digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Safari on Windows

apple.com — Title says it all.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • TimRogers, on 10/11/2007, -348/+16Damn you! I was about the post this!
    • Wailord, on 10/11/2007, -169/+16Aw...the [first] "One more thing..." was Windows stuff...
    • donwilson2, on 10/11/2007, -17/+331Actually, it's at www.apple.com/safari
    • mrfreeziexp, on 10/11/2007, -15/+171apple.com/safari

      The windows beta will be available for download "today."
    • Brightside, on 10/11/2007, -78/+7i was sitting here debating whether or not i should submit this story or not w/o a working link. looks like i should've done it.
    • PARAPA, on 10/11/2007, -49/+277Now I can finally compare the look and oepration of my sites properly!
      So now it stands Firefox > Safari > Opera > IE?

    • chris9902, on 11/13/2007, -81/+597As a web designer I'd just like to thank Apple for saving me £££. Now I don't need that Mac I was looking at.
    • abhiroop, on 10/11/2007, -62/+36How exactly are load times tested? I tried it with a mac and a pc (pc with ffx, and mac with safari), and they were almost identical. Realistically who is going to download safari? Unless it comes attached onto itunes. The main reason people use itunes is because of the iPod, I doubt it would be half as popular otherwise.
    • Hella, on 10/11/2007, -37/+18IE5? Oh, please.
    • TheCount, on 10/11/2007, -67/+48Just what the world needed, another web browser.

      I think I'll stick with Firefox.

      Can anyone explain to me why they would be so interested in increasing the market share of their web browser that they would save it for a "One more thing" or WWDC announcement? This seems like the kind of thing you just release, rather than plan an announcement for.
    • JPOGDNA, on 10/11/2007, -79/+48Where the hell does it say on that link that Windows is getting Safari? I just Mac OS X Tiger features on Safari
    • theprez, on 10/11/2007, -313/+20Buried as a lame attempt to make the front page. There's still no update on apple.com about Safari being on Windows.
    • looke, on 10/11/2007, -36/+30Surely its a bit unfair comparing it with firefox 1.0.2 and internet explorer 5.2.3?
    • RedSkies, on 10/11/2007, -22/+81I think I might try it out for a while, see how it runs.
      Safari seems like a better alternative than IE.
    • sopathetic, on 10/11/2007, -33/+9Without all the OS X integration, Safari will always be inferior to Firefox on Windows.
    • vbsurfer, on 10/11/2007, -14/+183This is awesome news being a developer. This is really sweet!

      IE, Opera, FF, and safari on one OS.
    • mrmdc, on 10/11/2007, -21/+83theprez:

      dumbass, Jobs just announced it at the WWDC
    • geminitojanus, on 10/11/2007, -41/+17"Surely its a bit unfair comparing it with firefox 1.0.2 and internet explorer 5.2.3?"

      Page is really, really old, was "new" with Tiger.

      It's pretty retarded this submitter decided to submit when the page is exactly the same it's been for over a year.
    • Niten, on 10/11/2007, -14/+136TheCount: "Just what the world needed, another web browser."

      If this manages to boost the market penetration of the open source, standards compliant web browsers at the expense of IE, then as a web developer I'm all for it. And for what it's worth, Safari is even better behaved than Firefox when it comes to obeying the CSS specs.

      And to everyone complaining that Apple is comparing Safari to IE 5: The web page hasn't been updated with the Windows Safari beta yet. That comparison is between OS X Safari and IE 5 – the last version of IE that was released for the Mac.
    • rosefu, on 10/11/2007, -5/+47Please, please, please give it the same rendering engine as the Mac version of Safari.

      Do that and it would serve as a great testing environment. I hate having to VM into another machine and go to three computers just to test a site in different browsers. Going from three to two would be nice.
    • johnhummel, on 10/11/2007, -15/+6A quick comparison note:

      The question is "WHy are they comparing IE 5 with Safari"? Odds are, you're looking at the "Safari for Mac" page, especially as the Windows Beta stuff won't come up until later this afternoon. So if you're on a Macintosh, my understanding is that the oldest version of Internet Explorer you can use is IE5 - which sucked ass, because by then Microsoft had put Netscape out of business and didn't have to even try anymore, and Safari had come out.
    • gamebittk, on 10/11/2007, -48/+21OMFGLOLZ!!!11!

      I'll stick with Firefox.
    • fangorious, on 10/11/2007, -3/+79@TheCount: Can anyone explain to me why they would be so interested in increasing the market share of their web browser that they would save it for a "One more thing" or WWDC announcement? This seems like the kind of thing you just release, rather than plan an announcement for.

      Easy, they announced it right along with info about the iPhone, becase the iPhone uses Safari for not only web broswing, but for 3rd party app development. So writing web pages that work with Safari, and webapps that work in Safari, is now a much more attractive goal. As a developer you'll know the app/site will work on Windows, Mac, and the iPohne.
    • bbrosemer, on 10/11/2007, -9/+97Safari was brought to windows to force website to develop for Safari. Now if they can do this then the iphone can also run the websites... That was the reason for this enough said...
    • pap3rw8, on 10/11/2007, -16/+143Fastest digg ever?
    • SnuKs, on 10/11/2007, -16/+9Steve likes to share the love.
    • donwilson2, on 10/11/2007, -23/+18http://appldnld.apple.com.edgesuite.net/content.info.apple.com/Safari3/061-2827.20070611.x1qX21dQ3kIk70G2vDKN0t/SafariSetup.exe
    • dimsum05, on 10/11/2007, -7/+17http://www.apple.com/downloads/

      Seems to work...
    • ErrorS, on 10/11/2007, -44/+19http://www.apple.com/safari/download/

      edit: Don't bury me for posting 2 seconds later than these two..
    • Kanundra, on 10/11/2007, -35/+8Opera's the only faster browser, and they conveniently left that out of their graphs and comparisons.
    • Chronological, on 10/11/2007, -31/+10bury me
    • melllvar37, on 10/11/2007, -31/+12Mirrors:

      Mac: http://rapidshare.com/files/36559695/Safari3Beta.dmg
      Windows XP & Vista: http://rapidshare.com/files/36559889/SafariSetup.exe
      Windows XP & Vista (incl. Quicktime): http://rapidshare.com/files/36559852/SafariQuickTimeSetup.exe
    • dalex1, on 10/11/2007, -15/+14those of you talking about IE5.x.x and how old it is...

      They're referring to IE for OSX, not windows.
    • alecks, on 10/11/2007, -5/+24Download link is up:

      http://www.apple.com/safari/download/
    • skyhighrockets, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4http://www.apple.com/safari/
    • soda0289, on 10/11/2007, -12/+29New apple site thats bigger news to me than all the other junk in the keynote
    • hppypnts, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4posted on Safari beta for Win XP =)
    • telair, on 10/11/2007, -12/+7Direct download from Apple
      http://appldnld.apple.com.edgesuite.net/content.info.apple.com/Safari3/061-2827.20070611.x1qX21dQ3kIk70G2vDKN0t/SafariSetup.exe
    • Scruffydan, on 10/11/2007, -15/+4@Niten

      since when is safari open source? It may follow we standards but that doesn't make it open source
    • PAJK, on 10/11/2007, -2/+19My screenshot: http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/6302/safariwindowsdq8.jpg
    • FutureGuy, on 10/11/2007, -12/+2@Niten

      Its a little unfair to compare the speed of IE 5.5 (almost a decade old) running on a Mac (it was build for Windows and ported to Mac) with much newer Safari that was build for Mac OS. If you think its a fair comparison you bury it else call up Steve. Lets wait and see how it compares with IE7 running on Windows.
    • GearAddiction, on 10/11/2007, -10/+5Running some tests right now under network-controlled condtions. Results/statistics will be posted when finished. I'll put them up at:

      http://www.dealminded.com/user/jeff/45

    • amish, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3available for download NOW
    • Icebird, on 10/11/2007, -19/+59WTF? You can't do Ctrl-Enter to finish "apple" to "http://www.apple.com/" ?!?
    • cbuddha42, on 10/11/2007, -12/+7Using it. Seems to run quite well. We all knew it was coming though because mozilla but it in their wiki and some bloggers picked up on it 6 months ago, so I don't know why everyone thinks its big news. I wish apple had introduced something more exciting than a port of their internet browser. Like, I don't know, horizontal ipods?
    • idreamincode, on 10/11/2007, -16/+9I just downloaded Safari for XP and it feels like you are in some horrible emulation mode. Scrolls around painfully slow, and fonts look jacked.

