to Linux if all these great free apps run on their current OS?
But the Linux guys seem to be barking up the wrong tree as MS has already ported Office to Mac..possibly they are leaving Windows...
The thing with MS Office on the Mac was they tried to do what Apple is doing now - namely porting MSO via various Windows & OLE compatibility layers and the users screamed bloody murder. So MS redesigned the next version to look and feel native. There never was any danger of them dumping Windows since it was making a lot of money.
I know apple not following OS native UI guidelines is a very bad practice..but commenting that they are dumping OS X on a day they released a new beta version and have committed to at least one more version is a bit far fetched..
It was just speculation. But if Apple have a robust Cocoa / Carbon APIs that presumably allow apps to port with minimal effort, then it is just one less reason Apple have for supporting their own OS.
iTunes is a piece of shite http://www.macobserver.com/columns/devilsadvocate/ 2003/20031007.shtml. The only reason is it successful is that iPods suggest using it and probably distribute a CDROM with this garbage on it at purchase time.
_ quicktime_without_itunes Rather than live with iTunes, I removed quicktime and found an alternative. Both of these .... "programs" are complete shite VLC and gnump3, xmms, amarok, etc ... work for me and don't completely take over my desktop to run.
/ storeFront. Since I **will not** run iTunes on a desktop, I'm stuck purchasing music CDs and converting those songs into MP3s myself.
Quicktime is only distributed with iTunes whether you want it or not. http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/850/download_apple
Let's see, how else is iTunes forced onto users? What is the easiest way to get legal music? Why, the iTunes store, of course. What other programs will an average user (your mother) use? None. The iTunes store ONLY works with the iTunes client for some reason http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa
Saying that iTunes is used by users is like saying that Toshiba remote controls are used with Toshiba TVs or Sony remote controls are used with Sony equipment. There is no other choice.
Yes, users can and do replace iTunes, but most simply give up and assume the only real purpose for their PC is to run this piece of shite from Apple.
No, Apple is not trying to replicate iTunes' success. Nobody on windows would give a crap if iTunes wasn't the main way to get things onto an iPod.
Actually, iTunes for Windows is such a steaming pile of iCrap (there's still no Vista version out... Apple... hello?), that I've known several people that have dumped their iPod just so they wouldn't have to deal with iTunes. Comparing Safari to iTunes is not a good idea, if they're actually trying to get people to use Safari on Windows. iTunes has a terrible reputation among everybody that I know.
I don't respond to AC's.
Jobs did say the web app would have access to some of the iPhone features - at the very least he mentioned activating a call, and also pulling up a google map of a location. I don't think it's meant to be low level access at all (like no Quartz access directly) but did you know Safari 3 supports SVG?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Web 2.0 is the iPhone SDK? So we can use the 3D API ? Maybe the sound API? Can we run applications in the iPhone at full speed? Use the OS and the native functions? Use Cocoa? Can we -FOSS developers- offer the same then the rest of the programmers?
Are we ALL going to play with the same rules or just the chosen ones will be able to develop for the real iPhone SDK? I understand that most general news agencies are buying that the iPhone will be a open platform, but he isn't giving us something we already got.
The Seller did it again.
It's just me or does anyone else feel insulted by this statement? *Now* I understand why there is no Java in the phone.
We are not stupid Mr. Jobs. We like your products, we really do, but we aren't brain dead yet. And thank you btw for the ROI of the KHTML in your phone. We can see you suck all the code you can but give us something in return in the same spirit.
I agree that it's easier to get a lower price for similar performance, and expandability, and wish apple made a mini-atx style box. There is possibly some difference in build quality and underlying engineering between the mini and a crappo emachine, but can't prove it beyond my own observations of a nicely made unit I took apart for fun.
You're forgetting an important lack that the mini has, though: noise. Have you heard one? They're damn quiet for the price, and you can screw them to a wall or under a desk, or on a server closet wall, or slide it into a stack of AV equipment. The form factor and the acoustics are important to me, at least, as I've deployed them as heavily automated SOHO servers and as part of a media production system, and as capable low-power rural desktops, in tight quarters, where noise matters.
Damn those pesky terrorists
Dear non-Mac user,
.MOV file. Quicktime for Mac is only slightly better but we don't have a choice. It's as integrated into the OS as much as IE is in Windows.
