MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

" . . . negating the need to click-click-click your browser's back button."

"Yeah man, I tell ya what, man, that dang ol’ internet, man, you just go in on there and point and click, talk about w-w-dot-w-com, mean you got nekkid chicks on there, man, just go click, click, click, click, click, it’s real easy, man."

- Boomhauer

What seems not to be mentioned alot is the fact that the WWW was created on NEXTstep which later became OS X. Is it any wonder safari works so well on the web?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6750395.stm

The second link is in relation to the FUD campaign that is set to come from Iphone's rivals.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6751605.stm

@Twisted Mac Freak

You are twisted! Way too tight.

So many articles around on Safari for Windows.

Has Mary Jo Foley, being the informed and knowledgeable commentator she is, written one yet? :-p

Look out when he unwinds....

I'd also like to hear Fool Foley's reaction.

Does it bother anyone else that XP will get a final version of Safari 3, but Tiger users will be forced to upgrade to Leopard to get it?

I think one of the main reasons that Safari fails is the cycle of adoption and removal: 1. New OS X version, use Safari. 2. OS X version becomes obsolete, Safari support dropped, use Firefox to stay up-to-date. 3. Upgrade to new OS X, use new version of Safari, and so on.

If Apple wants us to stay on Safari, they can't make using the latest version contingent on paying $129.99 for a new OS. This isn't a free browser if that's the case, but rather the most expensive browser ever.

I'll stick with Firefox until Apple shows they'll support the browser with the same consistency as Mozilla.

@ Mac12EightK

I think the iphone will resolve your problem once and for all. If it is to succeed especially in the third party applications field, Safari will have to be universally available at all times.

You were early, sadly.

"Does it bother anyone else that XP will get a final version of Safari 3, but Tiger users will be forced to upgrade to Leopard to get it? "

really? i wasn't aware of that..... where did you get this information?

"Does it bother anyone else that XP will get a final version of Safari 3, but Tiger users will be forced to upgrade to Leopard to get it? "

Uh... No. You can get the beta right now, babe.
http://www.apple.com/safari/

@ Mac12EightK

I can't find a single true thing in your post.

@ChrissyOne

Thanks for the link to the Beta. There's a difference between a beta and a release version. In the Keynote, Steve said that Safari beta will be available for Tiger users because they won't have copies of leopard to test it on.

Did no one else notice that Steve never stated that OS X users outside of leopard will get the latest release of Safari. You see him dance around that fact a bunch of times in the Keynote.

Tiger users are going to be left behind just like Jaguar users were with Safari 1. and Panther users were with Safari 2.

Mac12EightK: I think you're wrong.
With the release of SFW (Safe For Work? HA!), Safari for the Mac and Windows is now in the same category as iTunes for the Mac and Windows and QuickTime for the Mac and Windows. They are all free individual applications with free subsequent upgrades for the Mac and Windows.

@ ChrissyOne

"I can't find a single true thing in your post."? Tell that to the Panther users who switched to Firefox because they got left behind by Safari 2.

@No Squirt For You

I hope you're right about Safari 3.

"Does it bother anyone else that XP will get a final version of Safari 3, but Tiger users will be forced to upgrade to Leopard to get it? "


LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm still ticked that I can't run Safari (any flavor) on
my old Performa 460

I don't get it; is everyone else trying a different Safari for Windows than me? On my standard-issue nothing-weird XP machine, it's more or less unusable as a primary browser. It crashes often, and I'm not pushing it that hard. And it doesn't have the things that I need to make Safari usable even without the bugs (SafariStand, for example), so back to Firefox on Windows for me.

I cannot run any browser on my good old trusty Tangerine!

Am I bothered?..... Hell no!!!...

I have simply invested in a later model.

If you cannot do that now, plan to do it soon. If you are not planning on upgrading at all, do not complain if times pass you by. It is the way of time.....Ever forward, backward never.

Those who're happy to stay on Tiger won't get the new interface--which, presumably, will match what the Windows version has--but it's likely they'll get the new rendering engine.

And, AFAIK, that's what happened last time with the move from panther to Tiger: the rendering engine was updated even if other features in the browser weren't.

I really doubt Apple would want two versions of the engine out there, working differently on some sites, even if they hadn't decided to push for a larger market share, as they clearly have. But you can't expect jam with everything.

Mozilla is in a different position from Apple, since the browser and the email client (and a few other bits and pieces, such as a very pre-release calendar) is **all they have**. If they don't get their browser on as many machines as possible, their business, which depends on revenue from Google searches from the browser bar, suffers.

Apple, by contrast, has to give people some reasons to switch to a new OS or their business suffers.

Leopard is hardly a bad deal, is it? As Jobs pointed out to loud laughter it's $129 for the basic version, $129 for the advanced version, $129 for the business version, and $129 for the ultimate version. Compare that with what you'd be paying for Mr. Gates's palpably inferior software.

@ Charles

"I don't get it; is everyone else trying a different Safari for Windows than me? On my standard-issue nothing-weird XP machine, it's more or less unusable as a primary browser. It crashes often ..."

Haven't a clue. I don't see that. I see some bugs--for example, the odd window behaviour mentioned here:

http://www.dtgeeks.com/features/reviewview/safari_for_windows/

--but I don't see crashes.

I wonder if variable experiences could be down to hardware differences. I'm not an engineer and don't know how much difference that makes. I guess MS's people have an uneviable job is some ways getting their stuff to run on such a large range of hardware.

At least even without Safari there are other choices on Windows besides the default IE, since Opera and Firefox are around. I do not like using IE, because of its past security history. And choice, and web standards (which MS have disregarded, probably deliberately, in the past) are a good thing, too.

@ Charles

As a Camel milk drinker, I have the same (maybe) set up as you.
The difference perhaps is that I have robust anti-virus, firewall and all the bells and whistles that one needs when operating the sieve that is an OS from W$.

I have also upgraded my Rams to 2Gigs on a 3g processor with an independent GPU containing its own rams so that it doesn't slow the main Rams by filling it up.

IE is setup complete with bookmarks and the usaual suspect sites blocked and outgoing access restricted to a handful of programs.

I downloaded Safari form the main Apple page and Lo & behold...it did work!

The only problem I have is that it will not go back on the left arrow on some sites particularly this one. And it has yet to import my email or at least incorporate outlook in its menu somewhere.

Check your computers specifications and then upgrade or reload as the case maybe.

If all else fails......Drink some Camels Milk, it will at least get you farting soundly!

Anybody have any idea as to how many of the 1M downloads in 1st 48 hours were Mac users installing in the Win XP partition on Parallels/Boot Camp/etc? Are the browser-usage tracking services able to determine whether Safari on Windows is actually on a Mac running Windows?

"and resizable text fields, which allow you to make Web-form text-entry boxes bigger by simply grabbing and dragging a corner of the box,"

Yes, time for MDN to update their web site so it does a better job working with this feature.

@ Guest

Drink some Camels Milk!

After a deeply resounding blast from your arse, you will realise the stupidity of your question.

Do you think this site hosts censors?

Direct this question to Mori or the Times or the Economist or some PR firm that specialises in selling bunkum!

Looks like Firefox champs have opened a new front on MDN! Seeing a lot of "choose-the-middle-way a.k.a. Firefox" posts over the last few days.

@ Drinker

The last time I saw a camel was on TV !

Hey ... have you ever tried to get down off of a horse ?

Hint: Cant be done ...

(you get down off geese )

"Choose the way to enlightenment, let the earth be a witness because in Nirvana there is Safari for Windows"



heheheheeeee heeeee *snort!* hehehehe :p

Not to be a stick in the mud, but I think Camino is faster than Firefox IE or Safari. Try it and see what I mean

Well I am surprised about the impact of Safari:

no. reqs pages browser
1 31286 632 MSIE
18512 430 MSIE/6
12771 199 MSIE/7
3 3 MSIE/5
2 375 264 Netscape (compatible)
3 278 185 msnbot-media
278 185 msnbot-media/1
4 5118 86 Firefox
4322 61 Firefox/2
796 25 Firefox/1
5 2184 54 Safari
1253 33 Safari/419
640 13 Safari/312
289 6 Safari/417
2 2 Safari/420
6 41 9 psbot
41 9 psbot/0
7 17 8 msnbot
17 8 msnbot/1
8 10 8 Snapbot
10 8 Snapbot/1
9 9 7 Speedy Spider (http:
9 7 Speedy Spider (http://www
10 8 7 voyager
8 7 voyager/1
11 414 6 Opera
356 6 Opera/9
12 223 6 Mozilla
221 5 Mozilla/1
13 663 5 Netscape
660 5 Netscape/8
14 2 2 Mirago-Test-Robot (http:
2 2 Mirago-Test-Robot (http://www
15 2 1 MQBOT
2 1 MQBOT/Nutch-0
16 1 1 Baiduspider+(+http:
1 1 Baiduspider+(+http://www
17 1 1 Konqueror
1 1 Konqueror/3
7 0 [not listed: 3 browsers]

@ oh my, very funny! ha ha haaaa!!! No wonder riders suffer from saddle sore's!!!

Have you seen Camel Lights?

Hint: can't be done.....

(Only if you light their bum when they fart at night! rear light, I guess)

Don't forget full of security bugs. As usual, Apple produces a turkey of a software product and then sticks it to their users. For all these years only people stupid enough to buy Macintosh computers got stuck with this disastrous software, but now the good business people running windows got suckered. I thought that malware was illegal in this country so maybe we will see the government sue Apple for this catastrophe. Make sure to stick with Internet Explorer so you don't have to worry about the mountain of security holes in Safari.

@Mac Realist (Zune Tang? Is that you?)
Safari is not buggy and full of security holes on Mac OS X. Didn't you read the Security Advisory from Apple? "This does not affect Mac OS X". We feel blessed to be using this operating system.

---------------------------
OTOH
---------------------------

"Does it bother anyone else that XP will get a final version of Safari 3, but Tiger users will be forced to upgrade to Leopard to get it?" — Mac12EightK

What Mac12EightK is really complaining about (whether he knows it or not) is not that the latest Mac OS X version of Safari 3beta is lacking the same functionality as the Windows version. The Mac version has exactly the same behaviors built into it that Windows Safari 3beta has.

What's different, AFAIK, from my own experience, is that the user interface for the Mac OS X Safari 3b is not visually identical to the Windows version of Safari 3b. Tiger users are still stuck with the brushed metal interface!</i>

Since it's so easyot hard for Apple to copy and replace the new UI's graphics files into Safari's resource folder. So the Mac's Safari 3b's brushed metal interface can not be an "accidental oversight". <b>It has to be a deliberate choice on the part of Apple!<b> This issue is a complaint you will find on Apple's discussion pages, too.

Why is Apple treating it's "never before in computer history's" most progressive Tiger installed user base like 2nd class citizens?? Why leave us with Safari 2's brushed metal interface in Safari 3b?

Because, my friends, <b>I am afraid, too, that getting the new Safari interface for Mac will be contingent upon shelling out $129 for Leopard. I am running OS X 10.4.9, the latest version of Tiger. I deserve the latest and greatest browser in the world right now, not just the newcomers!!

This is unacceptable NOW, not just in October.

For instance, there are dozens of screen prints on Flickr of Safari 3b for Windows. Even before I installed the new Safari, I planned on posting my own screenprint of Safari 3b on my own Flickr account, with my own proud announcement that the Safari browser in my image is now available for Windows XP/Vista!! Of course, I would have provided the appropriate link to Apple's download page for the Safari Beta.

However, once I found out that the Safari 3b on my screen was not visually identical to the Windows version, I could not... I would not... and I did not post the screenshot on Flickr!!

I feel cheated out of my Mac bragging rights. What could I post, anyway? An image of Apple's Safari 3 image which doesn't jive with the browser in my own screenshot? I'd be posting an image of a browser that looks exactly like all my previous images of web pages in Safari!! Big Whoop!!

Why should I do something like that to myself? I have Mac and Windows users on my contacts list. I would just end up having my own set of comments from Mac users complaining about the brushed metal interface and "Huh? Whaddya talkin' about?" comments from Windows users.

Apple is missing out on a lot of free publicity from its huge, loyal, "first time in history", Tiger-installed user base... from its most enthusiastic supporters!! Such publicity you can't BUY !!

Do I plan to buy the upgrade? Of course, I will...on very the day Leopard is released if I can afford it... even if I wait a few weeks before installing it. But why should I have to wait until October to put up my own personal screenprint of Safari 3 on my Flickr account in the meantime??

After all, Leopard itself is not available for Windows... just Safari and iTunes!! And that's what the big news in October will be about by then, not just Safari.

I love being a johnny-come-lately... NOT !!

</rant>

Mac12EightK, did you miss the part in the keynote when he said that like 67% (two thirds) of all OS X users were using Tiger (the most current version)?

Plus the upgrade to Leopard is 129. It has core animation (something you definitely want, and a lot of apps will require Leopard because of it) and Time Machine, and really awesome version of iChat, new mail, spaces, hell, why would you not upgrade? I love Tiger but Leopard makes it look pretty dated, IMO.

I'm sorry unless your running on old unsupported G3 hardware, I just can't see why you'd be complaining and why you wouldn't upgrade.

@twilightmoon@mac.com

Read my post before you rank on Mac12EightK. The two thirds of all Mac OS X users running Tiger deserve a Safari 3 beta that looks exactly like the Windows version NOW... upgrade or no upgrade later on.