      Also, where did the scroll wheel click function go? I hate having to constantly use the scroll wheel, rather push the button and just have the words scroll for me.

      Not impressed.
    • daleeburg, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1http://www.apple.com/safari/download/

      Direct link to d.l page
    • lilxvietxboi, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3I just pressed windowsbutton+a....

      oh and theres no porn mode!... uh i mean 'private browsing' mode
    • PAJK, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2So what's new in the Beta 3?
    • Niten, on 10/11/2007, -6/+14futureguy: "Lets wait and see how it compares with IE7 running on Windows."

      According to the slide from the Keynote presentation, its rendering engine is about twice as fast as IE 7 with both browsers running on XP. Of course, that still leaves room for debate over the definition of "fast"...
    • mrfreeziexp, on 10/11/2007, -7/+51Is there an adblock for Safari? I will be forced to use Firefox until there is one available then.
    • perryge, on 10/11/2007, -12/+8using it on an iBook G4 right now. It's CRAZY fast, BUT the pages stay blank until I refresh them at least once. When they do load it's like lightning, but it's annoying as hell having to refresh EVERY single page in order to see them.

      Gotta iron out the kinks, Apple!
    • cronot, on 10/11/2007, -7/+49Mini review, for the Windows version:

      I'd call it an Alpha, instead of Beta. It behaved very erratically while I've used it. For instance, the first time I've started it up, no window showed up, though there was a button on the taskbar. Closed it, tried again, then the window came up. Now, the problem that I have is with fonts - any boldface font isn't showed, but replaced with underlines ( _ ). Reinstalling it did no good. The interface is a copycat of OSX's, except for the menus that don't look quite the same. The fact that the interface is so like OSX scared me a little - it looks too much out of place on a Windows desktop, almost makes me think that it is running in some kind of emulator (I know that's not the case, but it makes you think).

      Other than that, it looks promising. The fact that it the html rendering engine is a port of KHTML from Konqueror (KDE), is an indication that it is a capable performer. It seems they brought over the font rendering engine from OSX too, so the fonts looks gorgeous - if it weren't for Firefox's extensions, I'd switch to Safari for that alone. Not even Windows (even Vista) with ClearType enabled can match that font rendering quality.
    • DaveMode, on 10/11/2007, -0/+28Using it now. Doesn't feel as fast as Steve made it out to be at the keynote. I'll probably use it for a few days just to be sure. I'm currently anticipating a quick retreat back to Firefox. I've just fallen in love with a few too many extentions..
    • picklepete, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@lilxvietxboi

      yeah, Private Browsing is there... it's under the Edit menu. It looks like most of the items that were under the Safari menu under OSX moved to the Edit menu under Windows.
    • Dracker, on 10/11/2007, -2/+41Submitting this comment from Safari on Windows.

      A couple of observations:

      -If your cursor is in the absolute rightmost pixel column of your screen, the OSX-themed scroll bar will not register your click.
      -Clicking the Taskbar button will not minimize the window
      -You cannot resize it from any point except the lower right corner
      -When you DO resize it, or maximize, or restore, the window must completely redrawn, which is slow

      It seems to run well, but the interface has been botched a bit.
    • jeriqo, on 10/11/2007, -13/+4Only Microsoft is dumb enough to create 2 different applications for 2 different OSes.

      Firefox works the same on windows/mac, except for things native to the OS, like fonts & buttons.
    • texpundit, on 10/11/2007, -4/+26I'm using it at this very moment to post this comment...and it seems to be pretty damned fast and stable.

      Also, I'm not one for too much eye candy, but Safari's little "spit out receipt" dialog boxes are cool as all get out.
    • emehrkay, on 10/11/2007, -11/+16are you ***** kidding me, i can only resize this from the corner? and it takes away my ultramon buttons?

      im just glad that i can test in safari natively now
    • Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -9/+6Works well. No AdBlock, so there go the speed claims.

      Oh, and the ctrl+enter guy: [Tab] does the job, just like in any other Windows dialog.
    • OutrightLie, on 10/11/2007, -9/+109Dugg. From Safari. From Windows. *tear in universe opens*
    • ilyag, on 10/11/2007, -5/+28There is NO WAY to configure a Proxy Server (what the *****?). It just gives me a pop-up asking for a username and password. No matter what I enter, Safari crashes instantly.

      I guess I can't use it.

      Also, some pretty common features I've come to expect with Firefox simply don't exist: mouse gestures is one, and using mouse wheel-click to close tabs is another. But I guess that doesn't matter, since it won't play nice with my proxy anyway, so I can't use any part of this browser at all. Oh well. So much for my Safari adventures. Hope the rest of you guys are having fun, it does look pretty with all its nice menu animations.
    • pnmoore, on 10/11/2007, -13/+2I was wondering if anybody else was going to notice that the comparison was to IE 5.x.
    • fintheman, on 10/11/2007, -19/+27http://findigi.com/Forums/nohardwarecontrol.JPG

      First reported crash?

      Its funny how they have a hard time just creating some software to run on Windows, maybe they should try an entire OS that runs across multiple hardware from various vendors.
    • longboarder543, on 10/11/2007, -1/+36It passes the Acid2 test.

      http://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html#top
    • theprez, on 10/11/2007, -11/+4@mrmdc
      Calling me a dumbass doesn't change that fact that the link does not take you to anything that mentions Safari on Windows. The other story that was buried as a duplicate did.
    • techpr, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9Using it right now, so far so good, no crashes. Runs well on the Core 2 Duo 2.4, 1GB Ram, XP Pro. The fonts looks more bolder than in Firefox.
    • demodawid, on 10/11/2007, -11/+11I have tried it for 10 minutes and quickly uninstalled it. In those 10 minutes, it crashed TWICE.
      Once while watching a video clip on apple.com (IE, Firefox, and Safari on windows ALL crash when viewing quicktime on apple.com, but not other sites, weird...) and the second time I was just loading a webpage and decided to open a tab... and it crashed again. I'm not a fanboy (I actually gave Safari a try), but this just sucks.
    • crazybrit, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4Wow... I tried the Windows version and it
    • op12, on 10/11/2007, -15/+10Screw Safari, give us what we really want...Leopard in Windows. I don't want your high-priced hardware. Parallels and VMWare have both said they can do it too.
    • raynar, on 10/11/2007, -17/+13Bleh. Why are people getting a boner from it? It's slow as hell, and can I customize it like firefox?

