Slashdot Mirror
Safari Beta Takeup Tops Firefox, IE and Chrome
nk497 writes "The release of the beta for the next version of Apple's Safari browser last week helped drive Apple's market share above ten per cent. The Safari beta has gained users at a rate of about 0.5 per cent a day since its release, topping one per cent by day four. For comparison, Microsoft's beta of IE took six months to hit one percent, Chrome needed almost a month, and Firefox 3 took a week."
Until they fix the title-bar abuse, I'm sticking with Safari 3.
I have been using Safarai for Windows 3.2 for a while (use it for testing compatability with web pages I build). I downloaded the Beta 4 and ran it through the same web pages I normally do for testing compatability and found Beta 4 ran slower than the Beta 3.2. So I uninstalled Beta4 and went back to Beta 3.2.
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Safari is broken, it can't even load hotmail
someone tells me the new version is significantly faster than the previous one, that's my main complaint, sure I'll switch. And yes, it's faster than Firefox on the Mac side so it was a no-brainer. ... at least until a faster version of Firefox comes along.
---- You are fully entitled to my opinion.
When Firefox came out most people didn't realise they even had a choice. It's hardly a fair comparison between 2004 and now, especially when it's from a company that has a horde of raging fanbois that will use anything they're told and like it.
about 0.5 per cent a day... topping one per cent by day four
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Yes, but how many of these downloads were as a result of the updater preselecting it for them?
Then the user double clicks on the new icon saying, "Hmm what is this icon?"
I'm not saying competition isn't great, trust me it's nice to see so many browsers out there that are free and getting better all the time.
How many of these new users actually even know they are new users ? I bet the majority of them are idiots who just click on the apple update for their itunes/ipod and done even realise Apple are basicaslly pushing crap onto their PCs that they done even know or want.
I don't think that kind of thing is actually meaningful at all. Sure, they are gaining more people to try out their beta. The issue is with whether they'll be able to keep them.
Look at Google Chrome; the browser's first few weeks were all rosy as people flocked to the browser. After a few months, though, things got back to "normal" and users went back to their usual browser after the hype machine had died down and the novelty wore off. If they can get that percentage and KEEP it, then we can say they've achieved something.
"There are now at least 85,000 Elvis's around the world, compared to only 170 in 1977 when Elvis died. At this rate of growth, experts predict that by 2019 Elvis impersonators will make up a third of the world population." - The Naked Scientists 3rd December, 2000.
I think the reason behind this is due to trust. Specifically, trust in the "it just works" history that Apple currently enjoys. Mac users are used to that, expect it, and believe that something like a new Safari will actually work and may even perform as advertised. They're willing to give it a try at an early stage. I did: I'm typing this reply now in the Safari beta. And hey, it does Just Work, at least so far.
Now, I'm not saying that Apple always deserves that level of trust. They've made mistakes in the past, some of them real doozies. But in general, the average Mac user has a fairly high regard for Apple products. More so than Microsoft users for Windows products, certainly.
The central claim of the summary is completely unsourced. If you click on the link in the article that purports to backup the claim of a 10% market share (which sounds outlandish to me, but not impossible), you get a pretty run of the mill domain name parking page. So, there's no way of examining the claim or questioning the methods. This doesn't belong on the front page.
It looks to me like all they've done is rework Safari to make it emulate Chrome. They stole Chrome's UI, they made a point to rework how javascript is processed to make it faster than IE and Firefox. So, you could use Safari and get the features of Chrome at a larger memory footprint or you could just run Chrome. Chrome isn't as full featured as Safari, but covers 95% of what people need for normal web browser. Personally, I would rather use FireFox as a backup browser...it's more compatible than Safari anyway.
Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
about 0.5 per cent a day... topping one per cent by day four
-
Sure it's right. I'm surprised you don't see it like that. Here at /. it is often pointed out that it's the number of zeros at the end matters. Apple (or some fan of apple) just rounded up 0.25 to 0.5.
Now, if they were saying 0.50 per cent a day there would be a problem. As it is, it's just another technically correct, yet purposely misleading statistic (like 9 out of 10 dentists prefer such and such).
Just curious because that's the kind of thing people lambast Micro$oft for...
Loading...
On the bright side: By day 200, they will need to provide a Linux version.
...the KDE folks would "dump" KHTML for Webkit. I just mean "default to Webkit in Konqueror." Such a move would raise Konqueror's profile which cannot be a bad thing.
