Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Windows Businesses Operating Systems Software Apple

Safari on Windows, Leopard Debut at WWDC 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Safari on Windows, Leopard Debut at WWDC

Comments Filter:
  • by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Monday June 11, 2007 @03:29PM (#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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Macka ( 9388 )

      iPhone, previously thought to be completely closed, will have development possible via rich "Web 2.0" applications

      What this needs is something akin to Google Gears, so that developers can write offline apps too. Can't say I'm particularly impressed with the way it sounds at the moment, though I'll reserve judgement until I can see it in action.

      As for Safari 3.0 Beta, I'm using it on OS X right now and it's a big improvement over the previous version. Much faster on Javascript. Navigation in Google Reade

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by zdzichu ( 100333 )
      It is not feature complete. ZFS support is read-only [opensolaris.org].
  • Open Letter (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 11, 2007 @03:29PM (#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.

    Mac users
    • by Sciros ( 986030 )
      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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by oyenstikker ( 536040 ) <slashdot@sbyrn e . org> on Monday June 11, 2007 @03:39PM (#19468955) Homepage Journal
        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 (Score:4, Insightful)

          by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @04:09PM (#19469465) Journal
          I concur. I've written a few (small) sites to the spec, then tested in Safari and had them work fine. Then I've tested them in IE and Mozilla and discovered that the specs aren't as well-supported as I'd hoped...
      • Re:Open Letter (Score:5, Informative)

        by Niten ( 201835 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @03:39PM (#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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          As much as I love standards, and I do, it makes it hard to deal with safari when every other browser works differently. In my opinion, if the standard works differently than 90% of the market, then maybe the standard needs to change.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by prockcore ( 543967 )

          considering that Safari's KHTML-based rendering engine is more standards compliant than either Firefox or IE.

          Webkit started on KHTML, but they've changed it a LOT.

          You can check the CSS selectors test [css3.info].
          Safari passes 299/513 tests, firefox passes 314/513, konqueror passes 508/513.

          That shows you how far Apple has drifted from KHTML.
      • Re:Open Letter (Score:5, Informative)

        by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @03:43PM (#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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 11, 2007 @03:39PM (#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: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Watts Martin ( 3616 )
        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.

        But look on the bright side: QuickTime for Windows is remarkably ugly.
      • Dear non-Mac user,

        I sincerely apologize for Quicktime on Windows. I'll admit that it is a horrible piece of coding that has made many users scream in agony when opening a .MOV file. Quicktime for Mac is only slightly better but we don't have a choice. It's as integrated into the OS as much as IE is in Windows.

        I want you to realize that I am not directly responsible for the application but I used to recommend .MOV as an alternative to people using (Win only, we mean it!) .WMA or (God help us!) .RM when th
    • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Monday June 11, 2007 @04:04PM (#19469355)
      Dear Mac Users,

      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.



      • by Overly Critical Guy ( 663429 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @04:37PM (#19469893)
        And in the meantime, we console gamers wonder when you shooter-playing high schoolers will run out of money for your yearly $3500 neon-lit Dell upgrades whose sole purpose for existence is to run content-lacking tech demos that win "Game of the Year" awards from paid press outlets. It's you guys who have let gaming communities run themselves into the ground by turning gaming into an ever-shrinking, expensive tech niche with no mainstream appeal.

        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.
        • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Monday June 11, 2007 @05:03PM (#19470339)
          I'll tell you the same thing I told my wife. Baby formula only lasts a few weeks at most. But that new video card will be good for at least a year.
    • You are stupid (Score:4, Insightful)

      by EraserMouseMan ( 847479 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @05:23PM (#19470631)
      Yes AC, you are an arrogant, stupid idiot. Now moderators, go ahead and select "-1 Flamebait" for this post.

      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)

      by KH ( 28388 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @05:28PM (#19470705)
      I don't know if someone already has mentioned, but I think Safari is a smokescreen. Real intention might be to bring back OPENSTEP [wikipedia.org] to Windows, or the Yellow Box on Windows. Just like Intel version of OS X was secretly maintained at Apple, it would appear that OPENSTEP was alive and well at Apple. That Safari runs on Windows implies that other Cocoa apps can run on Windows as well. I don't know what this means in grand scheme of things, but one benefit Apple could have is to attract third party developers.

