What is Digg?123 Comments
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -19/+106its in beta...
- geminitojanus, on 10/11/2007, -7/+87Remember when Beta meant "not ready for mass consumption, some bugs definitely implied"? Those were such good times.
- jdc760, on 10/11/2007, -3/+49"Beta" as defined by Google: It sounds cooler, so we'll just call it a Beta forever.
- tsunamisteve, on 10/11/2007, -13/+48yeah people need to stop freaking out. beta software is supposed to have issues. otherwise it isn't beta.
p.s. breaking and merging windows is fantastic! - OilyTheOtter, on 10/11/2007, -8/+26I think its a trojan apple...
- srujanlive, on 10/11/2007, -18/+35"Besides, what better way to undermine an enemy than to present a concealed weapon in the form of a gift?" Yeah!!! Take that Microsoft.
- Tool0317, on 10/11/2007, -3/+18The new solitaire does kick ass.
- Niten, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13geminitojanus: "Remember when Beta meant "not ready for mass consumption, some bugs definitely implied"? Those were such good times."
I think it was Google that ruined it for the rest of us... - stmiller, on 10/11/2007, -13/+24It's less a security risk than using IE. Anyone checked out the secunia page on IE6 or IE7?
- andyduncan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10This is actually an old debate about windows anti-aliasing Vs. OSX anti aliasing. OSX aims for pixel-accuracy, which means it is more true to the shape of the glyphs, letter and word spacing. Windows anti-aliasing aims for pixel-alignment, which means fonts will appear sharper, but glyph accuracy, letter spacing, and word spacing suffer.
You could argue that either one is better. - Noctem, on 10/11/2007, -8/+17This is exactly why I installed this on a virtual machine. Apple has a hard time making decent software for Windows.
Apple needs to do something about their font rendering, it's completely god awful.
http://img19.imageshack.us/my.php?image=safarivsie7fontsad1.png
Side by side compared to IE7 - Safari is on the left. - caffeinated, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12This has nothing to do with "getting hacked" by some script kiddy in his IRC channel. The browser security threat revolves around "drive-by" malware. You don't intend to put yourself at risk... but when your favorite website gets injected w/ a malicious IFRAME, you better hope your browser isn't vulnerable to a buffer overflow capable of remote code execution.
- bIuebonics, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9c'mon, antagonizing some irc hackers is always a fun way to pass some time... especially when you open do-nothing ports to entice them in ;)
- slezzzter, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10I have to agree, the right side is easier to read. The blurriness of Safari was the absolute first thing I noticed. That soft text really permeates OS X too. I find that I really don't like to do a lot of reading on my mac if I can avoid it. It's great for images/video, but text rendering isn't Apple's strong-point. I think the mac-guy would agree that pc-guy is better at that kind of stuff.
Also, the right side more readable on my LCD, both of my CRTs and even my TV. Maybe if I adjusted my screen settings I could make it look good, but that would only make everything else look bad. - inkswamp, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12I love that we're all getting dugg down for questioning the security of Windows on a thread about the security of an app on Windows. The tireless defenders of all things Redmond are out in full force today.
- FearlessFreep, on 10/11/2007, -6/+13Solitaire....maybe...
- Noctem, on 10/11/2007, -5/+12Uhm, are you kidding me, or do you not know your left from your right?
Look specifically at the word 'pill' in [FDA: Diet pill may increase...]
In Safari (on the left), it looks like 'pIII', the dot on the i is hardly discernible. On the right, in IE7, it's perfectly clear and easy to see that it's the word 'pill'.
Apple knows they don't have to make every font be bold, right? - EXreaction, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Beta indeed.
It has many bugs and security vulnerabilities...
But it does look pretty nice...
Spending more time in UI dev than building a decent back end FTL.