Right now, Konqueror is a non issue when it comes to browser statistics on the internet. In some statistics, it is lumped like other browsers into the "other" category like here . And over here , Konqueror is missing all together! Sad indeed.
While I say this, I know egos are high in the Open Source world, so what I am suggesting has little chance of being adopted.
Now, before I get modded a troll, I would like to know whether what I am suggesting is a very bad thing.
...just rounded up 0.25 to 0.5.
Yikes! I just read my parent post again. This is why one shouldn't be posting late at night.
Is this because Safari 3 on Windows was really bad. It was slow, locked up, and just didn't work very well. A lot of mac users use windows at work. Safari 4 is actually usable on windows.
I was running 3.2 and came in to my computer to see that I was being force fed an upgrade to the latest beta. That might have something to do with the numbers.
"My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
Yep. To see if they're still doing it I asked iTunes to update and lo and behold, the Apple Software Updater comes up and lists Bonjour and iTunes in the top half of the dialog, and near the bottom, off on its own, is 'Safari' 23MB (iirc) download, already pre-checked for me. Hmmm... I wonder if I had automatic updating configured if it would simply show up on my machine? LOL.
Loading...
If they are, they're doing it very well. I got hit with a QuickTime and iTunes update yesterday, didn't really pay attention to it and just agreed to everything. I checked for Safari just now, wondering if I'd agreed to download it as part of yesterday's update - but no, I don't have it.
This is where the serious fun begins.
Net Applications, the site that ITPro is using as the source of its numbers, lists Safari's market share as 7.42% - a decrease from last month, when it was at 7.7%. Am I missing something, or is ITPro just doing a shoddy job at citing its source?
My browser on Windows, Opera, just works too. And it does a lot more than work. On the contrary, you must have low expectations from your Mac if just working is considered good.
(And unfortunately my experience with Apple Quicktime on Windows is that they don't Just Work - even basic functionality such as full screen mode isn't available. Not to mention the hideous and non-standard UI - something they are supposedly praised for. Maybe you mean it Works Just on Macs, but I'm not enthusiastic about downloading anything else they release for Windows.)
The problem with both Chrome and Safari is a lack of an add-on community. One of the things that continues to make Firefox a success is that the user community has added all the niche functionality anyone would ever want and more.
My blog
Chrome needed almost a month...
Yeah it's really fucking hard to gain share when the browser comes bundled with your OS, way to go Apple, fucking bravo. I think I will spend the day screaming "Go Steve" at random occasions, as a tribute to this fucking moonlanding Apple just did.
I am the lawn!
You're looking at it wrong. That's 0.5 increase of the previous day!
/. pretending it's Goatse. A noob clicks it by mistake.
Day 1: 5m downloads! Fanboi day.
Day 2: 25000 downloads: Windows users who have heard of Apple, but don't want to shell out x000 for a pretty UI.
Day 3: 125 downloads: Linux users with WINE give it a go.
Day 4: 0.6 downloads: Someone posts a link in
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
No... You were probably right.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
about 0.5 per cent a day... topping one per cent by day four
So, they started out with -1% market share?
There already is. See Epiphany 2.26 and later.
My blog
These "rates of change" mean nothing when you have a very small share. If I produce my chrisbrows browser and test it myself, the day I give it to a friend I have achieved a growth rate of 100% per day, beating Safari, Opera, Firefox and the lot.
Most Mac users won't even visit the Safari page, however, since all Mac users get stable Safari updates bundled into Mac OS X updates. So the folks seeking out the Safari webpage to download it are probably looking for the beta version.
I used Safari 4 beta for a while since it was faster than Firefox, but then it crashed and forgot all my open tabs. I'm back to Firefox now (actually Shiretoko since Firefox 3.1 Beta 2 had a bookmark export bug that wouldn't let me switch to Safari).
From TFA:
Overall market share among the top five dominant browsers remained largely stable through February, according to Net Applications.
.
.
But the main change came with Apple's Safari, after the version 4 beta of the browser was released last week.
The beta release helped push Apple's browser market share to 10.91 per cent, or 1.88 per cent more than the same time in the week before its release. Last month, it was 9.04 per cent.
Uhh... No.
Last month, according to above mentioned Net Applications, Safari's share was 7.42%.
Same numbers you will get if you click the link in TFA to see that 10.91% market share.
Cause you CAN'T SEE THE WEEKLY REPORT UNLESS YOU PAY.
