Slashdot Mirror
Safari for Windows Downloaded Over 1 Million Times
ClaraBow writes "Apple reports that it took Apple just two days to reach 1 million downloads of its newest Safari Web browser for Windows. If these downloads manifested into regular Safari users, then we just might have a third major browser on the Windows platform. If Safari can obtain a 10% market share on Windows, then it would further weaken IE's position and give standards-based browsers more leverage with developers."
These statistics make me wonder if Konqueror 4 will become another large competitor on Windows. Konqueror and Safari both share a very common core (KHTML/WebKit), so the renderring and page handling should be relatively the same. Web designers can get another speedy and a more native web browsers that tests their sites for the same purpose, and general users can get a lightweight, standards-compliant, open source web browser (without the OSS requirements, you can already get this with Opera, of course) that won't try to enforce another platform's "look'n'feel" like Apple's apps all do.
For the interested, you can grab an alpha copy of KDE 4 (download qt-copy, kdelibs, and kdebase at the very least; you can use either GCC/Cygwin or MS Visual Studio to compile it). On OS X, there are precompiled universal binaries for everything, and Kubuntu and openSUSE users can get packages for it from their respective websites.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
That's almost as many downloads as firefox got in its first 24 hrs.
A new browser - that will target a different userbase to FF & divide the market up a little more, will make the web a better place for everyone.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Good take on the font differences here: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.htm l
I have just downloaded it when I saw this story, but safari doesn't seems to work very well with slashdot or other more simples web page on my XP 64 box :(
See by yourself: Screen shot
I hate to admit it, but john Dvorak had an interesting theory[1]. Google pays the mozilla foundation $50 million/year or so for redirecting searches their way. I believe Google also had a deal with Opera (the latest version of Opera seems to default to yahoo, though). Is google paying Apple for Safari searches? If so, a windows port could bring in $10 million/year easily, enough to pay for the port and subsidize continued development.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Step 0: Use Firefox. Step 1: Read on Slashdot, "Safari on Windows" Step 2: Google, "Safari download" Step 3: Safari downloaded. Step 4: Safari installed. Step 5: Wow! Safari is so coool. Step 6: Import bookmarks from Firefox. Step 7: Open 5-6 heavy websites, like Calendar, Gmail on both Firefox and Safari. Step 8: Safari is able to render the pages better, wow!! Step 9: Close Firefox. Step 9: After 5 minutes, safari crashed. Step 10: Open Firefox, forget Safari. Step 11: Happy!!
Spam: Any activity on internet to gain popularity without paying to advertising companies like Google.
Safari offers two things that no other browser offers: Apple's font rendering and color space recognition of images. Lots of Windows people seem to hate Apple's font rendering, but as a Mac user I prefer it. Windows font rendering seems ugly.
The color space stuff is a big deal to photographers, and it's very annoying that no other browser seems to respect the ICC color profile in images. I've seen a lot of discussion about Firefox versus Safari on the Mac and why Firefox seems to "wash out" images. It's really a shame Firefox doesn't respect ICC color profiles, it's such an obvious thing for a browser to do.
So maybe yeah, Safari isn't as "powerful" as Firefox or MSIE. But it offers an easy-to-use, standards-compliant browsing experience with a level of display rendering not found in other browsers. Many people may not be impressed, but just as many may find it more to their liking. Time will tell.
Sorry to reply twice, but I got curious because I didn't notice the right mouse not working. I went and tried it. The right mouse button works just like it does for Firefox.
What the hell are you tlkaing about?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
> If all this compliaince BS was actually to HELP developers, the OSS community would've adopted IE settings
... the idea there is that if there isn't already a standard way to do something, WebKit does it like Gecko for the sake of Web content and Web authors.
> as the standard. I mean, why not?
Because this would require cooperation from Microsoft and they do not cooperate.
The WebKit and Gecko programmers work together on standardization. For example, WebKit introduced the canvas tag which is used in Mac Widgets, and Gecko implemented this also, however during the standardization process, the way the canvas tag "should" work was changed, and then WebKit adjusted its own canvas tag behaviors to match the standards.
In other words, after canvas was standardized, the WebKit team did a bunch of work to implement the standard canvas tag, even though they themselves had invented the non-standard version. You are not going to see Microsoft do this kind of thing.
If you look at Safari's user-agent string it says "like Gecko"
No, Opera copies IE's behavior and bugs. That is why you can ignore Opera completely as a developer, there is no future in authoring for it.
WebKit and Gecko have quirks modes to work around the bad content on the Web, but they are not mimicking IE they are moving quickly towards HTML5.
You can author a Web site while testing only in Firefox and then go look in Safari and if your code is valid you will see the same thing. There are no other browsers where this is true. It is because the WebKit and Gecko teams work both together and using standards.
Basically the Safari fires the onload event before the document is ready. This gives the mistaken impression in some test suites that it is faster than it really is.
l
http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/safaribenchmarks.htm
Someone please tell me what I'm missing here. From what *I* see, there is absolutely NO comparison as to which is more readable. Safari is more readable on MY Windows XP Pro than either IE or FF, by a mile. I have a vanilla install of XP. Haven't done a thing to it. It's about as stock as you can get. I installed FF and Safari, then went to cnn.com. I have a screen shot of all 3 browsers side by side, and at the risk of eating up all my download allotment, here is the URL: http://idisk.mac.com/Wingsy-Public/ScreenShot001.b mp
Is there anyone out there who can honestly say that FF or IE is more readable? They both look like they came right out of a dot matrix printer. Can someone post a screenshot where they think Safari is the least readable (if it's different from mine)?
If I didn't have absolutely NOTHING to do, I wouldn't be here.
What kind of nonsense is this?
If you build a standards-compliant website, it will work in IE. It won't be broken. It may have some layout differences, but it will work. So, what's all this crap about people not being able to use your website if you code to standards? It's more likely to break for everybody else if you ignore standards and build in IE-specific stuff.
Also, non-IE users make up a lot more than 15% of the market. you must have a pretty skewed audience there if you have 85% of users on IE.
... and then they built the supercollider.
What you are missing is that Microsoft intentionally ships a browser that departs, intentionally, from open standards. It's an effort to control the standards to lock out other users, and it's an intentional abuse of monopoly power. They know that so long as they control the vast majority (recently 95%, but now down to about 80%) of the browser market, they can largely prevent other platforms from rising in influence. Furthermore, "OSS Snobs" may well exist, but this question has nothing to do with religious issues. You see, the vast majority of the people developing web sites didn't choose to "develop against IE". They were forced to expend greater effort to build web sites to support a single broken browser than they would have spent to use standards that support all browsers on all platforms. They did this not through a free choice, but through coercion by Microsoft, which abused its dominant desktop position, to the detriment of the entire community of users and developers.
YOU CAN YELL ALL YOU WANT, BUT YOU ARE STILL WRONG