×

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 3 Beta Updated, Security Problems Fixed

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the closing-holes-in-the-apple dept.

Security 302

Llywelyn writes "Apple has released an update to the Windows Safari 3 Beta. According to Macworld the updates '...include correction for a command injection vulnerability, corrected with additional processing and validation of URLs that could otherwise lead to an unexpected termination of the browser; an out-of-bounds memory read issue; and a race condition that can allow cross-site scripting using a JavaSscript [sic] exploit.' It is available through either the Apple Safari download site or through Apple's Software Update."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

302 comments

Well! (5, Funny)

drhamad (868567) | more than 6 years ago | (#19509733)

It's about time! ;) What took them so long!

Re:Well! (-1, Troll)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510333)

Yea, when your browser is so void of features it takes less time to fix a problem and test it. Especially since the problem was probably already solved in the Mac version and only needed to be moved over to the Win Beta.

Re:Well! (2, Insightful)

vijayiyer (728590) | more than 6 years ago | (#19511095)

Which is why "features" are not necessarily a good thing, and platform independent code is.

Re:Well! (1, Insightful)

rainman_bc (735332) | more than 6 years ago | (#19511357)

Wow fanboi mods are at it again eh... How they mod you Troll I have no idea.

C'mon folks, compared to Firefox it is very much void of features. But compared to Firefox most everything is void of features.

Bugs reported one day, fixed the next. (0, Troll)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 6 years ago | (#19509745)

Gee, 1-day service. Sounds like Apple is a lot more serious about security fixes than Microsoft.

(but then again, we already knew that)

That should get more people looking to Macs on their next hardware upgrade.

Gee (5, Informative)

sid0 (1062444) | more than 6 years ago | (#19509885)

they haven't fixed [rec-sec.co.il] all the vulnerabilities yet.

Re:Gee (5, Insightful)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510125)

Which policy would you rather your OS vendor have:

  1. Wait for the monthly "patch Tuesday"
  2. Close vulnerabilities ASAP

Consider this - this is just a "preview" product - and not even on "their" platform. Its good publicity. They're handling the vulnerabilities the same way Tylenol handled the poisoned pill problem - actively, instead of with their head up Gates/Ballmer's rear end going "no problemo".

Patch Tuesday... (3, Interesting)

sid0 (1062444) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510223)

...is there for a reason [wikipedia.org] .

Though I really would prefer vulnerabilities fixed asap, I can see the reason for Patch Tuesday, especially for non-0day exploits.

Safari 3.0.1, however, is just damage control.

Re:Patch Tuesday... (1, Insightful)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510561)

Patch Tuesday is there because Microsoft can't compete. It has nothing to do with the "cost" of patching, and everything to do with the "cost" of shipping a buggy product.

Simple economics:

  1. Ship buggy product - lock customers in, customers bear cost of patching
  2. Fix bugs - delay shipping product, forego revenue

Take your tinfoil hat off, man (3, Insightful)

sid0 (1062444) | more than 6 years ago | (#19511055)

First: complex software written for use on a wide variety of configurations WILL HAVE BUGS. I just don't see any way around it. This has nothing to do with competition. OS X in the past 2 months has had a huge number of patches, hasn't it? That too, with a BSD based kernel and a much smaller hardware base.

Second: Not every bug is a showstopper. Even if a bug is found after code freeze, it might be better to release a patch separately. You know, like those "errata" sheets of paper in books.

When a patch is released the vulnerability *has* to be disclosed! That means sysadmins would run around trying to keep systems up to date the whole month.

I agree that more out of cycle patches should be released for serious vulnerabilities that are being exploited, but I see nothing wrong with the Patch Tuesday method otherwise.

Re:Bugs reported one day, fixed the next. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19509939)

In the interest of having a viable stable platform for iPhone development, they're going to have to keep up this quick turnaround on defect resolution. As someone mentioned a couple of days ago when Win Safari was first released, they're also going to have to work really hard for this software to compete with other browsers (which many think it can't). While I agree that it's an impressive turnaround, for Apple's sake, I hope they can keep up the momentum.

