digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Apple pushing Safari downloads on Windows users

appleinsider.com — In an apparent bid to rapidly gain share of the online browser market dominated by rival Microsoft, Apple is leveraging its vast iTunes install base to recommend that Windows users also download and install the latest version of its Safari web browser.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • thatguy73, on 03/21/2008, -29/+314Sounds like some other company I've heard of...hmmm
    • sockpuppets, on 03/21/2008, -8/+53Slurm?
      • momsshizzle, on 03/21/2008, -6/+4Hey...I guess someone watched Futurama last night. ;)
        • xtraa, on 03/21/2008, -6/+6You mean... Futurama, the futuristic TV-Cartoon series with a funny attitude?
      • Sensai, on 03/21/2008, -2/+10There will be no further questions!

        /raises hand: Why?
    • monospaced, on 03/21/2008, -44/+14It's JUST a recommendation.
      • fkr3, on 03/21/2008, -11/+48An annoying one though.... I don't want to be bothered every time Apple releases a piece of software they think I might like. I already get bothered enough with iTunes updates that are inexplicably big and slow downloads every single time on both my computers.
        • rezist, on 03/21/2008, -35/+4so you would rather have new software pre-installed, with no way of deleting it?
          • fkr3, on 03/21/2008, -5/+40I'd rather go looking for it when I need it rather than be spammed about it?
          • grumpyrain, on 03/21/2008, -2/+26How is having "software pre-installed, with no way of deleting it" the opposite of not wanting "to be bothered every time Apple releases a piece of software they think I might like."?
          • rezist, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1because "bother" doesn't = install. It's your choice... little snitch? A message via soft. install is simply that... not an install.
        • bjornski, on 03/21/2008, -8/+14That's one of the reasons I've entirely shut off "auto-update" for my Quicktime stuff.

          Quicktime is the new Realplayer.
          • Swift2, on 03/21/2008, -3/+13No, it's not. You can turn it off!
          • bjornski, on 03/21/2008, -4/+5@Swift2

            I have. I've also shut off Realplayer. "msconfig" is a wonderful tool.

            But Quicktime is still the bloatfest, control-freakish software that Real kept getting ***** about. And when given the choice of an Mp4 file, I'll reconvert it before I'll load up Quicktime to watch it.
          • Breepee, on 03/21/2008, -5/+2Realplayer too. Just just have so sift through the prefences pane (like) Quicktime.
          • JEWestbrookJR, on 03/21/2008, -10/+5There's no such thing as a powerful tool that begins with "ms", it's more like "this tool helps make this OS a little bit usable".
            And it's not like they're forcing you to install safari, they're asking. And as if every other program for windows didn't already do that. Even the most respectable of companies are guilty of including or paying other companies to include their crap. Adobe, Java, Sun, Microcrap.
            Besides, it ain't no firefox, but at least it isn't Internet Exploder.
          • drgmdp, on 03/21/2008, -2/+3http://www.codecguide.com/about_qt.htm
      • thegreatanti, on 03/22/2008, -1/+3No, it's not. It's a default setting and most people just install it as they expect an UPDATE. But I guess that's too hard for you to understand.
    • JesusHatesYou, on 03/21/2008, -44/+34Yes, but the Apple fanboys think Steve Blowjobs' ***** doesn't stink. When Apple locks the iPhone and Mac Air notenook to crappy AT&T, they say "Thank you, may I please have another". iTunes is the biggest piece of bloatware next to Real Player. I hate Apple...and the people who fawn over Steve Blowjobs.
      • fkr3, on 03/21/2008, -12/+42Bloated? Never!!!!! iTunes is only using almost 140mb of memory to play a song at the moment.
        • BlackCow, on 03/21/2008, -12/+21140 MB is quite a bit, windows media player is only using 4 MB minimized, 18.5 MB open in Vista.
          • elmetald00d, on 03/21/2008, -0/+39I think fkr3 forgot a sarcasm quote for people like you.
          • Alethinos, on 03/21/2008, -0/+15I thought the five exclamation points was a hint enough....
          • Sensai, on 03/21/2008, -2/+4It's really scary that people can't easily detect sarcasm. Or maybe he DID detect it and just completely chose to ignore it...

            Which of those is worse? Ignoring it or just not getting it?
          • DarkShroud, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4Either way it's a good comparison. When did Windows Media Player actually become good? It kind of just sunk up on everyone.
        • JEWestbrookJR, on 03/21/2008, -8/+6Run iTunes on a mac, you know... it's native format? It runs much better.
      • BobOki, on 03/21/2008, -7/+6*cough* http://digg.com/apple/Microsoft_pushing_IE_7_downl ...
        • iunno666, on 03/21/2008, -0/+5So that makes it ok for apple to do it?
        • igob8a, on 03/21/2008, -2/+3Microsoft doesn't do it to OSes other than their own. crApple does.
        • Magnus150, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2If MS tries to push IE on Mac users when they update their microsoft office, then yes, we'd have a problem. That is the equivalent of what apple is doing.
      • Tippis, on 03/21/2008, -4/+7Locks the Air to AT&T? Huh?
    • bingobongony, on 03/21/2008, -12/+68You mean Apple? They've been doing this for years.
      • ellisgl, on 03/21/2008, -17/+7I just wanted the QT player and I'm forced to have iTunes...
        • Zindrix, on 03/21/2008, -1/+21Forced? No, I have QT and I make sure to NEVER install iTunes. You don't have to have iTunes to use QT.
          • Nimphious, on 03/21/2008, -4/+14Or just use Quicktime Alternative?
          • bingobongony, on 03/21/2008, -5/+8It is just as close to "forcing" a download on a user and pretty much anything that Microsoft does. May not techically be forcing, but it is still a shady way to operate.
          • bjornski, on 03/21/2008, -5/+6Please, give us an example of some of these MS products you've been "forced" to download. Don't start listing service packs or product updates.

            More *****.
          • qpid, on 03/21/2008, -4/+7IE7 was "highly recommended" in windows updates, and still probably is.
          • bjornski, on 03/21/2008, -4/+6@gpid

            So? I'd "highly recommend" it over IE6, also. But you weren't "forced" to download it, were you?
          • DarkShroud, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3IE7 removes a lot of the IE6 code and updates the rest; it also by default has ActiveX set to "promt." Those are pretty damn good reasons to install IE7 even if you don't use IE.
        • iofthestorm, on 03/21/2008, -5/+15Use VLC, it plays pretty much any format and has great performance.
          • petard, on 03/21/2008, -3/+2I like VLC, but KMPlayer is better. VLC has some annoything things about it like the volume bar and the progress slider. It can only go to certain points, not ANYWHERE on the bar.
        • momsshizzle, on 03/21/2008, -2/+2Download the standalone player nub.
        • roodammy44, on 03/21/2008, -2/+3Quicktime sucks.
          There's a free quicktime codec here:

          http://www.free-codecs.com/download/QuickTime_Alte ...

          There's also a realplayer alternative which is pretty good too.
      • sonstone, on 03/21/2008, -4/+15How about installing iTunes and their ***** quicktime image viewer highjacks your file associations. What a pain in the ass doing tech support to the parents on that thing when they can no longer view their images properly after upgrading iTunes...
    • PathDaemon, on 03/21/2008, -9/+78As a total Mac person, let me just say that this really, really sucks.

      When Software Update first came to Windows, I thought, "hey, Apple's getting a chance to show off a part of its way of doing things to Windows users."

      But now, pushing out non-updates? That's just wrong, and will turn more people off Apple than it will increase Safari market share. Even I, on the Vista partition of my MacBook Pro, have heartily ignored the pressure to install iTunes and Safari.

      Just hit "ignore this update" and send feedback (http://www.apple.com/feedback/bootcamp.html).
      • MagnumVP, on 03/21/2008, -5/+37Why is it that when I install iTunes + Quicktime and then tell the installer NOT to install the Automatic Update, it still does?
        • edicius, on 03/21/2008, -30/+6'Cause you're on Windows.
          • Giga, on 03/21/2008, -5/+17'Cause that is how Apple programmed it to behave on Windows. Windows does not have the inherent ability to change the logic in 3rd party applications.
          • bingobongony, on 03/21/2008, -5/+17My god, edicius..did you really think that you would get awaywith that ***** post?
        • pintomp3, on 03/21/2008, -3/+18it does that with the standalone quicktime installer too. i always deselect "install apple software update" and it still ends up installed. this has been happening since about 7.1
          • bjornski, on 03/21/2008, -4/+21Steve knows what you "need", more than you know what you "want!
            /s
        • dacheetah, on 03/21/2008, -3/+22How else will they upload their remote control code when skynet goes live?
          • bjornski, on 03/21/2008, -2/+5Though a magical virus-writing Macrook that can hook wirelessly into all sorts of non-standard machines. Didn't you see "Independence Day"?
          • bjornski, on 03/21/2008, -4/+2@me

            Macbook. Bleh. I need more coffee.
        • Kral, on 03/21/2008, -3/+13Even if you uninstall Quicktime, the auto updater will kick in days later asking you to update Quicktime - it's a separate program to uninstall. It's the kind of user abuse that keeps me from installing Quicktime and iTunes.
        • pvcrisp, on 03/21/2008, -2/+3Thanks for this, I was actually just considering giving itunes a second shot.
      • PhailQuail, on 03/21/2008, -14/+6Show off its software? So pushing a web browser stolen from the KDE project is Apple showing off?
        Well would you look at that, I hate Apple even more.
        • BobOki, on 03/21/2008, -8/+11Maybe being stupid and liking Microsoft goes hand-in-hand.
          They took some base code from the KDE project, added in tabbed browsing, etcetc, then gave the code right back with their changes to the same project, open source.
          • MrSpontaneous, on 03/21/2008, -7/+9Actually, Apple was very reluctant to give there webkit patches back. It took quite a bit of complaining to get them to open up. Apple is hardly a friend of the oen source community.
          • sholt, on 03/21/2008, -2/+11My understanding, when I still followed Hyatt's blog, was that some of the changes made to the kHTML code were architectural, and would be difficult to patch back into the kHTML trunk.

