What is Digg?130 Comments
- brainwashed, on 10/11/2007, -1/+46Yes I'm happy with Firefox, but I'm always on the lookout for the next best thing to improve my browsing.
Well done to Apple for increasing choice and providing competition.
Now they have to get Safari in a state in order to actually compete! - juckman, on 10/11/2007, -24/+64I'm a Mac user and I don't even use Safari. I don't see why Windows users would. Firefox has already done what Safari aims to do.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -10/+38leffunov:
Can YOU read? From the article:
"The Firefox 3 alpha build I reviewed last week is far more stable and robust than the current beta build of Safari 3"
Stop making excuses for Apple. The only reason they released this browser in its present form was to coincide with the Steve Jobs speech. I'm sure plenty of the programmers working on Safari warned Apple's management about releasing such an unstable, unsecure build of this program out to the public, and that's not even talking about Apple's intense PR campaign to try to get as many Windows users as possible to download this browser in its current state. This release is just a disaster, plain and simple. A novelty for geek users who don't care about crashes, but a disaster for the general public (who Apple is advertising to by featuring this download so prominently on their website).
They should've waited and released this beta at the end of the summer... too bad Steve Jobs won't be making any big keynote speeches then, so waiting to release it at that point would've been a waste of effort. - Hortnon, on 10/11/2007, -4/+27I bet none of the things that get people used to the 'Mac interface' will get changed (resizing from bottom right only, for example). Safari for Windows is just more marketing to get people to buy Macs.
Further, FTA: "Although the Safari 3 web page claims that Safari was designed to be "secure from day one," a number of security vulnerabilities have already been found." - chris9902, on 10/11/2007, -9/+31"The 'security vulnerabilities' are minor, and require very specific conditions to work."
Best. Comment. Ever. - theMurdocVolta, on 10/11/2007, -10/+27Safari is to Mac
as
IE is to Windows
So this is like PC giving Mac IE7
Mac: Here you go PC
PC: Whats this?
Mac Its Safari, the Default browser for Mac.
PC: so?
Mac So now you can use it and everyone can enjoy the beauty that is Apple. You're Welcome
PC: Oh, so now window user can use safari and switch over to firefox like apple users do?
Mac: ... Yea.
PC: Tell you what, you can keep your "Internet Safari Whatever" browser, and stick to winning people over to Mac with iTunes and the promise that everyone will think that you are ten times cooler if you get a Mac. - chris9902, on 10/11/2007, -8/+23no, it's a rubbish beta. Many of the complaints were with things that won't change (such as how to resize it and text rendering)
- chris9902, on 10/11/2007, -13/+27IE7 is a good browser. If anyone but Microsoft made it you'd be singing a different tune.
- FearlessFreep, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11If it's like the OS/X version...
View->Customize Toolbar.... Drag the Home Icon to the toolbar - audiowizard, on 10/11/2007, -7/+18@murdoc
Actually PC did give Mac IE, it was crap, it lost support very quickly. No one used it after they tried it.
Microsoft recommended everyone use Safari.
http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/internetexplorer/internetexplorer.aspx?pid=internetexplorer - FutureGuy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12It not just the question of stability alone, even though IE 7 and Firefox rarely crashed even in beta. Its also the other design decision that Apple made that can only be characterized as arrogant. Has any one used MS Office or the the old IE on a Mac? MS made sure that the UI conforms with Mac user experience not trying to push Windows look and feel to Mac. Every major application on both Mac and Windows com forms with the look and feel of the OS. Why wouldn't Apple do that same, are they special? And stupid things like not using ClearType which is native to Windows and far better then the other options? Apple expects people to like any crap they come up with, after all it has the blessings of Steve Almighty.
- troglodytejb, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10@AudioWizard
The security vulnerability that was linked to in the article is very serious- it doesn't rely on Firefox being installed; the vulnerability Mr. Larholm discovered was a generic vulnerability that allowed command execution on the client machine. He specifically states that:
"It is important to know that, even though this PoC exploit uses Firefox, the actual vulnerability is within the lack of input validation for the command line arguments handed to the various URL protocol handlers on your machine"
Simple terms: You can visit a site that can spawn a process on your machine. If that doesn't scare you, it should. Safari is currently a POS on a Windows machine, with inadequate security features for a public beta. - troydoogle7, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11Since I have been using safari on my windows, I have been hankering to paint my computer white and yank the right click button from my mouse......
hmmm, I wonder if its catching??? - CraigJ, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7it is, that works.