Re:Bugs reported one day, fixed the next. (1)

Altus (1034) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510119)


There is little evidence that apple actually cares to compete in the browser space. If window Safari is really only out there for iPhone developers then its not really even necessary to fix security holes (of course that would be bad because some people would use it as a general purpose browser, but you get my point).

All they really have to do is keep it compatible with the version on the iPhone and it will suit their needs. Hopefully they will make it at least as good as safari on the mac, which is not necessarily good enough to compete with Firefox on windows, but choice is still good.

Re:Bugs reported one day, fixed the next. (3, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#19511003)

I think Apple just wants a solid #3 Browser Spot. That way when people test their webpages they will check 3 browsers IE, Firefox, Safari. Before safari for windows Web Developers needed a Mac to test Safari. Thus making #3 Opera. With with the bulk of Mac People using Safari and a modest Windows people (because once it is finalize it will be shipped with Quicktime and iTunes.) So some people will try it and like it better then IE. So it could be a solid #3 and probably more tested for compatability on web pages... Now with websites better designed for Safari it would make the migration to Macs one more step simpler. (fear of compatibility of web pages) I doubt that Apple has plans to make a profit with Safari for windows but more of a case to make sure they don't get left out in the loop. Apple is realistic, they realize not everyone wants or will get a Mac. But they feel if more people given the choice they would actually prefer one. Offing Safari, iTunes, QuickTime for Windows makes sure that these are also well supported to in real life allowing apple to maintain control on the global standards. Otherwise companies of new technologies could forget about Apple. Say make a codex that there is no QuickTime port. or a webpage that doesn't work with Safari. It is all about keeping control on their interests.

Re:Bugs reported one day, fixed the next. (1)

Altus (1034) | more than 6 years ago | (#19511113)


Giving web developers on windows a good way to test against safari is a great benefit, but if that was the real reason behind this you would have seen this a long time ago. I believe the iPhone is the primary motivating factor because of the timing of the events.

I disagree (5, Interesting)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510269)

As someone mentioned a couple of days ago when Win Safari was first released, they're also going to have to work really hard for this software to compete with other browsers (which many think it can't).
I may be wearing my ass as a hat, but I honestly don't see Apple expecting Safari to compete in the Windows browser market. It is my (potentially asshattian) opinion that Safari is available on Windows solely for the purpose of providing a testing environment for iPhone development for Windows developers. It's never going to take over the Windows browser market (or even made a serious dent).

Having Safari available on Windows removes the 'Apple Only' hardware requirement for any company who wants to develop Web 2.0/AJAX applications that run on the iPhone which opens Safari development to a much much larger pool of developers.

Re:I disagree (2, Insightful)

edmicman (830206) | more than 6 years ago | (#19511209)

Not trying to troll, I really have been wondering this. I keep seeing Safari touted as an iPhone development environment, but it's all supposed to be Web 2.0/AJAX/etc. But isn't making an AJAX web page cross platform by nature? Why couldn't you develop on Firefox or IE? And if it's not, if it's Safari-only, how is that any different than IE-only websites that everyone hates?

Re:I disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19511321)

If you want to target the iPhone with Line of Business AJAX apps and the like, you do need to at least test it against the platform... but having Safari available means you can hammer out bugs without going to the iPhone for every change.

It isn't Safari-only, but would you use Lynx to develop a web app that you know will primarily be accessed using IE on WM phones?

Apple can do no wrong! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19511445)

Isn't it amazing how quickly Apple zealots come up with reasons why sucky Apple products were "never intended to compete anyway"? You guys have drunk so much cool aid, it has completely filled your head and colored your eyes rosy.

That goes without saying (2, Funny)

Nymz (905908) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510029)

Gee, 1-day service. Sounds like Apple is a lot more serious about security fixes than Microsoft.
(but then again, we already knew that)
Yep, sounds like the choice of browser will be obivious. Slashdot should publish statistics of which browsers are used by Slashdotters to view Slashdot.

Re:That goes without saying (3, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510353)

Yep, sounds like the choice of browser will be obivious. Slashdot should publish statistics of which browsers are used by Slashdotters to view Slashdot.
Here you go:
* .01% - Safari (Windows)
* .02% - Opera (All)
* 03% - Cowboy Neal (Windows)
* 14% - Internet Explorer
* 19% - Cowbow Neal (Linux)
* 22% - Safari (Macintosh)
* 35% - FireFox (Windows)
* 99% - FireFox (Linux)
* Profit!

