Slashdot Log In
Safari on Windows, Leopard Debut at WWDC
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Jun 11, 2007 02:28 PM
from the another-contender-in-the-ring dept.
from the another-contender-in-the-ring dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
Apple Safari On Windows Broken On First Day 595 comments
An anonymous reader writes "David Maynor, infamous for the Apple Wi-Fi hack, has discovered bugs in the Windows version of Safari mere hours after it was released. He notes in the blog that his company does not report vulnerabilities to Apple. His claimed catch for 'an afternoon of idle futzing': 4 DoS bugs and 2 remote execution vulnerabilities." Separately, within 2 hours Thor Larholm found a URL protocol handler command injection vulnerability that allows remote command execution.
[+]
Safari for Windows Downloaded Over 1 Million Times 439 comments
ClaraBow writes "Apple reports that it took Apple just two days to reach 1 million downloads of its newest Safari Web browser for Windows. If these downloads manifested into regular Safari users, then we just might have a third major browser on the Windows platform. If Safari can obtain a 10% market share on Windows, then it would further weaken IE's position and give standards-based browsers more leverage with developers."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Safari on Windows, Leopard Debut at WWDC
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 850 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
All of the major news (Score:5, Informative)
(http://das.doit.wisc.edu/)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.yankeefog.com/)
Re:All of the major news (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.everythin...pl?node=mr100percent | Last Journal: Thursday September 27, @02:22AM)
Re:All of the major news (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.soundepartment.com/)
Mac OS X cannot run .exe files. If you want your program to run on OS X, without requiring the end user buying Parallels or Wine, you will be packaging your executable in a .app directory like the rest of us.
They can't be TOO windows-ish, as very few video cards on Macs support DirectX 9 or whatever games are now, and Macs don't ship with any Windows libraries. But since EA has written for so many different platforms as it is (Windows, Xbox 1 and 2, PS1,2,3, all manner of Nintendos) their games are probably written meta enough that they can be adapted without too much difficulty.
Re:All of the major news (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.last.fm/user/schmod)
It makes it easy to upgrade/transition between platforms, not to mention, gives both versions equal retail penetration. It's good for them AND the consumer (although EA hasn't been one to traditionally think along logical lines)
Open Letter (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.sbyrne.org/)
Re:Open Letter (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're trying to test against Safari without an actual Mac though, I think it's definitely an accurate picture of the resulting webpage.
Re:Open Letter (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://theravensnest.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday October 07, @07:05AM)
Re:Open Letter (Score:5, Informative)
(http://markshroyer.com/)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, as a web "developer" you prefer IE because you can be lazy and sloppy and it lets you get away with it.
I don't think it's fair to bash IE for not complying.
Of course it is. Standards are supposed to make your life easier, because everyone agrees up front on how it all works and there is no need to worry about your customers using a browser you havn't tested with: it's all standards, right? Except that IE breaks that, because it doesn't understand a lot of very useful standards and a lot of web "developers" (Like yourself) are sloppy and lazy and write bad code (You again, by the way).
Stop being sloppy and lazy, is what I'm saying here.
Re:Open Letter (Score:5, Insightful)
This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You don't have to worry about being standards compliant? How do you write pages? Do you just make up your own version of the standard and write to that and IE happens to read it magically, somehow?
When I generate code, I look at the spec and implement it, then I test it. I'm not always perfect at it, but I basically make things work the way the documented standard claims it should look. Then I test it. Generally it works in every browser (Safari, Firefox, Mozilla, Opera, Konquerer, OmniWeb, etc.) except IE. Then I try to add hacks to get it to look "okay" in various versions of IE all of which break the standard and all or which break it differently. I certainly can and do blame IE for being the only browser that can't work as the spec designates.
Generally, I find that when a site does not work in FF it is because I screwed up and did not get it to spec. Generally when it does not work in IE, it is because I did things right, but IE either implements the spec incorrectly and differently than all the other browsers, or because IE is 6-8 years behind the times and is still using a partial implementation of an ancient spec.
Are you trolling? The spec predates any implementation and MS participated in writing most of them.