But, if the above claimed 9.04% is any indication at the accuracy of TFA (compared to the actual 7.42%) - then Safari probably jumped about 0.26%.
Or less... or more... who knows. Maybe there were only 5 copies downloaded?
I mean... if you pad your stats by 22% (21.83% - the difference between 7.42% an 9.04%) - who knows what the real numbers are then?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Yeah,
And is it me, or was the total > 100 %
68.18% IE
21.96% Mozialla
10.91% Safari
1.16% Opera
--------------
102.21%
Just curious.
Ok, I give up, why you?
i just tried Safari 3 & 4 with wine-1.0.1 in Slackware-12.2 Safari-3 would run but terribly buggy, Safari-4 would install but not run at all, so all you Linux users thinking of running Safari with wine dont bother...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
I wrote a long post which appears to have been eaten. In summary:
Even allowing for rounding, the growth per day must be less than 0.26125%. Their other statistics are quoted accurately, indeed, to not just 1, but 2 decimal places. There is no way it is reasonable to represent the growth as "almost 0.5%" per day.
I'm not sure how we can trust an article that doesn't get basic maths right.
Secondly, their article is a blatant lie - the original source http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=0 lists Safari as 7.42% (the other browsers are all reported accurately).
Indeed, well spotted - the answer is to be found by looking at their original source that they link ( http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=0 ). Guess what? Whilst all the other browsers are reported correctly, Safari is not 10.91%, but 7.42%. With this figure, the total comes to less than 100% (the remainder presumably taken up by the other browsers). So they've inflated Apple's share by 3.49%, or in terms of proportion, it's almost 1.5 times the true value!
(Are we going to hear an article that this is now part of a pro-Apple agenda? I think blatantly lying about usage statistics is far worse than saying people don't use Iphones in Japan, after all...)
I don't know if it's intentional, or incompetence, but together with the "4 times 0.5 equals 1 percent" blooper, I think we can safely put this article in the trash.
If you actually paid attention, you'd be able to tell that that wasn't the Safari 4 Beta, but just an update to Safari 3.
As several others have noted in this thread (whom you apparently ignored), you have to deliberately go out and download the Safari 4 Beta from Apple's website.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
... all you Linux users thinking of running Safari with wine...
[cricket sounds]
Was anyone really thinking of running something like their Web browser in WINE? I mean, I'll use it to run the odd bit of Windows software, but only if there aren't any other options. I guess I can see it for smoke testing browser compatibility, but since WINE is a big question mark in the middle there, it makes more sense in my mind to go another route, like VMs or a dedicated, remote machine.
"Did you know that disco record sales were up 400% for the year ending 1976? If these trends continue... AAY!"
-Disco Stu
Imagine you were seeing a computer GUI for the first time. And were comparing two programs one of which had tabs like Safari 3 and one of which had tabs like Safari 4. Which would you prefer?
So, since I very rarely re-order tabs, I can't see that the new tabs are anything but a big win. Putting them on top is both logical and gives me an extra 20,000+ pixels worth of useable browsing area.
Qt already ships with WebKit as of Qt 4.4, released a while ago. Mind you, I don't consider it usable yet, seeing as the included WebKit is a little dated and lacks such features as, you know, Netscape plugin support (so no Flash).
Qt 4.5 will ship a more recent and useful version of WebKit, however, with support for such things as W3C selectors API, 100% ACID3 compliance, HTML5 audio and video, CSS canvas drawing, masks and reflections, and a few more things.
Nevertheless, KHTML is still set to remain Konqueror's default rendering engine, as far as I understand, for reasons of trust, quite simply. I don't necessarily agree, mind you, but I do understand, if nothing else, the wisdom of keeping a hand on the source code for urgent security fixes, rather than wait that it goes through the whole chain of Apple - WebKit - Qt - KDE.
Mind you, this is KDE, so switching to WebKit by default is probably one setting away. Probably in Configure file associations > text/html > Embedding, move webkitpart to the top of the preferred service list. I'm going to do that right away, actually.
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
That's why they shouldn't have used floating points... I think they have a precision problem.
I say don't drink and drive, you might spill your drink. Before you get behind the wheel just stop and think.