Browser Statistics (1)

Nymz (905908) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510529)

* .01% - Safari (Windows)
* .02% - Opera (All)
* 03% - Cowboy Neal (Windows)
* 14% - Internet Explorer
* 19% - Cowbow Neal (Linux)
* 22% - Safari (Macintosh)
* 35% - FireFox (Windows)
* 99% - FireFox (Linux)
* Profit!
That is one large group of browsers, as 192.03% of anything is pretty big. Anyone have a download link to the latest version of Cowboy Neal?

Re:Browser Statistics (4, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510599)

That is one large group of browsers, as 192.03% of anything is pretty big.
Well, we are talking about Web 2.0 (which should equal 200% IIRC). I guess I forgot
* 7.97% - Other

Anyone have a download link to the latest version of Cowboy Neal?
I'd post it again, but I don't want to receive another DMCA takedown notice.

Mod Parent Up (1)

Nymz (905908) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510715)

That is one large group of browsers, as 192.03% of anything is pretty big.

Well, we are talking about Web 2.0 (which should equal 200% IIRC). I guess I forgot * 7.97% - Other

I'm glad someone finally defined what Web 2.0 is. It's Web 1.0 multiplied by the hype.

Re:Bugs reported one day, fixed the next. (1)

nbert (785663) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510449)

Keep in mind that this is a beta version - they can fix things without having to check wether this will break anything.
Plus: One can assume that it takes less work to fix a new program which has a clean and fresh design. The code base doesn't get more logical/cleaner when you already applied a gazillion patches (e.g. IE 6)

I'll try to update now - for some reason Software Update tells me that there's nothing to install.

Re:Bugs reported one day, fixed the next. (1)

makomk (752139) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510555)

Given that it's a severe, obvious security hole and they don't seem to be doing much (if any) pre-release testing, I would've been very disappointed if Apple didn't get a fix out nearly immediately.

Horrible International Language support (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19509815)

Downloaded and tried to open websites in Chinese. The rendering is just horrible, unreadable and totally unacceptable. Texts are not where they should be. In this sense, this Safari is even not as good as IE 4, which could display such webpages well. I heard that, (didn't try), Safari could not open most webpages in non-western languages.

Re:Horrible International Language support (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19509833)

Well duh! Only westerners go on safaris...

Re:Horrible International Language support (4, Informative)

nevali (942731) | more than 6 years ago | (#19509867)

The issue there is that Mac OS X's own international character support does all the hard work for the applications: they don't generally need to worry about it. On Windows, it's a very different story, which means it'll take Apple more than a couple of days to make WebKit/Win32 deal with it all as elegantly as it does on OS X.

Re:Horrible International Language support (1)

Llywelyn (531070) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510123)

Websites in Japanese look fine and quite readable in Safari from what I can tell.

Re:Horrible International Language support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19510861)

Yes but Devanagari is horribly broken, look at http://www.bbc.co.uk/hindi/ [bbc.co.uk] and compare it with IE7 or Firefox rendering.

Ss (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19509823)

I for one welcome our sic cross-site JavaSscript overloards.

Win2k support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19509827)

Has anybody been able to get Safari installed on Windows 2000?

Re:Win2k support (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510315)

I've heard that it appears to work as well as it does on XP. Just don't expect Apple to support it (not that anyone gives support for betas anyways)

Naturally (5, Insightful)

Diordna (815458) | more than 6 years ago | (#19509853)

I'm your average rabid Apple fan, but surely they had to have a fix at least this fast to keep from looking stupid. I doubt they'll be as quick in the future.

not worth it (-1, Flamebait)

ls -la (937805) | more than 6 years ago | (#19509891)

I went and downloaded Safari within hours of it being announced. I hate having to give out an email address just to get the download, and I hate even more having to uncheck several boxes to avoid downloading every piece of software Apple owns. I gave the browser about 10 minutes, it didn't impress me on page loading time, usability, or looks, and it's likely to just disappear and not make it back onto my machine the next time I reinstall Windows.

