Slashdot Mirror
Safari 3 Beta Updated, Security Problems Fixed
Llywelyn writes "Apple has released an update to the Windows Safari 3 Beta. According to Macworld the updates '...include correction for a command injection vulnerability, corrected with additional processing and validation of URLs that could otherwise lead to an unexpected termination of the browser; an out-of-bounds memory read issue; and a race condition that can allow cross-site scripting using a JavaSscript [sic] exploit.' It is available through either the Apple Safari download site or through Apple's Software Update."
It's about time! ;) What took them so long!
-Daniel
Downloaded and tried to open websites in Chinese. The rendering is just horrible, unreadable and totally unacceptable. Texts are not where they should be. In this sense, this Safari is even not as good as IE 4, which could display such webpages well. I heard that, (didn't try), Safari could not open most webpages in non-western languages.
I'm your average rabid Apple fan, but surely they had to have a fix at least this fast to keep from looking stupid. I doubt they'll be as quick in the future.
they haven't fixed all the vulnerabilities yet.
In the interest of having a viable stable platform for iPhone development, they're going to have to keep up this quick turnaround on defect resolution. As someone mentioned a couple of days ago when Win Safari was first released, they're also going to have to work really hard for this software to compete with other browsers (which many think it can't). While I agree that it's an impressive turnaround, for Apple's sake, I hope they can keep up the momentum.
Just don't fill in that field. :P
Er, you don't have to give an e-mail address to download it, just to sign up.
Leave the box blank and the check-box ticked and it still downloads.
I hate having to give out an email address just to get the download, and I hate even more having to uncheck several boxes to avoid downloading every piece of software Apple owns.
You don't need to give them your email address--you can just click the download button.
This guy's the limit!
Konqueror's Win32 release will be as big a disaster.
"it's likely to just disappear and not make it back onto my machine the next time I reinstall Windows."
How often do you have to reinstall Windows?
I am not a big Windows fan but I go years between reinstalls without any problems.
I only do a reinstall when I get new System or a new Drive.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
If you hate it so much why did you enter your email address? It's not required.
Developing a browser for Windows will be quite a test for Apple and the Safari developer community. Is Apple trying to get a larger user community (even tens of percents), or just making it possible for web developers easily test their servers for Safari? In any case, if Apple can survive in this market, they are in an interesting position - partner with Google, and offer their own services for Windows users perhaps?
Now if they would just fix the problem that some people (including myself) are having where no text shows up anywhere in the application and you can't type in any of the text input fields (kind of hard to use a browser when you can't type in an address).
Now can they make it not suck?
There is little evidence that apple actually cares to compete in the browser space. If window Safari is really only out there for iPhone developers then its not really even necessary to fix security holes (of course that would be bad because some people would use it as a general purpose browser, but you get my point).
All they really have to do is keep it compatible with the version on the iPhone and it will suit their needs. Hopefully they will make it at least as good as safari on the mac, which is not necessarily good enough to compete with Firefox on windows, but choice is still good.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
the COMMUNITY would have had it fixed
and fixed WAY faster copyleft knockoff $Apple$
I, for one, refuse to acknowledge the EXISTANCE of closed source browsers.
Live Free or Die
I think the reason's pretty simple: companies like Google have been abusing the "beta" moniker lately. The betas I've seen from Apple (including Safari and earlier, Quicktime 7) have been more consistent with what I would consider a beta: they mostly work and are useful for testing, but still have significant problems.
Perhaps what they might have done is require an Apple Developer Connection account to download instead of making it available through general release.
...is there for a reason.
Though I really would prefer vulnerabilities fixed asap, I can see the reason for Patch Tuesday, especially for non-0day exploits.
Safari 3.0.1, however, is just damage control.
You don't actually have to enter your email. You can just click download.
Also, "every piece of software Apple owns" == quicktime?
Having Safari available on Windows removes the 'Apple Only' hardware requirement for any company who wants to develop Web 2.0/AJAX applications that run on the iPhone which opens Safari development to a much much larger pool of developers.