And for those who want teh snappy without tabs-on-top and other changes, go here to learn how to revert back to the old ways. I hope these still work once it's out of beta! I like my title bar on the top and a progress meter that actually shows progress, thankyouverymuch.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
The article summary is the one that is misleading. He probably just didn't reread it. If you RTFA... "Split out day-by-day, the Safari beta release grew its share of users by almost 0.5 per cent a day following its release, to 1.04 per cent on day four, which Net Applications said amounted to around 10 million users." This means the growth rate was 0.5 per cent a day for 3 days after it's release. Then the growth rate (not total growth), on day 4, it was 1.04 percent. This means the total growth rate over the 4 days was 0.5 * 3 + 1.04 = 2.54...consults calculator...yah, that's right. Someone forgot to review their Calculus book. See tangent lines association to rates of growth.
http://www.statowl.com/web_browser_market_share.php
So I went to the apple site and tried to get a copy of a non beta browser, surprise I cant.
How can they call it a Beta if it already replaces the last version.
Is it on the updater yet ?
Is it still ticked by default ?
If ms or firefox did that they would be crucified.
Safari's share is more like 7.5%. And it's lower than that on most technology oriented sites.
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
...but up through Safari version 3 Apple has "stepped in it" when it comes to the browser UI and SSL security. It stinks.
There is no highlighting of the domain name or identity of the https website, there are no extended validation cues, and the lock icon is shown in the corner of the window titlebar far away from the website address.
Just as bad is having no status bar as the default, so people are less likely to notice that a URL-looking link doesn't go to the same place as shown on the page. This also trains users not to expect the status bar, which is a vital source of security context on other browsers.
So I hope that Safari 4 is better, but given Apple's record in this area I won't be holding my breath.
In the press releases where they claim to be the fastest, bestest browser, they're comparing the beta release of Safari 4 to the shipping release of Firefox 3.0 instead of the beta release of Firefox 3.1 which is more accurate. This is typical of most of Apple's marketing.
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
Who cares? This whole article is just a "pat yourself on the back" for Apple fans to justify to themselves why they were so smart to buy a $4000 computer that could have been bought for $1000 if they acquired a generic brand instead. I know. I'm a recovering Appleholic myself. Been there; done that. The only fact that matters is - How many people are using Safari today?
8%
Tiny.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
As a Windows user, I trust that something coming from Apple will not be any good.
No thanks, plenty of non-Apple browsers to choose from. Writing this from the latest Opera 10 snapshot. Now that's a great browser.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10041995-92.html
"Open-source software may be moved freely from one project to another; though license particulars sometimes erect barriers, both Chrome and WTL use relatively liberal licenses. "
so- you say they 'stole' the UI-- does that mean it's ok to move code freely, but not UI appearance?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
...and yeah, I kind of think the problem is with Hotmail. With Chrome, there's a workaround you can use in which you lie to hotmail.com about what browser you're using. Perhaps something similar will work in Safari?
A recovering Appleholic from 1997? Where on earth is this $4,000 to $1,000 comparison coming from? Look, I own a Mac, but I will take large dumps on Apple very often because most of the praise is undeserved. This crap, though, drives me absolutely insane. I tried really hard for two years to get a laptop with the same quality and weight as my Apple laptop for even close to the same money, and after two years of screwing around, bought another Apple.
The last time it was 4:1 was in the late 90s, and no one wants to relive that.
- oZ
// i am here.
It's not a bad way to get flash support in FreeBSD. ;)
Besides, didn't some recent report show firefox+wine being faster than a native firefox?
"...buy a $4000 computer that could have been bought for $1000..."
And exaggerating numbers to make a point doesn't give you any credibility either. Next time you buy stereo equipment, make sure you don't pay over $100 for your 7.2 surround sound or you'll be a stupid fanboy sucker. I guess that goes for your next car too.
How cool would be to have -100% market share?
On a more serious note is there a difference between -2% and -100% market share?
Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
It'll never get that far. Sudden changes like this are almost always meaningless. There will be an uptick in adoption and then it will drop again as people go back to what they are used to, just like happened with Google Chrome. It shot up to what, 6% in the first push? Right now it is under one.
While events like this are interesting, only long term trends mean anything. This is just a function of effective marketing.
I suppose it's been updated since it failed my last audition, some years ago. Thanks for the reminder, I'll give it another bash.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Add up everybody's share, and it comes out to 145%! These numbers are completely meaningless.
god you provide a conversion into number of libraries of congress?
As I pointed out in a previous article, that doesn't work on Windows.