Re:not worth it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19509949)

you don't have to type in an email address
you can leave it blank

Actually, you don't have to give out your email ID (3, Informative)

sid0 (1062444) | more than 6 years ago | (#19509953)

Just don't fill in that field. :P

Re:not worth it (5, Informative)

nevali (942731) | more than 6 years ago | (#19509955)

Er, you don't have to give an e-mail address to download it, just to sign up.

Leave the box blank and the check-box ticked and it still downloads.

Re:not worth it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19510891)

Give the man a break. He uses Windows, after all.

Re:not worth it (1)

Ben174 (853174) | more than 6 years ago | (#19511465)

Actually, looks like they just (finally) changed it to download if you leave the textbox blank, even if you leave the checkbox ticked.

Re:not worth it (1, Redundant)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#19509977)

I hate having to give out an email address just to get the download, and I hate even more having to uncheck several boxes to avoid downloading every piece of software Apple owns.

You don't need to give them your email address--you can just click the download button.

Re:not worth it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19510001)

you do not have to supply your email address, just fyi, though you do likely have to uncheck the "keep in touch" box so that it does not expect an email address.

Re:not worth it (2, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510017)

"it's likely to just disappear and not make it back onto my machine the next time I reinstall Windows."
How often do you have to reinstall Windows?
I am not a big Windows fan but I go years between reinstalls without any problems.
I only do a reinstall when I get new System or a new Drive.

Re:not worth it (1)

Magneon (1067470) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510257)

You don't actually have to enter your email. You can just click download.

Also, "every piece of software Apple owns" == quicktime?

I wonder if... (4, Funny)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 6 years ago | (#19509995)

Konqueror's Win32 release will be as big a disaster.

Re:I wonder if... (1, Flamebait)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510179)

The reality is that we're back to where we were a decade ago; two big browsers (IE and Firefox) and a bunch of relatively meaningless small players. I can't imagine any reason that anyone would want to actually use Safari. There's barely an excuse for it in OSX, and certainly none in any other environment.

Firefox ain't perfect, but it does the job fine for me, substantially better than Safari.

Re:I wonder if... (1)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510253)

The reality is that we're back to where we were a decade ago; two big browsers (IE and Firefox) and a bunch of relatively meaningless small players. I can't imagine any reason that anyone would want to actually use Safari. There's barely an excuse for it in OSX, and certainly none in any other environment.

Firefox ain't perfect, but it does the job fine for me, substantially better than Safari.
maybe because safari has a lighter open source engine that exists on multiple platforms.

Re:I wonder if... (1)

Drizzt Do'Urden (226671) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510705)

That, and it's better for some CSS rendering!

My three column website CSS is best viewed with Safari, not that I intended it to, but it does..

Re:I wonder if... (1)

nbert (785663) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510673)

I can't imagine any reason that anyone would want to actually use Safari
Hmm... is there a reason not to use it just because its market share is substantially lower? As long as it renders the pages as intended and works with all the services I use on the net I don't see a point in this argument.

Instead, I've encountered so many problems using Firefox 2.0 on an intel mac like random crashes or running out of RAM for no reason. My MacBook sounds like a hair-dryer whenever I visit a flash-page on Firefox. Maybe my configuration is just borked, but Safari seems to be way quicker and more responsive than ff right now.

On Windows and Linux however, I use Firefox whenever I can, because on those OS's it works as intended.

Re:I wonder if... (3, Insightful)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 6 years ago | (#19511381)

There are far too many sites that just don't function in Safari for me to use it. Whether it is Safari's fault or the sites fault is not of importance, it works in Firefox, not in Safari.

Re:I wonder if... (1)

Trillan (597339) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510793)

I, personally, far prefer Safari to Firefox on the Mac. It isn't a matter of "barely an excuse," it's that from my perspective everything that I care about in Safari is superior: launch speed, interface design, text rendering, scroll speed, web inspector. The extensibility isn't there, but I can live without that.

Safari on Windows is definitely not there yet. My main problem with Safari on Windows is the same problem I have with Firefox on the Mac: It feels foreign. There's other problems, too: the spelling checker doesn't seem to work yet, and clicking the already active window in the task bar doesn't hide it. For now, I'll definitely stick with Firefox on Windows. Hopefully one day Apple will get there. (And hopefully one day Mozilla will make Firefox really feel like a Mac application on the Mac.)