            However, WebKit (Safari's rendering engine), is completely open source. The public repository can be found here: http://webkit.org/building/checkout.html
      • unionaire, on 03/21/2008, -2/+7unfortunately, ppl who WILL ignore it are ppl on digg. Other people will just hit next whenever possible, so there you go, in in terms of marketing, it is actually not a bad strategy in a short run.
    • mddawso, on 03/21/2008, -4/+13nabisco?
    • TheLastFreeMan, on 03/21/2008, -20/+8Uh oh, they're one step away from just forcing the damn thing on you. Frankly I'd be content if my new desktop came with safari than that POS IE7
      • sirbeta, on 03/21/2008, -1/+13I dunno, unless you're using Vista, automatic updates for Windows has allowed me to decline to install IE7. Why you would on the other hand I will never know. IE7 may not be great, but it's a far cry better than having IE6 still exist on your machine.
        • DarkShroud, on 03/21/2008, -0/+5Yeah, I tell people to install IE7 just because it isn't IE6.
        • Optimaximal, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1What Microsoft should have done is update the Trident (is it still called that?) rendering engine to IE7 standards, but allowed you to keep the IE6 interface. It's so much better/more understandable, especially if you're still using XP - IE7 in XP stands out like a sore thumb (almost as a sore as iTunes, Quicktime and Safari as a matter for fact!).

          Firefox ++
      • bingobongony, on 03/21/2008, -7/+10And your comment proves that you are a worthless fanboy whoses opinions therefore don't matter.
        • sjmulder, on 03/21/2008, -5/+3"Your opinion isn't mine, therefore it doesn't matter."
    • SeanRoss, on 03/21/2008, -24/+97"Safari for Windows is the fastest and easiest-to-use web browser for the PC. It displays web pages faster than any other browser and is filled with innovative features -- all delivered in an efficient and elegant user interface."

      Made me laugh so hard I cried...
      • ellisgl, on 03/21/2008, -11/+31Makes it look like I'm viewing my sites thru a cheap lcd!
        • Buckeye17, on 03/21/2008, -3/+13I thought something was wrong with my computer when I tried out Safari... the text looks terrible.
      • Professr, on 03/21/2008, -20/+11looks like they forgot Firefox 3, which blows Opera, Safari, and all the IEs away in terms of speed.
        • BobOki, on 03/21/2008, -8/+14FF 3 is in beta. Its does not count as a release yet. Moron.
          • Professr, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3It's stable enough to use, and most of the geek Firefox users are switching to it, so I figure it counts as a release in my book. Don't ignore something just because it kicks your favorite browser off the top of the hill - I'm sure opera will come back with something better.
        • DarkShroud, on 03/21/2008, -5/+1Try the Opera 9.5 better before you run your mouth anymore.
        • pinchies, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1If you compare FF3 to webkit however (a fairer comparison), webkit pwns.
      • ipodman715, on 03/21/2008, -4/+17Hey, it's got that private browsing feature for all that... *uhem* porn.
      • DarkShroud, on 03/21/2008, -5/+3Well it does have a grammar check.
      • connormcmenamin, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1i'm just picturing you buckling over on your floor or something "laughing hard enough to cry"
        ... i mean, safari's claims i thought were ridiculous as well, but is it THAT funny?
    • kelly, on 03/21/2008, -13/+7I don't know why... it's true.
    • YamiJim, on 03/21/2008, -6/+15Recommend? FALSE they just try to install it, that's straight up *****
    • MisterThePlague, on 03/21/2008, -15/+6This one? http://digg.com/apple/Microsoft_pushing_IE_7_downl ...
      • bjornski, on 03/21/2008, -4/+2Gee, damn that automatic-update!
        • sjmulder, on 03/21/2008, -4/+2FYI, this is about Safari coming in an automatic update.
      • BobOki, on 03/21/2008, -5/+6You should know better than to post a link to an article showing Microsoft does the same thing, and first, and worse, in a microsoft lovers thread! SHAME!@
    • BobOki, on 03/21/2008, -20/+12Whatever. When Microsoft stops LITERALLY JUST INSTALLING their patches or updates on our servers even though auto update is turned off... then we will talk about Apple popping up the availability for you to download Safari which requires you to say ok.
      p.s. I know most of you don't have jobs and therefore don't actually work with servers (instant digg down here) but force pushing patches on server causing reboots and or corruption is NOT ok. For some reason its still on a downlow, but MS has been sued a couple hundred times already for this.
      • KennMac, on 03/21/2008, -3/+4I've never seen that happen to any of my Windows servers on my domain.
        • BobOki, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3Try rolling out a SUS server sometime ;P
          • mehan, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1Try learning how to manage a SUS server sometime.
      • uberamd, on 03/21/2008, -3/+5I agree with you here bob, the wanna-be computer people here have no idea how enterprise server management even works (and you are right, many are surely unemployed). Microsoft has been doing that crap with security patches, claiming it is so urgent it needs to be on the server no matter what we say.
      • BobOki, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3Hell both HIPPA and FDIC both say you are NOT allowed to install the latest patches 0 day.
      • Optimaximal, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Sensible people just use WSUS or a similar domain update controller...
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Server_Update ...

        No IE7, WMP11 or bad patches for us.
    • joel8x, on 03/21/2008, -6/+9I really can't understand why Apple has to do this. I can understand the Quicktime bundling, but there is no reason to force or even suggest in their update program the use of software that is unrelated to what you are trying to update. The numerous iTunes updates have been bothersome lately, so much so that even mac rumors sites no longer report on them. When that happens, you know something isn't right.
      • BobOki, on 03/21/2008, -6/+4It is a GREAT way for free marketing as MOST people still do not know Safari is even available for windows, and I know quite a few switchers (that do not use firefox).
        Lots of people think FireFox is too bulky, memory intensive, and slow, don't like opera... and are stuck with IE. Safari is a great alternative and who would not prefer to see someone use Safari over IE?
        • mehan, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2I wouldn't.
        • Optimaximal, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Have you actually tried Safari on Windows? It's bulky, fugly and feature-berift compared to its rivals.

          Tried setting up multiple homepage tabs? That's right, you can't.
    • rpgmaker, on 03/21/2008, -7/+16FTA: Apple's marketing pitch alongside the download option, which reads: "Safari for Windows is the fastest and easiest-to-use web browser for the PC. It displays web pages faster than any other browser and is filled with innovative features -- all delivered in an *efficient and elegant user interface.*"
      ***** that, I hate how iTunes looks completely out of tone with the default Windows look and Safari is following the same path. The thing is that I know that Apple will never design the UI to look Windows native, the assholes.
      • Blizaine, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3"Apple will never design the UI to look Windows native"

        lets hope not
      • Optimaximal, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1The best part is that Apple released a bunch of interface guidelines for general applications AND for developers of OSX software, then decided to totally ignore them with all their in-house software.
    • bismark90, on 03/21/2008, -4/+2google?
    • BobOki, on 03/21/2008, -14/+3Man... you are complaining about the browser? I am still trying to get my laptop to boot up!
      http://digg.com/microsoft/Hey_look_Vista_sucks_eve ...
    • pennyfx, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3Great, maybe this will move people away from using IE6 since Microsoft can't force people to update to IE7, or IE8. Let Apple get them to a decent browser.
      • Optimaximal, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1How? I don't see Apple pushing Firefox or Opera...
    • thegreatanti, on 03/22/2008, -5/+1Apple: you should be sewed for this.
  • csteele, on 03/21/2008, -93/+41...at least they aren't auto-installing it, 'cause we all know taht's what MS would do if they had the option.
    • ChillEnt, on 03/21/2008, -27/+7...they are...haven't you ever heard of the mac?
    • geoken, on 03/21/2008, -19/+73They do have the option. It's called Windows Update (maybe you've heard of it?). Last I checked there wasn't a single update I couldn't refuse.