.MOV as an alternative to people using (Win only, we mean it!) .WMA or (God help us!) .RM when those were the only choices given to us users by the majority of web outlets. It's almost like voting between a giant douche, a turd sandwich, and some other thing.
I sincerely apologize for Quicktime on Windows. I'll admit that it is a horrible piece of coding that has made many users scream in agony when opening a
I want you to realize that I am not directly responsible for the application but I used to recommend
I'm not going to apologize for iTunes for Windows. It wasn't my fault that you people went and bought iPods in droves. It's technically your fault that Apple Computer changed their name to Apple Inc. Don't go telling me that it was because you couldn't wait for the Zune.
On the plus side, at least full screen playing of Quicktime files is going to be in Leopard without paying an additional $29. Maybe someday this amazing, new, and wonderful technological advancement could find its way over to your platform as well.
Is it worth it to pay $100-200 for that form factor?
For a media PC? Yes. Or a simple system that doesn't take a lot of space.
You can do 1080p video from the current model you know...
The next upgrade I would like to see in a mini is a Blu-Ray player - probably it will see an update in the next few months though (Blu-Ray player mini is still at least a year off I imagine).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I think I speak for most of us when I say that software that fiddles with unrelated preferences when it is installed can fuck right off.
Thank god that those of us on decent platforms never have to deal with this crap!
The fervor with which most of the Mac community, myself included, worship OS X?
Like the fervor with which most of the Mac community worshipped classic Mac OS?
It wouldn't be the first time Apple ditch their OS. And the new system would still be branded as "Mac OS", so the brand loyalty would just carry straight over.
Well, Opera faces the same problem Safari does: small marketshare, so too many developers ignore it.
My hope is that, with Safari now available for Windows, some of those developers will start thinking, "Oh, this is the default browser on Macs and I can test it without buying a Mac. It might be worth testing in Safari as well as IE and Firefox." Once they break the two-browser mindset, maybe, just maybe some of them will start using the most reliable method to write code that works in multiple browsers: code to the standard first and tweak it according to browser bugs and limitations. It's a lot less work than targetting browser A, adding browser B, adding browser C, etc.
Plus, a two-browser hegemony is only a little better than a one-browser hegemony. Ideally, there should be at least three major browsers with significant marketshare. Maybe 40/30/20/other, but something where there isn't a "majority" browser. That way, there's healthy competition among browser vendors, there's enough variety that malware authors have to go to a significant effort to get results, and web developers can count on the different browsers aiming for the same specs.
...and complete with a "User Agent" menu item, which is sometimes useful for dealing with sites that only let certain browsers in.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Can you find one that is vastly cheaper and comes with something of the quality of iLife bundled in?
Safari is the gateway to OS X, the same way Firefox is to Ubuntu. I don't know about you, but switching to Ubuntu was that much easier since Firefox runs on both. I'm betting Apple is hoping the same will happen with users and switching to OS X. The default font smoothing in Safari looks 'better' than the default on IE, and I'm betting others feel the same way (Fired up VMWare to test out Safari). I'll bet Apple spent a good amount of time tweaking that so its was 'just right'.
I could see a user after installing Safari going "Hey, this is pretty; Maybe I should get a Mac?" Theres an earlier comment about Safari being bundled with iTunes. I think that is also spot on. Install iTunes after buying a shiny new iPod means you're already buying Apple products, whats upgrading to a iMac instead of a Dell(and OS X) when you're already familiar with iTunes and Safari? (Buying things at a price premium was previously demonstrated with iPod purchase)
...it's not going to be worth getting.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
How about you shut up? If you don't want to use it, here's an idea: Don't use it.
And as for "NTLM" authentication - who the fucking hell uses that. Oh no, Apple's browser doesn't support some outdated, obscure, totally proprietary windows authentication thing? Cry me a fucking river.
Keep sucking it up with IE and NT, chump. Oh no! Quick, I think your Access 97 database has crashed! Get back to work!
Web designers who use Windows can make sure their site will render properly on the iPhone by using Safari for Windows.
I can't decide if this post is interesting, funny, insightful, or flamebait.
I'm fairly certain that when I upgrade to the Ultimate version that it will cost more than $129.