I've heard that it appears to work as well as it does on XP. Just don't expect Apple to support it (not that anyone gives support for betas anyways)
"I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
Once Apple gets Safari for Windows to the point where it's very stable, I'll probably be recommending it to IE users. Yes, above FireFox and Opera. I use a Mac with FireFox, but most people don't need the extensions that FireFox offers, I love them, but your average user won't use them. What your typical end user wants: Simplicity, Speed, Security. IE offers simplicity, if Safari for Windows gets to the point where it's good (much better than it currently is) it will probably become my recommendation to your typical user....
Beau West - http://budgety.net/
does anyone else get the completely-unusable-font-version of Safari after they install? I had this problem with 3 and now with 3.0.1.
[an error occurred while processing this sig]
Keep in mind that this is a beta version - they can fix things without having to check wether this will break anything.
Plus: One can assume that it takes less work to fix a new program which has a clean and fresh design. The code base doesn't get more logical/cleaner when you already applied a gazillion patches (e.g. IE 6)
I'll try to update now - for some reason Software Update tells me that there's nothing to install.
I don't read replies by ACs.
Given that it's a severe, obvious security hole and they don't seem to be doing much (if any) pre-release testing, I would've been very disappointed if Apple didn't get a fix out nearly immediately.
This may be a stupid question, but every other tabbed browser I've used has a hotkey to switch between tabs. Generally, that's ctrl-tab. I can't find anything similar in Safari though, and that is a big deal breaker. Am I just missing something?
I'm glad someone finally defined what Web 2.0 is. It's Web 1.0 multiplied by the hype.
Apple seemed to have responded *awfully* quick to a security whole in their new SDK, almost as if it was a web browser vulnerability? But, it can't be a browser, that is not what people here said it was.
OK. Here is what I think. I use Safari as my main browser on my Mac which I use for all personal computing. It's a nice browser. I started using it to try it, and I've stuck with it. I'm happy with it for the most part.
Now I've tried it on Windows. It's cute. Even if it was perfect, it wouldn't replace FireFox because at this point I'm addicted to FlashBlock on my work PC. Things I use often have annoying flash ads and the computer isn't that fast in the first place. I'm glad it's there, and if I was going to switch to the Mac (like I did 2 years ago) being able to download it and try it may have been nice.
As for bugs, the only one I've noticed is that it doesn't handle my multi-monitor setup well. I haven't used it for more than a few seconds though (due to that). The problem is that when I put it on my secondary monitor (the left one, just FYI) then maximize it, Safari disappears. It still exists, it is maximized to the left of the left monitor, where it would be if a third monitor to the left of the left one existed. It doesn't seem to handle mouse clicks right in this state either some times. But when non-maximized, it works perfectly on either monitor. Works fine maximized on the main monitor as well.
It would be useful for testing websites (something I often have to do) for, but I always have my Mac next to me so it's not that critical for that.
It's a decent browser. When it gets out of beta I expect it to get a few points of market share (maybe Opera sized, or a little smaller). I don't expect it to kill FireFox; and I'm amazed at all this "Safari is buggy!" stuff since it is a BETA. Google (and others) seem to have ruined that word in the mainstream, as many people don't seem to know that it should be translated as "This software probably has problems and will crash on you, possibly losing data". Google's betas are often quite stable (and that's not too surprising as GMail has been out for a few years now). This is a real beta.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Oh bugger, nothing like a typo to totally derail snide commentary. That whole should be a hole. I hereby disqualify myself from making additional snarky comments for this thread. Enjoy!
Did you try downloading without an e-mail address? It works just fine for me.