      On a related note, I'm constantly shocked by the denial that Apple is Microsoft 2.0. What to they need to do to prove that their business tactics are exactly like Microsoft's and that if they were in the position, they would act identically to MS?
      • charlesray, on 03/21/2008, -12/+7Are you kidding? There is a checkbox next to every update, you can pick and choose as much as you please!
        • sirbeta, on 03/21/2008, -3/+3I think you misread him. He said "there wasn't a single update I could/n't/ refuse" - Double negative, so he's saying that he could refuse.
        • Optimaximal, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1If you're referring to Apple Software Update, I think the beef is that Safari is ticked by default.
          Microsoft pushed IE7 out as a critical update because it was! IE6 was too bad to leave out in the wild any longer. Safari for Windows, on the other hand, is neither required nor finished.
      • AdmiralKarelia, on 03/21/2008, -6/+4I could tolerate Microsoft's business tactics if they had a good product. That's why I like the Mac. Sure, Apple might be a company filled to the brim with immense douchebags, but at least their product is good.
    • ruddy, on 03/21/2008, -13/+5umm, microsoft got sued for having ie on windows by default. pretty sure they're not sneaking much past me.
      • Myztry, on 03/21/2008, -3/+10Sued? They got convicted. Yet it's still there. So much for legal remedy.
        • sirbeta, on 03/21/2008, -2/+7They got convicted for the monopoly they had on the browser market, and for their behavior with Java. Including their browser is/was not illegal. Abusing the position of having it there was. They aren't really abusing anything, you have the option to install all the browsers you want very easily.
        • dacheetah, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2Didn't they release and IE free version in Europe?
          • sirbeta, on 03/21/2008, -1/+6No, they released a media player free version called "Windows XP N" - It was a pretty spectacular flop because you needed to request that version and no one really cared enough to do so. If they released an IE-free version of Windows, you wouldn't be able to download any browsers.
          • Myztry, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3@sirbeta - That's why Microsoft need to catch up and include a package manager. It's just plain ridiculous when IE dies, as happens all to often, and everything from software downloads (including replacement Browsers) to Windows Updates goes with it.
          • BobOki, on 03/21/2008, -1/+5They cannot release a IE free version, its integrated into their file manager and even default background management. Yes, thats right, a wallpaper can install spyware/viruses on a windows box.
          • Optimaximal, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1@BobOki
            Change that too 'could' and you might stop yourself looking like a mac-loving idiot...
            IE7 is no longer as tightly integrated and hasn't been since it was released. The browser runs in a sandbox memory space and can't directly access the local system. In addition, typing 'C:' now opens a dedicated Explorer window.
    • Bossman1086, on 03/21/2008, -3/+20Actually, you can turn off IE7 in Windows Update. But Apple already does this. iTunes comes with QuickTime and vice versa.
      • Atomic1fire, on 03/21/2008, -2/+10And doesnt mac come with safari or can you uninstall that...
        • soopafly, on 03/21/2008, -3/+14Safari isn't tied in to the OS like IE. So yes, you can uninstall Safari.
        • BobOki, on 03/21/2008, -0/+5You can uninstall almost any program in OS X, they are all just packages they read off the same backend framework.
      • thawk9455, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2iTunes comes with QuickTime because that is what actually handles playing the media. It's a required component. You can still install QuickTime without iTunes though...
  • timusca, on 03/21/2008, -83/+30I think this is blown way out of proportion... while it is a bit annoying that it even offers, its not like you don't have the option to say no. And if it does install, is it going to harm your computer? With the exception of Quicktime, iTunes, and Safari icons being added to the taskbar, no it will not.

    I really see this as a perfectly good way to get the word out about Safari to the 99% of people out there that have no freaking clue.
    • BinaryFragger, on 03/21/2008, -11/+43Microsoft bundled software = evil
      Apple bundled software = no big deal

      delusional fanboys are funny
      • MirandaJanell, on 03/21/2008, -18/+4It's not bundled. It's purely optional. Is a bit dodgy? Maybe. Is it effective? We'll just have to wait and see.
        • zulfy26, on 03/21/2008, -1/+5Most people will probably just hit install and not see what this mythical 'safari' application is. Bingo more safari installs.
        • OrangeSoda31, on 03/21/2008, -2/+9You have the wrong view. I downloaded a music application, not the Apple suite of recommended programs with options which it ignores, and forced placement of icons in my taskbar, thank you very much.
        • BobOki, on 03/21/2008, -2/+3No, you have the wrong view. You got the music application. And Apple is letting you know of its other products, not forcing you to install and use them.
      • xtraa, on 03/21/2008, -3/+9Uninstalling Safari in OSX: Drop the icon in the trashcan. Done.

        Uninstalling IE x in Windows: ... well you get the point.
    • InfamousAtheist, on 03/21/2008, -6/+6Quicktime and iTunes are obnoxious bloatware. The last thing I need is more "harmless" (according you, fanboy) Apple crapware.
    • BobOki, on 03/21/2008, -8/+4Microsoft Bundled software(ie forced) = evil
      Apple giving you an easy way to get their new product = how it should be done.
      Don't act like Apple is forcing you do do *****. They didn't force you to use itunes, they didn't force you to get quicktime. You got them becuase they are superior to other products, as is most apple hardware/software. Stop being an ass becuase they popped up a little windows that shows you Safari is now available and allows you to either click install to install it or cancel for it to go away and not come back up again in 15 minutes (Microsoft).
      • Altanar, on 03/21/2008, -1/+4For now. It won't be long before they decide they'll use Safari to render the store pages in iTunes, making it a mandatory install like Quicktime.
      • BobOki, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1The webkit part is not a program in itself, and it is already used for itunes.
    • MattBD, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2I tried it on my Windows machine and, quite frankly it was utter *****. It looks crap and it doesn't seem very fast, and it has very little of the functionality of Firefox.
      The same day, I downloaded and installed the most recent Firefox 3 beta. A fair number of my extensions were supported, and it looked great and ran incredibly fast.
  • gr33k, on 03/21/2008, -32/+349I was uploading songs to my ipod and I see a message asking me to install safari....fuuuuuuuuuuck that! firefox is all i need
    • sonnybobiche, on 03/21/2008, -51/+8Or for those few of us with less than 2 gigs of memory, www.opera.com
      • Okari, on 03/21/2008, -3/+19I ran FF fine when I had 256 mb of RAM. It doesn't run any faster now that I have 2 gigs of RAM.
        • TheWorm, on 03/21/2008, -8/+6You can't have had much else open. Firefox is a hog on Macs, which is unfortunate because I think it's a great browser overall. It's undeniably the best on Windows, but Camino is a better lighter weight alternative on Mac.
        • edicius, on 03/21/2008, -3/+4It should.
      • Bossman1086, on 03/21/2008, -3/+20I ran FireFox on 512 MB of RAM. That's not to say it doesn't have a memory leak...it has many, but they are all being fixed in FireFox 3. I've been using FireFox 3 beta 4 for a bit now and it's good enough to be my main browser.
      • OneLess, on 03/21/2008, -11/+1Hmmm, I would have thought opera.com was a site about opera, not Opera.
        • bjornski, on 03/21/2008, -2/+11You mean like apple.com is a site about fruit?
      • MuletTheGreat, on 03/21/2008, -4/+9My mobile phone has a 2GB sd card, and 64mb of internal memory. Get out of the stone age.

        btw: the card was free, thats why i have it
        • Okari, on 03/21/2008, -2/+2Not everyone can afford upgrading. I had my crappy HP Pavillion for 5 years before I got a new computer.
          • elmetald00d, on 03/21/2008, -4/+4if you can't afford a POS $200 desktop, maybe you should cut your internet for a few months and save up
          • Okari, on 03/21/2008, -0/+7$200 desktops don't come with more than 512 MB of RAM and a 2.0 single core.
          • edicius, on 03/21/2008, -0/+6Sounds like he has upgraded from a POS.
          • bjornski, on 03/21/2008, -2/+2I can't afford to upgrade all the time either, but seriously, memory prices are DIRT CHEAP right now.

            If you can't afford to upgrade your memory, you're just not trying.
      • dacheetah, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2FF does have a memory leak problem, but it's not exactly a huge issue, the only time I've ever seen it struggle was when I tried to open the single html file version of the php manual (something like 26MB of raw html that has to be processed) on my old laptop with 256MB of RAM and a 1.7GHz mobile processor, while running an Apache/MySQL/PHP5 server and several other apps. and MSIE didn't cope any better with it.
      • Kral, on 03/21/2008, -4/+6FF3 uses less ram than Opera. Sorry, fanboi.
    • thecheatah, on 03/21/2008, -7/+14"firefox is all i need"

      I love you baby!!
    • Fordi, on 03/21/2008, -2/+17Agreed. Apple: Firefox Add-ons or equivalent framework. Otherwise, I really don't give a damn about your KHTML-based browser.
      • KMartSheriff, on 03/21/2008, -0/+6Add-ons would be ***** awesome (and probably the only way they'd even get people to _think_ about using Safari over Firefox).
        • AdmiralKarelia, on 03/21/2008, -3/+4Because the speed difference doesn't mean *****, after all...