I'd love to have Safari available on Ubuntu, but I guess I'd best not hold my breath.

Of course your mileage will vary, but Safari does have some very nice features.

Re:I wonder if... (1)

frogstar_robot (926792) | more than 6 years ago | (#19511223)

Kubuntu supplies a "simplified" Konqueror that can have further toolbars and suchlike disabled by the user. Although the rendering core isn't EXACTLY like Safari's they're similar enough. The dissimilarity won't grow much because the Konq devs seem to periodically port some good stuff from Webkit back into khtml. Future versions of Konq may well be base on Webkit. What this amounts to is that Ubuntu can offer a very Safari-like experience now.

All that said, I stick to Firefox because there are some extensions I can't live without.

I dont care what you say (-1, Flamebait)

Altus (1034) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510021)


Apple still sucks and I still hate them and safari is terrible and I cant believe they released software with a security hole and so forth....

I cant believe that a bug in Beta software was such big news that the release of an update to that beta is news itself.

Re:I dont care what you say (5, Interesting)

Baricom (763970) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510215)

I think the reason's pretty simple: companies like Google have been abusing the "beta" moniker lately. The betas I've seen from Apple (including Safari and earlier, Quicktime 7) have been more consistent with what I would consider a beta: they mostly work and are useful for testing, but still have significant problems.

Perhaps what they might have done is require an Apple Developer Connection account to download instead of making it available through general release.

Re:I dont care what you say (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510437)

I think the reason's pretty simple: companies like Google have been abusing the "beta" moniker lately.
I, for one, appreciate what Google's done for the definition of Beta. These days all my opinions and comments are beta. When (or if) I get them right I'll re-release them quietly.

Re:I dont care what you say (2, Interesting)

MBCook (132727) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510781)

OK. Here is what I think. I use Safari as my main browser on my Mac which I use for all personal computing. It's a nice browser. I started using it to try it, and I've stuck with it. I'm happy with it for the most part.

Now I've tried it on Windows. It's cute. Even if it was perfect, it wouldn't replace FireFox because at this point I'm addicted to FlashBlock on my work PC. Things I use often have annoying flash ads and the computer isn't that fast in the first place. I'm glad it's there, and if I was going to switch to the Mac (like I did 2 years ago) being able to download it and try it may have been nice.

As for bugs, the only one I've noticed is that it doesn't handle my multi-monitor setup well. I haven't used it for more than a few seconds though (due to that). The problem is that when I put it on my secondary monitor (the left one, just FYI) then maximize it, Safari disappears. It still exists, it is maximized to the left of the left monitor, where it would be if a third monitor to the left of the left one existed. It doesn't seem to handle mouse clicks right in this state either some times. But when non-maximized, it works perfectly on either monitor. Works fine maximized on the main monitor as well.

It would be useful for testing websites (something I often have to do) for, but I always have my Mac next to me so it's not that critical for that.

It's a decent browser. When it gets out of beta I expect it to get a few points of market share (maybe Opera sized, or a little smaller). I don't expect it to kill FireFox; and I'm amazed at all this "Safari is buggy!" stuff since it is a BETA. Google (and others) seem to have ruined that word in the mainstream, as many people don't seem to know that it should be translated as "This software probably has problems and will crash on you, possibly losing data". Google's betas are often quite stable (and that's not too surprising as GMail has been out for a few years now). This is a real beta.

Re:I dont care what you say (1)

Altus (1034) | more than 6 years ago | (#19511031)


Regardless of how it was distributed this crap was not news. Its not surprising that there are major flaws in beta software. It is also not surprising that the bugs were fixed. None of this is news, none of it is particularly interesting, its really just something to let geeks get all up in arms and have yet another flame war between the people who hate apple and the people who love apple.

Folks talk a lot about how certain tech journalists post ill informed garbage because it gets people all rilled up and increase page views. I submit that slashdot has fallen into this same trap. Posting this kind of thing because its likely to get a bunch of people to go back and forth and generate a ton of ad revenue. They do this with apple, they do it with microsoft they do it with whatever topic they can that will get people to argue foolishly.