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
I think Apple just wants a solid #3 Browser Spot. That way when people test their webpages they will check 3 browsers IE, Firefox, Safari. Before safari for windows Web Developers needed a Mac to test Safari. Thus making #3 Opera. With with the bulk of Mac People using Safari and a modest Windows people (because once it is finalize it will be shipped with Quicktime and iTunes.) So some people will try it and like it better then IE. So it could be a solid #3 and probably more tested for compatability on web pages... Now with websites better designed for Safari it would make the migration to Macs one more step simpler. (fear of compatibility of web pages) I doubt that Apple has plans to make a profit with Safari for windows but more of a case to make sure they don't get left out in the loop. Apple is realistic, they realize not everyone wants or will get a Mac. But they feel if more people given the choice they would actually prefer one. Offing Safari, iTunes, QuickTime for Windows makes sure that these are also well supported to in real life allowing apple to maintain control on the global standards. Otherwise companies of new technologies could forget about Apple. Say make a codex that there is no QuickTime port. or a webpage that doesn't work with Safari. It is all about keeping control on their interests.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Regardless of how it was distributed this crap was not news. Its not surprising that there are major flaws in beta software. It is also not surprising that the bugs were fixed. None of this is news, none of it is particularly interesting, its really just something to let geeks get all up in arms and have yet another flame war between the people who hate apple and the people who love apple.
Folks talk a lot about how certain tech journalists post ill informed garbage because it gets people all rilled up and increase page views. I submit that slashdot has fallen into this same trap. Posting this kind of thing because its likely to get a bunch of people to go back and forth and generate a ton of ad revenue. They do this with apple, they do it with microsoft they do it with whatever topic they can that will get people to argue foolishly.
Usually, when a tech jouralist does this, people suggest you simply stop reading them. Is it time for people to give slashdot the same treatment? I hope not. As you can see from my UID I have been here quite some time. This site hasn't always been like this (flame wars sure, but I didn't feel like the editors were actually trying to cultivate them). I, for one, would like to see this get better, but I don't hold out too much hope.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Fixing the security issues may help in keeping Apple from looking foolish, but security is not the real problem with Safari for Windows. The real problem with Safari for Windows that Apple should be putting focus on is the user experience.* It's horrendous. Slow window redraws, completely broken Windows conventions, a total lack of extensibility, and on and on.
As a web developer, I'm pleased as punch that they've released a Windows version of Safari that renders pixel-for-pixel the same as the OS X version (it really does, I checked). However, Safari on Windows is not even in the running as far as being a candidate as a full-time browser on Windows. The user experience is simply too painful.
* I didn't say they should not focus on security. They most definitely should.
First: complex software written for use on a wide variety of configurations WILL HAVE BUGS. I just don't see any way around it. This has nothing to do with competition. OS X in the past 2 months has had a huge number of patches, hasn't it? That too, with a BSD based kernel and a much smaller hardware base.
Second: Not every bug is a showstopper. Even if a bug is found after code freeze, it might be better to release a patch separately. You know, like those "errata" sheets of paper in books.
When a patch is released the vulnerability *has* to be disclosed! That means sysadmins would run around trying to keep systems up to date the whole month.
I agree that more out of cycle patches should be released for serious vulnerabilities that are being exploited, but I see nothing wrong with the Patch Tuesday method otherwise.
Flamebait? maybe. But no more so than the slashdot articles themselves.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Giving web developers on windows a good way to test against safari is a great benefit, but if that was the real reason behind this you would have seen this a long time ago. I believe the iPhone is the primary motivating factor because of the timing of the events.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Actually, looks like they just (finally) changed it to download if you leave the textbox blank, even if you leave the checkbox ticked.
Here is my home page.
You cite "Patch Deployment Costs" as a reason...
That just begs the question:
Why are patch deployment costs on Windows so high? The only real rationale for this on the Wikipedia page you reference is "a patch issued by Microsoft would break existing functionality", and that's a matter of code, not physics constraints.
-- Terry
It still has a bug that makes the text blurry. Please let me turn off anti-aliasing!
No wait...
:-p
But maybe it's just as good to not have any sensationalist headlines to mislead you?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I think this is BS. Tried running Safari at work and with a simple proxy, every time I enter anything and press OK, the program crashes. Then I press Cancel and cannot browse. By going to Edit => Preferences, the ability to change Proxy Settings has been disabled.