          I've bounced between Safari and Firefox for the better part of six years now, and I think I've finally landed on Safari.
          • pvcrisp, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4If it took you six years to choose, clearly it isn't that much better
      • paloooz, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2Well the only extension I use in Firefox is adblock and the Filterset.g updater, which are available for Safari in the form of SafariAdblock, so for me, a Mac user, Safari is fine. But I still use Firefox for Windows at work!

        http://safariadblock.sourceforge.net/
      • Macskeeball, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1http://www.pimpmysafari.com
    • trogle, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3Yeah, I was sitting right here and I yelled in anguish. Something along the lines of "GOOD GOD"
    • zongamin, on 03/21/2008, -2/+7Like SafariBlock, or Inquisitor you mean?
    • BobOki, on 03/21/2008, -4/+1No. Both of those suck and they are not very "add-on" freindly.
      I love my mac, but safari has NO addon support and it is the only thing killing safari IMO.
    • Gabberwok, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2I don't know about the Windows version, but as much as I like Firefox, there's no question - Safari is faster. Firefox is more universally-supported, but it really seems to run only half as fast as Safari does on the Mac. If this isn't true on the PC as well (which I somehow doubt it would be), it's probably not worth downloading. Apple will never make it necessary for iTunes - why would they jeopardize a revenue stream for a free product?
    • isaaccs, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1If you don't like it, don't install it. Simple as that. I use Firefox because it's more compatible, but Safari is much faster on my Mac. Oh, and it's the closest browser to being fully W3c compliant.
  • lawguru, on 03/21/2008, -13/+68Latest version kept crashing my XP laptop. I uninstalled it and all is good again. Use at your own risk.

    Note: I like Safari -- it just didn't play well on my Compaq laptop. :(
    • joshualamgroup, on 03/21/2008, -0/+8damn it i couldn't agree more. safari keeps crashing on my compaq laptop too.
    • jordan314, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3I'm a huge fan of Safari 3.1 on mac, but 3.1 is a step backwards on PC. When I open it I often get a weird line across the top of the whole interface. When you hover over the close button the XP orange close button glitches out and starts to appear. And when I open Safari for the first time, it doesn't connect to any website for like a minute or so. Yikes, I liked it when it was beta better!
    • bradb420, on 03/21/2008, -3/+0You get what you pay for. Compaq has always blown.
      • jabberwolf, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2Um its not the HARDWARE ya doofus, its the software that sucks.
        Firefox, IE 8, and Opera work fine. Safari is screwy on a PC, and no its not the OS, its the program written for it that's *****.
    • MyNameIsJoe, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1Hmmm, Safari works fine on my Compaq.
    • deadbaby, on 03/22/2008, -2/+1There's nothing Safari can do to crash your OS. The only software that can crash a modern operating system would be drivers. If you find non-driver software crashing your OS then your OS has some fundamental design problem.
  • estvir, on 03/21/2008, -23/+389Wow, imagine the outrage if Microsoft did this.
    • timusca, on 03/21/2008, -36/+13MS has done this... so we're over it by now.
      • zdiddy85, on 03/21/2008, -3/+21woooooosh
      • BobOki, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2Yeah total woosh... to all those below. Wow... its like without the *sarcasm* tag digg users just can't figure it out.
    • deadbaby, on 03/21/2008, -29/+70Microsoft does it all the time. I don't want MSN Messenger yet it's included not only with Windows but also for Office 2008. Adobe pushes their photo software on your when you download Reader. Sun pushes OpenOffice when you download Java. Everyone does it on Windows because the users seem to accept it.
      • whereiseljefe, on 03/21/2008, -7/+33When apple pushes their software on their consumers we thank the for preloading our system with productivity software right?
        • elmetald00d, on 03/21/2008, -26/+8see, the thing is, iLife is useful and fun. plus it can be uninstalled easily.
          • bjornski, on 03/21/2008, -3/+7When STEVE does it, it's good!
          • bingobongony, on 03/21/2008, -2/+9So...what YOU think is useful and fun is useful and fun?

            And if you have a hard time uninstalling pre-installed stuff on Windows, it is becuase you are a ***** dumb *****. You can't blame Microsoft for the failure that your parents enoucntered in teaching you how to live a normal life.
          • srg13, on 03/21/2008, -6/+2@bingobongony: Show me a Windows computer with no IE
          • bjornski, on 03/21/2008, -3/+6@srg13

            Show me an OS that ships without a browser.
          • srg13, on 03/21/2008, -4/+5bjornski:

            Show me an OS where you can't remove that browser
        • unionaire, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1it's sad that your reply and the reply it replies to are both true
      • estvir, on 03/21/2008, -3/+25Vista doesn't have Messenger installed by default, not even the old "Windows Messenger" and all there is is a link to download Messenger. Also, Office 2007 doesn't install Messenger but I'm not aware of what 2008 does, do you have a source?
        • elmetald00d, on 03/21/2008, -0/+62008 on mac asks you what you want, entourage, messenger, word excel and powerpoint, you pick what you want.
        • unionaire, on 03/21/2008, -6/+4vista doesn't have messenger installed because microsoft is under the pressure of anti-trust laws, however, for Apple since it's small in market share, it is safe to do ***** like that
        • Mattja, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1A sauce? This is Digg my friend, you'll be more at home on www.wikipedia.org
      • jacenat, on 03/21/2008, -1/+9open office a prerequesit for jre or jdk?
        since when? i have installed both a few weeks ago and still don't have open office installed.
      • clockb0x, on 03/21/2008, -2/+4In all your examples the extra stuff is an option that you can disable during either the download stage or during the installer; and if you disable them, you never see them again. Apple's updater tries to get you to install stuff you don't want every other day. By the way, this isn't new behavior either, I've had Quicktime standalone for a while now and the updater is always trying to get me to install iTunes.
        • dema, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1While you are right Apple's update software trying to get you to install stuff you don't want, I don't know where you get that time frame. About once a month the Apple Software Update pops when I am in Windows and asks me if I want to install Quicktime and iTunes. The only reason I don't do anything about it is because it happens so infrequently. Not that that makes it right...
      • vagarach, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1Yes, office 08 does come installed with msn for mac. Windows live works just fine, but msn mac is just plain bad. I use msn all the time, I just don't use microsoft's useless client.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/21/2008, -6/+23Anti-Trust... Billion Dollar EU Fines...
      • kelly, on 03/21/2008, -15/+2#1 Apple doesn't have a monopoly in jukebox software or music players
        #2 Apple didn't acquire its current position illegally
        #3 Apple strategy isn't illegal isn't illegal because of both 1 and 2
        #4 Microsoft must abide by different rules because it is a monopoly... it acquired that monopoly illegally and it leverages that monopoly in an illegal fashion to gain monopolies in new markets.
        • redfox2600, on 03/21/2008, -5/+182# Apple did acquire it position illegally. They stole the GUI idea from Xerox just like Microsoft,

          3# This statement is fails by logic.

          4# Apple is by definition is more of a monopoly than Microsoft ever will be. Can you bid or negotiates the price of a mac, no they control all the macs and the OS so you have to buy their product at their price if you want their to join their club. Hmm... what other group of people can dictate the price of something, hm that called a monopoly. Microsoft you can bid Dell vs. Toshiba vs. Sony for a computer (oligopoly). Can you install OS X on any computer of your choice, no. Can you install XP/Vista any computer of your choice, yes.
        • Alethinos, on 03/21/2008, -2/+7@redfox & kelly
          2. Technically apple "swiped" it from Xerox, just like technically Gates "swiped" it from apple. (While working, albeit indirectly, for Apple.)
          (Couldn't think of a better word than swipe, sorry.)
          3. Doesn't necessarily fail, legality is a matter of discussion here (for both swipes.)
          4. Remember you have to consider monopolies in a market, not as if only they can sell the products they make. Your argument here is like saying Coke is a monopoly because you can't buy Coke in a Pepsi can.
          • redfox2600, on 03/21/2008, -3/+3Sorry, I'm considering each OS as a separate market. (I don't want a Vista vs Leopard debate that your opinion)

            Within those market I'm comparing the manufacturers. Apple is only seller for their computers. Microsoft has many. Hope if this clear things up. If you can find anymore holes point them out, seriously.
          • birdieb23, on 03/21/2008, -3/+4I can Microsoft doesn't make computers, so its still like saying you can't buy Coca Cola in a Pepsi can.

