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."
All of the major news (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:All of the major news (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:All of the major news (Score:5, Informative)
Re:All of the major news (Score:5, Interesting)
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:All of the major news (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
The history of these sorts of ports has been very bad for gaming houses that have tried them. Sales have been disappointing as the Apple crowd historically have turned their noses up at them. We'll see if there's going to be a repeat.
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: (Score:2)
Re:Open Letter (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Open Letter (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Open Letter (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
But look on the bright side: QuickTime for Windows is remarkably ugly.
Re:Quicktime is terrible, I confess (Score:3, Funny)
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
I want you to realize that I am not directly responsible for the application but I used to recommend
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
If you are correct, then Apple is ready to give up on the computer business. Windows developers have
Free versus paid software (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the difference is that Microsoft needs to SELL offi
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.
At least clippy has not been ported to vi (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Sincerely,
Commodore 64.
KDE / Konqueror (Score:4, Insightful)
Already done (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Re:O... (Score:4, Informative)
font weirdness? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
fastest? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's in beta (Score:3, Informative)
No, they aren't (Score:5, Insightful)
YellowBox for Windows is Back (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Well, it's definitely fast... (Score:2)
Re:Well, it's definitely fast... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I can't get it working (Score:5, Funny)
Cool (Score:5, Interesting)
And it supports rich text editing in GMail
I hope it will be supporting the plugin framework that Safari on OS X does, I like things like the Inquisitor search plugin [inquisitorx.com].
More first impressions (Score:3, Interesting)
- Took 100MB of RAM (as reported by Task Manager) to render some tab groups.
- OTOH, it's very fast to start: faster than Firefox, IE and even Opera.
- Crashes on some non-Latin font pages (IE, Firefox don't on the same system)
- Fonts look great on my LCD. Arial actually looks decent, unlike Windows' default elongated look.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop saying that! I do not think it means what you think it means. Personally, I like being able to see the menus for various applications at the same time. It means I don't have to click the window and wait for something unattached to the window to update before I can make changes.
If you like the single menu bar, that's fine. I'm happy for you. But it's something that always bothered the hell out of me about the macos, and I'm glad they're the only ones doi
Safari...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Safari...? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:THAT is Steve Jobs's "one more thing"? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Safari is the iPhone SDK (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully (Score:4, Insightful)
To Site Devs... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also add, if you right-click on any element in a WebKit view with the debug on, you will get the extremely good element inspector for the element you're on.
I am split (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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?
Ajax as iPhone development environment? No Thanks. (Score:5, Funny)
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!!!
Not a bad interpretation (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm totally getting the Ultimate version. (Score:5, Funny)
"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."
Re:Ultimate server version? Family pack? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Ultimate server version? Family pack? (Score:4, Funny)
If you applied the same demented logic to Windows, the "Ultimate" version with "server niceities" would cost you...well, hell, I don't know. You try to figure it out. [microsoft.com]
Re:I'm totally getting the Ultimate version. (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
A Kick In The Balls For Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:A Kick In The Balls For Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A Kick In The Balls For Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
Control-L is the new Alt-D (Score:3, Informative)
Command-L on the Mac.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Safari on Windows....What's in it for Apple? (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
So you totally missed..... (Score:3, Informative)
(^_^)
Re:Safari on Windows....What's in it for Apple? (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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)
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
Safari 3 on Windows: First Impressions (Score:3, Informative)
- 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.
Unoptimized CPU hog (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Re:OMG not another one (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why Safari? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see a similar market opportunity in a free browser.
iPhone apps. They've broadened the developer base for apps (which they won't make money on) for the iPhone (which, presumably, they will make money on).
Re:Safari For Windows Fails For Me (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Firefox is the most at risk (Score:5, Funny)
Not XP and Vista only! (Score:3, Informative)
Despite what Apple's Web site says, it installs on Windows 2000 just fine.
Hell, I'm typing this response in Safari 3 on Windows 2000.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? Is there some advantage other than the fact that you would prefer it? You gloss over this point.
or when Safari can be installed on Gentoo.
Konqueror on Gentoo will render the same most of the time.
Then I'll be able to waste 10% of my time dealing with Safari's eccentricities
What eccentricities? Complying with standards? Have you even heard of Safari before?
I'm not upgrading Windows just because Apple says I should.
Where exactly did Apple tell you to upgrade Win
Re:Meh (Score:4, Informative)
Performance measured in seconds. Testing conducted by Apple in June 2007 on a 2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo-based iMac system running Windows XP Professional SP2, configured with 1GB of RAM and an ATI Radeon X1600 with 128MB of VRAM. HTML and JavaScript benchmarks based on VeriTest's iBench Version 5.0 using default settings.