I give the Safari Browser a 0/10 for now. There's also the annoying issue of closing the application behind it when clicking in the corner of the screen when it's maximized. It doesn't close Safari, but whatever window was behind it. I've done this 2-3X.
I have a Macbook, so I'm not Apple, but I'm saying Safari is a POS from my perspective right now.
This sig donated to Pater. Long live
I thought that was Steve's job?
clearly I needed a sarcasm tag for this post... nobody reads past the bit you quoted. I don't actually hate apple, or safari, what I hate is that all of this has been passed off as news and that everyone on this site is lapping it up.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Best advertisement for OS X I've seen all day. :P
That should get more people looking to Macs on their next hardware upgrade.
Because of one single quick patch...?
Apple had to do it to not look like complete fools, and that "beta" is still pretty much like an "alpha".
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Agreed. In fact, bugs ARE due to sloppy code, in the OS, drivers or programs. BTW, what's the difference between a bug and an error? I've always called an error a bug. Vulnerabilities are a subset of bugs.
What I am saying is that bugs are an inescapable reality.
Apple delivers updates once monthly. So does Microsoft. What's the difference?
PS: I don't need an advertising agency to tell me what is correct.
Operating systems are complex beasts. It's not just in Windows where a patch has broken existing functionality. In fact, OS X has had this (patches broke wireless on many Apple Intel laptops not too long ago), and I really can't tell you how many times I've updated my Linux kernel (past) or installed an Ubuntu security update (present) and had some part of my computer's functionality disappear. The reason it appears to happen so much more often with Windows is simple: on the deskotp, Windows has 9 times the userbase of OS X and Linux, combined.
So patch deployment cost is high. With more machines (in more configurations) running Windows, testing patches to ensure that they won't break critical functionality is not only important--it's necessary. You don't want to deploy a patch company-wide, and all of a sudden have your entire company virtually shut down because of an unanticipated bug.
Also, begging the question does not mean what you think it means.
This is also the first time I can remember seeing a company issue a security-only fix for a beta (not counting OSS programs that are in use on production servers even though they're still in 0.x versions).
I seriously figured they'd fix it in the nightlies, and wouldn't issue a fixed beta until they had, well, a new beta.
1. The absolutely huge number of configurations. Say, the coder of a driver didn't follow guidelines and used a hack (linked to, say, a vulnerability). A future update fixed the vulnerability and therefore the hack, but the device went kaput. Microsoft is of course partially to blame -- however they've got their act together now. They have a program going where if 500 or more Vista error reports are received for a driver, they would make it top priority to work with the manufacturer.
2. As I've mentioned in the discussion above, the release of a patch entails the disclosure of the vulnerability. If patches were released all of a sudden, exploits would be *guaranteed* to release the next day. So sysadmins would have to patch systems as soon as they are released. With a set schedule, at least he knows when he would be required to do so.
Think of the sysadmins, I say!
Not sure about the Safari application, but Webkit has been releasing nightlies for some time. At least on MacOS, they come in the form of an app that uses the local WebKit engine on the installed Safari UI.
That reminds me of the Ubuntu 6.06 update that actually broke X and dumped the user into a command-line! People claim to install Ubuntu on granny's computer to solve virus/spyware issues. Think about what granny would be thinking then. Things *will* break. There's just no way around it.
Calling them "bugs" is a way for us to avoid blame for making mistakes, either in the code itself or in the processes we use to plan and implement that code.
Calling an error a "bug" makes it sound like it could have crawled in there on its own. ("Gee, I don't know how that bug got in there. I'll fix it.")
It didn't just crawl in there on its onw, and its not a feature or a bug, its a mistake, pure and simple. And someone made it.
We (hopefully) learn from our mistakes. Labelling them "bugs" makes it less likely we'll take personal responsibility for them; hence more likely to make the same mistake the next time than if we were honest with ourselves and said "I screwed up - that's a mistake."
Sure, calling it a bug might sooth our egos (we don't have to admit we made a mistake - the program is just "buggy"), but really, are our egos that easily bruised that we can't own up to our mistakes?