      It's "cute", much like OSX, but thats about it here...
    • crazybrit, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Well I wrote up a paragraph in Safari praising how well it works... and it cut off after the first sentence. Actually, I think it was because I tried to use ctrl+backspace (which deletes a whole word) and it cut off after that. Now how do I submit a bug report...
    • iEnigma, on 10/11/2007, -8/+17Side by side comparo between FF and Safari:
      http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/710/ffsafarisizestr5.jpg
    • jjesusfreak01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Well, its fast, but still has lots of bugs. Ill wait for a full release to give my final judgement, but for now, its lack of a multi-threaded download manager, inability to correctly download some files, and the inability to log onto some websites that I need access to means I will wait to adopt Safari.
    • jasz, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2I'm browsing this story in Safari/Windows XP ...

      /me likes it...
    • TheCash, on 10/11/2007, -18/+12"Safari on Windows"

      Installed, tested, and found to be just as crappy and slow as iTunes on Windows. Well done Apple, well done indeed.

      Please continue to release new crappy software instead of fixing the programs you've already unloaded on us. That's the kind of business-thinking that's going to make converts out of the rest of us holdouts. Saddly enough, at this point I might just bite the bullet and buy a mac, just so I can scroll through my music in less then 40 minutes, and get my iPod to sync without having to do the reset-computer-reset-iPod hatdance I have to do now thanks to the 'upgraded' version 7.
    • rento, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6It is faster than FF and IE but Ctrl + does not work using the + on the number pad.
      Also the resolution is a little fuzzy.
      Overally, what a nice beta! :)
    • hoppdawg, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Mine has no words, like all the letters are invisible. Anyone else having this problem?
    • emehrkay, on 10/11/2007, -11/+6I will never use this browser, but why doesnt it support gmail chat? opera does?
    • jspegele, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I have the same problem mentioned by a few others, crashes as soon as I try to connect to a proxy. Glad to see this is finally happening, but I'll stick with Firefox even after Apple works the bugs out of Safari. I chose Firefox over Safari on my Mac, so there's no reason to switch on the pc. Safari may be faster but there are a number of Firefox extensions that I can't live without (only a slight exaggeration).

      @futureguy
      How about you do 10 seconds of research before you share your expert opinions. It says IE7.0, not IE5.5.
    • fkr3, on 10/11/2007, -5/+22lol @ the "Blazing speed". I honestly thought I was looking at the chart wrong - there's no way in hell that Opera is the slowest browser, *especially* when compared to IE, Firefox or Safari.
    • MisterFlaut, on 10/11/2007, -19/+13"Firefox > Safari > Opera > IE?"

      LOL, yeah right.

      Look how long it takes Firefox to load the comments in this story. ***** horrible.

      IE can do it instantly.

      Hopefully Safari can transfer it correctly, because right now, Firefox is really starting to fall behind.
    • snapcase, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7This is cool for web developers, but for me, I'll stick with Firefox.

      (God damn, this page is taking forever to load with all these comments.)
    • emehrkay, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1javascript debuggin?
    • themoose, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2http://www.imghut.net/images/55702.jpg

      Woops.
    • Smills, on 10/11/2007, -9/+7I love how it says 4x faster than IE and then in tiny text on the graph has IE5...
    • sinembarg0, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1http://adcurtinguitarheroscore.googlepages.com/SafariSetup.exe
    • neuropsychguy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3"but why doesnt it support gmail chat?"

      It's working for me in Vista.
    • MisterFlaut, on 10/11/2007, -3/+21"(God damn, this page is taking forever to load with all these comments.)"

      Yep, because you're using Firefox.

      Don't believe me? Load this page up in IE. It's instant.

      Firefox has had a rendering bug that's been ignored for quite a while now. I can't believe they still haven't fixed it.
    • joe90210, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4@cronot

      are you serious? Mac OS X's font rendering is disgusting. Even when you make it light it still looks bad, it looks like somebody took the font and ran Photoshop's "Smudge" tool over them, the edges are blurry and smudged, there is no crispness compared to ClearType
    • spidoman, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Give me adblock + filter set G or I'm not interested. No offense.
    • plnegative1, on 10/11/2007, -8/+12Firefox is still > than Safari. (Don't give me any ***** you dumb fan boys I've used both and use Firefox on OS X)
    • diggingaround, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1
      Great!
      I can finally charge my clients more for triple CSS coding!

      Woohoo!
    • fxspec06, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11YESSSSSS!!!!
      NOW 500+ COMMENT DIGG STORIES LOAD IN MILISECONDS!!

      They were slow as HELL before on my MacBook.

      THANK YOU APPLE
    • mink78, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Thanks Apple. Now will someone get on a plugin for Firefox so I can use this rendering engine a la IE Tab? I could care less for another browser, but would like to have this for testing across browsers.
    • AidenHuntley, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Now all they need is iChat for windows.
    • Berkana, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Safari's browser engine has been available on Windows for a while now—as iTune's built in music store browser. All they had to do is to port the interface and features.

      It is ironic, I think, that the well funded behemonth Microsoft no longer develops IE nor Windows Media Player for the Mac, while Apple now develops iTunes, Quicktime, and now Safari are available on Windows.
    • JerodSlay, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Using safari can slow down your system considerably.

      http://macenstein.com/default/archives/540
    • JerodSlay, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6I love how they compare it to Firefox 1.0.2 on their site.
    • ianmurrays, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2So far i've hated it. Is it just me or the CSS styles are not loading correctly on any page??? I can't even import bookmarks from firefox. Hope they fix that, cause till now, safari is unusable. :(
    • Dotdotdot, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I love Safari for Mac - now on Windows it's amazing too.
      But there are certainly some bugs - the ones I've noticed involve the tabs mostly - but still, it's astounding what Apple is able to do - this program is like a snippet of OS X for Windows. Very nice.
    • mattprice, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@fintheman (#7130083)
      As if Windows and other Windows software hasn't crashed before? This IS just a public beta. I do believe betas are for ironing out all the bugs.
    • molecool, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I just installed it - having two tabs open Safari on Windows XP eats up 102MB of RAM. Jeeezz, that's worse then Firefox...
    • slythfox, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3This browser feels like IE 7 to me. That is to say, blurred text. And that blurred text "effect" looks terrible on LCDs.

      Nice to see yet another browser floating around.
    • thurows, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Big deal, Safari has been on a Mac for over 7 years.
    • BakedGoods, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2@JerodSlay

      That link is months old. This is Safari 3.0, a version which performs much better than 2.0, the release featured in that article.
    • MalDON, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6And why did they do a screenshot with XP? Are they trying to hide the fact that Vista looks nice and clean?
    • diggimator, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@Icebird
      Oh please god no! Holy ***** man, that's a terrible idea! cmd+enter = open in new tab already. IIRC, the same keyboard mapping exists in Camino + Mozilla Suite as well. I think there are much better ways to implement "http://www.%s.com/" (custom keywords, for example).
    • chad78, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2//first comment reply abuse

      For those of you who are questioning the wisdom of this move, (as in "Well, I guess I won't be needing that Mac to test my websites now!") Consider the other announcement about Safari Steve made today. You know, the one where third party developers will be able to design apps for the iPhone, but only by designing them to work on Safari. Me thinks he might be wanting to make the iPhone more popular by lowering the cost (to nothing) of developing for the platform. Now potential iPhone apps can be built and tested for free on any Windows box, (or Mac for that matter).

      Again, sorry for the reply abuse. Digg *really* needs to come up with multi-layered collaspable threading so that the first comment won't have to be abused like this in order for things to be seen.
    • themastersb, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1It seems strange there's no Apply or OK button in preferences.
    • meowme, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1GOODBYE FIREFOX
    • cernicalo, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1I just downloaded it and I am using it in Vista and from MS.
    • Caai05, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0http://digg.com/apple/Safari_Browser_The_Ultimate_Porn_Browser
    • stockjones, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4The only good about Safari is its Speed. Thats it. It still breaks far too much to call it better than Firefox, Opera or even IE. Sorry but thats just straight out truth. If you are a web developer and deny this you know nothing about web development.
    • sykotic, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3A ***** browser is now available for windows! EVEN APPLE USERS DON'T USE SAFARI!!
    • elliottback, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0It's really not that much faster, kids: http://elliottback.com/wp/archives/2007/06/11/safari-3-windows-review-benchmark/
    • streak, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@chris9902, now you don't need to recommend to all of your clients that they need to buy a Vista PC, just because you're stuck with one.
    • jrbrewin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1"It is ironic, I think, that the well funded behemonth Microsoft no longer develops IE nor Windows Media Player for the Mac, while Apple now develops iTunes, Quicktime, and now Safari are available on Windows."

      apple HAVE to provide iTunes for windows - do you not remember the shockingly poor ipod sales before they provided windows support.. put it this way, it was worse than zune's iirc. quicktime has been around for ages, and started life as a media professional's codec (or rather, multimedia container for usually sub-par codec'd files), and is now used for.. well.. itunes. Quicktime is also a great way for apple to bundle ***** software that people downloading quicktime don't want.. you know, like when they bundle itunes with quicktime by default.

      And i'm sure apple will bundle safari with quicktime too. mark my words.

      if i could use ie on my mac, believe me, i would. I still have issues with rendering on safari and firefox. And lets face it, there'd be no security issues running ie on macos. :>
  • digger_twit, on 10/11/2007, -15/+4Pic: http://s3.media.macrumorslive.com/p/1181585431.jpg
  • hmemcpy, on 10/11/2007, -19/+5Possible screenshot: http://img487.imageshack.us/my.php?image=safwins5om.jpg
    • stmiller, on 10/11/2007, -8/+47imageshack = worst image hosting ever
    • Miche1987, on 10/11/2007, -9/+1any image hosting = worst image hosting ever
  • mojo8472, on 10/17/2007, -48/+116Not sure if I was the only one to think this....but does anyone else think that Windows doesn't NEED another browser?
    • alecks, on 10/11/2007, -30/+10Regardless of that, this will really be a good way to see how "Secure" Mac products really are...
    • lostboy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+46Why not? That's the nature of the free market, and with Apple nipping at their heels perhaps it will force MS to innovate more. Certainly if Safari can live up to it's promises I know I'd think about switching from firefox.... well maybe not, but I'm open to the possibility.
    • lostboy, on 10/11/2007, -6/+35"Regardless of that, this will really be a good way to see how "Secure" Mac products really are..."

      A product is only as secure as the operating system it resides in. Part of the reason that Mac products are thought of secure is the proven security of Mac OS X.

      Windows XP is not necessarily insecure if you know how to secure it, but an awful lot of people don't. The implications of this can be more serious for a PC user versus a Mac user because of os x's unix heritage. Simple as.

      Full disclosure, my main system is a PC running windows xp.
    • G001, on 10/11/2007, -6/+22It doesn't *need* another browser, but it's still good for people like me who can now test their web pages in Safari without buying a Mac.
    • lordtyros, on 10/11/2007, -27/+32I wish they had included Opera in those tests. Then we'd see which is the "world's fastest browser."
    • tzmguitarist, on 10/11/2007, -9/+5My sentiments exactly. Actually, what I said was "yay, more market dilution."
    • 98acura, on 10/11/2007, -15/+2@lordtyros (#7128532)
      It would not be Opera.
    • carl201167, on 10/11/2007, -4/+26This another smart trojan horse for Apple - get Windows users to experience Apple and convert them over to Mac by stealth

      Where this REALLY plays is providing consistency for Windows iPhone owners
    • Tippis, on 10/11/2007, -15/+10@ lordtyros
      "I wish they had included Opera in those tests. Then we'd see which is the 'world's fastest browser.' "

      If they had, Jobs wouldn't have been able to call safari "the world's most innovative browser" and show off functionality that has been around in Opera since before the pyramids...
    • kethraal, on 10/11/2007, -9/+62"I wish they had included Opera in those tests. Then we'd see which is the "world's fastest browser.""

      Um.... they did. Perhaps you should check apple.com/safari once more....

      The benchmarks are:

      Safari 3 v.
      Firefox 2 v.
      Internet Explorer 7 v.
      Opera 9

      Seems pretty current to me.
    • lordsandwich, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4It doesn't, but quite possibly the iPhone does. I can't think of any other reason why Apple would bother.
    • ph23man, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Honestly it doesn't matter to me whether Windows needs another browser or which browser is the best. I'm a firm Firefox user and nothing about Safari convinces me it should replace FF as my primary browser.

      But as a web developer I'm VERY thankful to Apple for releasing Safari on Windows. Now I can test in Safari without having to use/borrow/buy a Mac.
    • sunchild, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1"Honestly it doesn't matter to me whether Windows needs another browser or which browser is the best. I'm a firm Firefox user and nothing about Safari convinces me it should replace FF as my primary browser."

      Well that's silly. If you care about how images render in a browser, you'd probably care about the fact that Safari supports embedded color space and FF doesn't. Even sRGB images look like crap in FF.
    • tybris, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"Seems pretty current to me."
      Seems pretty inaccurate to me. Not consistent with any other performance test I have seen and the general user experience of Opera (except for very large pages). On the other hand...they used Windows XP on an iMac???
    • Atomic1fire, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I think its just an attempt to kill IE and Get more mac users
  • timusca, on 10/11/2007, -11/+16I know what today's next download @ work will be :-)
  • swavalier711, on 10/11/2007, -29/+30Give me some reasons to download it, and I will.
    • timusca, on 10/11/2007, -90/+20Sexier, faster, better, etc... need more?
    • swavalier711, on 10/11/2007, -30/+54those are some pretty lame-ass reasons.
    • Charron, on 10/11/2007, -11/+69Personally, it's going to have to beat Firefox's extensions capacity for me to switch over full-time. Definitely giving it a download, but it may get relegated to the same back-up position that Opera fell to for me.
    • timusca, on 10/11/2007, -20/+55Well, what the hell do you want it to give you? A blow-job?
    • screwzluse, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14I'd have to agree about the extensions with Firefox. I have a Mac and I still run Firefox on both windows and Mac due to the wide amount of extensions out there. Maybe it loads webpages a tad slower, but I doubt it's anything I'd really notice anyway so it's not a huge deal. I guess it's good to have a wide selection of choices for your browsing needs but I don't see safari really picking up too much speed.
    • kee440, on 10/11/2007, -13/+7Reasons: http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/06/dsc_5297.jpg
    • screwzluse, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9Innovative in what way? Google/Yahoo search? I'm not sure I see those as valid reasons for going to Safari from Firefox. In fact, that last reason sound more like they needed another bullet point to fill the rest of the space.
    • swavalier711, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2@ timus

      even more lame-ass.

      Are you like this in political debates too? Give me good reasons why Safari is better. I don't really care for load times because I usually open my browser once and keep it open and I only have 5 extensions.

      So let me exercise my constitutional right here and tell you to ***** off.
    • tcquad, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13@swavalier711

      This was announced at WWDC - the "World Wide *Developers* Conference".

      They announced something that every web developer would love - the ability to test their websites for Safari capability without switching systems. The net result is easier testing of Mac web site compatibility.

      Yes, it might not be exciting to *you*. But are you a developer?
    • merreborn, on 10/11/2007, -6/+8For those suggesting that they'll no longer have to test their websites on macs thanks to this, think again.

      Anyone who was developing back in the days of Mac Internet Explorer knows this -- mac IE was its own browser, with its own set of bugs. If you wanted to support mac IE, you had to test IE on a mac -- testing IE on a windows box did *not* reveal all the issues that cropped up in mac IE.

      The same will likely be true here. Safari on windows will *not* behave the same as Safari on mac. You don't have one less platform to test, now, you have one *more*.
      • apexified, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1cynic. with the engine itself being the same on both and that engine being rather standards compliant, i doubt you'll find much different from one platform to another.
    • Saccharin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2It's good for web developers to see how their sites look without getting a Mac. But having a Mac, I'd never use Safari on my PCs. It's just not all that great of a browser, Safari was born out of necessity when Microsoft gave up on keeping IE for OSX updated and the Mozilla browsers weren't really OSX ready yet.
    • dbr_onix, on 10/11/2007, -7/+16"Most innovative browser"
      Rather generic reason - I can't see anything innovative about it, it's just a fairly standard browser, but missing something Firefox - Extensions.

      "Fastest browser", "Twice as fast as IE 7", "1.6 times faster than Firefox"
      I don't really care that a browser is "fast" - There are some applications where I care about how fast they work (games, image/video editing/creation etc etc), but I don't really care if a browser takes only 2 seconds to load when the competitor takes 4!! Once the browser is open, it's open until I'm finished with it, what's far more important

      "Google / Yahoo search" Firefox has Google, Yahoo, Creative Commons, Amazon, eBay, IMDB search options by default (Click the little [G] button in the search box), and it's easy to either find, or make new search-bar-setups for other websites.. IE also has the search bar, as does Opera - Considering they are calling it "Most innovative browser" you'd think they could come up with better "selling points"

      "Fastest browser" is the the only reasonable point, and that (to me) is neglible in a browser - Browsing speed will be far more limited by your connection than your browser, so I'd more than happily take a slower browser that has more features (Extensions, themes, and more importantly - a huge community). If I wanted a "fast" browser I'd use w3m, links or lynx..

      The only purpose I can think for Safari on Windows is for web designers to test their sites out in..


      Of all the OS X applications they ported (iCal, Mail, any of the iLife stuff like iMovie/iPhoto, etc etc), Safari is the most.. pointless - It really doesn't add anything that other browsers don't already have..
    • christianw, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2@swavalier711

      dont download it. it wont like you anyway. safari is homophobic
    • smhill, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3""Most innovative browser"
      Rather generic reason - I can't see anything innovative about it, it's just a fairly standard browser, but missing something Firefox - Extensions. "
      There are innovative features to it, the way the tabs work, resizable text boxes, the search. Maybe not the most innovative things in the world, but they are there. There are many extensions for Safari as well, though I don't know if they will make it to the win version right away. ( http://pimpmysafari.com/plugins/ )

      ""Fastest browser", "Twice as fast as IE 7", "1.6 times faster than Firefox"
      I don't really care that a browser is "fast" - There are some applications where I care about how fast they work (games, image/video editing/creation etc etc), but I don't really care if a browser takes only 2 seconds to load when the competitor takes 4!! Once the browser is open, it's open until I'm finished with it, what's far more important "

      Uh... it is not referring to the launch time, it is referring to the rendering time. It is refering to how fast it "works". A page displays twice as fast in Safari as IE7. (or so they claim). How can you claim that is not important?

      ""Fastest browser" is the the only reasonable point, and that (to me) is neglible in a browser - Browsing speed will be far more limited by your connection than your browser, so I'd more than happily take a slower browser that has more features (Extensions, themes, and more importantly - a huge community). If I wanted a "fast" browser I'd use w3m, links or lynx.."
      Wait, what? Before you said you do care about how fast an app works.

      If large 'community' is most important to you, then why aren't you using IE?

      As for me, I don't care about themes (though there are many for safari), I am looking at what is in the browser, not the browser itself, as long it is not ugly (which ironically, 99% of the FF themes seem to make it less attractive). Plugins? Nifty, but I have yet to find one that really is all that useful that isn't available in some fashion Safari (dunno if they will translate to the windows versions). Performance and quality of rendering are big ones in the end, since my primary use of a browser is to 'browse'.

      I will try it on my Win box. If it is indeed faster than FF, then it will replace FF as my default. It certainly can't render any worse.

    • ragunax, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Not switching from Firefox now that there is a WMP plug-in and my Quicktime Alternative.

      Two other reasons, and the MAIN reason I won't switch: Ad-Block Plus and NoScript
      I abuse them, and my browsing is just incredible now that I block pretty much any garbage image or feature from loading on pages.
    • dbr_onix, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2"There are innovative features to it, the way the tabs work, resizable text boxes, the search"
      They are hardly inovative - they are OK features (I wouldn't mind being able to "detach" tabs in Firefox, but other than that I can live with out all those)

      "Uh... it is not referring to the launch time, it is referring to the rendering time. It is refering to how fast it "works". A page displays twice as fast in Safari as IE7. (or so they claim). How can you claim that is not important?"
      I know it's not the load time (Which isn't important, as once the browser is open, it's open - doesn't matter if it takes 2 seconds, or 20)
      The rendering time of a page is going to be negligible compared to the slow-down introduced by slow connections, the speed "gain" gotten from using Safari over [other browser] is going to be less than the latency your connection introduces. It'll be unnoticable..

      "Wait, what? Before you said you do care about how fast an app works."
      Nope, I said " I'd more than happily take a slower browser that has more features". If the speed of the browser mattered (which to me, it doesn't), I said I'd use w3m..

      "If large 'community' is most important to you, then why aren't you using IE?"
      Users aren't a community - I mean people who are making contributions, creating extensions and themes - Look on http://addons.mozilla.org - all that content is made by it's users. Most IE addons seem to be made spyware-creators these days..

      "As for me, I don't care about themes (though there are many for safari), I am looking at what is in the browser, not the browser itself, as long it is not ugly (which ironically, 99% of the FF themes seem to make it less attractive)."
      I agree with that, a lot of the Fx themes are fairly bad, and they aren't that important - but it's nice to have the window match the rest of your computer (I have a dark-blue start menu bar, I use a dark-blue "Vista Black" Firefox theme). I can quite happily use Firefox with the default skin, but it's nice to be able to change it if you wish too..

      "Plugins? Nifty, but I have yet to find one that really is all that useful that isn't available in some fashion Safari (dunno if they will translate to the windows versions). Performance and quality of rendering are big ones in the end, since my primary use of a browser is to 'browse'."
      Most of the Safari plugin things seem more "hacks" compared to the proper plugin system Firefox has. Yes, you could probably find alternatives to a lot of Firefox plugins - but both will then achive the same, and Firefox addons are far easier to find and install.
      Adblock/FilterSet.G Updated, Firebug, and a few smaller ones (IE View, an addon that adds "Open Coral-cached link") are extremely useful - work on the Windows, Linux and OS X version of Firefox exactly the same.

      I just don't see the reason to to use Safari over Firefox (Which runs fine on most platforms), to Safari (which only runs on OS X, and seemingly unstably on Windows). If I was to switch browsers to a "faster" one, Opera seems a better bet (Which was conveniently missed out of Apple's speed comparison..)
    • nestafett, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0@dbr_onix

      they ported iLife? where can I get it?

    • apexified, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1it doesn't have to be good to be on windows. as a developer i will probably glance at my pages in it. until someone makes a firefox extension that gives me a safari tab.
  • Nutmegan, on 10/11/2007, -7/+60No new hardware? Why did the store go down?
  • ct2000, on 10/11/2007, -4/+71downloaded when you download iTunes! sneaky!
    • chris9902, on 10/11/2007, -11/+22How long did Apple bundle Quicktime with iTunes? They don't know but that really ***** me off.
    • theonlyvlad, on 10/11/2007, -3/+22does that make it spyware? ;)

      I kid.
    • chrisgeleven, on 10/11/2007, -2/+36Apple still bundles Quicktime with iTunes. For good reason, iTunes uses Quicktime for everything (audio/video playback, encoding, etc.).
    • crashingechelon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12you can still get quicktime separately from itunes for windows
    • combatchuck, on 10/11/2007, -16/+20Apple will never stop cramming Quicktime down our throats, even if it is one of the crappiest ...things... for Windows.
    • EODMpink, on 10/11/2007, -7/+14Don't dis the quicktime; it's player is an industry standard for animation folk.
    • Hilton, on 10/11/2007, -10/+412 Reasons you'll love Safari

      1. Blazing Performance
      2. Elegant User Interface
      3. Easy Bookmarks
      4. Pop-up Blocking
      5. Inline Find
      6. Tabbed Browsing
      7. SnapBack
      8. Forms AutoFill
      9. Built-in RSS
      10. Resizable Text Fields
      11. Private Browsing
      12. Security


      http://news.taume.com/Technology/Software/Apple-Lauches-Safari-3-1498
    • Dalrek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5@hilton

      And enough of a reason to hate it for me: Safari looks like ass in Vista compared to Firefox or IE.
    • streak, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@Dalrek, if you're not a web developer and you're not considering the move to Mac, why should you ever look at Safari on Windows? The number one justification for Safari on Windows is to get IS departments to just STFU and fix their web site, when customers call to complain the site doesn't work with their Mac. Windows developers instigate much of the FUD about Mac incompatibility. As applications move increasingly to the web, and with Safari conveniently available to developers on Windows for compatibility checking, the FUD should die down. With less FUD floating around, and with the means for Windows users to test Safari compatibility for themselves, even more Windows users will migrate to Mac.
  • michaelward82, on 10/11/2007, -6/+6Bring it on! Will be using it at home, and will need it for testing purposes at work. Great news.
  • Gillt, on 10/11/2007, -49/+0That is a COMPLETE rip of mac, even more so that Vista.
  • WebCester, on 10/11/2007, -6/+8I'm not sure why they would want to do that. I like Safari and all (I'm using it right now), but it's really nothing special. But then again it's not like Apple has anything to lose, so why not port it? Meh I guess. I was hoping for a more exciting "one more thing".
  • damnyooneek, on 10/11/2007, -15/+10its suppose to be 2x faster than IE7 and 1.6 times faster than firefox
    • Coolspot420, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13Meh, as a mac user I can say that safari leaves a lot to be desired. The RSS pages are sweet, but bookmarks suck and it doesn't have nearly the sweet features that Firefox has. Its not like iTunes where it is best-in-class software, its just a middle of the road plain old web browser.
    • kethraal, on 10/11/2007, -5/+20What features does it lack? I'm not flaming, I'm actually curious. Other than extensions, I can't think of much.

      Firefox, BTW, sucks on the Mac. It's not Cocoa, the interface is merely Mac-like (it doesn't use real widgets), and isn't terribly responsive. Extensions kick ass, but constant memory leaks do not.

      As I'm typing this from the Safari 3 Beta (OS X), I'm actually considering removing FF from my Mac. The Javascript performance has _finally_ been fixed (no more hangs while a heavily-commented Digg article loads), and the new bubble highlighting for searches is pretty damn sweet. I am also grateful for the resizable text boxes -- this will allow me to make much longer posts to Digg :-D


    • op12, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Firefox 3 is probably going to fix a lot of the Mac problems since they use Cocoa and use the new Gecko engine:
      http://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox3/Gecko_Feature_List

      Tentatively scheduled for November release.
    • kethraal, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I hope that the Firefox 3 dev cycle also includes a lot of time profiling the hell out of it -- there are still tons and tons of leaks, especially when using it under heavy load.

      It's gotten better since v. 1.0, but it's still got some major problems for the power user types who keep 10+ tabs open whenever they're browsing.
    • jinxie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@kethraal

      if you want to get technical, safari on windows doesn't use standard ui controls just like ff doesn't use standard ui on os x. You should get Camino if you want an FF build for OS X-- but for me, it's not worth switching from IE7 for a less integrated UI just for 0.2 seconds of load time. By the way, you may be thinking "OMG ITS 2X FASTER NOT 0.2X FASTER".. I used my own benchmarks: clicking the icons at the same time and seeing which one loads first (and in both orders). Yes, it's primitive, but it's more reflective of how I actually use my browser; it's amazing how useless a benchmark tool is in the context of loading pages, and how useless the qualifier "fast" is for web browsing in general.
    • jinxie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4as far as what's missing though: extensions. You don't compare two cars and say "minus the missing steering wheel, what features does this car lack?" In the same way, you can't take extensions out of the picture here, especially when Safari has no native capability for things like AdBlock, which is a big one. But really, it has a pretty primitive bookmarking system, the UI isn't well integrated on Windows, and it doesnt have IE7's zoom resize feature.. those to me are lacking features.

      For a user coming from FF, you're really not gaining anything at all (but this supposed "1.6x" speed increase which no one actually cares about), but you're giving up a ton. Frankly, that's really not worth it.

      ** and i meant 0.02 seconds of load time, not 0.2.. its not that fast.
  • FriendsOfWario, on 10/11/2007, -17/+3In Soviet Russia... nevermind..
  • danielsan1701, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17I feel like the guy who's at a friend's party missing out on all in-jokes.

    I can't find a download link.

    Help?
  • poohat1000, on 10/11/2007, -35/+7DO MAC USERS GET TO PUBLIC BETA SAFARI 3?
  • Gillt, on 10/11/2007, -47/+3Why can't windows stop copying mac?
    • Dracker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10If it is worth copying, why not? Besides, Apple is doing this, so the premise of your argument is flawed.
      If it's not software you like/use, why do you care? Just move on.
    • MacParrot, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I would agree with that. I don't keep score (because I don't care), but it isn't like Apple hasn't BORROWED from other developers as well. If it advances our computing experiences...copy away
  • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -32/+52Eww,

    We all know how horrible Apple Software on Windows is (iTunes looks horrible, Quicktime just plain blows), why would this be any different?
    • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -11/+19From the download page:

      "Elegant User Interface
      Safari’s clean look lets you focus on the web — not your browser."

      I think I just threw up a little. Does Apple honestly think that their software looks good on Windows?
    • jeriqo, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2What exactly is different from the Mac version?
      Maybe your crappy theme?
    • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -5/+22The fact that it looks _horribly_ out of place with the rest of the OS. Any application should at least try to follow some of the UI guidelines set down.

      Example: IE7 fits in very sleekly with Vista, using the Glass effect, and drawing alpha transparently on it. Safari draws the entire damned window, and follows NONE of the guidelines of the OS. The same with WMP and iTunes. Why can't Apple just make something that fits in even a little? It sticks out like a very ugly sore thumb.

    • benlindelof, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Interesting point.

      I like the Aqua look! Thumbs up!
  • LordHelmet, on 10/11/2007, -6/+39I'm really happy with FF, but I'll give it a try.
  • MacintoshSauce, on 10/11/2007, -13/+5Very nice. When I have to work with Windows XP I can now use a better browser. :)
  • creutzfeldt, on 10/11/2007, -18/+20Is Safari really anything special ? Ok, rendering times are decent, but feature-wise it's far behind Firefox imho. I even prefer FF on OSX.
    • Fratm, on 10/11/2007, -10/+17I agree with you, to bad the fanboys are digging you down. Safari is not that great of a browser, and almost every mac user I know has switched to FireFox. I have a mac, and rarely use safari, it just does not render properly on some sites, and has issues with javascript and some web2.0 sites.

      -Fratm
    • polyphonic, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1tryyyyy caminoooooo
  • vbsurfer, on 10/11/2007, -14/+8Holy *****! This changes everything.
  • ericdigg, on 11/13/2007, -7/+1561997 Internet Explorer on Mac, 2007 Safari on Windows. This is one of the most interesting comeback ever.
    • Odiwan, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Hmm.. And Microsoft recently announced that Internet Explorer for the Mac is dead. Now this.

      What does it mean, Piter?
    • Balanced, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Wasn't IE for mac officially killed like a year ago?
    • cootieSHOT, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1Loads Digg Much faster thean ff3.
    • dizzyG, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@ericdigg:

      Good point, but IE is no longer available for Mac. Let's hope Apple continues support for Safari.
  • rilindo, on 10/11/2007, -2/+32This could a big win for KDE. If sites become more compatible with Safari, then KDE konqueror will become quite viable, which in turn should boost KDE's strength even more.

    That being said, I'm a Camino and Firefox guy, but I'll try out Safari to see how it works.
    • Brightside, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Has KHTML been ported to Windows already or did Apple do this?
    • rilindo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Just ran through the install. Of interest is that it gives you an option to install Bonjour for Windows.

      Interesting that it gives you this option. Makes me wonder what else they (Apple) have on their shelves.

      Meanwhile, as for the browser, it is very much a work in progress - still quite a bit more like an Apple app than the Windows app. Think iTunes interface and scheme, except a tad bit slower. :/
    • DAaaMan64, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Safari is modified KHTML engine, I don't think Konq will see much of difference. Konq's rendering engine hasn't seemed to have been updated in awhile. Whereas Safari's is being updated regularly.

      Regardless, they are separate code bases that don't look back, KDE might feel a bit better but nothing to even have a beer about.
    • ilgaz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Konq may seem stalled to you because real big deal is under development, the entire KDE 4 branch which will give people actual konqueror.exe , konqueror.app running native under Windows and OS X.

      I have tested Konqueror 3.x on Xwindows/OSX and I was really impressed with the features and OS integration. The poster is right, whatever went nuts at Konqueror went nuts on Safari too. In fact, both are merging, the khtml and webkit will soon be exactly same.
  • opivy224, on 10/11/2007, -11/+6It's about time they ported Safari to Windows, now all of it's security vulnerabilities can be exposed!!
  • Gillt, on 10/11/2007, -23/+4Windows is running out of ideas
  • combustion8, on 10/11/2007, -15/+5garbage
  • BigKenW, on 10/11/2007, -18/+46This is odd. Now my Windows users can learn why the Mac users all ask for Firefox. -- And that isn't a knock, so don't dig me down Mac fanboys.
    • Antialias, on 10/11/2007, -6/+24Why would mac users want to run Firefox? Camino sure, but Firefox on OSX is a terrible experience when you are used to clean integrated max apps. Of course this may change with Firefox integrating native OSX UI.
    • Niten, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15antialias: "Why would mac users want to run Firefox? Camino sure, but Firefox on OSX is a terrible experience when you are used to clean integrated max apps. Of course this may change with Firefox integrating native OSX UI."

      Extensions, dude. The UI might not be the cream of the crop, but that's a small price to pay for Adblock Plus, Foxmarks, Firebug, Web Developer, NoScript, and del.icio.us integration. On top of that, even with all those extensions Firefox still crashes on me less than my clean installation of Camino 1.5.
    • BigKenW, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Actually, you would be surprised. When doing web design work Firefox and IE are the only items they need to ensure the pages look correct on. The rendering of sites in Safari always has little problems. Safari is OK for general use sites, but anything else requires either IE or Firefox. Camino is used as well. Just the users seem to flock to Firefox because it is so cross-platform PC at home to Mac at work.
    • BillyK, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Mac users ask for better/more Camino. Firefox is awful on OS X.
    • Niten, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5BigKenW: "The rendering of sites in Safari always has little problems. Safari is OK for general use sites, but anything else requires either IE or Firefox."

      Well sure it behaves _differently_ than Firefox or IE, but that doesn't mean it has problems. And implying Firefox renders pages just as well as Camino is a bit superfluous, since they both use the exact same rendering engine. That's not to say Safari is perfect (in fact, I mostly use Firefox myself on OS X), but its CSS behavior is in fact more refined than Firefox's / Camino's.

      Interestingly, Opera and Safari are the two browsers reputed to have the most standards-compliant CSS support out there. And in my experience, even though they're based on completely different engines, they render my layouts more similarly than any other pair of different browsers out there.
  • gjscds, on 10/11/2007, -21/+65No Adblock on Safari? No Safari on my machine.
    • kenthorvath, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I wonder if PithHelmet will work on windows.
    • hella81, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3There are plug-ins for that.
    • d4nie1, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Safari will block popups. It also allows you set a style sheet like firefox does which can be used to hide banner ads.
    • BillyK, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I woulda tossed Safari out the window* long ago were it not for Pith Helmet. I hope he updates for Safari 3 soon.

      *No pun intended
    • WiseWeasel, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3PithHelmet is much better than Adblock Plus anyways... Once that is out, Safari for Windows will be usable. Personally, Firefox is fine for when I'm in Windows (I do most personal web browsing in OS X), so this is really only something I would use if I had to test website compatibility from Windows...
    • kbeeveer46, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Exactly
    • shockme17, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2uhhh.. there are popup blocking features. LOOK
      • kmg90, on 03/21/2008, -0/+0popup blockers are thing of the past every browser has one and they don't work well since there are ways around them and sometimes they block intended popups
        The best way is to beat popups at source by killing the scripts that spawn them
  • benig, on 10/11/2007, -17/+7Yay, another browser for Windows that is inferior to Firefox.
  • geekmansworld, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7Hmmm...

    Personally, I'm a little annoyed. Safari is my default browser and I love it to pieces. But there's still a lot of room for improvement. I have to keep a copy of Firefox on hand (yuck) for when that certain Flash or DHTML trick that some website uses doesn't work in Safari. Instead of developing a Windows port when Internet Explorer or Firefox already dominate that OS, perhaps Apple should focus on making Safari work better for it's own OS.
    • alecks, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Maybe they did... it is a new version also.
    • looll, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2http://www.webkit.org
    • Angostura, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Bottom line. Safari is very standards compliant and therefore doesn't work with quite a few old-style Web hacks. Apple is trying to promote Safari as a cross-platform browser for running Web apps on the iPhone, Mac and Windows. This is quite simply a way to try and make Safari more relevant to Web developers.
  • Auryn, on 10/11/2007, -10/+1mirror of possible screen shot

    http://aycu17.webshots.com/image/18936/2003775122969459574_rs.jpg
    • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -7/+5Then it's worse than I thought.

      Why on earth would they create such a horrible looking application?
    • carpender, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1Fake. Why is the Apple site showing old generations of the Shuffle and Nano?
    • SleepJunkie, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Fake.
    • themindoverall, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2fake, but that's almost exactly how it looks. Just the menu bar is different.
    • Atomic1fire, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1They already did
      not sure that you can call it Horrible
      but firefox has better strong points (like I dont need an media player and browser that look the same
  • zioxide, on 10/11/2007, -18/+6this is ***** pointless. nobody is going to use it. safari sucks on my mac, so it will probably suck even more on windows computers.
  • matt3830, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8will .mac sync the passwords and bookmarks?... hope so
    • Boondoggle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1That would be awesome but I doubt it. Macs use a separate engine for that.
    • kagayaki1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I can't find anything about .Mac sync in the help file. I wish it was a feature in this beta because that would FINALLY unify all my bookmarks and I could stop using Google Browser sync in Firefox. Hope someone else proves me wrong.
    • rblinne, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It doesn't appear to sync the bookmarks. Hopefully they will add syncing ability to the iDisk access in Windows. Speaking of Google, though, ALL THE GOOGLE APS WORK! HTML editing, Google Docs, etc.
  • Raian, on 10/11/2007, -28/+1Say goodbye to FireFox.... Apple and Microsoft will dominate this arena, they are two massive companies-- Firefox will still be popular on Linux, but I have a feeling that FireFox and not IE will be the one to suffer from the release of Safari.

    And if you don't get why this makes sense-- Everytime you search for something in that little search-bar Google/yahoo etc. drops some money in Mozilla's basket-- Apple could make free money doing this, and also push web-standard adoption in their favour.
    • UKsHaDoW, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11Safari's rendering engine is based on a linux application. Konquerer ...

      Linux users can use that if they want the same rendering engine. I think there is a webkit port for linux which is the exact version of safari's rendering engine available.
    • Raian, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1Yeah I realize that, but what's your point?

      You don't understand the power of branding.
    • matriculated, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I'm my art department, the users are either using IE5.5, Firefox and Safari, in that order. Pretty sad yes but Safari really didn't catch on here for some reason. I'm probably the one that switched alot of people to Firefox because people see me using All-in-one-sidebar and mouse gestures.
    • r3zonance, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11"Say goodbye to FireFox.... Apple and Microsoft will dominate this arena, they are two massive companies-- Firefox will still be popular on Linux, but I have a feeling that FireFox and not IE will be the one to suffer from the release of Safari."

      Shut up, I still use Firefox on my MacBook for debugging and stuff. Firefox's extensions are awesome, and Safari can't touch that. Still Safari is a very nice alternative to IE.
    • BillyK, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3matriculated - Well, if your Art Department doesn't like Safari, it's clearly doomed.
    • UKsHaDoW, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Art Departments not using OS X applications? CRAZY!!!!!!!!!!!!

      :P
  • larryparis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13The only reason I can figure they want to do this is so when none mac people get the iPhone they will begin to use safari and they can then be more comfortable and wont go, "Where is the E with a swosh?"

    Also why the hell not? Its just itunes with out the music.
  • sh0rtstop00, on 10/11/2007, -6/+0where's the link to download for windows?? i can't find it
    • supermanred, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It's a mac web site. Easy to use. Just click where it says Download. The Mac web site detects what machine and OS you are on and gives you the option pre-checked in a selection list.

      What Im trying to say is... CLICK DOWNLOAD.
  • totorototoro, on 10/11/2007, -2/+22So the iPhone is using Safari for its 3rd party apps..so Safari on Windows is necessary to get PC developers to work on it.
  • right75, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The title may say it all, but the story seems to say nothing about it. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place...?
    • hella81, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1There is no story yet.

      Later today that link should bring you to the proper spot for the download.
    • Angostura, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yes, well the submitter submitted the wrong URL, go to the Apple homepage, the download link is there.
  • SleepJunkie, on 10/11/2007, -4/+32I barely use it in OS X.
  • Synapse84, on 10/11/2007, -21/+16lol @ http://images.apple.com/macosx/features/safari/images/chart-over-02022004-06.gif

    firefox 1.02......
    ie 5.2.3????

    lol.
    • damnyooneek, on 10/11/2007, -5/+21thats a comparison of safari to browsers back in 2004 fool
    • stmiller, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7Yes, believe it or not, old images exist on the internetS.
    • Synapse84, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1ok, so yes it's an old image.

      but comparing 3 year old technology to present day is retarded.. and no where on that site do they say "this image is 3 years old.".. anyone thats into tech can say that technology changes to fast to still use a comparison 3 years later...

      hell... 3 years ago my IDE hard drive at 7200rpm was pwnage.... now it's bottom of the barrel.
    • idntunknwn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Well now, if you look at a page that is from 2004, it would be reasonable to find a comparison to 2004 technology, right?

      How about looking at a more recent page, like http://www.apple.com/safari/
  • Gillt, on 10/11/2007, -11/+9I prefer safari to firefox, and I have both
    • apexified, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Quotes from Gillit:
      "Windows is running out of ideas"
      "Why can't windows stop copying mac?"
      "That is a COMPLETE rip of mac, even more so that Vista."

      Unplug your keyboard and RTFA.
  • nace33, on 10/11/2007, -13/+7Lame, who cares. If you want to run mac apps, buy a mac.
  • estacado, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3Where's teh download link?
  • fotos, on 10/11/2007, -6/+0Why did most miss that it's for developers (at WWDC) only so far?
  • seasleepy, on 10/11/2007, -5/+15From the Macrumors coverage: "500,000 downloads of Firefox a day. Over 1,000,000 downloads of iTunes a day. Over 500M downloads of iTunes to Windows machines."

    Did he really say something along these lines? How totally lame. It's not even apples and oranges, it's apples and American Idol.
    (And jeez, for the marketing budget you guys put into iTunes, Steve, I think Firefox comes out surprisingly well in that comparison.)
    • Zero2aHero, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7Well I would imagine they are bundling Safari in with iTunes and Quicktime, therefore, that means Safari will in a round about way get 1,000,000 downloads a day as well.
    • seasleepy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2How would they justify that besides "Well, we said we wanted market share"? Bundling Quicktime at least makes some sense because it's required by iTunes. Safari isn't. (Well, *yet*, I suppose.)
  • aldomatic, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1very intresting if this is true.
    • SleepJunkie, on 10/11/2007, -9/+15alt+f4 for instant download lol
  • milanista, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2oo yea it sooo much faster than ff 1.0.2
    IE 5 and netscape 7... these are ridicoulous comparisons
    kinda seems safari hasnt been updated for many years and is trying to "look" faster by going against those oldies.

    D+ for effort...
  • skateimpulse, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1Where is the download link?
  • griz, on 10/11/2007, -5/+11The big question is WHY? What does this gain Apple?
    • Feeves, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Agreed. I can't see what audience they're trying to target. My guess is Devs who want to write custom apps but want to use Windows dev tools.
      • kmg90, on 03/21/2008, -0/+0The only thing that Safari is good at is fast browsing but thats it no real good customization like firefox
    • totorototoro, on 10/11/2007, -0/+30All iPhone 3rd party development is thru AJAX/Web 2.0 running on Safari. How else can PC developers run/test their apps?
    • usernamed, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Market Share.
    • hella81, on 10/11/2007, -6/+6More people using and becoming comfortable on Mac apps.
    • NoCalSF, on 10/11/2007, -2/+81) Referral Revenue
      2) Increased Demand for Safari Compatibility
      3) Greater Mindshare/Branding in front of Windows Users
      4) Ease development for designers.
    • looll, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4http://webkit.org/blog/?p=89

      "We strongly object to the 10% market share threshold in the Success Criteria. Effectively, this gives Mozilla Firefox and Microsoft Internet Explorer veto power over the spec. In general historically there have only been two browsers at a time that have been above this market share threshold. Furthermore, we believe that even if all browsers besides IE conformed to the spec, it would still be a huge success and a huge benefit to web compatibility."
    • quakenul, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5More Safari compatible websites.
  • MrViklund, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2I wonder what got them to do this.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 621 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.