But I guess I have to thank Apple...since I am a web dev I have always wanted to have Safari to make sure my sites work in it. - Balanced, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Safari does, in fact, have tabs. They've been in it for a while, and 3.0 adds some new tab features that are interesting and similar (but slightly cooler) to those of Firefox, apparently. Basically, some neat features to allow dynamic docking and undocking of tabs that (plain, no extension) Firefox doesn't yet have. Tabs are, in fact, the sixth item on the feature list for Safari on Apple's site.
The rest of your comment I'll ignore as it feels a bit uninformed and troll-like. - jonbruc, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7I'm running the safari 3 beta for OSX and I think it is much improved in rendering time over any other version or firefox. I think apple's trying to push into the pc market so that web developers will improve their site's compatibility with safari/quicktime for the iphone surfers.
- kethraal, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9"I downloaded it yesterday, installed it and used it for several hours, removed it and will never use that piece of ***** again."
Let's recap. You downloaded beta software the day of its release, you didn't even use it for a day, and are now promising to never use the product _EVER_ again?
Wow. The term beta really is lost on you, eh? - wonderchemist, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8basic.exe?
- lithuin, on 10/11/2007, -7/+12@carolinaws
You screwed up your insult!
It should be "Golden Master" as defined by Microsoft: beta; not the other way around. You are implying that when Microsoft releases beta software, it is already ready for production. You complimented them.
By the way, Yo' momma so fat that she looks super hot in a bikini and I respect her for being a strong individual, yet still retaining her femininity. - davidgolding, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6This shows how imbicilic digg users can be... It was released as a beta, it's supposed to have bugs. This seems more like dogging somebody for opening a support ticket on a product. Buried for inaccurate.
- inkswamp, on 10/11/2007, -8/+13Security on Windows is very easy: just don't power it up or connect to the Internet. Problem solved. You people carry on like this is a such big deal.
- cbeach, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Poster: "what better way to undermine an enemy than to present a concealed weapon in the form of a gift?"
So you think Apple are going to exploit holes in their Windows browser, DOSing Windows users? For what, exactly?
Windows user loads Safari .. Safari crashes (only speculating) .. Windows user loses faith in Apple software .. Apple loses.
How on earth is it in Apple's interest to produce buggy software for Windows??
.. or are you just another dumbass Windows apologist who's afraid of something different? - link470, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9Proctor said: "And again, you're not going to get hacked or get viruses unless you chill in a hacker forum or IRC just by running Safari. Most hacking and viruses/malware/spyware/adware on windows are due to user error."
Agreed. People these days complain about their systems being bogged down because of things they do. If you're like me you probably maintain your system [if running Windows] at LEAST once a day, whether it's a defrag, disk cleanup, registry clean, antivirus scan, spyware scan, or spybot's immunization tool. It's a daily occurance for a Windows user to keep their system running clean. Many just say "oh, I got antivirus, Im good to go now" and it's not updated, and they continue to file share, surf porn, and download "toolbars" for their web browsers :P - P5ycHo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I also like the fact I can now use my favorite way of viewing rss feeds @ work
- celotil, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I see what you're getting at, the text on the left does look rather bolded and a bit fuzzy with letters like lower-case "i".
If you're willing to persist with Safari I'd have a look at the font settings and see if perhaps changing the default fonts might help - I saw in passing elsewhere that Safari 3b has a font or two bundled from Apple, and who knows if they looks as neat under the Windows rendering engine as they do under OS X.
The font on the left also looks like it's smaller and bolded, whereas the font on the right looks slightly larger but rendered with a "normal" weight. I'd definitely check the default fonts, paying note to sizes. To test I'd head over to somewhere like http://stopdesign.com , http://mezzoblue.com , http://daringfireball.com (a good test with its light grey on dark grey colour scheme), http://airbagindustries.com , http://veerle.duoh.com (do the links look glaring or just a bit highlighted?), http://slashdot.org (good for testing large size fonts and checking they _are_ large size) and, of course, http://digg.com.