Kevin Smith on Prince
works here. Windows 2000 sp4.
n t/ , steve jobs WWDC 2007 Keynote Address
Running Safari 3.0.1, the bugfix released today.
Quicktime gives some funky error but works. Also, javascript client-side xmlrpc fails with no apparent error (vcxmlrpc) (works in IE6, Operan 9 and FF 2.0.0.4) Other sites all just great. Even gmail.
Error message below for yor viewing pleasure, from http://events.apple.com.edgesuite.net/d7625zs/eve
-
QTSTimer: Safari.exe - Entry Point Not Found
-
The procedure entry point DdEntry1 could not be located in the dynamic link library GDI32.dll.
-
OK
-
PS: anybody know how to get a javascript error console or something like firebug for Safari on Windows?
"Piter, too, is dead."
I install Firefox to anybody who asks. I also install the Adblock extension, and explain what it does. People are VERY receptive, so that when they use anything else than Firefox, they complain about the abundance of ads. Extensions can be very useful to the normal user, just need to educate them.
I've used it on Windows XP Pro. A friend has been using it on Vista. Neither of us can find a single thing wrong with it in 2 days of browsing (even to my bank, the acid test of browsers). The LA Times reviewer recommends it. ComputerWorld praises it. But here on Slashdot about all I see are people giving it a thumbs down. Am I seeing a bit of bias here? Someone direct me to a web page that Safari 3 on Windows XP renders horribly. Please, I wanna see.
If I didn't have absolutely NOTHING to do, I wouldn't be here.
You have three options when you download Safari:
Safari is not bundled with Quicktime unless you choose the first option
My main issues with the current beta are the lack of Proxy support, non standard UI. It also seems to break a lot of webpages that IE and Firefox display fine (check my website in Safari for an example - probably bad coding on my part). The upside though is it has a small memory footprint, faster, looks nice with my theme and improves my geek status.
I can't tell if you're talking about Safari on Windows or Mac here, but on OS X proxies are set at the system level, not the application level. If you want to set an HTTP proxy, you do it in network preferences on a per-connection basis.
If you're talking about the Windows version, then it makes sense that this functionality would be missing (not trying to excuse it, just explain it), since it seems like this beta is a very quick port of Safari, and doesn't do much towards filling in the gaps where OS X does things that Windows doesn't. The problems with displaying non-latin alphabets seem to fall into this category too.
I've been using the Safari 3 beta on the Mac, and it's really nice. SVG support is there (it was in WebKit for a while, but not the released versions of Safari), it's much harder to accidentally close tabs, and the find feature is much improved (reminds me of the early Spotlight previews; I'm glad they brought it back). It hasn't crashed for me yet, although WindowServer has once since I installed the new Safari; I hope it wasn't related...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I think it was about two years ago that Safari surpassed Opera's marketshare. It rapidly captured a majority of the MacOS segment, as people realized that Internet Explorer was a dead end, and newer Macs ceased to pre-install IE. After IE/Mac was pulled down from Microsoft's website, the older browser declined even faster.
These days, most stats give Safari 2-3 times Opera's percentage. Except for a few lists that still show lots of Netscape use, it's generally at #3 behind IE and Firefox
It's not so much that Apple wants developers to test their websites in Safari as much as it is they want to give Windows developers a WebKit platform in which to test web apps, since apps will be running in Safari on the iPhone.
"Sufferin' succotash."
One thing holding me back from testing it at all is that the most fabled "Font Smoothing" feature looks terrible on CRT's and makes all the letters look like BOLD fonts. I dunno about you guys, but it's much harder for me to read things if it's all in bold. :/
If administrators really wanted a special day to prepare for aggregate patches, they could accumulate released patches for themselves and do their own massive update on their own designated special day. They don't need Microsoft to schedule one for them. Some vulnerabilities are important enough that admins might purposely want to violate their schedule and install the fix, and admins should be given the choice to do that. Microsoft should release patches as soon as they're available and leave the install schedules up to the admins--it's their job.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Apple renders fonts to match the accuracy of the glyphs so that they resemble what they would look like in print, important for desktop publishing. Windows happily renders fonts inaccurately so that they're 1-pixel thin and packed into a pixel grid.