      There were rumors [macrumors.com] and discussions [daringfireball.net] on this since 2005.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by laffer1 ( 701823 )
        Apple implemented a wrapper around the original qt/kde code when they ported khtml to the Mac. Who's to say they didn't do the same with the Windows version? Besides, if you install WebObjects 5.2 on Windows, you'll see that there is a lot of supporting crap for that old stuff. I don't see that stuff in the Safari install.

        If you are correct, then Apple is ready to give up on the computer business. Windows developers have .NET and Java already. They don't need anything else. Plus, if they really want t
  • KDE / Konqueror (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bms20 ( 827647 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @03:30PM (#19468789)
    Glad they based it on Konqueror - Now how about contributing to KDE and or making a version for Linux? -bms20
  • 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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Dynedain ( 141758 )
      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).
  • fastest? (Score:5, Funny)

    by brunascle ( 994197 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @03:30PM (#19468793)
    i'm pretty sure i can get lynx running through cygwin.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by J0nne ( 924579 )
      It's not even the fastest. I compared both Firefox and Safari in a vmware image containing Windows, and Firefox beat out Safari on every page I threw at it. I'd test it natively, but for some reason Safari wouldn't install in WINE. Actually, when I compare konqueror's rendering speed with Firefox on Ubuntu, Konqueror is slower than Firefox too (on Ubuntu).
  • It's in beta (Score:3, Informative)

    by doubleofive ( 982704 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @03:30PM (#19468797) Homepage
    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.
  • No, they aren't (Score:5, Insightful)

    by k_187 ( 61692 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @03:31PM (#19468813) Journal
    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.
    • by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Monday June 11, 2007 @03:48PM (#19469111) Homepage Journal
      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 (Score:5, Informative)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @03:51PM (#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.

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

  • Cool (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jaavaaguru ( 261551 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @03:34PM (#19468871) Homepage
    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].
    • by bheer ( 633842 )
      - 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.

  • Safari...? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by motek ( 179836 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @03:34PM (#19468873) Homepage
    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...? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Niten ( 201835 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @03:47PM (#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.

  • by Caspian ( 99221 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @03:36PM (#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?


    I must ask here.... what the fuck!? Who would care about this announcement? And I say that as a Mac fan!
    • by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Monday June 11, 2007 @03:43PM (#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?

      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.
  • by null-und-eins ( 162254 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @03:36PM (#19468911) Homepage
    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.
  • Hopefully (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Hawthorne01 ( 575586 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @03:37PM (#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.
  • To Site Devs... (Score:5, Informative)

    by daeg ( 828071 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @03:38PM (#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:


    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 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Billly Gates ( 198444 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @03:39PM (#19468965) Journal
    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.
  • Adblocking? Skinning (Score:3, Interesting)

    by roelbj ( 95481 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @03:40PM (#19468987) Homepage
    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?

  • by tji ( 74570 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @03:42PM (#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!!!
  • by Onan ( 25162 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @03:42PM (#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."

    • by Psykechan ( 255694 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @04:32PM (#19469791)
      Actually, they will have at least 3 seperate versions not even including the educational discounts or other such promotions. This is based on the current 10.4 prices.

      OS X Leopard 10.5 - $129
      OS X Leopard 10.5 Family Pack - $199
      OS X Server 10.5 - $499 and up

      They could prove me wrong and implement all of the server niceities into the consumer version and grant a new license that allows you to install on any systems you own but I seriously doubt that will happen. I'm fairly certain that when I upgrade to the Ultimate version that it will cost more than $129.
    • by drsmithy ( 35869 ) <drsmithy@nospAm.gmail.com> on Monday June 11, 2007 @10:47PM (#19473551)

      "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."

      See, this happens because Apple, being primarily a hardware company, practice their pricing discrimination on the hardware side (which does a similar thing to Vista). Their software is incidental to that, and tied to the hardware, so they don't do much with its pricing.

      Microsoft, OTOH, are primarily a software company, so they have to do their pricing discrimination on their software products.

  • by WombatControl ( 74685 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @03:46PM (#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.

  • by calstraycat ( 320736 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @04:02PM (#19469325)
    I'm sure there will be many threads here comparing features and performance to existing browsers available for Windows. I'm not interested in that. What I'm trying to figure out is how porting Safari to Windows will improve Apple's bottom line.