            You fail.
          • redfox2600, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1@birdieb32,
            I'll play by your analogy then. (pepsi = MSFT) (coke = APPL)
            I usually like to drink my soda with ice so I have to pour into a glass, with pepsi I can do that they simply don't care which cup or glass I pour it in. With coke I have to use their designated cups, I can't simply pour me a glass from a 2 litter bottle like I usually do. I'm not complaining about the can or the box I'm complaining about the fact that I can't enjoy my drink the way I want to.

            Also addressing your comment below both the latest OS from Microsoft and Apples seem to have problem if you can remember. Vista was slow and Leopard actually crashes. But I don't want to debate about the OS I just want to discuss about which is more of a monopoly.
        • philhatesyou, on 03/21/2008, -4/+4In regards to #4, that's a very piss poor definition of a monopoly. By that definition, any product that you buy where you can't choose the operating system or install it's operating system on other products is a monopoly. Absolutely ***** retarded. Apple isn't a monopoly because it doesn't have much software that runs only on Apple. If Apple releases a ***** product people don't have to buy. As opposed to Microsoft, where if they release a ***** product(Windows 95, 98, Vista) people don't really have a choice but to use it, because a great deal of software won't run on anything else.
          • redfox2600, on 03/21/2008, -2/+4@Alethinos
            #3 fails because it sole argument is that #1 and #2 are true, so it just padding. If you can successfully disprove one or the other this argument by logic is false. In fact many people including me still believe the court ruling for the Apple vs. MS case was due in part to the Judge not wanting to recall every computer built up to then. Or leave everyone who bought the machines stranded.

            Ok,
            monopoly: a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller (from wordnet.princeton.edu)

            If you are comparing only the OS then yes everyone is a monopoly, except linux (because they are cool like that). I didn't say that Microsoft is not a monopoly or did I mean that sense. Of course if you compare just the OS everyone is a monopoly. I was comparing the working computers, the OS and hardware combo since most people need and buy both at the same time. And hell most people do buy both at the same time. Now we got a problem. There are many sellers of a xp/Vista computer: Sony, Toshiba, HP, Asus, Dell you get the idea. And if you wanted to you can pick up spare parts and make your own. So by definition now to buy a Windows PC you have many sellers (or a few power players) which makes it an Oligopoly. If you don't want Microsoft on your computer then you can even ask some windows builder to give you linux on the same hardware. So even within Dell itself the Microsoft is not in full control of their products. The proof of this is that many IT managers who need PC can pit HP vs Dell for the best price. If it was truly a monopoly they couldn't do this.

            Let take a look at Apple shall we? For me to buy OS X I need to buy both the OS and the hardware. Fair enough, this is what we are looking at. Who sells OS X? Only, Apple fair enough same with Windows for Microsoft. How many sellers are their of OSX compatible computers? Only Apple. Can I install OS X on my custom built PC? No, even though it the same hardware on the same damn motherboard they locked me out. Can I pit Apple vs anyone else if I want a OSX based environment? No, Apple is the sole seller of OSX based computers. If my motherboard dies can I even go down to the local shop and pick up a new one? No, it won't work with OSX I have send it in to Apple and pay the higher services fees even though I can do it myself. The most damning proof is that Apple can dictate the price of their machines. An Apple computer at the local Best Buys will be around the same price as an Apple machine on their website or in Minnesota. PC prices swing wildly from $200 + to $3k monopolies don't like to do this since it make predicting income and operating at peak efficiency very difficult to the point where it almost a price war. For IT managers the only other person I can pit Apple against is Dell or any other Windows builder and in this larger market everyone is an Oligopoly.

            See everyone thinks my arguments is for OS only because everyone just associates Apple with only the OS. And in fact that the only differences now. However when you are trying to buy a new computer in the "submarket" of the OS's only Apple will sell Apple computers, but there are many other companies that will sell Windows computer. In this sense Apple has a monopoly on its OS based systems. It's confusing because the only discriminating fact now is the OS.

            @ Philhatesyou Which OS a software release is to is decided by the developers not Microsoft. It just a sad fact of being the biggest company that everyone want to work with you. Besides if wanted to use Final Cut Pro I need an Apple computers so your argument doesn't work too well.

            (Why the hell am I defending Microsoft again?)
          • redfox2600, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2Oh I have a $6k test server setup. I want to study OSX but I don't want to spend another $6k to get a machine of similar power that I don't want or need.
          • redfox2600, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3Software compatibility is decided SOLELY by the developer. It not Microsoft fault that people like their OS or because it cheaper than everyone else. Hey maybe if Apple sold their OS independently, more people can buy it and if more people use it there will be a bigger market for Apple software and more software developers can will them as a profitable group. Basic economics learn it. Monopoly = many buyers one seller. That the definition everyone accepts and that was the definition I was using.

            Also if Apple release a ***** OS (*cough* OEM Leopard *cough*) people are still forced to buy it. It doesn't matter if Apple or Microsoft makes it the developers keep up to date with the current OS. Do you see anyone still selling software for DOS or the Apple 1?

            All of this started from one principle: Apple wanted to sell the OS and the system as a whole. Microsoft just sold it other companies like HP and let them built it the machine. This is what kept Apple from growing because they where too controlling of their product. Hmm what else is too controlling, I don't know maybe a freaking monopoly.
          • philhatesyou, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2"It not Microsoft fault that people like their OS or because it cheaper than everyone else."

            The only problem is that this isn't the reality of the situation. Windows has gained it's dominant market share through vendor lock in and illegal business practices. Software vendors have no choice but to develop for Windows because of it's large market share. I know the flock here on digg are pretty ***** dumb, but the distinction isn't that subtle.
          • birdieb23, on 03/21/2008, -4/+2Redfox Mac OS used to be licensed out, Steve Jobs came back and cancelled the contracts. Learn some facts.
            Also stop being a lame windoze fanboy, there is nothing wrong with Leopard (which I have), theres also however nothing wrong with XP (which I have) but there is something wrong with Vista.
        • bingobongony, on 03/21/2008, -2/+3Every one of your points is ridiculous. Again...no matter how badly you make yourself look to praise Apple, you will never be rewarded by Steve Jobs letting you suck his *****. So you may as well give up.
        • Optimaximal, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1I'd actually go as far as saying Apple DO have a monopoly on the jukebox/mp3 market. iTunes music is so crammed full of DRM ***** which penalises users who want to do what they want with the music unless they pay EXTRA per track to unlock it. Also, by not offering redownload rights, they're potentially scamming some users into repaying for the same music through something like a HDD crash.
      • dojonz, on 03/21/2008, -1/+4*Billion Euro EU fines.
    • nthitz, on 03/21/2008, -17/+13They are not forcing you to install it though, just recommending it.
      • Makaveli604, on 03/21/2008, -6/+8reccomending is annoying enough.
        • kelly, on 03/21/2008, -5/+3yet not illegal or anti competitive because they don't have a monopoly.
          • bingobongony, on 03/21/2008, -5/+8Dude...Steve Jobs will NEVER let you swallow his semen. Stop begging for it.
          • tehdan, on 03/21/2008, -3/+4Dude, no-one will ever swallow your semen if you keep up being a douchebag.
          • Makaveli604, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1millions of douchebags disagree, google douchebags with hot girls thank you.
      • estvir, on 03/21/2008, -3/+3So? IE7 was an optional on Windows Update and there was outrage. Also, Microsoft even had out MONTHS before a way to easily make sure IE7 wasn't installed on PCs.
      • mithrasinvictus, on 03/21/2008, -3/+6I remember when i wanted to install quicktime it came bundled with itunes and no option to deselect itunes. After searching around and finding some dead ends on the apple site i finally found a page hidden away that had the standalone installer (that page turned into another dead link later on)
        I decided to no longer use Quicktime.
        • bjornski, on 03/21/2008, -2/+2I'd quit using that bloated ***** Quicktime software in a heartbeat, if it wasn't required as a video media player in Second life.

          I'm still crossing my fingers hoping they get the Flash video stuff installed eventually. QT sucks ass.
        • dacheetah, on 03/21/2008, -1/+4Quicktime Alternative is awesome. With Media Player Classic or VLC will do pretty much everything QT will do, except the annoying stuff.
        • HoratioHellpop, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1@bjornski: Or, you could just quit playing Second Life and get on with First Life.
        • bjornski, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1@HoratioHellpop

          Or I could just quit using my computer and go do other stuff too. No hassles from ANY of this then.

          But hey, it's a hobby. It's a game. What do you care if I enjoy it? I find it much more fulfilling than Guitar Hero and stuff. But again, if you want to play GH, go ahead. It doesn't affect me in the least.
      • grumpyrain, on 03/21/2008, -3/+4> They are not forcing you to install it though, just recommending it.

        Perhaps you are trolling, or perhaps you don't realise what this "recommendation" entails. Apple Software Update installs itself, even if you tell it not to in the iTunes installer. Safari has never been installed on this PC. When it pops up (as it does every couple of weeks, you will see the following.