"Sufferin' succotash."
If Safari works without crashing, you belong in a minority. With English regional settings it might run ok, but for the rest of the world it's just horrible.
Try changing your regional settings (for example to Finnish), and you'll also enjoy the "stability" of this pre-Alpha.
But for some reason, authentication to OWA sites doesn't work in Safari. I can get as far as entering my username and password... But then the browser just stalls. This recent update seems to fix my stability issues... but I still wish I had auto-scrolling..
http://kazehakase.sourceforge.jp/20031201.html
It can use almost every html rendering engine available to Linux. w3m, khtml, gecko, etc.
I don't get the joke. Safari, for me, renders our supplier's website without any problems, which is a freakin' miracle. If you browse their products in IE or Firefox, it turns into a game of whack-a-mole, as trying to click on a hyperlink changes the page layout.
I hate Safari because the rounded edges mean that if you run your mouse up to the very top-right corner and click, you end up closing the window behind. That. Is. Awful. But for synnex.com.au, it's a godsend. Why is the parent modded funny? Am I funny?
Consciousness is a myth. Trust me.
I am surprised that not a single slashdot comment that I can find is stating the obvious, which is that this is "wag the dog" kind of stuff.
The patch was released almost too fast, what's the odds that it was already written?
Think about it. Apple releases an essentially identical, standards compliant browser on both Mac and Windows. Then it turns out that it's a security problem on Windows because of the foolish way in which Windows does not validate the URL. They then release a patch less than 24 hours later that allows them even more media coverage, exactly on that point. At the same time they get kudos for responding so fast.
Now on the day of the release (well half a day anyway), the press is all bad. But then comes dozens of articles about the fact that the problem is actually with Windows, not with Safari itself. Apple then gets to point out this fact in spades by mentioning in the press release that it was "windows fault and if you were on the Mac there is no need to worry." How good is that?
To all those thinking Apple was embarrassed by the security flaws, your missing the bigger picture. A week from now no one will remember anything about that.
They will however remember that Apple fixed the "Windows problem" with Safari in less than 24 hours.
I think this whole exercise is a statement by Apple, a dig at windows specifically. They are not only showing Microsoft up by besting their best efforts in a browser, they are pointing out (again), that Windows is just less secure by design, as well as horribly non-compliant in terms of open standards. Even on the Mac, the main reason for Safari's existence has always been to promote the existence of open standards and open standard compliant browsers. What better illustration of that need could you get than this?
A software developer released an update to a beta test?
THIS is real news. Thank you zonk, for not wasting people's time with pointless articles.
In Soviet Russia the sites script the overlords!
apple, security (tagging beta)
When will Taco flip the switch to turn that off? We've been in beta for what seems like over a year.
That will learn me for using a CRT monitor. Setting font smoothing option to "light", makes little difference. I want a "sharp" option. :-(
I admit, not a great choice in my subject wording.
yep, still doesn't work here :D
http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/safaribenchmarks.html
Interesting reading.
/agree
... (of course I would prefer the editor to be emacs but it is good enough to be used).
...
You may mod me as a flamebait but overall I am very happy personally with Windows XP, I had no big crash after patching, not had much to tweak to get an usable system and Visual Studio 2005 is quite nice once you install some plugins
From an user point of view, I am quite impressed by their efforts over the last year to improve their corporate image
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
Lots of folk around here have been bemoaning the UI and Font Rendering, parent explains this very clearly
(I'm a javascript/css hacker and have already posted "tested in Safari 3.0" against various things on my site. Inc my AJAX framework
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
Another take on the release was put up here: http://www.standandcount.com/index.php/safari-tops -1-million-downloads-10
The crux being PR loves download stats and two versions are better than one for that.
---- The geek shall inherit the Earth.
Doesn't fix my rendering issues. And it occurs on two entirely different computers. Am I the only one to get this?