The URL field is not part of the web page, neither is anything else in the toolbar and bookmarks bar. It makes no sense at all to have static content shared by all tabs inside the tab.
It's just an ugly hack.
Im not going to speculate on statistics or comparisons with other browsers. I switched to Safari 4 beta a few days ago because it's fast and it just works.
Once you switch the tabs to their normal spot, Safari 4 is an incredibly quick and nimble browser.
--------- I have no signature
When it's the default browser on your desktop, it's going to get more attention.
Which wouldn't be such a problem if Internet Explorer wasn't such a security nightmare, of course.
This wasn't an informative post.
Deadpan really is lost on the internet.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
doesn't it compile already ? ;-)
on the serious side, it shouldn't be that difficult to port any MacOS application to Linux, am I right ? and then we'll have a serious competitor to Firefox on Linux !!
sorry, on the serious side again, where does the new title-bar appear in the Windows version ? I saw some screenshots of the MacOS version and the tabs are above the main "window", is the same on Windows ? (that would be weird, like the first time that I saw non-rectangular splash screens, after Apple had been doing that for ages with arbitrary "regions"!)
Can I put a spell on those who can't spell?
Your wheels are loose and they're losing their grip, good you're there.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I once wrote a cheesy program.
I gave a copy to my friend and he ran it on his computer.
I had 100% growth rate on the first day of release.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"There are now at least 85,000 Elvis's around the world, compared to only 170 in 1977 when Elvis died. At this rate of growth, experts predict that by 2019 Elvis impersonators will make up a third of the world population." - The Naked Scientists 3rd December, 2000.
By the year 2525, 107% of the earth's population will be an Elvis impersonator.
there's other posts above; safari is not pushing version 4 through the apple updater [only version 3]. that doesn't mean I dislike it any less, as you and your wife do.
I'm sure there's some tweaking left in it to make it a bit more consistent, but it is more logical than the old method. When you switch tabs, you are switching histories, URLs, Google searches, etc, and that is reflected in the new tab scheme wherein all of those things fall under the tab instead of outside of it.
Personally, I think they need to keep the tab sizes smaller than fill-the-width, and do something to delimit the left side of the left-most tab, even when it's not selected. Perhaps also provide more flexibility in terms of moving a tab versus moving the window, but I can't see a clear way to do that.
Anyhow, I'm using the beta daily and it's a definite improvement over Safari 3 in every way. You're penalizing yourself if you don't use it because you don't like the tabs.
N/T
I have already tried that, and that leaves you with a broken tab bar. Only the currently viewed page has a tab visible, the remaining tabs are pushed to the pulldown menu on the right of the tab bar.
I use MacBook Pro. I tried Safari couple of times. Once in a while, Safari froze the mouse pointer for couple of seconds when I tried to switch to other apps. It's not any faster than Firefox. I have not run into any issue with Firefox. I just avoid using Safari.
Yeah, it's a bit strange. The total percent market share adds up to much higher than 100%. 100.1 or .2 percent I could understand due to rounding error, but it's around 103% :-). I'm left in a bit of doubt as to their statistics. On that note, Safari 4 kicks ass on win 7 beta :-). It's a nice combination.
While it's fair enough to say that, I've found that "Just Works" principle applies to all major OS distributions (well, except my first few Gentoo installs). Apple's marketing compaign for "It Just Works" generally works by the principle of "Anything that Might Not Work We Disabled." That said, the Safari 4 beta seems interesting, and I've heard good things about it, but I, for one, shall not buy into this "It Just Works" ethos when I download it. Which I shall do subsequent to this post.
deploy your browser in the same manner as a trojan (as part of a Quicktime 'update') and the uptake will be pretty high. Perhaps they should whip up a 'Pro' version that skims the users' credit card info as well: AppleCare for all!
I quite like Safari - not sure why you think I don't. However, I have a universal dislike of the various toolbars and crapware that is bundled into installers, and I expected Apple to be above all that.
The tab/title bar works the same on Windows.
I downloaded Safari yesterday and had a play with it, along with Chrome. Both browsers are interesting, but I don't think I'm going to use them long term. I just don't like the way they, especially Safari, do things. The apple fanboys are reading far too much into the download figures :-)
I'll be sticking to Firefox.
In other words how many are actual new converts as opposed to current users.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I've been playing around with the 3.0 beta and it seems like the Javascript XMLHttpRequest implementation is still broken. The problem (if you're not aware) is that the XHR object stops sending requests after a button on the page is clicked. This bug has existed in WebKit since 2.0 and they STILL haven't fixed it. Javascript is annoying enough without stupid little browser-specific bugs like this making web development even more frustrating.