        --
        New software is available from Apple
        Select the items you want to update, then click Install.
        [X] iTunes + QuickTime
        [X] Safari
        ---

        Notice that the Safari update appears in the window for these items to *UPDATE*. Notice that the Safari update is ticked by default on systems which do not have Safari installed.

        If they had a different tab labeled "Download other Apple software", there would be no issue. If they did by default not check software that you have not already installed, there would be no issue. It could be considered a recommendation. No this is a blatant attempt to install Safari on the sly.
    • MuletTheGreat, on 03/21/2008, -16/+2So what? These people are proud of their wares, yet oblivious to the suckage. Yes it is irritating, but any pc user wanting the best will know to avoid this ***** like the ***** plague.
      And whats with the british anti-trust thing? Greedy ***** want a slice of the pie, so they sue for it.
    • aussieNickuss, on 03/21/2008, -19/+11"IF Microsoft did this"

      Ummm....IE is bundled with Windows....so it's already been forced upon all Windows users anyway.
      • bradsh, on 03/21/2008, -4/+33Would you rather they include no internet browser? Harder to download firefox when you cant browse the internet, i imagine.
        • mds40, on 03/21/2008, -9/+2just being the devil's advocate here but they could offer a number of different browsers to choose from when you install their OS...
          • iofthestorm, on 03/21/2008, -4/+8But then the browsers that didn't get chosen would sue for being unfairly disadvantaged. While there are many things about Microsoft's monopolistic practices that are harmful, preloading IE at this stage isn't one. It might have been 5-8 years ago, but not including a browser at this stage would be sheer idiocy.
          • pintomp3, on 03/21/2008, -1/+12why would i package your browser in my OS?
          • fkr3, on 03/21/2008, -2/+11Why should they? If you want another browser, go download it. The big problem with bundling IE / Netscape was everybody was on slow-assed AOL dial up in that era and it was a big download. Now idiots send me "funny emails" that are bigger downloads than Opera or Firefox.
      • ellisgl, on 03/21/2008, -3/+19Yeah it sucks that I have to get my GM made car with GM parts instead of Ford or Dodge parts when I buy it.
      • sdlvx, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2That's because it's an update, from the updater software, you stupid putz. It's not asking you to install some sort of stupid program, when you already have a program that does the same thing anyways.
      • grumpyrain, on 03/21/2008, -1/+6That is not a valid comparison. Every modern OS is expected to include at least one browser. Does Apple not pre-install Safari when you install Leopard? Why does it do that? Now, I am not going to stand up for IE7, but Microsoft has as much rights to install IE7 on a with a new Windows install as Apple has to install Safari with a new Mac.

        This would be more akin to Microsoft trying to install Messenger for Mac when you update Mac Office.
        • thawk9455, on 03/21/2008, -3/+0Uh, I think they've done that... Either way when you did the install for Office under 2004 it gave you the install for Messenger and for Windows Media Player, yummy!
    • danieleran, on 03/21/2008, -14/+6Yes, imagine if Microsoft came up with a spyware licensing tool, called it something specious like "Windows Genuine Advantage" and told users it was a critical update that improved the security of their system, and then loaded it whether or not they wanted it to be installed.

      That's so much like Apple offering Safari as an optional install for users who already prefer iTunes over Windows Media Player.
      • estvir, on 03/21/2008, -2/+7They added a measure to prevent piracy (I'm not going to debate how successful/unsuccesful it is) and with SP3 and Vista (And Vista SP1) they're making it more lenient and less intrusive.

        And that isn't quite a valid comparison either, I believe they call it apples to oranges. Oh, and like Apple Software UPDATER introducing NEW software isn't some sort of trick and than there's all the iTunes/Quicktime bundling rubbish and constant asking to be updated (See: MacSuxWindozSux's comment below for an example).
    • MisterThePlague, on 03/21/2008, -9/+0"IF" Microsoft did this? I just installed WIndows XP SP2 on my Macbook today and the first thing Windows Update did was offer to install IE 7. The horror!!
      • estvir, on 03/21/2008, -1/+9Yes, but Windows Update offers updates for things you have installed while Safari isn't installed for some and it's in Apple's UPDATING software.
        • AdmiralKarelia, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1Same applies to pre-Safari versions of Mac OS X. If you don't have Safari, and you run updates, Safari is in the list. It's a step beyond IE, that's for sure, and we have to remember that the vast majority of the computing world doesn't know better than to just use what's in front of them. If I had no idea how to go download Safari, Firefox, Opera, etc., I'd rather someone offer me an option that I can choose to accept or ignore, than I would just go on using the one and only browser I knew of.

          My point? More options are good.
      • MisterThePlague, on 03/21/2008, -7/+0When I installed Windows XP SP2, it didn't ask me whether I wanted IE installed in the first place, so your logic is specious at best. It forced IE on me, then politely ASKED me if I wanted to install IE 7.
        • Optimaximal, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1You're a tool. Your example is just like you installing OSX 10.4 onto a Macbook then being told that Safari 3 is out to replace Safari 2, which came bundled with it.
          In this case, Apple are installing their rival browser onto an OS without proper user interaction since joe bloggs typically always clicks 'yes' to his iTunes/Quicktime update. It's just shady.
    • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -7/+2Hmm...I'm imagining Microsoft doing this and I'm imagining you defending them. =/
    • jellygraph, on 03/21/2008, -5/+7Microsoft installed updates, then restarted my server, all without asking me and ignoring that I had set my auto updates to ask before downloading anything. How about that? Kind of seems tame in comparison, eh?

      Microsoft Update also suggests you install the latest IE. Its the same difference.

      So, guys, shut up.
      • ninjacob, on 03/21/2008, -4/+5Wait...so you're not running a SUS and your servers have direct access to the internet, specifically *.microsoft.com? Sounds like you're the dumbass.
        • jellygraph, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Not a production server. Home server. You think I would use Windows for anything serious. Hahaha.... who's the dumbass?
      • nalimca, on 03/21/2008, -2/+4"MS does it too!" But that doesn't justify what Apple did. In addition, IE7 can be considered an update to IE6. Sarari in iTunes? That's a bit of stretch.
        • jellygraph, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1I didn't want IE to begin with... Microsoft just went ahead and installed it without even asking.
      • Makaveli604, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1Installing the LATEST IE is NOT THE SAME as installing an entirely new program.
        • jellygraph, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Lets get this straight. Apple is not forcing people to install safari. They are merely suggesting it. Secondly, no one is given an option as to whether they wish to have internet explorer bundled with their windows machine or not. in this day and age, who gives a *****, but its gives you no moral authority to argue. so zippit
    • wentwj, on 03/21/2008, -5/+2Anyone who doesn't think microsoft does exactly this, only on a significantly larger scale, isn't paying attention.
      • Optimaximal, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Microsoft stopped defending themselves from their practices years ago. Apple constantly market themselves as the 'good guys', then go and play the pot calling the kettle black.
        • jellygraph, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1What exactly does it mean to be a good guy? I don't particularly care to defend Apple (more of a linux person), but this whole thread is laughable. people are upset that apple are suggesting to users to install a browser for more secure browsing (which would definitely be the case compared to IE).
    • BrendanSheehan, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4If MS pushed Safari on us I'm sure there would be confusion not outrage ;)
    • jabberwolf, on 03/21/2008, -1/+5ANYONE THAT THINKS MS DOES THIS is a MACTARD.
      Sorry, but there is a difference with selling an OS with a browser and doing updates.
      The IE 7 update is still an option to update not madatory. The reason was that its updating something that its product already came with!!!!

      iTunes asking you to download Safari would be like going to the webpage MSN and it popping up and asking you to download IE.
      • jellygraph, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1No, you are spinning things. Safari install is not mandatory, so that would be the same as Windows update asking you whether you wish to install IE7.