    When Apple developed a Windows version of iTunes the justification was obvious. It was developed to sell more iPods.

    I see no obvious reason for a Windows version of Safari. How is it going to generate additional revenue for Apple? Apple did not develop this just to have a greater market share for their browser. There is no money in that. The speculation one forum is that there must be a yet to be disclosed functional tie-in between the iPhone Safari and the PC/Mac Safari. But, besides being able to sync your PC bookmarks with your iPhone bookmarks, I can't think of any advantages.

    Anyone have some insights on how this development will put money in the bank at Apple?
    • ....the part where Steve said that Safari is the SDK for iPhone apps didn't you?

    • by MasterVidBoi ( 267096 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @04:42PM (#19469971)
      Anyone have some insights on how this development will put money in the bank at Apple?

      It is not to put money in the bank, it is a tool for Apple's survival (and they are in danger).

      Microsoft is pushing WPE/XAML hard, and if PHB's start thinking that they can gain access to all these flashy new features while only alienating 10% of the users (those alternate platform wierdos), they'll go for it. If Firefox+Safari can push IE's share on windows down into the 60-75% range, then it distrupts Microsoft's intention to replace the web standards with their own proprietary technologies.

      If Microsoft's plan succeeded, Apple would find itself with a consumer OS that couldn't view a lot of compelling content... (this same idea also neatly explains why Apple got into the media business, long before anybody had any idea that it would be so amazingly successful: otherwise, the world would have gone entirely to Windows Media, and apple's platform would have been left out in the cold).
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by diamondsw ( 685967 )
        I don't know - if I told my business they could implement something two different ways, only one would alienate 10% of the user base - there's no way in hell they'd do it. The web has very different economics than desktop software. A bank is not going to alienate 10% of its customers. Amazon, eBay, NewEgg, Discover, etc are not going to let 10% of their potential customers walk away.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      What's in it for Apple? Well, the more people associate Apple with a good experience, the more folks are going to want to buy Macs rather than PCs. Then, Apple makes more money.

      The iPod is part of this strategy. The iPhone is part of this strategy. Safari for Windows is also part of this strategy.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Luscious868 ( 679143 )

      Anyone have some insights on how this development will put money in the bank at Apple?

      There are two areas where this will be advantageous for Apple. First, iPhone applications can be developed and tested on Windows boxes. This increases the potential pool of developers of 3rd party iPhone applications. The second advantage, and in the long run the most important of the two, is that Cocoa application can now run on Windows.

      Safari for Windows users are beta testing both the Safari application and the Coco

  • by Llywelyn ( 531070 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @04:06PM (#19469391) Homepage
    - Nice smooth interface, takes up less space than Firefox.
    - Definitely beta software. I get occasional and sporadic crashes. These are not currently consistently repeatable.
    - Font rendering is nice, including Unicode characters.
    - Unicode characters that I have fonts for no longer display as boxes in the title bar (they still do in Firefox).
    - Transitioning to pages sometimes takes significantly longer than it should. It will stall before loading the page.

  • by Zhe Mappel ( 607548 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @04:39PM (#19469915)
    OK, for a lark I'm trying out the Safari beta on an older 2.4 ghz XP box with 512mb ram. With two tabs open, it's consistently working the CPU at between 80 and 90%. Whatever the hell for? Who slapped together this wunderpile?

    On the plus side, it's easy on the eyes. The Safari bookmarks implementation has always been smooth. And the adjustable Google search bar is better than most stabs at this on Firefox. It renders quickly, as claimed, though I can't say it renders perceptibly more quickly than Firefox.

    Even on OS X, though, I don't run Safari. It's barely customizable in an age when Firefox extensions have completely rewritten the rules of browsing. Why would I want to see ads? Why browse the way some web site or computer corporation thinks I should?

    This is like 1999, today.

  • Ugly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Schnapple ( 262314 ) <tomkidd@[ ]texas.com ['via' in gap]> on Monday June 11, 2007 @05:44PM (#19470949) Homepage
    Am I the only one who sees the irony in how Macintosh/Mac OS X users whine and moan when an app doesn't match the UI of the Macintosh, to the point where many developers don't think it's worth the effort, but then when Apple ports something to Windows, they keep the ugly, brushed metal, doesn't-act-like-or-match-anything-on-Windows interface?

Only God can make random selections.