If you applied the same demented logic to Windows, the "Ultimate" version with "server niceities" would cost you...well, hell, I don't know. You try to figure it out.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
Without middle-click scrolling, Safari is a no show on Windows. That's like leaving out the close button or address bar. Missing autoscroll + missing middle-click to close tabs = Broken by any sane and fair measurement. Do not pass go, go back to web browser school, bye-bye.
Oh, and for the record I was very much looking forward to this. What a disappointment.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
And we need Safari on Windows...why?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Works in IE, Firefox, Safari...L as in Location.
Command-L on the Mac.
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
Apple has just committed a suicide. Everybody will have a chance to install Safari on their PCs and realize that it is not any better than everything else out there thus destroying the hype. That applies to those thinking about switching to MacOS as well.
"Apple is hoping to replicate the success of iTunes, which has proved enormously popular on both Macs and Windows machines"
Yeah, but then Quicktime is bundled with a mandatory install of iTunes, or in a more correct way, iTunes is the only way to get the new quicktime.
Quicktime is still just about hanging on in streaming enough to mean that its a problem, and the reverse engineered alternatives are just not perfect.
iTunes is also "practically" mandatory for all iPod users.
So... since a lot of iTunes users have/use it not out of choice, but out of lack of an alternative, how are they gonna force safari down our throats.
Wow, someone finally improved the "Find" feature in browsers. In Safari 3.0 (which I'm using to browse /. right now), when you do a find, it highlights all the occurrences of the search text. Pretty normal. But then when you have it select the next occurrence, the newly highlighted text has a bright orange background with a white box around it which "pulses" by growing bigger and smaller once. Makes it way easier to see where the next occurrence is. It's possible I'm the only one who hates painfully searching for the currently highlighted text (especially in oddly colored web pages), but I doubt it.
:)
Someone should make a Mozilla extension for this, if possible.
-snarkbot
p.s. Though I browsed with Safari, I ended up having to post with Mozilla. And type it twice. Preview showed that it was only going to post the first half of it, and selecting all the text and copying likewise only copied the first half of the text box. But hey, it's a beta.
Of course, $129 is a lot cheaper than $259 (MSRP of Vista Ultimate upgrade). Let's see if Leapord "Ultimate version" gets 10 years of support (instead of 2-3 years).
I'm using Safari 2 on a Mac, though. They're just Flash videos.
Check that your plugins are up to date, or report it to Apple.
I mean, really, if it's not that, and just Steve saying "see? You can write apps for the iPhone because iPhone can use web pages and you can write web pages!" then that's frankly a bit insulting.
That's how I interpreted it.
That, and "oh by the way, web apps can haxor your phone".
Click a button and javascript dials a number for me? Holy ActiveX, Batman!
Boy, you see so many funny things here on Slashdot but damn, this one is epic. Epic I say! Exploitable!!!
Why, next thing we know you're gonna hit us with something completely unexpected like spelling Microsoft with a dollar sign!! HAHAHAHAHA!!! Please, stop it!!!1!! HAHAHAHAHAH!!! *holds sides* HAHAHAHAHA!!! OMFG, no moar plz!!! HAHAHAHAHAH!!!
This "safari on windows" is aimed at "opera on cellphones" and then to a lesser erxtent "windows on cellphones".. Those are the guys with the goody's headache powder cocktails today. Apple want to be the iPod of cellphones, but to do that you need hardware+functions. They designed the hardware, and want to keep their normal lockin, so by releasing safari on windows they get to tap a huge pool of devs who work on windows boxes and might like to dick around with it. Anything cool they can come up with can go directly to a cellphone application. People using their normal web browsers will just love to have an application that works more or less the same on their cellphone. If the cellphone that does that is the iPhone, then apple sells more cellphones and the development costs to them are almost nil. and eventually if people notice they are using safari web browser, an iPod, aniPphone, they tend to think "why the hell shouldn't I just get a Mac platform computer then?", but that is down the road still, apple can't jump too fast yet. Markup on smaller gadgets is way more than markup on full computers, plus they get changed more frequently and the cellphone market is expanding at a fantastic rate compared to computers.
And apple does NOT want to do OSX on plain beige boxes, they want to sell their hardware and software. Full stop. People argue they are a hardware company, no they are a software company. Both wrong, they are 100% integrated because that is what works the best. Safari on windows accomplishes two things, makes iPhone app development go faster for cheap, and makes webmasters code so that macs work on their sites, which helps to influence acceptance and sales of mac hardware.