        iTunes is not a webpage and the the software updater that comes with itunes is a seperate piece of software. its a software updater, not an itunes updater... think straight
    • thenome, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Incase you didn't notice IE does come bundled with windows... in fact they're worse, calculator is bundled too :)
      • Optimaximal, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1YEE-GADS... WINDOWS MOVIE MAKER!!!
  • geoken, on 03/21/2008, -11/+22Can anyone verify whether or not the newly installed Safari will set itself as the default browser?
    • MJ420, on 03/21/2008, -4/+24It wont! (xp/safari 3.1)
    • ruddy, on 03/21/2008, -34/+6kinda... it deletes all your other browsers, so you're left with no choice.
      • LemmingJesus, on 03/21/2008, -3/+11Internet Explorer is a part of Windows and can't be removed.
        • KloroFormd, on 03/21/2008, -10/+2I removed it... except for the rendering engine which is required by Steam. iexplore.exe doesn't exist.
        • joshualamgroup, on 03/21/2008, -6/+2it can be removed. go to remove windows components and IE will be there.
        • nlight, on 03/21/2008, -1/+6No, it can't. A large portion of the codebase for IE is used by explorer.exe (or the way around). Removing iexplore.exe doesn't actually uninstall it.
      • MuletTheGreat, on 03/21/2008, -9/+6In soviet Russia, Windows is part of Internet Explorer!
    • copper7op, on 03/21/2008, -0/+12It prompted me, Vista64 Ultimate.
    • Makaveli604, on 03/21/2008, -16/+13im to afraid to install that PoS
      • bjornski, on 03/21/2008, -6/+8Don't be afraid, just prepare to be very underwhelmed. FF is a much better browser.
        • MH94, on 03/21/2008, -1/+5That's true. A friend suggested I try it, so I gave it two days (of troubleshooting) before I returned to Firefox.
    • ngmcs8203, on 03/21/2008, -3/+8I did the automatic update for itunes and was shocked to see Safari. So I uninstalled it immediately. So I couldn't tell you, but I'd say stick with the browser you most enjoy to use.
    • zongamin, on 03/21/2008, -11/+4Not without asking you - even if it did how hard is it to change back? Idiot?
      • guerdat, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2down boy....
      • geoken, on 03/21/2008, -0/+6For me, it would take 2 seconds. For the average person, it would probably be their default browser until something else installed itself.
  • Erroneus, on 03/21/2008, -17/+209I was quite surprised to see Apple Software Update popup and telling me there was an update for Itunes: Safari 3.1. I almost panicked, searching for that old safari install on my machine and then I realized it was nothing more then adware from my friendly software dealer... Apple.

    Thanks Apple for the spam, next time, just dont.
    • sjbdallas, on 03/21/2008, -3/+14I did the same thing. I even scrolled the registry trying to figure out why it thought i needed to upgrade my Safari.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/21/2008, -3/+27I noticed for several weeks Quicktime was begging to be updated...
      Then suddenly they were trying to install iTunes with the update...

      Then last week Safari is added to the list on top of it.

      I said to myself what the hell are they thinking...
      • fkr3, on 03/21/2008, -3/+10I think they just really like pushing out the downloads..... something seems to want to update every other fricking week.
        • grumpyrain, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3And I don't get why a simple point update is 65MB. The Zune software is about 30MB total, and even that is carrying a bit of bloat.
          • chromerium, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2But it's ::APPLE:: bloat, you should feel privileged to receive it!
          • MioTheGreat, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1The Zune software comes with a shiny new UI framework, too, which probably adds to it.
      • AdmiralKarelia, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1So decline and be done with it.
        • Godpigeon, on 03/21/2008, -0/+0done until the next time there's a new version.. then it will ask again... and again.. just like the itunes version of QT...
    • stockjones, on 03/21/2008, -4/+12Steve Jobs has always secretly wanted to be BIll Gates.
    • iofthestorm, on 03/21/2008, -2/+3Is there no way to remove their updater thing, without disabling whatever Apple software you have? I don't have any Apple stuff on my computer except the Bonjour SDK for compiling pidgin so I don't really know how their installer works.
      • sholt, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1from the ASU program, you can go into preferences and tell it never to look for updates.

        Also, you can remove it from the add/remove programs control panel.
  • shadow010, on 03/21/2008, -35/+129By definition of software that installs unwanted software onto a computer, apple software update is malware. It does this with Quicktime and iTunes as well.
    • deadbaby, on 03/21/2008, -18/+37The definition of malware is software installed without your permission. When you download iTunes it clearly states you are getting QuickTime too. It asks you if you want to install Safari.
      • estvir, on 03/21/2008, -5/+8Are you sure? A lot of malware/spyware is installed by users with their permission, they just aren't aware of what's happening. I know there is little difference, but there is enough so.
        • Gabberwok, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1If it asks you for permission, then it has your permission. There's only so much software can do to make up for user stupidity.
      • unionaire, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3Without your awareness, not without your permission
    • nthitz, on 03/21/2008, -6/+27Malware? Hardly. They are just giving people an option to, by no means are they requiring it!
      • itisfritz, on 03/21/2008, -5/+1They already had the option to. Why do they need to be told again.
      • unionaire, on 03/21/2008, -4/+1option to? it's checked by default! and with the computer users having habit of clicking next whenever we can, how far off do you think this practice is from forcing people to install it?
      • BobOki, on 03/21/2008, -2/+1Forcing = you have no choice.
        Being already checked = uncheck it or hit cancel.
        Do we need to tell you to breath in every second too?
        • Optimaximal, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Someone doesn't understand legislation regarding 'opting in' and 'opting out'... It should always be the former, not the latter.
    • Makaveli604, on 03/21/2008, -9/+3not malware but not good for sure..
    • lamiaconfitor, on 03/21/2008, -4/+3Nagware. but Yeah, still sucks.
    • BobOki, on 03/21/2008, -1/+4Malware is malicious computer software that interferes with normal computer functions or sends personal data about the user to unauthorized parties over the Internet.
      I know going to dictionary.com and actually looking up definitions is a very time intensive thing, but its much better than opening your mouth and sticking your foot in it.
    • Serapthi, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1It's not malware, it's closer to adware. Doesn't really matter though, they both suck.
    • BobOki, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1Adware displays popups. This does not display popups, it is the program updater, and it comes up letting you know that it has a new version of Safari out would you like to install it.
      Its not even remotely close to the same thing.
      • Godpigeon, on 03/21/2008, -0/+0Except one thing.. I don't have safari installed, so how could I be asked to install an update to something new? In a pop up form?
  • octavius8, on 03/21/2008, -19/+6Maybe firefox should reply by using firefox to download Thunderbird and Songbird. Few people seem to know how good Songbird is, much more intuitive than iTunes. I think Apple should get out of the browser business their hardware and OS's are fine, but Safari is crappy. Even on the Mac, but on windows, I've tried it and I have found it to be completly unusable. And of course there is no Linux version, etc.
    • rizzo320, on 03/21/2008, -1/+4Okay, have you tried Safari 3.1. It's been in beta on Windows until this release.
    • MuletTheGreat, on 03/21/2008, -3/+3meh. windows media player rocks my jocks.
    • elmetald00d, on 03/21/2008, -1/+7Im sorry, but on macs, firefox is a piece of *****
      • Gabberwok, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1The add-ons are nice, but it is slow as molasses.
    • joshualamgroup, on 03/21/2008, -0/+6hey, songbird sucks. and there are a hell load of bugs. who needs an open source music player anyways?
      maybe when there's a final version, i'll think about downloading it again..
      as for fusing firefox to download songbird, songbird isn't even an official Mozilla Corp project.. It's a modded version of Firefox by some third-party.
    • elmetald00d, on 03/21/2008, -2/+1is songbird supposed to be a GUI replica of iTunes?
    • Goblinkiller, on 03/21/2008, -1/+6Safari crappy? It's based on the same browser technology (Webkit) used by Nokia, Google, Adobe and in a way KDE. Webkit is currently the most modern browser engine - more modern than Firefox's Gecko.

      And btw - there is no Linux version of Apple's Safari-GUI - but there are versions of Webkit for Linux... Adobe AIR for example and Gnome's webbrowser has experimental for it and KDE's Konquerer's engine (KHTML) is the one that Webkit has originated from...
  • ruddy, on 03/21/2008, -51/+135why would i EVER use safari over firefox? apple, stick your ugly head back into the cave and don't try to push your proprietary ***** built upon open source down my throat. thanks
    • timusca, on 03/21/2008, -34/+10Wow, 3 comments already about you hating Apple... your opinion means so much to everyone now!
      • akkibaba, on 03/21/2008, -8/+24How about your 3 comments defending Apple? The boot kicks both ways, my friend. Your opinion is worthless as well.
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/21/2008, -4/+14Hey everyone look he's a big phony.
        You're a big phony.
      • Hellothere123, on 03/21/2008, -5/+5Safari sucks, Firefox pwns.
    • deadbaby, on 03/21/2008, -12/+23Bad news... if you use iTunes you're using WebKit already.
      • Ademan, on 03/21/2008, -2/+12No one is trashing webkit (not that I can tell anyways) just safari. I'm actually a big fan of webkit, it's an awesome alternative to gecko, and my favorite web browser (epiphany) supports both! :-D
      • estvir, on 03/21/2008, -2/+9WebKit is open source.
      • bdash, on 03/21/2008, -4/+8iTunes doesn't use WebKit. Stop spreading misinformation.
    • sonnybobiche, on 03/21/2008, -5/+14supposedly renders faster than FF.
      /Opera here, so I don't actually have real world experience.
    • digggggggggg, on 03/21/2008, -5/+14It's faster than firefox. On a 6 year old machine, it makes a huge difference.
    • dustinhoffman, on 03/21/2008, -10/+4Umm... Opera hasn't been faster than any other browser since like the late 90's and possibly 2002 at the latest... I used IE, FF, and Opera this summer testing internal and external websites at USGS... later I started using the Safari beta and it was blowing the others out of the water in render times... I've used Opera throughout the past 10 years and while it was significantly faster than IE 5... it really hasn't had an advantage since...
    • hotdamn, on 03/21/2008, -7/+2the same reason you are using windows over OS X. weiiiird.