Did Apple pay you to make this post?
I see more people use Firefox on their Macs. I'd use Firefox on my Mac too, if it wasn't such a piece of junk.
Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
Half a percent a day growth seems mighty underwhelming if you're starting from zero.
It's also a fallacy to expect anything to continue at its current pace. Cockroaches would fill the galaxy in a month if they reproduced like they do behind your fridge.
I downloaded it, tried it out for a while, and then went back to Minefield.
Seems like pro-Apple mods can't bear to hear that other products work too. Opera's a perfectly fine product, as is Firefox.
Perhaps the mod would like to share with us how to enable full screen mode in Quicktime for Windows, since I am obviously mistaken?
(And unfortunately my experience with Apple Quicktime on Windows is that they don't Just Work - even basic functionality such as full screen mode isn't available. Not to mention the hideous and non-standard UI - something they are supposedly praised for. Maybe you mean it Works Just on Macs, but I'm not enthusiastic about downloading anything else they release for Windows.)
Here's a ref, btw: http://homepage.mac.com/bradster/iarchitect/qtime.htm - not much has changed with the later versions.
as the poster above says, it depends on who you ask: my own stats at http://www.paullee.com/computers show no usage of Safari 4 at all since the beta was released
My web domain.
quicktime - the most reprehensible video codec ever - it's almost as bad as malware with all the crap that installs with it - even when you tell it not to.
itunes for pc - egads - how many times do you have to say no - don't install this or that, and watch it try to install anyway. again - malware grade software installer
safari - crashed multiple systems, and couldn't open basic sites - will never install another version - ever - oh - the calling home stuff built into it - on par with the latest botnet.
osx - how many macs have been bricked by faulty updates? more than apple would like you to know...
apple hardware - at a minimum 4 times more expensive than it should be - just for a name or apple logo? hardly worth it...
It's a shame that on Apple stories, the mods abuse negative mods for things they disagree with - it's the only category I have to browse at -1.
I haven't used Safari, but I am in full agreement with the rest, especially Quicktime. Given how people rightly dislike things like Realplayer here on Slashdot, why does Quicktime get accepted, when it's far more annoying, invasive, and you even have to pay for basic functionality such as full screen mode? Oh, because it's Apple, and they're held to a different standard.
This reminds me of when someone was repeating the "Just Works" mantra, and claiming that whenever he uses Windows to do things like watching a video, there's always things about it that distracts him from just trying to get on and do it. I said I'd never experienced this, but funningly enough, I concede that that evening, I did have frustrations when trying to do something as basic as watching a video on Windows.
It was a quicktime video.
"For comparison, Microsoft's beta of IE took six months to hit one percent, Chrome needed almost a month, and Firefox 3 took a week."
Maybe this indicates that Safari users are dissatisfied with the current browser offering. I mean wouldn't this be the statistical outcome for slow IE and Firefox downloads if users are more content with the current offering?
I don't know... I'm just saying...
A- Works with stumbleupon
B- Works with windows 7's feature where if you pull the title bar of a maximized page, it shrinks it back to normal. Double clicking the title bar is so 2007.
Quicktime is not a video codec
You know what's pathetic? All you little Windows users, not even using Safari, who still have to run to the Apple stories just to try to get some excitment into that boring little life. The least you could do is pony up and pay for that excitment, like I've had to do for the last 25 years.
Anyone (including PC owners) that has an iPod most likely has iTunes installed. iTunes constantly bombards the users with "click here to update" messages, which by-the-way, also installs Safari unless you are observant and un-check the Safari box. I'll stick with Firefox.
The did in the graphs, but in their statements about how awesome they are and how much faster, they only compare it to Firefox 3.0
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
Seems really quick, great UI improvements.
Must have been a tough decision to go with 'windows standard' font rendering by default. People must be so used to crappy blocky rendering that smooth stuff might scare them away from a new browser.
This browser drags my XP installation into the 21st century.
Alex
The only problem I have with it is the refresh button being moved into the address bar.
Browser counting always begins at -1.
>>>Next time you buy stereo equipment, make sure you don't pay over $100 for your 7.2 surround sound or you'll be a stupid fanboy sucker. I guess that goes for your next car too.