Do you REALLY want us to bring in all of the server variants of Windows? Do you? Really?
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
...it crashed when I tried to bookmark a page.
Just like how Quicktime with iTunes has overtaken Windows Media Player as the player of choice on Windows.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
For adblocking on Safari have a look at the free add-on SafariBlock http://fsbsoftware.com/SafariBlock.html
Even with cruise control, you still have to steer (damn lameness filter really took the punch out of that...)
After calming me down with some orange slices and some fetal spooning, E.T. revealed to me his singular purpose.
Nobody on windows would give a crap if iTunes wasn't the main way to get things onto an iPod. [so they don't care about Safari]
I thought you were right about this but BBC says other wise. It is currently the most read and emailed story in the most widely read English language newspaper. If most web browsers are Windoze, there's a lot of interest in Apple's browser on Windoze.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Boy, you see so many funny things here on Slashdot but damn, this one is epic. Epic I say! Exploitable!!!
Great scott, next thing we know you're gonna hit us with something completely unexpected like spelling Microsoft with a dollar sign!! HAHAHAHAHA!!! Please, stop it!!!1!! HAHAHAHAHAH!!! *holds sides* HAHAHAHAHA!!! OMFG, no moar plz!!! HAHAHAHAH!!!
Not a good first impression :D
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
I believe lots of people click in HTTP links in the now called Windows Live Messenger. And GTalk too.
More than you can imagine.
I do it, in fact, at least 5 times a day. All of them open in the default system browser.
May be this is an age issue. Old people just read mail. Young people live in the messengers more than in the browser (it makes them think in homework and email forwards.)
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
Can't seem to find a spot to offer feedback at Apple.com/safari. So hope Apple's watching. To even consider switching from FF to Safari on my laptop, it must support the middle-mouse button so I can scroll up and down from the pointer, without having to use the scrollbar on the right side of the browser window. Thanks.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
I am very tired...why not just shut the fuck up and drink the Kool-Aid?!?!? Man! This is one BUGGY browser, it really messed up my personalized google home page, and every time I try to get to Slashdot, it just DIES!!!!! It seems to pick up your proxy settings from Internet explorer. If you run a proxy, set IE to autodetect, and see if Safari works. It don't. Now hard set your proxy, and check Safari again...works. Does that mean they are using hooks into IE? Sure seems that way!
"My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
Macs are PCs
thread over
Where are iLife '07 and iWork '07? Where's Charts? Where is the screen-sharing/remote-control functionality in iChat? Where is the ability to run Windows apps from the desktop? Where is virtualization in OS X Server?
I know a lot of these were rumored, but to be missing all of them? It just seems a little strange. Am I the only one to be underwhelmed by the Keynote? Mac users were told that Leopard had been delayed, but that it would be worth the wait. And Back to Mac _is_ a feature that was worth waiting for, but I'd hardly say the secret features lived up to the hype. This is not a brand-new Finder, it's a Finder with a few tweaks. This is not a brand-new Dock, it's a dock with a mirrored shelf. And while it could be helpful to quickly preview documents rather than launching them, I would have settled for speeding-up Spotlight instead. And truly, while it may be good for Apple down the road, do Mac developers (or users for that matter) care about Safari on Windows?
I'm certain that some developers are ecstatic about the OS being 64-bit, but most of their apps aren't going to use 4 GB files. I recognize that Time Machine may be the best addition to an OS in years; backing-up is the one thing that most users never get around to implementing until it's too late.
I dunno, I guess I was just expecting more from the "secret features" we had been told to expect.
I am really happy to see those two features maintained in the PC version. It will be interesting to see how effective private browsing is on the PC (read: pr0n) and on the mac, the activity window has always been really helpful with AJAX / Flash debugging-
*whooosh*
Sure looks pretty with all those gee whiz features - if you are a home user.
:-P
(Start dry sarcasm)
But with:
- Mail's mail templates (you know those ones that add a whole bunch of HTML and images to perfectly good text messages) this will be great for that new e-discovery stuff.
- Fancy preview browsing (just think of the finder cache needed to store all that stuff!)
- Time machine - making sizable point-in-time backups for your protection (assuming your hard drive doesn't get totally borked, hard drives don't fail on Macs, really!)