I think it is more than fair to bash the single largest, wealthiest company for failing to match the quality of a half dozen smaller companies and another half dozen projects funded by hobbyists. MS does not comply with the specs because it is in their best interests to derail the standards and hold back Web development to help maintain their OS monopoly. They are breaking the standards for personal profit and if you don't see that I have a lovely, historic bridge you might be interested in purchasing.
Re:Open Letter (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
We feel the same way about our game software. Why on earth companies like Blizzard would waste their time catering a bunch of Kool-aid drinking hippies, when they could be spending their time developing better content for us real gamers, is beyond me. Gaming communities have only went downhill since these companies abandoned their traditional user base and let a bunch of Prius-driving, artsy, self-righteous, cocky assholes into our ranks.
Therefore, I propose a truce. We knuckle-dragging rednecks will agree to forgo Mac software on our PC's if you hemp-sweater-wearing cult members will agree to give up our game software on your Macs.
Deal?
-Eric
Re:Open Letter (Score:5, Funny)
When you're waiting in line for your $400 video card to draw frilly plants on screen so you can feel all hardcore for running DirectX 10, I'll be blasting away in Metroid Prime 3 or perhaps grinding in World of Warcraft on my MacBook.
Re:Open Letter (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Open Letter (Score:5, Funny)
We have received your request that we cease and desist using all computer technology popularized by PCs. You have little idea how long we have waited for a complete segregation of the PC and Apple world, and the chance to free ourselves from the yoke of relating to the hoi polloi!
Your request is feasible, on the grounds that the PC world conform to the same constraints and cease using all computer technology initially introduced by, or initially popularized by, Apple.
To that end, please stop using the following: 3.5 inch floppy disks; USB; Firewire; WYSIWYG software of any type; computer cases that are not puke-colored (technical term); computers for the purposes of design, desktop publishing and the like; graphical user interfaces; spreadsheets; any home or small business computer that is not A) assembled from a kit, or B) interfaced with through punch cards, audio cassette tape, blinking LEDs, and/or toggle switches.
Please enjoy computing with your Altairs! As an extra bonus, your operating system will be the cheapest and most stable Microsoft software yet developed!
Sincerely,
Mac Users
You are stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay, now that we've got that out of the way I can continue. Apple knows exactly what it is doing. And it will work. More and more people are finding out that many browsers are better than IE. If Apple can convince PC users to use Safari that will be one less barrier to switching over from PC to a Mac. The list is getting longer of basic applications that run on both the Mac and PC. The longer this list gets the easier and more appealing it will be for PC people to make the switch. After Apple gains a significant market share they will be in a position to take advantage of critical mass. Customers will start switching in droves. Then they can focus on making the best Mac apps (based only on Cocoa). Not just the best carbon apps so they can run on the PC too.
The more PC users use Mac apps the more people will feel comfortable switching. Ditto for Linux.
Re:Open Letter (Score:5, Interesting)
There were rumors [macrumors.com] and discussions [daringfireball.net] on this since 2005.
Re:I agree 100% (Score:5, Insightful)
You clearly have never used Office 98 for Mac. This was the only Office version for Mac that truly failed in the martketplace, and fairly so. This was when Microsoft tried to shove a Windows interface and a horrendeous back-end (extensions, extensions, extensions) down the throat of Macheads. Did not work. Even included some incursion of Clippy as a happy bouncing Mac. The horror, the horror, the horror.
KDE / Konqueror (Score:4, Insightful)
Already done (Score:5, Informative)
(http://das.doit.wisc.edu/)
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:Already done (Score:5, Informative)
Re:KDE / Konqueror (Score:5, Informative)
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.
O... (Score:4, Informative)
(http://das.doit.wisc.edu/)
Re:O... (Score:4, Informative)
fastest? (Score:5, Funny)
It's in beta (Score:3, Informative)
No, they aren't (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://hilighters.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Friday October 01 2004, @11:00PM)
YellowBox for Windows is Back (Score:5, Informative)
(http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday August 07, @06:50PM)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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.