Thanks. I agree. I think people who pay $35,000 for a Lexus/Acura when they can buy virtually the same car with a Toyota/Honda badge for around $20,000 are also foolish.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
My bank has an EV cert which shows up in Firefox 3 as a green address bar. The same https address in Safari 3.2.1 (using default settings on OS X 10.5.6 on my G4 machine) shows nothing to distinguish the cert.
The EV stuff isn't even that important compared to the mistakes of visually separating the lock from the address/domain, and of not singling out the domain from the rest of the URL.
"about 0.5 per cent a day... topping one per cent by day four
So, they started out with -1% market share?"
0.3 orders of magnitude is perfectly acceptable for "about"!
By the year 2525, 107% of the earth's population will be an Elvis impersonator.
If man is still alive...
sig's not here
It doesn't even appear in ''New Software'' section which was implemented after that scandal.
BTW I don't think that sneak in was a major conspiracy, it was just Apple confusing Windows with OS X and Windows userbase with OSX userbase.
I checked on bootcamp installed Macbook running XP and Apple SW update.
68.17%+21.96%+1.16%+0.70%+10.91%=wtf(1.029)
If you don't, you'll fill all the tubes!
No sig for now.
Safari started from zero, so the first day, it had an infinite growth rate.
Comparing growth rates is meaningless for products that have such disparate market shares.
And 0.5%/day isn't even particularly impressive; that means it's going to grow six-fold in a year. That's singularly unimpressive for a newly released product.
On the other hand, IE and Firefox can't grow six fold in a year because they'd have more than 100% market share then.
lol - i've got that Laibach album on now. Must be a cover of something, what is it?
XML causes global warming.
The reason for the rapid rise of Safari 4 Beta recently is that Apple have taken the frankly appalling decision to push a beta version of the browser as the default one to download when you go to http://www.apple.com/safari/ (and even deviously put the word "BETA" in a fainter, smaller font so you won't notice it).
Microsoft do the same with IE8 on their main download page.
why does Quicktime get accepted, when it's far more annoying, invasive
Because on the Mac it's not, and most people championing Apple are Mac users. From what I hear about QuickTime, iTunes, etc on Windows, it sounds atrocious, and I can't imagine how Apple can stand having something so horrible tarnish their "it just works" image.
and you even have to pay for basic functionality such as full screen mode
This has always pissed me off though, and until OSX I kept to an older version of QuickTime Player that didn't have that disabled. (QuickTime is not a player application but a whole media framework: file formats, codecs, APIs, etc. QuickTime Player, any version, calls on the underlying QuickTime API to handle everything; so sticking to the old Player while updating the framework didn't have any negative side effects).
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
I've avoided realplayer like the plaque, I have no idea if they've cleaned up their act; but it's never being installed on my system. Ever.
I've never had a problem going into fullscreen with quicktime. In fact the only things that are enabled for 'PRO' users only are either unnecessary playing options like 'play selection only' or video creation and video encoding options.
I'm not a fan of quicktime, I generally install VLC as soon as I can. But I do think you're being a little unfair to the lil guy.
Yes, in the past, the idiot prick who decided that full screen should be pay only was a tool, smeg head. (Listening Jobs?) I mean seriously, is there any one feature that you would want to take away that gives you 1000x less users?
Now today, no one cares about qt, its all divx/mp4/mkv
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
These things get modded down not because of the mods "disagreeing" with his post - it deserved to be modded down. His exaggerations are to the point of trolling - some of those ("on par with the latest botnet"!?) are, to be short, wrong and serve no purpose other than to make others angry. If the same post had said the same things about Windows, Linux, Cars, etc., it would have still been modded down. You may agree with his sentiments (and I do too), but if you agree with the actual message, you probably don't know what you're talking about. And nevertheless, it doesn't change the fact that he, in the end, doesn't deserve to be modded up. If you want to spread the facts about something, do it in a way that isn't meant to intentionally piss people off.
i've got that Laibach album on now. Must be a cover of something, what is it?
The original is Zager and Evans - In the Year 2525. It topped the charts for a while in 1969, quite a few groups have have done cover versions.