- Boot Camp - a nifty application that allows you to explore the wonders of Windows while completely turning off access to the OS and Apps you really want to use along with it. And also taking another significant part of your HD - that time machine doesn't backup.
- Not to mention the 'lets make yet another full sized copy of that image, just in case' iPhoto application.
Yes, business administrators can now rejoice on Leopard, as it will make our life easier as well as our co-workers.
(/sarcasm)
Better buy your Tiger usable Macs while you can.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
If they hadn't stolen Steve's thunder, there's a chance that ZFS may have been "one of the ten". Since they chose to go public before Steve, they're out.
Sorry Apple people... Safari is just not good enough. Here's why
1) It might seem acceptable on PlanetMac, but the real world requiores you can grab any corner or edge of an application and resize it. 100% lame.
2) Placing a 2-pixel wide strip to either side of the window is retarded. Just because MS are idiots does not mean you can take a pass on this! You MUST be able to slam the mouse to the top right corner of your screen - click, and close the app. (multi-monitor users notwithstanding) You also MUST be able to slam to the right side of the screen, click and drag to scroll. That's the most stupid lack of usability right there. 100% retarded.
3) Yeah - I've got a good idea: let's hide the Debug tool so no one can use those features! Let's then make users hack the preferences.plist file to reveal those tools - and then let's make sure that the single feature EVERYONE needs (to import bookmarks from Mozilla/Firefox) works but does not appear to. Yeah - great idea; bury all their personal bookmarks in some subfolder somewhere, but fill all the regular bookmark locations with Applespam! Great idea! 100% lazy.
4) Let them eat crap! Yeah - we have a web browser with Tabbed Browsing, but let's purposely cripple that behaviour and reveal no control at all about how they open, close, get shown or revealed, or how to control them in any way - except for 3 fucking useless radio buttons. 100% stupid.
Dunno what the Apple peeps are thinking, but when a piece of software gets to Version 3.0 (fuck the fact this is the first Windows release) we ALL expect the product to be slick as all hell, functioning perfectly, and logically, and not to be such a useless sack of crap.
Sorry Safari-for-Windows you blow goats.
Come back and see me when you decide to start making a browser with some proper usability features. For now, Firefox Owns Yuo!
How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
It's evil against me since noone in my family cares about computers that much, we are only four, and my systers laptop runs XP ;/
;D ARR!
Ohwell, guess I'll put on that special hat and eye piece anyway
Not sure if it was stated, but it seems like a logical fit. Building webapps and fanbase for another fine apple product.
Well said. My main motivators were noise and power, and yes, these were worth $100 to me.
I do not understand the fixation on the Mini that PC guys have, it's like Apple pissed in their pool by coming out with a low end box. It's not targeted towards you guys ; if you know what the clock speed is on the CPU you are using, you are already too much of a dork. It was a stab at making an appliance-like computing terminal, not the cheapest stamped metal box you can stuff a Sempron in and barf out of some sweatshop in China.
So, essentially very little happened.
Leopard isn't shipping yet and has no really big, surprising features.
iPhone's "Web 2.0" programmability has always been a given, given that it runs Safari and probably Dashboard.
Safari for Windows is kind of nice, but unlikely to make a big impact.
The biggest news is probably the new Finder; an update was overdue and it looks like they did a decent job on the user interface.
Click the icon with the "bug" on it on the toolbar to report a bug to Apple.
It's not a bug though. It's a lack of support for a common feature.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
It's a "security feature".
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Now would be truly awefull.
http://saveie6.com/
Funny - I build our intranet site for a known and controllable set of browsers too:
{ Mozilla Firefox }
though anything reasonably standards compliant should work. Consequently, doing "real" web development makes me want to cry at the horror and stupidity, and I'm seriously considering letting the site break for IE6 to further encourage people to at least get IE7.
Such as?
"Gaming community", eh.
Go fucking on.
I couldn't give a rat's ass about Safari on Windows, but I do want to know this: Will Leopard run on my Core Duo iMac? And if not, who can I punch in the balls for this?
No one can tell me and I'm beginning to suspect that's cuz the answer is "No". Word was (even on the Apple site at one time, I recall distinctly and so does Google's cache) that Leopard was supposed to run on G4, G5 and Intel. Now... I don't know any more.
The irony, if it's true and Leopard won't run on my Core Duo iMac is that it probably will run on my (older, but 64-bit) iMac G5.
- I am made of meat.
I use Firefox for the bank and porn, and that's pretty much it. I use Safari for everything else, because of two things - bookmark management and history management. I find its bookmark management to be vastly superior to every web browser I've ever used, and the History management/use is vastly superior to Firefox's.
Of course, the Firefox history thinger blows ass, so it's kind of like comparing a Ford to a skateboard with broken wheels. Rendering counts for a lot, but Firefox sucks ass in a lot of little tiny ways that Safari doesn't, and that matters to me. Creating or opening new windows in FF is also a hair slower* than it is in Safari.
What I do find hilarious about Safari is that when I went to check out the Leopard preview on the Apple website, none of the goddamned thumbnails worked properly. You'd think Apple would bother to vet their own site in their own browser under conditions other than "100% optimal."
* blah blah custom builds. Firefox used to be seriously slower in the UI department - it's gotten a lot better of late.
Had Apple released a proprietary "mobile-Cocoa," would you be happier as a FOSS developer?
Yes.
Would your iPhone apps run at something closer to "full speed"?
Yes.
Would you even write apps for a proprietary mobile platform if you called yourself a FOSS developer?
FOSS developers write apps for proprietary non-mobile platforms (c.f. Windows and Macintosh). Why should they not write them for proprietary mobile platforms -- especially one that is so amenable to having existing OSX programs recompiled for it? Hell, ever head of TCPMP? Yes, clearly no one writes open-source software for mobile devices.
Can you say "GNU toolset?" i.e. Fink / MacPorts and all of the stuff that comes with OSX. How about just "Terminal?" Or "SSH?" Maybe even "NetHack?" VNC, VLC, any other media players, any games that take advantage of the iPhone's graphics hardware -- all of these things are now impossible on the iPhone barring some kind of miraculous hack (miraculous because there is no available compiler/linker/UI toolkit/ANYTHING).
+++ATH0
I'm not so sure. How long have Apple reminded us that Windows = Bad?
If they switched to something Windows based, I'd be outta here like a shot. I'd rather run Linux than anything based on the Windows kernel - and I suspect many of the Mac geeks out there would agree.
Nothing like blowing your own trumpet.
...k-meleon
http://kmeleon.sf.net/
Back in the days, there was a version of OpenStep running ontop windows NT, Apple bought Next, so they have the code of this version. Since OSX is a port (ok, more than only a port) of OpenStep to macs, they could evolve similarly the NT version to run OSX apps ontop windows NT/2000/XP/vista...
Ugh, it has BlurType! Where can I switch that off? Setting "font smoothing" to "light" doesn't do it.
...it will be hacked within 24 hours!
Although they say it's for XP and Vista only, Safari seems to work on Windows 2000 too, although I haven't pushed it very hard yet.
OMG bugs in a test version. Man, Apple really sucks. How can they have bugs in a test version!?
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=safari+adblock
First hit...
That may be true but you're still loading the content that you're not showing. AdBlock Plus in FF lets you block entire iFrames which means the iFrame content won't even load (as I understand it).
True, same here.
All my webmailers show unread mails in bold, with safari/XP I just don't read these texts!
Herve S.
Not new, but I would say that XUL support is probably part of the interest. But this wouldn't be just for developers. Generally speaking, getting the Safari Webkit on PCs would allow widgets that ran on an iPhone and on the desktop. Basically the trojan O/S that MS use to worry that NS was becoming
- The whole UI, from resizing windows to scrolling pages, feels jerky.
- It insists on it's dark grey Apple interface and there's no way to turn it off.
- It contains numerous usability bugs.
- HTML rendering is buggy, especially that of b-tags. Yes, bold text sometimes doesn't display.
- But most importantly, it crashes all the time. It crashes when you try to add bookmarks. It crashes when you try to print. It crashes when you enter text in textboxes. It crashes when you try to open the history. And so on, and so forth. Always crashing, all the time...
I've faithfully reported the bugs... I just hope they'll fix them.It feels shoddy, even for a beta product. I know that technically it's a beta, because it's the first version released to the public without being an actual release yet, but I thought there was another difference between alpha and beta. I thought alpha meant "it doesn't work" and beta "it works, but there still are some bugs". Based on my experience, I would firmly label the current Safari for Windows as alpha.