For anyone wondering, I chose the above sites because I know that the designers have purposefully futz and fiddled with their own machines and html until they've gotten a result that looks right to them, (typically) professional web and graphics designers. Stopdesign in particular is also good for checking that your font sizes and styles look the same across Firefox, Internet Explorer, Safari, and Konqueror - regardless of platform.
I don't expect that Safari's font rendering will look exactly the same as IE's on Windows (due to Safari apparently using its own type-rendering engine) but I personally don't think a dissimilar appearance is much to ask for. Can't test it myself because I have a Mac and a Linux "Boxen". - tennisOK, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Maybe the tabs got turned off in your prefs.... They've beein Safari since 1.0 (but were missing from the first few beta releases waaay back)
- danakin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Not if you're smart.
- waterdrop, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I did try the Beta in Vista Home Premium here's what I thought:
Pros:
-Fast at loading web pages
-Looks cool (if you like the look of OS X)
-Middle clicking does open up links in a new tab
Cons:
-Uses more memory than FF2 and IE7
-Doesn't use any Aero glass in Vista and looks completely out of place in Windows (both XP and Vista)
-Default text is ugly, blurry, and appears fuzzier than FF2 and IE7
-Can only be resized from lower right corner (just like all programs in OS X)
-Clicking on Safari in the taskbar doesn't minimize it (but it does in IE and FF)
-It seems to compress pictures, and often pictures seem pixelated in Safari
-If you move Safari to a 2nd monitor and try to maximize it, it disappears into another world, and you gotta restart Safari - TanNg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Beta also means that Apple should not claim it is faster than FF or IE. Security bug discovered in 2 hours, such a humility to Apple.
- ModOps, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"Besides, what better way to undermine an enemy than to present a concealed weapon in the form of a gift?"
Oh, you mean like IE for Mac and MS Office for Mac?
If you don't like Safari, don't use it. Simple as that. If the end product sucks, people won't use it, and Apple will cease development of future versions - again, much like IE on Mac. It sucked, and MS stopped supporting it. - CeeAyy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@ no one in particular and a few in general
I must be missing something. Did Apple say that Safari on windows was more secure than IE? I just recall reading that the B-E-T-A was faster. I must have missed the more secure part.
I wonder, if the OS was secure, would the browser matter? If I don't lock my bedroom can someone break into my house easier? Just a thought. In all fairness, the browser might be important, I don't know. Though, I'm not convinced that the real problem is the browser.
Oh, and for those that skipped class that day, OS 9 had viruses, OS X still doesn't. OS 9 had a smaller user base. Sooooo, security through obscurity is BS. It's not the amount of users that makes OS X more secure than OS 9 or XP. - christianw, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5yep, beta means beta
- mshanly, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Maybe it was Apple's plan all along to bring out an application, albeit in beta that could if used in the wrong way cause serious problems for a rival companies operating system. The average person wouldn't think that it was the browser to blame, but the operating system itself for allowing a virus to be executed, maybe prompting them to make the switch to a safer operating system. A key point of Apple's promotional campaign to make people switch from PCs to Macintoshes is that fact that there are 100,000+ viruses on Windows, but not on a Mac. I think Steve Jobs wouldn't even mind if only half of the people switched to OS 10 and the other half to other operating systems, he'd still be kicking Microsoft right where it hurts and gaining a larger fan base for Apple. I will admit that I myself do not run Safari on my Mac, but instead Camino. Simply because I find Safari to be unusable but overall it beats Internet Explorer 7 by a mile off. Microsoft don't take time preparing there products for the open market. Rather then putting out programs that look ugly and bloated, such as IE 7. The IE 7 Tabs are possibly the ugliest implementation of tabbed windows I have ever seen, I prefer Firefox in Classic Mode to IE 7 Tabs.