Note that Laibach's version you're listening to is very very different from the original. The music is preformed very differently and Laibach entirely rewrote the plotline of the lyrics. The original starts with the year 2525 and advances 3535, 4545, 5555, 6565, 7510, 8510 and 9595. It runs forwards the fate of the human race as technology replaces our humanity. The final verses are the same except it's ten thousand years and a billion tears. While the plotline of the lyrics is completely different, the distinctive "mood" behind them is preserved pretty closely. If it's that distinctive mood you like about the song, you'll probably like the original too. The original does strongly sound it's 1969 date - which may or may not fit your taste.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
its too buggy, and just fails in some JS/ formated text boxes. Its a lot slower than chrome after extensive use, not just a quick start up. Though im happy there is an option other than FF/GC too. It will get better.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Thank god for your second post. I was going nuts here trying to understand your original reply to me, thinking I was missing some /. reference. God damn IdiotLoop post :D
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
This means the total growth rate over the 4 days was 0.5 * 3 + 1.04 = 2.54...consults calculator...yah, that's right.
I don't understand your New Math either! *My* calculator gives me a bit over 2.563 for that. :D
Put away the calculus book and review compound interest. Percent growth isn't additive
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Your sig is hysterical.
You walk into a bar and look at this daunting menu of 200 varieties of beer from across the globe, and they carry prune juice. You don't care about Australian Microbrews vs English Lagers, you're in a bar and you just want a goddamn glass of beer. So you chuck the 200-beer menu and tell the bartender "just give me a glass of whatever's most popular". The bartender thunks a glass down in front of you and you blindly grab it chug some down. You gag and choke and damn near vomit, and eventually manage to scream WHAT THE HELL IS THIS CRAP?! The bartender says "prune juice". "We offer 200 varieties of beer from across the globe, and prune juice. Yesterday we had 403 customers. We sold two glasses of each variety of beer, and three glasses of prune juice. Our most popular selection is prune juice."
The average normal public is split across the dozen-or-so channels for average normal news. People on the left and the center-left and in the center and the center-right are split across nearly a dozen channels for normal news. Radical rightwing Fox News captures essentially 100% of the far right segment of the population. It's the most popular news channel, but it makes the majority of the population want to vomit.
Fox News - the prune juice of news.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
How many people are using Safari today?
8%
Tiny.
Hmmm ... This could be taken as an example of what's so screwed up with the computer "market". To make the canonical automotive comparison: If a new make of auto were to capture 8% of the market in just a few weeks, it would be considered one of the most successful product introductions in the history of the industry. If you're anywhere in the "developed" world, try watching any busy stretch of road for a while, and try to spot a car model that makes up even 1% of the traffic.
But in the computer biz, 8% is called "tiny". If your product isn't the market leader and controlling 90% of the market, you aren't worth mentioning (and thus most of your potential customers don't know you exist). Try telling a BMW or Acura owner that their car isn't significant, because it's under 1% of auto sales. But computer people make such comments in all seriousness.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
I have no idea where you're getting 2.563 since you didn't bother to explain what numbers and operations you were putting into the calculator, it's a moot point. I was just using the numbers from the summary, which are stated to approximate, so I approximated the total over 4 days by adding it. It's close to what you say it is anyway. I was just replying to the original that thought the total growth was 1.04 over 4 days.
you didn't bother to explain what numbers
Sorry, with your mention of calculus I figured you'd have the math-geek radar to spot the problem based on my mention of 'compound interest' and 'not additive'. Percent-growth (like compound interest) is not additive, it's multiplicative. If you are getting 10% interest on a $1.00, after a day you gain 10 cents and have a $1.10. However the next day you gain 11 cents (10% of $1.10), you then have $1.21. Not $1.20. 10% growth is multiplication by 1.1, additional days combine by multiplication. 1.1 * 1.1 = 1.21.
0.5% growth is multiplication by 1.005, and 1.04% growth is multiplication by 1.0104.
1.005 * 1.005 * 1.005 * 1.0104 = 1.0256319063
I was just trying to be funny, nit-picking your post just so I could pile a second "New Math" gag on top of the first "New Math" gag.
Now let us all observe a moment of silence, as we bury this joke. It is quite thoroughly dead now, chuckle.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I think these people are desperate for some sign of improvement, that's why they all downloaded it to take a look. I tried to use it as my native browser, can't say that I like seeing banner ads displayed over page content. We all have our faults. Then again all browsers suck in their own way. It does print nice pages though :)
Ah, I actually thought of that, but made a simple mistake of using 1.05 instead of 1.005 (confusing 5% with 0.5%) and getting something completely different. Concentration sometimes slips while at work. On a completely different note, a joke modded "Insightful" will usually die a horrible death.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion