Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Safari on Windows, Leopard Debut at WWDC

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the another-contender-in-the-ring dept.

Windows 850

comm2k writes to mention that Apple has announced a Windows version of Safari along with Leopard, the new version of Mac OS X at this years World Wide Developers Conference in San Francisco. "He said Safari was 'the fastest browser on Windows', saying it was twice as fast as Internet Explorer. A test version of Safari for Windows XP and for Vista is available for download from the Apple website. Apple is hoping to replicate the success of iTunes, which has proved enormously popular on both Macs and Windows machines."

cancel ×

850 comments

All of the major news (5, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468779)

* Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) [apple.com] - ...of course. This was the main focus of the keynote. A "feature complete" version of Leopard was demonstrated, and all WWDC attendees receive the current, feature complete beta of Leopard and Leopard Server. Demos, movies, and more information about all of the many new features are available here [apple.com] . No one outside of the conference will receive these builds (but can be expected to receive later seeds). Leopard is still on track to ship in October. Leopard is $129, or $69 edu/govt (as usual). Free/cheap upgrades to Leopard will likely only for hardware purchased within month prior to its release (also as usual). (See also Leopard Server [apple.com] ).

Mac OS X [apple.com] and Mac OS X Server [apple.com] press releases with more info.

* iPhone third party development - iPhone [apple.com] , previously thought to be completely closed, will have development possible via rich "Web 2.0" applications. Details on this are a little sketchy, and it's not what some hoping for a full iPhone SDK wanted, but it appears that all external app development will happen via web apps. However, it also appears such apps will appear as and have the look and feel of other iPhone apps. While this is news, it appears analysts are interpreting this as "new bad news", even though there was no expectation previously that iPhone would be an open platform, since it appeared that it would be closed, and this announcement is actually a positive development over the previous situation. iPhone is also still in schedule to ship on June 29 at 6pm via Apple retail stores and AT&T corporate stores. Still no news on specifics for online sales, preordering, etc.

Press release with more info [apple.com] .

* Safari Mac OS X and Windows [apple.com] - Safari is now available, in its 3.0 beta form, on Mac OS X 10.4.9 and Windows XP/Vista. At first glance, Safari is much, much faster than it was previously on Mac OS X, and includes a range of new features. This is the same version of Safari that will ship on Leopard and (essentially) iPhone. Safari is now also available on Windows; this is obviously going to be used as a channel of development for iPhone, since all external iPhone apps will essentially be Safari web apps.

Press release with more info [apple.com] .

* No new hardware, but the Apple Store and the rest of the Apple web site has a new look (which was why the Apple Store was down, which some see as an indication of new hardware announcements).

* Keynote summary [macrumorslive.com]

* Keynote archive will be available later today here [apple.com] .

Re:All of the major news (1, Informative)

vinceb (1113871) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468861)

I can't believe they skipped the opportunity to implement url bar keyword searching... until they do, it's Camino for me.

Re:All of the major news (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19469005)

Vinceb, too proud to hit "Tab"
:P

Re:All of the major news (1)

donweel (304991) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469089)

If Leopard sells on the PC perhaps Mac users will get Game compatibility in return.

Re:All of the major news (5, Informative)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469177)

EA announced at the WWDC that they will be porting games over to the Mac, and having simultaneous releases from here on.

Open Letter (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19468787)

Dear PC users,

It's no secret iTunes turned to shit as soon as Apple had to start catering to PC users. It was version 4.1, if memory serves, around the time they let you cavedwellers into our music store. The demand for PC compatibility is the major reason iTunes is still a Carbon app, according to insiders, when every other iApp has since been rewritten in Cocoa to behave like a decent Mac application.

Now there's Safari 3's bastard child, Safari 3 for PC. Although the Mac flavor sits gracefully on the desktop with its Cocoa brethren, the Windows version sticks out like a cold glass of Metamucil in the men's room at Penn Station. Technical limitations of Windows ensure Safari looks shittier even than most other PC applications. It won't be long before the fecal tide comes sloshing to Safari on Mac, as happened with iTunes before. You PC users, crashing the party again with your filth.

Frankly, we think Apple should revoke PC compatibility from across its entire product line. Only when the last PC user is forced from our platform shall we enjoy freedom, again and at last, from your tasteless, backwards demands.

Love,
Mac users

Re:Open Letter (1)

Sciros (986030) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468887)

Honestly, one can only hope. And I say this as a strictly PC user, because I don't want to worry about any more web browsers :-P Screw Safari, I never hacked for it and I don't want to start. Hacking for IE is bad enough.

Re:Open Letter (5, Insightful)

oyenstikker (536040) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468955)

I am a web developer. Every time I have seen a problem with my pages on Konqueror or Safari, it has turned out that I was not following the specs properly. It is more a reference implementation than another browser to hack for.

Re:Open Letter (4, Informative)

Niten (201835) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468957)

I wouldn't necessarily call it "hacking" for Safari, considering that Safari's KHTML-based rendering engine is more standards compliant than either Firefox or IE.

Re:Open Letter (4, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469047)

Screw Safari, I never hacked for it and I don't want to start. Hacking for IE is bad enough.

You have to "hack" to get IE to work. If you code to standards, generally Safari, Firefox, Opera, Konquerer, etc. all just work. We've found a few Safari specific bugs here, but all of them turned out to be bugs in our HTML, which were just handled a little better by Firefox.

Re:Open Letter (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19468953)

Dear Mac User,

Whenever Apple ports and application to Windows, they always make it slow and buggy. First they tormented us with Quicktime - a slow player by all standards, which had the audacity to attach itself to every media file on the system, even files it could not play. As if that wasn't bad enough, it crashed more than Windows Media Player.

Apple then comes out and adds iTunes. This "wonderful" piece of software runs several services in the background, some of which are normally not even needed/used, yet each sonsistantly sucks up several percent of a modern 2+Ghz CPU, and dozens of MB of memory. Added to the lackluster performance in comparison to other music players, like Winamp, this is not a desireable app.

Now Apple wants to "grace" us with Safari? Please, tell your computer company to be honest when it tries to get users to switch, and not provide us with software that slows down and gums up our Windows machines, so that we are deluded into thinking that Apple is better.

Re:Open Letter (1)

Goffee71 (628501) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468989)

Dear Mac users, If Steve Jobs wants to dream bigger than your tiny little corner, niche, segment-ette of the market, that's fine by us. I doubt you will be taking that tone when OS-X for PCs is finally announced and Microsoft starts the long slide into Dodo-land. Love, PC Users. P.S. As it is, I use Safari on Mac and Firefox on PC and Firefox is by far the more comfortable in use.

Re:Open Letter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19468991)

Thanks troll, but PC is where the dollar signs are. Accept reality.

I agree 100% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19469179)

It's amazing how when Microsoft programs something for the Mac platform, it always ends up being the best, but when Apple programs something for Windows, it ends up always being the worst.

Quicktime is not just a system-killer which forces people to have to completely reinstall Windows, but it's buggy and slow as hell. If you use Windows... do yourself a favor and NEVER use Quicktime.

Same thing with iTunes: a buggy POS which screws your system stability. And to add insult to injury, it also forces you to install Quicktime.

So I agree with this Apple d00d 100%: Apple, please stop writing Windows software.

KDE / Konqueror (4, Insightful)

bms20 (827647) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468789)

Glad they based it on Konqueror - Now how about contributing to KDE and or making a version for Linux? -bms20

Apple is a leech on the Linux community (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19468835)

Apple continues to take and take from the Linux/OSS community and give little back. This latest snub of Linux just continues the trend.

O... (3, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468901)

...RLY? [webkit.org]

Already done (4, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468865)

Safari has always been based on KDE's KHTML, and they do contribute back to the community via the WebKit project [webkit.org] .

See also:

KDE adds Safari feel to desktop Linux [zdnet.com] - The KDE Project has released a significant update to its K Desktop Environment software that includes refinements to the Konqueror Web browser derived from collaboration with Apple's Safari browser team.

KDE's Konqueror Browser Reaps Safari Benefits [macslash.org] - In a perfect example of how open source and proprietary software can benefit each other, Apple got a significant headstart by basing Safari on established technologies like KHTML & Konqueror. And in return, Apple's contributions back to the open source community have benefitted Konqueror.

Re:KDE / Konqueror (4, Informative)

ciroknight (601098) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469017)

It's been based on KHTML/Konq since conception. If you want to use Safari (or its equivalence in Linux), just use Konq.

The only reason it runs on Windows now is because Adobe put a shit-ton of work into WebKit/WebCore to make their Apollo product, and now Apple's using the benefit of their partial-Carbon port to port Safari over and use the Win32-ized WebKit to power it.

The real good thing that's happening in WebKit/WebCore right now is the work going on to make it work with GTK+/GDK. Once that happens we'll have a web browser that looks and feels native to every major UI toolkit out there.

This has been gone over ad nauseum (1)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469075)

Now how about contributing to KDE and or making a version for Linux?

Perhaps you missed the memo [zdnet.com] .

Maybe you missed this one [kde.org] too.

As for developing a version for Linux, why would Apple do that when KDE and Mozilla are already there and serving the needs of Linux users? I see no need for Apple to do more than contribute to KDE, which it is doing. There are no shortage of great browsers available for Linux users, and it would be a waste of money for Apple to devote resources to a small, already saturated market.

font weirdness? (1)

jabella (91754) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468791)

Seems to be some font weirdness to me -- i had to mess with the font smoothing options in Preferences. Otherwise it seems to be fine on major sites....

Re:font weirdness? (2, Informative)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468997)

That's because instead of using the built-in Windows font smoothing (eg. ClearType) they decided to implement some bastardized version of the OSX font smoothing. The font smoothing on OSX is very nice, but Safari on Windows looks like crap! I would much prefer to use the built in font smoothing on Windows (like Firefox does).

Re:font weirdness? (1)

minimalOne (855081) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469215)

i dont know, I am currently browsing this on the new safari beta 3 and I like these fonts.

fastest? (5, Funny)

brunascle (994197) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468793)

i'm pretty sure i can get lynx running through cygwin.

It's in beta (3, Informative)

doubleofive (982704) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468797)

I've already crashed Safari on Windows three times, but I was being pretty hard on it. You have to remember that this is still beta before you start bashing it, though.

Re:It's in beta (1)

Svippy (876087) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468833)

You almost sound like Google.

Crashed/locked up on me too. (2, Informative)

jasenj1 (575309) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468969)

It's locked up (CPU consumption at 95%+ for a long time with nothing to show) on me a few times already and that's without stress testing.

I'm behind a corporate firewall, and while I can browse external sites I can't get to any internal servers. Sounds like a bug in the proxy handling.

Also, the edge window size controls don't show up.

- Jasen.

Re:It's in beta (1)

pdxaaron (777522) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469171)

Hmmm... proxy settings button is greyed out??? Beta Safari, you are dead to me...

Can't wait (0, Troll)

pi8you (710993) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468807)

Well, there goes even more of Opera's meager market share. Still, I can't wait to get home from work and give it a spin, though I highly doubt it'll replace Opera for me. First Post?

Re:Can't wait (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468981)

If Safari could replace Opera, Opera for OS X wouldn't have 228.000 downloads (Big for Mac scene) on Versiontracker. Safari and Opera target audience are completely different.

If Safari becomes hit on Windows, I will really laugh to those webmasters who designed everything for IE and Firefox only ignoring Opera community,users on all platforms since it won't probably work on Safari too :)

No, they aren't (5, Insightful)

k_187 (61692) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468813)

No, Apple is not trying to replicate iTunes' success. Nobody on windows would give a crap if iTunes wasn't the main way to get things onto an iPod. From what info was given about apps for the iPhone, Safari is the SDK. Any greater market share for WebKit is just gravy.

YellowBox for Windows is Back (4, Informative)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469111)

No, Apple is not trying to replicate iTunes' success.

Agreed - the browser marketshare thing is just a front for getting millions of people to beta test their application development framework - YellowBox for Windows is back [bfccomputing.com] . Next year you can have real applications on the iPhone (and Mac, and Windows).

Re:No, they aren't (4, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469155)

No, Apple is not trying to replicate iTunes' success.

I think you're more right than you know. I think Apple is trying to replicate the iPod's success. They used iTunes to help sell the iPod to Windows users. I think they're porting Safari to try to help sell the iPhone to Windows users. The iPhone is running OS X and a version of Safari. It runs Web 2.0 applications in Safari. This release means Windows developers don't need OS X in order to develop and test for the iPhone. It also makes testing for Safari easier for Windows only Web developers.

Personally, I bounce back and forth between Firefox and Safari. Safari is faster and has some really nice features (support for services). Safari 3 has some things to offer too. I'm using it right now and the ability to just resize this text field kicks ass. I hope every other browser steals the idea. The Web inspector is nice too.

OMG not another one (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468827)

Yeah that's what we need, another browser to take into consideration when making a website. Like I really want to make changes to one page then check it in Safari, IE7, Firefox, and Netscape 9.0. Everyone should pick between Firefox and IE7 and boycott the rest before it slows website development down to a crawl

Re:OMG not another one (5, Insightful)

Denis Troller (1002792) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468913)

So before that you did not care about Safari users? OK, I can understand that, just looking at the market share :) Don't worry anyway. My guess is that Safari on Windows has more to do with iPhone SDK than with "we want our browser everywhere". iPhone apps being safari based AJAX apps, Apple wants Windows devs to be able to code/test it as well as Mac devs. They definitely have their eyes on the business market (just look at the "salesforce" remark), and they know they *have* to make iPhone dev possible from windows machine.

Re: Windows Safari as iPhone dev support (1)

TheNicestGuy (1035854) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469193)

they know they *have* to make iPhone dev possible from windows machine

Yeah, that's the most likely explanation I could think of too. They could decide to require developers to get a Mac to develop reliably for the iPhone, but they're not stupid. But if iPhone web apps are likely to rely on any special/quirky features of Safari, they would have to get Safari onto more development platforms.

Any Web 2.0 developers seen anything new, enticing, and exclusive to Safari 3 they might try to get developers to support?

Re:OMG not another one (1)

brunascle (994197) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468919)

you already should have been checking Safari. and you probably dont need to check Netscape, since it uses the Gecko (mozilla) and Trident (IE) rendering engines.

Well, it's definitely fast... (1)

Maury Markowitz (452832) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468843)

Anyone else using it too? Not too sure about the font smoothing, but the rest of it does seem pretty nice so far!

Re:Well, it's definitely fast... (1)

Anonymous Custard (587661) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468949)

Is it Font Smoothing that makes every site look like a LCD does when using non-native resolution? Gotta turn that crap off asap...

Re:Well, it's definitely fast... (1)

rob1980 (941751) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469043)

I'm not used to the fonts, that's for sure. Bold text looks almost too fat. I can't scroll through a page by clicking on the mouse wheel and dragging the cursor down and the mouse wheel isn't scrolling through a page fast enough, but it's rendering everything ok and I haven't had it crash on me yet. I'll use Safari for a week or so and see if I get used to it.

I can't get it working (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468849)

I'm using it on my work PC, running a fairly standard Windows XP SP2 install, and tried both the version with Quicktime and the version without. Both versions crash on startup, with the problem being - according to Microsoft's Visual C++ debugger - an illegal instruction on COREGRAPHICS.DLL.

It might just be my PC, or it might be an AMDism (I'm using a 1GHz AMD Athlon.) Anyone getting similar results?

Re:I can't get it working (5, Funny)

rlp (11898) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468933)

Wow, they have replicated the experience of iTunes on Windows!

Cool (4, Interesting)

jaavaaguru (261551) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468871)

I've just played [sorn.net] with Safari on Windows and it's cool. I'm unsure about the menu bar at the top though, and the extra 20 vertical pixels or so that it takes up - that just doesn't look as clean as it does on OS X. Windows needed another browser to give IE a run for its money, and this is it.

And it supports rich text editing in GMail :-)

I hope it will be supporting the plugin framework that Safari on OS X does, I like things like the Inquisitor search plugin [inquisitorx.com] .

More first impressions (2, Interesting)

bheer (633842) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469131)

- Flash doesn't work despite reinstalling the flash player. This might actually be a feature.
- Took 100MB of RAM (as reported by Task Manager) to render some tab groups.
- OTOH, it's very fast to start: faster than Firefox, IE and even Opera.
- Crashes on some non-Latin font pages (IE, Firefox don't on the same system)
- Fonts look great on my LCD. Arial actually looks decent, unlike Windows' default elongated look.

Re:Cool (1)

Llywelyn (531070) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469175)

Reading slashdot with it now, the bars at the top seem to take up less vertical space than they do in Firefox.

Its kind of nice, the Menu + toolbar + bookmark bar + tab bar takes up about the same about of space as it does on Firefox without the tab bar.

Safari...? (4, Insightful)

motek (179836) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468873)

First thing I downloaded onto my newly bought Mac Mini was Firefox. Safari was just plain unbearable. Speed doesn't count for much, when proper rendering is not there.

Re:Safari...? (4, Informative)

Niten (201835) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469107)

Safari renders just fine –it's certainly more in line with the official specs than any other browser out there, with the possible exception of Opera. The problem is simply that Safari doesn't have Firefox's market share yet, so web developers who code all their sites with Firefox and IE in mind don't necessarily check to make sure they work well in Safari too.

It's the same problem that we used to have with the old Mozilla Suite. Gecko has, for the most part, always been great; but it wasn't until more developers got on board that using Mozilla or Firefox as a daily web browser became a pleasant experience. If anything, the problem that Safari currently faces in this regard is much less significant than the hurdle Mozilla originally had to jump.

Re:Safari...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19469147)

And the irony being that firefox fails miserably with apple's site. According to Job's today, FF has 3x the number of users too.

Re:Safari...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19469149)

First thing I downloaded onto my newly bought Mac Mini was Firefox. Safari was just plain unbearable. Speed doesn't count for much, when proper rendering is not there.

Examples? Safari seems to render things quite well. I've yet to find an example that confuses any of its recent versions. There were some issues back in the 1.0 days, but those days are long gone.

Underwhelmed (1)

hejog (816106) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468881)

everyone knew it'd happen some day - the rumours have beaten the actual product

Pretty pissed there is no details on the new enterprise stuff though, want network backups, iCalendars ...

and a new iWork would have been neat, but thats more for consumers.

Oh and the iPhone SDK is such a cop out. Shocking.

Trouble Already (1)

ack154 (591432) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468885)

Trouble with the beta already at work on Windows XP. We have a proxy that requires domain authentication (which works fine with FF). As soon as I started Safari up, it prompted me for the credentials... I entered my domain\username and password and clicked OK - crash with a memory error immediately.

I also tried clicking Cancel on the proxy authentication window and got the same result.

Not going to knock the beta too much for that though given the circumstances... I'll be trying it at home minus any proxy later on. I'm hoping for better results.

Unimpressed with Safari/XP (1)

jbellis (142590) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468889)

I tested my usual tab load under (newly opened) FF and Safari; safari took about 40% more memory and was a bit of a CPU hog too.

No difference in rendering speed was perceptible. (Understandably so; render speed is unlikely to be the bottleneck on modern machines, for non-pathological pages.)

THAT is Steve Jobs's "one more thing"? (5, Insightful)

Caspian (99221) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468895)

Safari for Windows?

Not a radical new 16-core desktop? Not a 19" Macbook Pro? Not a 30" iMac? Not an Apple-branded virtualisation solution?

Nooooo, SAFARI FOR WINDOWS>

I must ask here.... what the fuck!? Who would care about this announcement? And I say that as a Mac fan!

Re:THAT is Steve Jobs's "one more thing"? (5, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469037)

This is WWDC. It is a developer conference, not a consumer conference. Its focus has always been software (although WWDC has occasionally been the forum for hardware announcements). Apple is doing more and more product introductions as they're ready (e.g., like last week's new MacBook Pro introduction), and less and less product introductions at conferences and "special events".

Everyone expecting brushed aluminum iMacs and new Cinema Displays shouldn't have expected that in the first place. And an Apple-branded virtualization solution? It's been known since last WWDC that Leopard wouldn't have integrated virtualization. With three [parallels.com] different [vmware.com] solutions [virtualbox.org] already existing, plus Boot Camp, why would you even expect that, no matter how nice it would be?

And who would care about this announcement? This isn't just "Safari for Windows". Jeez. It's the channel for development for iPhone, since all of iPhone's third-party development will be as Safari web apps [apple.com] .

Not an Apple-branded virtualisation solution? (2, Insightful)

green pizza (159161) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469067)

>> Not an Apple-branded virtualisation solution?

I, for one, am very happy Apple chose not to compete with Parallels / VMware. Apple and MS have already stomped on the toes of too many app developers in the past.

Re:THAT is Steve Jobs's "one more thing"? (1)

jaavaaguru (261551) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469079)

And I say that as a Mac fan


That's probably why you don't care about it then.

I'm also a Mac user - I primarily use OS X at home. At work, I don't always have that opportunity, so I'm happy that I will now be able to use the same browser at work as I do at home.

Firefox is the most at risk (1, Insightful)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468909)

I don't think that IE has much to fear from this. I think the project most in trouble by Safari on Windows is Firefox.

Firefox is already very easy to get and setup. And most people who have switched from IE have decided to go with FF.

I'm one of those people who think FF is getting bloated. Just look at the preferences panels... they used to be simple and clean, even nicer than what Safari currently has, but with each version, they've been getting more and more like the kludgey ones in IE and Mozilla (pre seamonkey).

And if Safari starts getting bundled with iTunes, then watch the install base soar, and the Firefox user market shrink.

Re:Firefox is the most at risk (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469127)

I don't think that IE has much to fear from this. I think the project most in trouble by Safari on Windows is Firefox.

I don't expect WinSafari to make much of a dent. The main reason for creating it was for phone app development, and I doubt they'd have bothered if not for that. Apple doesn't benefit in the same way as it does from having iTunes for Windows.

The FireFox plug-in world is too compelling. If the OS X version of FF was better behaved I'd make it my main browser. Under Windows it's no contest.

Safari is the iPhone SDK (5, Insightful)

null-und-eins (162254) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468911)

Safari for the PC is interesting for three reasons: (1) if widely adopted, it would force more web apps to become Safari friendly. Google apps, for example, often don't work with Safari. (2) Safari is the developemnt platform for iPhone apps. And by releasing Safari for the PC, the developer base just multiplied enormously. (3) Just the fact that iPhone apps are build from HTML and Javascript is going to shake up the mobile web scenario.

Why Safari? (1)

Gryffin (86893) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468923)

In bringing iTunes to Windows, Apple broadened the market for song downloads (which, admittedly, they don't make that much on) and iPods (which they do make money on). I don't see a similar market opportunity in a free browser.

And if they just want to expose Windows users to The Macintosh Experience, I'm not convinced that a (probably buggy) public beta of a Web browser is the way to do it.

So, I just don't see what their play is here, other than a thumb in Ballmer's eye. Am I missing something?

Re:Why Safari? (1)

k_187 (61692) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469039)

third-party apps on the iphone are run in WebKit. This is a way for developers to make and test apps for the iphone. Also, at least until its out of beta, Apple won't be making commericals mentioning this. The announcement was made at WWDC for a reason.

Re:Why Safari? (3, Insightful)

hondo77 (324058) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469119)

I don't see a similar market opportunity in a free browser.

iPhone apps. They've broadened the developer base for apps (which they won't make money on) for the iPhone (which, presumably, they will make money on).

Re:Why Safari? (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469187)

Am I missing something?

Phone app development.

Re:Why Safari? (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469203)

Doesn't FF bring Mozilla.org $10,000,000/year?

I bet re-writing the interface is worth it. Also, if they are going to come out with a .mac type thing that is heavily web based and ties into Safari, they could do so. If they can get people thinking of Apple as their computer vendor (like they did with the iPod and iTunes) they will sell more computers.

Everytime they emphasize the "cool" parts of your computer are Apple products they win. It worked with iPd, and it will probably work if they come up with something like google apps, but less sucky. If they add to Safari the goods to make this happen it will even better emphasize the point of who is in charge of the "fun" of computing. Since Apple focuses on "fun" cfar more than business (from my advertizing recolection at about a 6:1 ratio).

Unlike google, Apple does not need to support IE, that frees them to do some cool stuff on the web.

Hopefully (3, Insightful)

Hawthorne01 (575586) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468931)

this will be another kick in pants to all the web developers out there who don't/can't/won't test their sites in anything other than IE before deployment. Developing an intraweb app for a controllable and known set of apps, and something else altogether to build a customer-facing website that tells 20%+ of your audience that they're not welcome the minute they land on your homepage. Now, with the ability to test in all the major browsers right from one OS, there's no excuse not to have cross-browser functionality.

Coverflow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19468939)

I think the new coverflow feature for the Finder would probably be most useful for looking at pr0^D^D^D certain types of material...

To Site Devs... (5, Informative)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468947)

To those site developers that are having issues with Safari on Windows, you can enable the Safari Debug tools like you can on Mac. On OS X you would do:

defaults write com.apple.Safari IncludeDebugMenu 1


in a Terminal window. Obviously that command does not work on Windows.

Instead, open %APPDATA%\Apple Computer\Safari\Preferences.plist in your favorite text editor. Add:

<key>IncludeDebugMenu</key>
<true/>


and save it. Restart Safari. You now have a nifty "Debug" menu in the top menu bar, complete with the Javascript Console.

I am split (3, Insightful)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468965)

On one hand I would like to see some competition and many browsers would force developers to use something called the w3c standards which they no longer follow. Or I should say the browsers do not.

However if this steals marketshare away from firefox it will make many web developers give up on anything non IE.

- eg

89% IE
10% firefox

sounds better to make a business case to a phb to support a website site that is w3c compliant and supports firefox vs

89% IE
6% Firefox
4% Safari

Which tells the phb that only IE matters as the rest are niche players that do not make significant marketshare to be worth the investment.

Many website developers both love and hate Firefox as it is because they have more work but the hope is firefox3 will be acid2 compliant and will force IE 7.5 in the future to be as well.

World Wide Developers Conference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19468971)

Does "Wide" apply to World or to Developers? Haha.

Adblocking? Skinning (3, Interesting)

roelbj (95481) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468987)

There are just so many darn features and plugins for Firefox I have fallen in love with; however I am giving Safari an open-minded try right now. Off the top of my head, the glaring absence of the equivalent of an 'adblock' plugin is a show-stopper for now.

I don't think it's nitpicking in this day and age to ask that a web-browser be skinnable as well. This theme reminds me of everything I hate about the Quicktime player. And what tab is open? Oh... the one that is just a *slightly* different shade of gray. And where are my UltraMon buttons?

Re:Adblocking? Skinning (1)

Jerry Rivers (881171) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469153)

There are add-ons for Safari too, but they tend to be buggy and slow down Safari considerably. I stick with Firefox unless I have no other choice.

Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19468995)

Safari for Windows: Don't want it
iPhone: Can't have it yet
10.5: Can't have it yet

Where's the ultraportable MacBookPro? Or the other junk you advance order from the show floor with 10,000 of your closest friends?

flooded (1)

ChrisMounce (1096567) | more than 7 years ago | (#19468999)

I like how as soon as Safari for Windows was announced, Slashdot was flooded with news stories about it.

You decide what this means. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19469001)

Safari for Vista isn't compatible with Aero effects.

Trying Safari 3 beta for OS X right now... (1)

Zaurus (674150) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469009)

and it seems to be working great so far. Noticeably more responsive that Firefox scrolling up and down slashdot pages.

Safari 3 Beta... Borked? (1)

NilObject (522433) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469013)

I grabbed the Safari 3 Beta for MacOS X, installed it, restarted, and opened Safari. Unfortunately, no window comes up. Apple-N doesn't bring up a new window. However, Apple-T *does* (along with a new tab). From there, no sites will load. Safari just pretends as though I didn't do anything. Clicking a bookmark bar button will set it "down", but it wont come back up or load anything.

Wild and crazy!

Anyone else having these sorts of problems?

Re:Safari 3 Beta... Borked? (1)

Jeremy_Bee (1064620) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469199)

perhaps you are using it on 10.4.8?

Ajax as iPhone development environment? No Thanks. (4, Funny)

tji (74570) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469023)

I bet that went over like a turd in a punch bowl. Talking to a bunch of Cocoa developers at WWDC, who have been listening to Apple sing the praises of Cocoa for years, and then heard about how iPhone was running "real Mac OS X" "with Cocoa" in the iPhone announcement.

Now, Apple is telling us nice job learning Cocoa. But, for what we consider our biggest product ever, you should forget that and use Ajax. Welcome to web development.

Also.. sorry about delaying Leopard, but look at why we had to delay it.. We've got Safari for Windows!!!

A link to... (1)

Caetel (1057316) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469025)

A link to Apple [apple.com] . You know, just in case anybody wants to try it out. As to why you want to use Safari at all I don't know, it has always been the first thing I've replaced whenever I've used a Mac...

Safari on WIn 2000 (1)

dham340 (969899) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469029)

2 comments: Running Safari on Win 2000 so take the XP requirement with a grain of salt. Also, looks good so far (better than on my mac at home), and although I have not slammed it yet, it does seem pretty snappy. As to why Apple would do this: easy - iPhone. 3rd party iPhone apps need to be written against Safari/webKit. Have to give the windows developers a version of safari to use. In the end it probably was not that hard since the webkit portion of safari was already part of iTunes. Kinda cool. The Apple Collective. Prepare to be assimilated.

All I want in a Browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19469031)

All I want is a browser that can (by DEFAULT) display MATHML (needing to download some fonts is OK), pass ACID2, and work with Java applets. XHTML should be viewable using Content-Type "application/xhtml+xml"

I'm totally getting the Ultimate version. (5, Funny)

Onan (25162) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469035)

I enjoyed Jobs's sniping at recent Windows versioning:

"We've got a basic version, which is going to cost $129. We've got a Premium version, which is going to cost $129. We've got a Business version, $129. We've got an Enterprise version, $129. And we've got the Ultimate version, we're throwing everything into it, it's $129. We think most people will buy the Ultimate version."

Is this seriously it? (1)

twoboxen (1111241) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469045)

Wow, very disappointing. The stacks look like crap, and the finder is a better, but still too congested. Neither are hardly anything to hide as "AMAZING SECRET FEATURES". Where is an announcement of Windows integration / ZFS magnitude? Someone please help me not be totally disappointed AGAIN (See: MacWorld '07).

What happened to the massive desktop investments (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469055)

Steve promised in an interview with Walt Mossberg that there was going to be large investments in desktops, but nothing materialized. Other than the 8 core bto option Apple hasn't really updated any of it's desktops in a year, and the mac mini is hilariously underpowered for what it costs. Come on Apple, phones are great, and the new macbook pro is tempting even though I would have to get rid of my powerbook, but we really need new desktops more than youtube on my tv or $600 phones!

Talk about reaching out (0, Offtopic)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469057)

It looks like you can chat to ghosts [apple.com] with their video chat. Well done Apple for going beyond the grave.

More blatant disregard for my Windows theme! (1)

mattgreen (701203) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469061)

I know Windows apps aren't known for conforming to the OS standards (in the guise of sticking out) but I can't say I'm impressed with the brushed metal look being mandated on Safari. I wouldn't mention it if you could disable it. But no, you *have* to use this one skin! Not only does it look out of place on my desktop, but the menu text is antialiased where it shouldn't be - I don't use anti-aliasing because I prefer the higher contrast. In fact, all of the fonts in Safari are funky. The text is much thicker than Firefox. Plus, all the form widgets on websites are OS X-style, which, again, isn't the OS it is running on. The other thing that threw me severely is you can only resize the window from the lower right, not from any edge of the window. (Regardless of which approach you think is better, going against the conventions of the host OS generally only hurts the users.)

Safari For Windows Fails For Me (1)

nuxx (10153) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469065)

If you take a look at this screenshot [nuxx.net] you can see Safari for Windows failing to work for me. That is on a Dell Latitude D620 behind our corporate firewall.

Before I turned the corporate proxy settings off in IE it would launch and chew through RAM while not responding. I had to kill it once it reached 600MB used. After turning the proxy settings off, what you see above is what I get.

I haven't tried it on a public network connection yet, but I'll give that a go tonight. Hopefully it'll fix the problem.

Re:Safari For Windows Fails For Me (1)

pdxluddite (681965) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469161)

Does the exact same thing to me. It's completely unusable. I'm surprised that it shipped with behaviors like this...

Stop dipping your toes in the water. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19469077)

Either jump in and make OSX available for any x86 compatible or forget it.

A Kick In The Balls For Microsoft (5, Interesting)

WombatControl (74685) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469087)

Ballmer is going to be throwing a lot of chairs today...

Safari for Windows is the biggest threat to IE ever. The reason is simple: it's going to be bundled with iTunes. If Apple really wanted to kick Microsoft in the balls, they'd make the iTunes installer put Safari as the default browser -- or give it as an option during the install (with the default being yes, natch). That means suddenly, everyone who buys an iPod ends up using Safari as their default browser instead of IE. If Safari transparently migrates over their bookmarks and settings, a lot of those people, if not the majority, would be likely to stuck with Safari.

It's the same "bundling" that got IE as the majority browser used against Microsoft for a change. All of a sudden, WebKit is the platform for web development on Macs, PCs, and the iPhone. That would would definitely cause a lot of heartburn in Redmond.

Apple has a chance to give Microsoft a major kick in the balls... the question is whether they'll go that route or not. They're doing exactly what Microsoft has always wanted to do -- dominate an entire ecosystem from desktops to laptops to mobile to the television. This is what Bill Gates has been trying to do for the past 20 years, and Apple has done it in just about 5. It's an incredibly smart move on Apple's part, and a major blow to Microsoft's hegemonic ambitions.

Safari is a liberal conspiracy, you people! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19469093)

It takes forever to load DrudgeReport.com -- clear evidence that Safari is part of the liberal computing conspiracy.

And the IE team goes back to work (1)

cloudkiller (877302) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469105)

So we should expect to see another knock-off update to IE in about three... two...

Quick review (1)

xebra (140155) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469113)

* Rendering is noticeably slower than Opera, despite lofty speed claims on their website.
* The application itself loads very slowly on Windows.
* The application window draws very slowly on Windows, for example, restoring/maximizing the application window takes about half a second.
* The interface annoyingly emulates the look and feel of application windows in OSX. (It's an attractive design, but it is not appropriate for Windows users expecting Windows functionality.)
* Example 1: No draggable window borders.
* Example 2: The designers went so far as to hide the standard button/icon in the top left of normal Windows applications, and though the missing button is still accessible with Alt+Space, only the Close option is available.
* Example 3: Something is wrong with the default Safari font. It's either not the default Windows font or it's smoothed weirdly somehow.

Because it has to be said... (0, Troll)

MalleusEBHC (597600) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469145)

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Windows Safari fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of Windows Safari (public beta 3) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to render a 17 kbyte html page. 20 minutes. At home, on my blueberry iMac running Chimera, which by all standards should be a lot slower than Safari, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this render, Office will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even Notepad is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various versions of Windows Safari, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen Windows Safari run faster than its Mac/Gecko counterpart, despite Windows Safari's faster rendering engine. Netscape 4.76 runs faster than this KHTML-derived browser at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that Windows Safari is a superior browser.

Windows Safari addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use Windows Safari over other faster, cheaper, more stable browsers.

Re:Because it has to be said... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469209)

I am running it on Windows 2000, 3GHz celeron, 2 Gigs Rams, no problems.

It's marginally faster then Firefox. I can run all my Office applications fine.

Just another data point.

not for ubuntu anyway (1)

frisket (149522) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469169)

hangs when you try to install under [crossover] wine

Sa - what? (1)

rueger (210566) | more than 7 years ago | (#19469183)

Tsk, I hate to burst the bubble, but no, Safari will not see widespread or even casual acceptance across the Windows Universe, and no, the developers who only design sites for IE will not start making things compatible with other browsers.

Face it, for 99% of the population a browser is a browser is a browser, and whatever is installed now is what they will use until they buy a new computer.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...