      ;)
      jkjkjkjk!
    • Phisolo, on 03/21/2008, -9/+4Private Browsing

      Google it if you don't already know.
      • elmetald00d, on 03/21/2008, -3/+4LMAO.

        too bad firefox has an extension called stealtherfox or something that does the same thing
      • lamiaconfitor, on 03/21/2008, -0/+6awww.. how cute.
      • BobOki, on 03/21/2008, -3/+1So, yeah... FIREFOX doesn't have the ability... the plugin does.
        • elmetald00d, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1if we're gonna go there ,firefox has almost 0 abilities. but a million plugins.
    • Goblinkiller, on 03/21/2008, -8/+2Safari is mostly open source and is right know the fastest and most modern browser released and in my opinion renders webpages much more beautiful than other browsers on Windows - so why shouldn't you use Safari?

      Safari is much much better than IE. Whether you use it instead of Firefox or Opera is a matter preference. Firefox got it's extensions for example which Safari haven't got...
      • whataboutdave, on 03/21/2008, -2/+2How can software be "mostly open source"?
        • sholt, on 03/21/2008, -2/+3Safari's UI is proprietary, the rendering engine, WebKit, is FOSS.
          • whataboutdave, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1I'm aware of that. The fact remains that any project containing proprietary code is not free.
    • isaaccs, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1Yes, safari is a proprietary browser, but is also the only browser that comes close to being W3c compliant. But you're so committed to your open source values that this is certain not to matter.
      Don't like it, don't use it, but honestly no need to be bitter about it.
  • borez, on 03/21/2008, -12/+62I'm on a Mac and I don't use Safari, it's nowhere near as good as Firefox. Or should I say nowhere near as good as Firefox's expandability ( Read: Plug-ins )
    • SonicRush, on 03/21/2008, -3/+12I'm on Windows, but I figured I'd try it for a while just to give it a fair chance. Same thing, the customizability just wasn't enough for me. Oh, and downloaded files either go to the desktop or a specific folder? you can't pick on a per-file basis? It's the little things....
    • LordofChaosIori, on 03/21/2008, -9/+30To be honest... Safari runs light years faster than Firefox on my Macbook, and when AdBlock came out, I didn't really feel the need for Firefox anymore.
      • rwellner98, on 03/21/2008, -2/+5Yup, that's why I switched. I had been on firefox for as long as it existed, but it was a dog on mac. Switched to safari exclusively for speed. Subjectively, I preferred the password management and rss capabilities in firefox, but it was just too slow.
      • arcticblue, on 03/21/2008, -3/+5I've been using the FF3 beta on my MBP and it has been pretty much on par with Safari. I had ditched FF2 for Safari once I found the Adblock plugin for it, but after installing FF3 and the Firebug plugin, adblock, etc, Safari doesn't get used too often. I do go back from time to time because FF3 throws a fit sometimes when I try to input Japanese text (and also for the "Private Browsing Mode").
    • stockjones, on 03/21/2008, -6/+12borez is exactly right about Safari. Its not that its not fast. The problem is that Safari is not fully compatible with a lot of the client side scripting stuff both with CSS and javascript compared to Firefox, Opera, even IE7.
      • Goblinkiller, on 03/21/2008, -1/+4What client side scripting isn't Safari compatible with? It's passing Acid2, it's the best browser yet on Acid3 and it has got things like the new Selector-API and tags from the HTML 5-draft implemented already as well as much of CSS 3.

        Safari is the best - not the worst - on client-side scripting if you ask me...
    • nthitz, on 03/21/2008, -3/+8I'm in the same boat as you, if Safari had a plug-in system it could be a lot better, until then Firefox.
    • hansolo007, on 03/21/2008, -4/+4Safari isn't Digg friendly for me anymore, I have to use Firefox to Digg and leave comments :/
      • elmetald00d, on 03/21/2008, -2/+6??? im on safari right now.. wf?
      • Kelmon, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2I've had that problem and it seems to be cookie related. Open Safari's Preferences, select the Security tab, and then use the Show Cookies option. Use the search widget to look for "digg" and then remove what it finds. You'll need to log back onto Digg but then it should work again.
      • AdmiralKarelia, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2Safari working great on Digg right now...
      • Phisolo, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1Turn off Private Browsing, usually solves that problem in Safari.
    • Phisolo, on 03/21/2008, -0/+7I use each browser for it's strengths. I have different home pages on each, so that I focus on different tasks with each.
      I use firefox for productivity apps like google docs, as well as sites that have good interaction with my chosen Firefox plugins.

      I use safari for day to day browsing, I prefer the way it renders, and it's favorites integrate well with my iPhone.

      I use IE and firefox on parallels when the need to interact with client machines as a windows system.

      Why stick to only one browser, when you can have so many choices? Use each for their strengths. That said I have yet to use Safari for windows except to goof around, Firefox and IE seem to be enough in that ecosystem.
    • Kelmon, on 03/21/2008, -4/+5From my perspective I don't see what's so interesting in Firefox extensions and I reject it because it's not a real Mac application and therefore doesn't support the OS-level services that it should. For example, you have to set its Network Connection settings manually rather than via System Preferences. If I need the rendering power of Firefox then I'll use Camino since that at least wraps the Gecko rendering engine of Firefox in a native Mac application that behaves as expected. Basically, I am not a fan of cross-platform applications when it means that you lose functionality.
      • AdmiralKarelia, on 03/21/2008, -0/+5Not to mention, and I know this is just a nitpick of mine, but Firefox makes me feel like I'm back in Mac OS 10.2, and I don't want to remember those days.
    • diggimator, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1The only reason I use Safari or Camino is because Firefox doesn't support Text-to-Speech in the Services menu. If Firefox had a speech add-on, I will switch back promptly. Also, 3.0 had been unstable on my Mac; hopefully 3.1 is better. (Back to the main topic: Yes, I agree what Apple is doing on Windows is wrong. Apple Software Update should be only for Apple Software Updates, not Apple Software Advertisements!)
  • DiggLive, on 03/21/2008, -42/+29Apple apologists arrive in 3.. 2.. 1..
    • geoken, on 03/21/2008, -10/+16Are you serious? The Apple apologists were in here by the second comment. Me thinks you give them too much credit.
    • zongamin, on 03/21/2008, -2/+2Would have been funny if you got that in earlier - now you look like a complete idiot who doesn't read the previous comments.
  • anteyekon4myst, on 03/21/2008, -17/+34I spent the last month finding out what browser was best for my old desktop (mylaptop is dead). On an Athalon 1400 1.1 Ghz, and 256 mb of ram - Safari works the best. Opera doesn't render a lot of the pages I visit properly; I love firefox, but it takes up way too memory;Safari worked the best. It uses a lot less memory and loads pages pretty darn fast. Note: I dont use I.E. because when it crashes Windows Explorer tends to crash to, no need to explain why, and that takes a little longer to recover from.
    • geoken, on 03/21/2008, -6/+14I tried Safari on my old box (Celeron 333 with 192mb ram). The computer currently runs Opera, it could barely handle idling safari with it's retarded, resources hogging custom window borders/widgets.
    • whereiseljefe, on 03/21/2008, -4/+12Firefox 3 ftw. So far lowest memory consumption of all browsers.
    • dustinhoffman, on 03/21/2008, -2/+10Open up an explorer window... Click Tools... Folder Options... and look for a checkbox that says something like run explorer folders or something in a separate process... it basically isolates crashing from browsing files OR the web from the main explorer process...

      I'm Posting this from my MBP right now and I'm too lazy to fire up VMware to find the exact name... but I agree... Safari is better anyway...
    • YamiJim, on 03/21/2008, -6/+399/100 times firefox memory issues are ADD-ON related, not FF itself.
      • scy1192, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2doesn't help that you need add-ons to give Firefox the features that most other bowsers already have
        • YamiJim, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2as in?
          Do other browsers have, Add-block+?
          then they can ***** keep whatever else they have.
  • MorgaineSwann, on 03/21/2008, -40/+9You Firefox people are kidding yourselves - it's slow and clunky next to Safari. Why not join the rest of us in the 21st Century?
    • stockjones, on 03/21/2008, -2/+16Safari is fast my friend, but its still sorely lacking in compatibility across the board versus Firefox, Opera and even IE7.
    • whereiseljefe, on 03/21/2008, -0/+7When Firefox 3 gets released.
    • Changa, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2I just downloaded Safari... I don't think I installed the same thing you are talking about.
      The Safari I downloaded is butt ugly, clunky and is wasting way to much screen real estate and it is not using clear text.
      What is the deal with the pull down menu's being below an inch of blank screen space?
    • MattBD, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2Firefox and Flock are both WAY better than Safari. Safari is dull, battleship-gray and looks crap, and doesn't have anything like the functionality of Firefox or Flock. Also, Linux is my main OS and Crapple do ***** all to su