I'm not so sure. How long have Apple reminded us that Windows = Bad?
Probably the same amount of time they've told us that Intel x86 = Bad.
Their more recent marketing is about PCs vs Macs - yes, obviously we know they mean Windows, but to the general public, they are differentiating them from PCs. Any new Windows-based machines would still be marketed as "Macs" and "not PCs". I can hear it now: "You can now run Windows on something other than PCs - now you can run it on a Mac!"
If they switched to something Windows based, I'd be outta here like a shot. I'd rather run Linux than anything based on the Windows kernel - and I suspect many of the Mac geeks out there would agree.
And there were people who loved MacOS (non-X) too, and people who couldn't stand x86.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting them to do this - but I wouldn't be surprised either if they did.
I have already found sites rendering different than the mac version of it (Yeah, I know, it's a beta..) But if there's one thing we don't need is yet another browser to comply to.
There is one desktop version of Mac OS X. You can get a discount on multiple licenses with the Family Pack (5 licenses for the price of 1.5), but it's the same product.
This was being compared to the multiple Vista versions (Basic, ?, ?, ?, Ultimate).
There is one server version of Mac OS X Server. Which compares to Windows Server 2003 (are there multiple versions of Windows Server?)
As for 10 years of support.. Is MS still supporting Windows 98? Are you still running it?
That's really not what it's about. It's about our complete bogglement that Apple doesn't have a mid-range box.
Apple does not sell a mid-range desktop computer. That's a fact.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Very time I attemp to install the Windows version of Safari on my Linux box using Crossover, it crashes forcing me to boot into Windows to check it out. If I can't run a Windows app in Linux, what the Hell good is it?
There is such a thing as competing intelligently. Apple could rush to market a full range of me-too products that match the all of the things Microsoft sells, but focusing on Safari first, and delivering WebKit cross platform (Mac/Windows/iPhone, plus as a FOSS project others--from Nokia to individuals--can port anywhere) competes most effectively against the hegemony of the IE-tied-to-Windows monopoly, with the least risk, while delivering the most benefit to consumers and developers compared to the risk and effort Apple has to expend.
The reason children fail to learn things is often because they are so busy demanding things that they often forget to think about why things are the way they are. By reflecting on why things are the way they are, one can learn a lot. That's all I'm trying to do. I'm not withholding your mobile Cocoa, Im just explaining why the expectation that it would appear was irrational and foolish.
Of course, the "Application Data" folder is hidden by default....
So you'd need to pick "Folder Options" from the Windows Explorer Tools menu, View tab, and select "Show hidden files and folders".
Bug, design flaw, missing feature, doesn't matter... you gotta report it using the tool they give you.
"ownage" or whatever it is the kids say these days...
I have a post above about the differences in implementation in font rendering between Windows and Mac.
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
Like many people, I find Quicktime running on startup, taking up memory without asking, incredibly irritating.
r entVersion\Run.
Uninstalling it is one answer but some times you find that you need it. My preferred solution is to prevent it from running upon boot.
Go Start => Run => regedit to open up the Registry Editor.
Browse to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Cur
There is an entry there called Quicktime Task. Delete it.
Add this location to your registry bookmarks (Favorites => Add Favorites). Your going to need it again.
Everytime Quicktime is updated, it will add the key again.
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
Don't presume this was a brilliant business decision made by their infallible marketing oracles. I think a lot of it comes down to Steve's ego rather than practicality.
You make the common mistake of assuming a person or business cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. What is attractive about the iPhone is the following:
1) Extremely shiny and effective UI
2) Full implementation of WebKit on the device
3) Visual voicemail
4) iPod/iTunes functionality
There are things Apple HAS SAID about this device that would also make it attractive if they were true or MEANT anything to the user, such as:
5) It runs OS X! It has Cocoa!
Note that the "Cocoa" bit has since been stripped from the Apple website. However, the point is that there is nothing about "open API" that is mutually exclusive with 1, 2, 3, or 4.
This is a classic Steve Jobs "I want absolute control regardless of the good of the consumer" move. Nothing more, nothing less.
+++ATH0
I installed Safari on my PC as soon as I read on /. they were releasing it - So far, it's a very negative experience: as some people have already pointed out, the interface looks just plain ugly on Windows XP, I've seen lots of crashes and bugs, and pages are rendered really ugly ( /. main page doesn't shows headlines, etc). It still is very slow, much more that Firefox and Opera (I can't say for IE6). Now, beta versions are usually like this, so no surprise there, but if they can't yet deliver a truly faster browser, they shouldn't sell it that way. Let's wait for the final version.
To add insult to injury, watch the video of Steve and Bill on stage at the D conference. At one point they're talking about thin vs. thick client, and Jobs waxes lyrical about how Apple built the best client for Google Maps ever for the iPhone--because they had a full OS to develop on. He goes on to say that natively running software will always beat software that has to run in a browser--even when the purpose is just to provide a front end to a cloud data service.
Now he turns around and tells a bunch of developers that the only apps they can make for the iPhone have to run in a browser!
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Christ! This is Windows.. not a Mac. I don't send Windows or Mac users to RPM repositories for software. BTW, you are only the 49 billionth Mac user that has said something along these lines in this thread.
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
Obviously, Apple has limited resources. No one should expect them to release a fully-featured SDK for a brand-new product at the same time as they are feverishly developing the next version of OS X (which, from the looks of it, has quite a constellation of new features and is likely to need a LOT of debugging before release). I understand this fully. They simply don't have the budget of Microsoft to do something like that.
It's easy to make demands. But how much value will be immediately delivered by the release of mobile-Cocoa on the iPhone? How much risk? If your position is that it would be all win and no lose, then please explain why delivering Safari on Windows was immediately met by scorn and criticism. Safari is a web browser, not a mobile platform!
I'm not quite sure I follow your logic here. What does Safari-on-Windows have to do with value added to the iPhone by mobile Cocoa? You are precisely right, Safari is a web browser, not a mobile platform. There is some speculation that the Safari implementation on the iPhone will be capable of running AJAX applications locally, using a framework like Google Gears. Unfortunately, that has not been confirmed.
What bothers me is that there is no indication they are even thinking about releasing an SDK ever. It's fine to say "hey, you can just write stuff for the web and be guaranteed that it will also work on the iPhone, no matter what it is," but for God's sake, say something like "we have several application development paradigms in mind for the iPhone. Among them, we're really excited about the ability to Web 2.0 blah blah blah." If we are meant to understand that eventually there will be a native SDK, ffs let us know.
Certainly you can imagine that the Apple Trolls and Black Hat hackers--who already have a bone to pick with Apple over being exposed as frauds--would pounce upon even minor security issues on the iPhone exposed by a wide open, full access API, just as they do so over the ability to crash the new beta Safari 3.0 browser.
I don't see this as being particularly important. It would be fairly trivial for Apple to make it so that you had to do something specific on the PC side to even enable the running of 3rd-party applications of any kind (turn "Unsupported Application Framework" on, or something like that). It is a truism that if you write code for a system, it is possible for the system to get viruses. As for Safari -- so what? It's a beta.
While I'd be happy to hear alternative viewpoints based on reason and logic, I'm a bit tired of hearing a nothing but a mixture of tired stereotype and cliche to explain why Jobs and Apple are persecuting the innocent just because Jobs is a maniac and Apple is a monstrous entity threatening the freedom of people who are happy to be monopolized.
I don't think they're persecuting anyone. Moreover, if I've made you think that I am saying the iPhone will be a failure, this is a false impression. I don't think it will fail at all. I just don't think it will be as successful as it could have been if they had thrown us a bigger bone than AJAX to chew on.
+++ATH0
It would reassure me that Apple was more interested in serving its customers than caving to the greed of cell phone companies. I don't think I have to explain why this might be the case -- I'll start with "WiFi" and "Skype" and let you figure out the rest.
(There are NO "good" cell phone companies in the United States, in case you don't live here.)
+++ATH0
Doesn't SafariBlock (which is free, unlich pitihelmet) work on windows?
I beg you pardon, I saw others only advising PithHelmet.
Please go ahead and don't use Safari.
Regards,
Don. (the 49 Billionth Mac user)
starkruzr, I read about you here in your profile and post history. It led me to this and your reprehensible behavior here at Windowsitpro magazine forums:
t icleid=41095&cpage=208#feedbackAnchor
http://www.windowsitpro.com/articles/index.cfm?ar
You are not one to advise anything about anything on computers or technology.