Most of you might call me a fanboy, but I am only stating the truth. Okay, Safari might be a Windows security risk, but it has only been out a day. Apple's core demographic isn't to develop Windows applications, just like it isn't Microsoft's to do the same on a Mac. - asskicker32, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Ive been using it for a few hours (Mac user stuck on a PC with FF2.0) and I found that the ctrl+enter key combo doesnt fill in the wwws or .com. Also, the tab sorting is kind of screwed up, it doesnt remember the tabs that I had open when I closed the browser and I cant set multiple tabs as a home page. Also, I cant run IE apps in it like I can with FF + IEtab.
All in all, I think it just overtook opera as my second favorite browser for XP. Opera has those goofy things where you have to click and select things. Ugh. Makes it a little too clunky. Safari is SO CLOSE to FF in so many ways, but so far off in others. I give it 8 moths, butf or now Im sticking with FF2.0 - Balanced, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2True, no one writes flawless software... But there's a big difference between well engineered and not well engineered. In general, MacOS X is pretty well engineered.
Your inability to find a feature is, to be honest, your own problem. - inkswamp, on 10/11/2007, -6/+8Well, damn... all Windows users will have to go back to the safety and security of IE.
- danielwsmithee, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Safari has always had tabs. With Safari 3.0 it handles tabs better then firefox too. Some of it is just eye-candy but the ability to drag a tab off of the window and have a new window created is awesome, something firefox should implement.
- mikeybb555, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Safari is running great on my PC! I have been very happy with it. I'm sure the final version will fix all the problems others seem to be having. I unfortunately have to us a PC at work, and love any opportunity I get a "Mac" like experience on my Windows box. All hail Safari on PC!
- Berkana, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2My suspicion is that the goal of producing Safari for Windows is to make it easier for web developers to test for Safari without having to get a Mac. In the long run, this will make the web more Mac friendly, and the few lost sales due to web devs not buying Macs just to test their sites will be made up for by web sites built more towards standards compliance rather than IE and FireFox, making the Mac less of a liability for other switchers.
- dgh1973, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Any application is only as good as the libraries/API's it sits on top of.
- P5ycHo, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7Dude, the left picture is much more readable than the one on the right.
If you can't see the difference between the i on the left and l's following, get a new monitor.
Or some glasses perhaps? - MacParrot, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Guys, it's a beta. There are going to be eventual problems. Just because it's from Apple (or Microsoft, Adobe, ect) doesn't mean there won't be bugs.
I tried Firefox on my Mac. It did everything it was supposed to do, but didn't seem to bring up pages any faster and had a cluttered interface IMO. Everytime a new version comes out, I try that too. Eventually I end up back with Safari (mostly because of its great, easy to use RSS support).
It's like with any other software. Try it, if you don't like it, get rid of it. Just don't give it an automatic thumbs up/thumbs down based on who released it. - ziadoz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1So your complaining because Windows notifies you of the vendor supplying the updates to your machine? Or asking you to agree to a standard application EULA (which is most likely what your talking about)?
You clearly aren't qualified to even go near a computer. Step away from the keyboard. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2It also lacks a zoom feature.
- returnofajedi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Did you read the posts above? I think everyone above already knew that.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1ceeayy,
We have yet to see if there is a remote code execution exploit(although I am sure they are in there), so far it is only DOS attacks.
These are basically the same vectors that have been a liability with Safari on OSX as well.
However, if a user is on XP and in a user account(rather than an account with administrator privilege), they are safe. If they are on Vista, UAC will prompt them if there is an attempted privilege escalation.
Vista is safer than OSX in that regard, because if malware vendors try to install in vista their apps will be added to windows defender (and if it is the source of enough attacks Safari will probably be added as well as some software vendors are now finding themselves as yellow flags in the defender database)
Anyhow, last I checked there were no actual remote code exploits in Vista, there was only one possible remote code exploit, although I don't think anyone ever managed to make the ANI bug execute code.
Also... Don't take the Digg windows poor security mythology that seriously, there have been no serious problems since XP SP2 was released years and years ago. -
Show 51 - 100 of 123 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 