Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • Cool (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jaavaaguru ( 261551 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @03:34PM (#19468871) Homepage
    I've just played [] 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 [].
  • SVG, hooray! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by KugelKurt ( 908765 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @03:37PM (#19468921)
    Safari 3 supports SVG! While the SVG compatibility is not that great, it's more than nothing.
    For screenshots see =o [] and =o []
  • 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 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 bheer ( 633842 ) <rbheer@gm a i l .com> on Monday June 11, 2007 @03:49PM (#19469131)
    - Flash doesn't work despite reinstalling the flash player. This might actually be a feature.
    - Took 100MB of RAM (as reported by Task Manager) to render some tab groups.
    - OTOH, it's very fast to start: faster than Firefox, IE and even Opera.
    - Crashes on some non-Latin font pages (IE, Firefox don't on the same system)
    - Fonts look great on my LCD. Arial actually looks decent, unlike Windows' default elongated look.

  • 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?
  • by Gekke Eekhoorn ( 27027 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @04:24PM (#19469675)
    I was thinking the very same thing!

    On top of that, it allows users to use the same web applications that they use on the iPhone on their Windows system. It will complement iTunes, in a way.

    While I'm sad that you can't code for the bare hardware of the iPhone, I don't think it's a very bad decision of Apple to limit iPhone's 3rd party apps to web applications, since that means you get instant desktop compatibility.
    Think of all those schweet Dashboard Widgets, they will now presumably work on the iPhone and on your Windows desktop as well!

    I think this is also a good time to point out [], the javascript SDK that Google made to support offline browsing of e.g. Google Reader. Definitely something awesome to have on the iPhone for rich Web 2.0 applications.

    iPhone/Safari web applications will definitely not suck.

  • 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).
  • by Macka ( 9388 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @05:09PM (#19470435)

    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 Reader is way faster than Firefox for me now. Oh and the Rich Text compose widget works in Google Mail too, which is a first for Safari. Haven't tried Google's word and spreadsheet apps yet, but I expect they'll work too.

  • by moosesocks ( 264553 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @05:10PM (#19470459) Homepage
    I hope that EA takes the same policy as Blizzard does, and bundles both PC and Mac versions of the game in the same box.

    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)
  • 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 [] 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 [] and discussions [] on this since 2005.
  • by costas ( 38724 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @05:39PM (#19470869) Homepage
    Did you try Safari/Win? I just did, and in 5 secs flat I noticed the following: no resizing from all sides (although it popped up taller than the screen height), no Alt-D to get to the address bar, no Ctrl-Enter to fill-in www.*.com. Maybe Alt-D is not the end of the world, but no edge-resizing? is there a WinXP port of KHTML/WebKit written by actual windows devs?
  • Re:Open Letter (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Thalagyrt ( 851883 ) * on Monday June 11, 2007 @05:45PM (#19470979)
    So you're saying that I can't install the Mac native version of UT2007 that's coming out at/around the same time as the Windows version and play? And you're saying the GeForce 8600 that's standard in the MacBook Pro now doesn't even have any graphics power at all? Hell, HL2 runs absolutely fine under Crossover on my MBP with an X1600. Zero artifacts. And how the hell is running Windows in Boot Camp any different than running it on a PC with the same hardware? Nice to see that you don't even look shit up before you run your mouth. Your argument is stupid, as are you. And your troll mod was deserved because that's exactly what it was. Now STFU and GTFO.
  • by Luscious868 ( 679143 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @06:03PM (#19471183)

    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 Cocoa for Windows API's at the same time. In a year or two after the bugs have been worked out Apple will release a version of XCode that runs on both the Mac and Windows that can create applications that will also run on both platforms with the click of a mouse (much like how XCode can currently produce binaries for both PowerPC and Intel).

    Paralles and Boot Camp are good stop gap solutions, but ultimately Apple wants more software that will run natively on OS X. By releasing a version of Xcode that can easily produce software that will run under both operating systems, developers interested in creating applications that can run on both platforms will move to XCode.

    It's a win / win for Apple, designed to both move more iPhones and eventually to move more Mac's as the number of applications that can run natively on OS X increases.

  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @06:22PM (#19471457)
    Jobs did say the web app would have access to some of the iPhone features - at the very least he mentioned activating a call, and also pulling up a google map of a location. I don't think it's meant to be low level access at all (like no Quartz access directly) but did you know Safari 3 supports SVG?
  • by mikeisme77 ( 938209 ) on Tuesday June 12, 2007 @12:31AM (#19474289) Homepage Journal
    Using Opera as an example of a browser with features of Firefox is a bad example... Opera tends to have a lot of features before Firefox, which the Firefox developer later integrate into Firefox. Of course, I'm biased as Opera is my favorite browser, although it's current direction (starting with 9.10) has made me somewhat unhappy (I don't like the tighter integration with Yahoo! and the speed dial thing is just kind of weird/annoying to me). I also don't use Opera because I am addicted to several Google products (such as Calendar) that don't work properly under Opera (I blame this on Google, not Opera... Opera is completely standards compliant last time I checked). On the plus side, I recently discovered some features of Firefox that allow me to make it behave even more like Opera. Now if Firefox could just get Opera's speed, clean up the code base/fix memory leaks, and become fully standards compliant then I'll be happy.

"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." -- Howard Aiken