You just got troll'd!
The problem with this "wag the dog" conspiracy theory is that the technical issue is too subtle. Apple's objective with Safari for Windows is not to use some clever media wagging stunt to convince the few dozen remaining Slashdot geeks who don't already think that Apple takes security more seriously than Microsoft. Their objective instead is to capture a chunk, a big, big chunk, say twenty or thirty percent of the web browser market for standards-compliant browsers. If they can swing it, with Safari for Windows, then the world will see a decline in web sites that support IE only. This will benefit Apple, of course, but it will benefit everybody else, too. Alternative web browsers of all types will find it easier to grow their audience base when web sites become standards-compliant, rather than IE-bug-compliant. Apple, I assure you, would have preferred that they ship Safari with zero defects.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Found your solution via google. Unfortunately no /application data/ folder (win2k). I did use
/enableDebugMenu
0 611144942562
3 /enabling-debug-menu-in-safari-for-windows/ for disabling.
C:\"Program Files"\Safari\Safari.exe
and that worked.
found in the comments at http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=2007
See also: http://somethingdifferent.wordpress.com/2007/06/1
"Piter, too, is dead."
Shipping a buggy product and locking customers in are not connected in any of the four dimensions.
Look up "sunk cost fallacy."
Kevin Smith on Prince
Safari installs but does not run if your Windows XP username has international characters in it. For instance, if your username is José, and your application files get stored in C:\Documents and Settings\José, the app doesn't start up. If I create a username with no accents, however, Safari runs without any issues. This is exactly the type of problem that I had with Democracy Player about a year ago. What's with this lack of support for users with accented names? Has anyone found a way to get around this bug, other than removing the accents from their name?
I like apple right now, but crap is crap, it doesn't matter who produces it...
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
I think in the past Safari was trying to get caught up with the standards that have been in place. This is probably the most ideal time to release Safari. Apple seems to pull things out of their hats to get people to switch.
iMac a good mid range system that is consumer friendly. (vs. the old macs which were consumer unfriendly and expensive) This got people interested in Macs again, before that Macs were religated to Mac Fanboys only.
OS X a modern OS wich is better for desktop useage then most any other OS out there including Windows, basing it off Unix to prove its stability.
This got a good portion of the geek market, Wanted a better Desktop OS then what Linux offers, but more stable then Windows. This was a good move getting the geeks first because they will intern write more software for the platform.
Wireless Apple was earlier then most of their competition for built in wireless internet, this made their portable systems more portable and more visible to the public. Seeing someone in coffee shop browsing a web with at Titanium PowerBook next to the fireplace with a glowing apple on the back made people look at it. While the Dell guys may be hooked to a wired connection in the back corner.
iPods gets people looking at apple products again
Mighty Mouse/Multi Touch Trackpads Ends that supid One mouse button debate.
Intel Transistion, People no longer feel that they are stuck with OS X so if they don't like it they still have a good windows system too. Also it ends the debates on who is faster the Gx chip vs. Intel.
So what is left. People are still worried about software compatibility so Safari for windows is there to show them that they can Live without IE. and for developers to make sure there web pages work on the mac.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I don't need a username and password to get through my proxy, though. Googling around, I see there's quite a few problems with proxy authentication support in various packages, as well as a variety of authentication schemes, so I wouldn't automatically classify authenticating proxies as "basic functionality".
It even works on Windows 2000 for those of us who have declined to upgrade to "spyware-enhanced" Windows XP and Vista.
If it was just a matter of security, I'd be using Safari on Windows anyway... but on top of that Safari redraws faster than IE and Firefox on Windows for me. There are some preferences settings relating to whether it should render while images are downloading, have you checked those?
I'm less happy about then wrapping it in the Mac-style window borders. Hopefully that's temporary.
The main problem I have is that you can't tell it to wait long enough for some pages that take a while to start coming up. You should be able to kill that timeout. But that's rare enough that one would call it "painful".
Sorry KDE dudes, KMelion just doesn't cut it. Safari owns KHTML on Windows.