Usually, when a tech jouralist does this, people suggest you simply stop reading them. Is it time for people to give slashdot the same treatment? I hope not. As you can see from my UID I have been here quite some time. This site hasn't always been like this (flame wars sure, but I didn't feel like the editors were actually trying to cultivate them). I, for one, would like to see this get better, but I don't hold out too much hope.

Re:I dont care what you say (1)

Altus (1034) | more than 6 years ago | (#19511077)

Flamebait? maybe. But no more so than the slashdot articles themselves.

Good sprint, but does Apple have stamina? (2, Interesting)

UR30 (603039) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510065)

Developing a browser for Windows will be quite a test for Apple and the Safari developer community. Is Apple trying to get a larger user community (even tens of percents), or just making it possible for web developers easily test their servers for Safari? In any case, if Apple can survive in this market, they are in an interesting position - partner with Google, and offer their own services for Windows users perhaps?

Re:Good sprint, but does Apple have stamina? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510957)

If web developers want to test on mac, then they should get a mac. Just as testing using Konquerer doesn't show the same results as Safari on Mac, so too will be the experience when using Safari for Windows. If you are really hard up for cash, and can't afford a mac for every web developer in your office, then get a single Mac Mini, and run 4 copies of VNC on 4 different logged in users. It's a little slow but you're just testing web pages, so it really shouldn't matter. If that is still too far outside your budget, or you are a one man shop, and it's not within your budget to get a Mac, then it doesn't matter enough to you that you aren't testing on Safari. If it matters to you, you will find the $599 to buy a Mac Mini.

Now if they would fix the text problem... (2, Informative)

norminator (784674) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510071)

Now if they would just fix the problem that some people (including myself) are having where no text shows up anywhere in the application and you can't type in any of the text input fields (kind of hard to use a browser when you can't type in an address).

Re:Now if they would fix the text problem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19510263)

Fuck the text problem; no setting I change is saved on my system. Can't add/remove bookmarks, can't change the home page, etc, etc.

It's nice that I can finally test that webpages will work for mac users, but it's not able to do some really basic functionality for me right now.

Re:Now if they would fix the text problem... (1)

norminator (784674) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510923)

Fuck the text problem; no setting I change is saved on my system. Can't add/remove bookmarks, can't change the home page, etc, etc.

It's nice that I can finally test that webpages will work for mac users, but it's not able to do some really basic functionality for me right now.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear... No text shows up in the browser whatsoever, unless it's actually in a graphic on the page I'm looking at. Not even the menu names or items on the menus (e.g., File, Edit, View, etc...). The only way to navigate anywhere is to hit Ctrl+O to get the Open dialog, which mercifully looks like an ugly Win32 dialog (never thought I'd be so happy to see that), and enter the URL I want in there. Most of the time when I click on links, it brings up what could be an error page... but I don't really know. It has a big graphic of the Safari logo, and that's all I can see. There's no text on the page to read. I could try to right-click on the page and click on "View Source", but the right-click menu doesn't have any text on it either.

Oh, and as someone else mentioned, when I click on the spider button (no idea what that does, as there's no tooltips or labels), Safari crashes completely. Since I can't even view or navigate between web pages, the basic functionality I (along with plenty of others) am missing makes the basic functionality you want seem pretty advanced.

Re:Now if they would fix the text problem... (1)

nbert (785663) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510327)

I had a similar type problem with Firefox for about a year, so I switched back to Safari recently (well, after updating to ff 2.0 I had "some" new problems - the type error occurred not often enough to make me switch)

Anyways, the beta works like a charm for me an I'll keep using Safari *if* someone ports Adblock or writes a good plugin which works as good as Adblock. I personally don't like PithHelmet that much.

Re:Now if they would fix the text problem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19510341)

I also have a problem with text not showing up in web pages. Bolded text isn't rendered, although normal text looks OK. (but these days bolded text is everywhere.. links, titles, headings etc. so Safari is completely unusable.)

Re:Now if they would fix the text problem... (5, Informative)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510471)

Yes, I've got this problem on my Vista install at work. Clicking the little spider icon to report the bug crashes the program.

Mini-review of Safari on my home Vista install: The non-standard Windows UI is annoying. If I wanted to resize only from the bottom right corner I would have bought a Mac. The lack of an advertisement blocker makes the software a poor alternative to Firefox. The bundling is annoying. I don't want Quicktime. Quicktime is ugly, ugly software. It makes Firefox crash, grabs all sorts of MIME types, throws its icon up on the desktop every time it updates no matter how many times you delete the icon, it installs a systray icon (for a media player?!? come on), and it won't play full screen videos. ITunes is only a good media player if you own a Ipod. Don't want that either. The Apple update service is annoying as well. Why a separate service? I want my apps to check for updates when I start them or not at all.

Good points? Well, Safari displays web pages, I guess. Good for Apple.

Fast fix. Kudos to the Cupertino crew (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19510097)

Let's see Micro$lop make fixes to Internet Exploder that quickly.
I ain't holding my breath on the Redmond crew, are you ?

If it was True OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19510151)

the COMMUNITY would have had it fixed
and fixed WAY faster copyleft knockoff $Apple$

I, for one, refuse to acknowledge the EXISTANCE of closed source browsers.

Live Free or Die

Obligatory... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19510453)

"In Soviet Russia, Apple's Safari browser fixes YOU!"

Man, I love that joke, and... Hang on a second, there's someone at my door.

*SMACK!!!*

OWWWWWW!

Re:If it was True OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19510883)

I, for one, refuse to acknowledge the EXISTANCE of closed source browsers.

And others, for some, refuse to acknowledge the existence of the word existance.

ATTN: SWITCHEURS! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19510285)

If you don't know what Cmd-Shift-1 and Cmd-Shift-2 are for, GTFO.
If you think Firefox is a decent Mac application, GTFO.
If you're still looking for the "maximize" button, GTFO.
If you don't know Clarus from Carl Sagan, GTFO.

Bandwagon jumpers are not welcome among real Mac users [archive.org] . Keep your filthy PC fingers to yourself.

Future recommendation? (1)

beau_west (1114973) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510351)

Once Apple gets Safari for Windows to the point where it's very stable, I'll probably be recommending it to IE users. Yes, above FireFox and Opera. I use a Mac with FireFox, but most people don't need the extensions that FireFox offers, I love them, but your average user won't use them. What your typical end user wants: Simplicity, Speed, Security. IE offers simplicity, if Safari for Windows gets to the point where it's good (much better than it currently is) it will probably become my recommendation to your typical user....

Re:Future recommendation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19510641)

Sounds like you are already thinking about telling other people how great it is and you have used it for one day and have no idea about any type of road map of where the software is going or how it will be progressing over time. As for your FF comment. If people do not want any of the various addons for FF, do nothing and you wont have them. Wow, that was hard. Think about that comment. Let me phrase it for you, "Even though I have never used or downloaded any of the FF add ons and it comes with none of them installed by default, I don't suggest using FF because they do have them available if I did want them". I don't understand your theory there at all.

Do your friends a favor, don't recommend anything to them.

Re:Future recommendation? (1)

chill (34294) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510645)

Need? Define "need" as part of an average browser.

If it doesn't have Adblock, an automatic filterset updater, Webmail Compose and Google Browser Sync, I wouldn't use it. Those are the extensions I wouldn't want to do without. NoScript is another one.

Re:Future recommendation? (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510723)

Once Apple gets Safari for Windows to the point where it's very stable, I'll probably be recommending it to IE users. Yes, above FireFox and Opera. I use a Mac with FireFox, but most people don't need the extensions that FireFox offers


Everyone needs Adblock Plus. The difference it makes in browsing is astounding. I recommend it (along with Firefox, of course) to anyone and everyone.

-matthew

Re:Future recommendation? (1)

vijayiyer (728590) | more than 6 years ago | (#19511221)

PithHelment (www.culater.net/software/PithHelmet/PithHelmet.ph p) blocks ads very nicely in Safari.

Re:Future recommendation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19511081)

Well, you don't need to install any extensions in Firefox either. Just use it as-is.

Hosed fonts (1)

cloudkiller (877302) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510401)

does anyone else get the completely-unusable-font-version of Safari [flickr.com] after they install? I had this problem with 3 and now with 3.0.1.

Re:Hosed fonts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19510587)

Ah, that's an easy fix -- you just have to make sure you're running the Klingon-language version of Windows.

Re:Hosed fonts (1, Informative)

nevali (942731) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510619)

Neither release was 3 nor 3.0.1, really.

It's a beta. Safari 3 hasn't been released yet. The only version number worth paying attention to is the build number (and that assumes it gets updated properly--I don't know what the updated version's is, but I assume it's not 522.11)

And also, did you report the issue to Apple?

Re:Hosed fonts (1)

cloudkiller (877302) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510745)

of course i didn't report it to apple. i just bitched about it on /. like any good /.'er would do.

then i went and found a fix [blogspot.com] .

Perpetual beta? (0)

htalvitie (935929) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510409)

Safari test engineers don't seem to use real PC keyboards. They must be testing this only with Mac's running Parallels or something..

The previous version threw a Watson after typing four chars into a form. This "fixed" version comes with 400% quality degradation for us keyboard-oriented:

http://assemblix.net/2007/06/14/safari-3.0.1-still -buggy [assemblix.net]

Keep up the good work, Cupertino!

Re:Perpetual beta? (0, Flamebait)

nevali (942731) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510807)

Ah yes, the old "it doesn't work for me, so it can't possibly have worked for anybody else" mentality.

Why does everybody who's found a bug of some kind [in anything, not just Safari] assume the particular set of circumstances which trigger it (which are usually largely unknown to the user insofar as it relates to the software in question) are so common that everybody must be suffering from it?

Semi-OT: is there a hotkey for tab-switching? (1)

Suddenly_Dead (656421) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510687)

This may be a stupid question, but every other tabbed browser I've used has a hotkey to switch between tabs. Generally, that's ctrl-tab. I can't find anything similar in Safari though, and that is a big deal breaker. Am I just missing something?

Re:Semi-OT: is there a hotkey for tab-switching? (2, Informative)

nevali (942731) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510733)

If they've carried the keystrokes over from the Mac version, it'll be Cmd+Shift+[ and Cmd+Shift+], which on windows would be Ctrl+Shift+[ and Ctrl+Shift+]

Re:Semi-OT: is there a hotkey for tab-switching? (0, Redundant)

furball (2853) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510761)

On Windows: Control + [ or Control + ] depending on which direction you want to go.
On Mac: Apple + [ or Apple + ] depending on which direction you want to go.

Ctrl-Shift-] and Ctrl-Shift-[ (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19510889)

Next tab: Ctrl-Shift-]
Previous tab: Ctrl-Shift-[

I thought it was just an SDK? (1)

mattgreen (701203) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510737)

Apple seemed to have responded *awfully* quick to a security whole in their new SDK, almost as if it was a web browser vulnerability? But, it can't be a browser, that is not what people here said it was.

D'oh... (1)

mattgreen (701203) | more than 6 years ago | (#19510787)

Oh bugger, nothing like a typo to totally derail snide commentary. That whole should be a hole. I hereby disqualify myself from making additional snarky comments for this thread. Enjoy!

Security is not the big problem (3, Interesting)

MBoffin (259181) | more than 6 years ago | (#19511039)

Fixing the security issues may help in keeping Apple from looking foolish, but security is not the real problem with Safari for Windows. The real problem with Safari for Windows that Apple should be putting focus on is the user experience.* It's horrendous. Slow window redraws, completely broken Windows conventions, a total lack of extensibility, and on and on.

As a web developer, I'm pleased as punch that they've released a Windows version of Safari that renders pixel-for-pixel the same as the OS X version (it really does, I checked). However, Safari on Windows is not even in the running as far as being a candidate as a full-time browser on Windows. The user experience is simply too painful.

* I didn't say they should not focus on security. They most definitely should.

dual screen woes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19511343)

safari does not work well with my dual screen vista box. it works on screen 1, but when you maximize the browser on the 2nd screen, it disappears and cannot be minimized, only closed.

as for the point of having safari on windows... it is great for web developers. now I can stop running around trying browsers on different machines... if only IE6 were available for vista

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...