- dineshbabu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7The objective of Safari on Windows is the iPhone and providing alternate browser for an average windows user is only secondary !
- lordtyros, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7I will have sex with Opera tonight.
- jasonmacari, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Once you've used Firefox's extensions it is very hard to open up any other browser except to quickly see how a site looks in them during development.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6juckman:
You're not a programming whiz? No *****. You obviously don't understand one of the basic problems encountered by all programmers:
Any time you make any changes in the code (and changes between Safari 2 and Safari 3 are quite LARGE, by any standard), you have the potential of introducing hundreds, if not thousands, of bugs, especially in software that is as complex as this, with so many components and features that must co-exist within the same system and interact with each other. You have HTML parsers, and GUI, and JavaScript interpreters, and networking code, and a ***** of other components, all trying to work together, relying on each other to do their job, working in a complex system of constant data requests, writing to memory, and a load of other stuff. Making a small change to even one of the components of this system is potentially extremely dangerous.
Pay more attention to the version number. Not the "3" part, but all the numbers after it. That's how many times the programmers had to re-compile their code and send it off to the QA team, all to track down and fix the thousands of bugs they undoubtedly introduced through their changes in the code, and so many others that they didn't find that we now have to deal with when we see this thing crash again and again. - brstilson, on 10/11/2007, -11/+16"The most glaring flaw of Safari 3 on Windows is its utter lack of stability."
I use Safari 3 on both my Windows machines at work and at home, I downloaded it the second it became available, and I have yet to crash once. - theMurdocVolta, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7@audiowizard
"So this is like PC giving Mac IE7"
Notice how I specifically said IE7 not IE5 or IE
"Microsoft recommended everyone use Safari."
No, Microsoft said "It is recommended that Macintosh users migrate to more recent web browsing technologies such as Apple's Safari."
because Microsoft was no longer going to support IE5 for Mac. - gnazzah, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7"Even Opera users are happy!"
Except it would be nice to get to be mentioned in these tests once in a while. The browser, I mean. Allthough Opera and Safari are quite far apart feature wise they are compatitive:
Safari pwns Opera on looks. (And html rendering.)
Opera slaughters Safari on everything else. - brstilson, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8Other than the instability issues (which I have not experienced), I agree with pretty much everything. Also, I don't like how there is no Home button on the toolbar. Ctrl+Shift+H is an uncomfortable gymnastics feat for one hand, which means I usually have to take the right one off the mouse, which interrupts the flow of browsing.
- brstilson, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8Funny how no one ever mentions Firefox's piss-poor rendering. Half the sites I visit for work in Firefox have text boxes overlapping and running into each other. These same pages render perfectly in Opera, Safari, and IE.
- jedioniram, on 10/11/2007, -7/+11Where's the Opera love!?!
- brstilson, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5It also explains why the font-smoothing and UI effects still look like OS X. There probably wasn't enough time to port all the APIs in Safari over to Windows equivalents.
Personally, I like anything this program can do to make me forget I'm using Windows. - xspinkickx, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7ugh browsers and operating systems ultimately boil down your personal preference....you what you like best and stop trying to convince everyone why your browser is better.
- MacParrot, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Ars Technica is a site I would consider more neutral than many others I can name (but won't bother). Sounds like Apple needs to do a lot more work to make it more Windows friendly. It isn't up to a software developer to force users to do things their way, it's up to the developer to have their software do things the way the user expects it to.
To turn things around I offer this example. When Microsoft released Word 6 for the Mac, they decided that its feature set and look and feel was going to be identical to the way it worked in Windows. Mac users howled in protest (I was one of them) that it was a piece of garbage and that it didn't follow Apple's human interface guidelines. The next release was more Mac-like and we all moved on.
Why should Windows users have to do things Apple's way? Apple, get a clue. Want to make this work? Make the basic features set work the way other Windows programs do.
And no, being a beta is no excuse - kethraal, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"Please do tell, what are these "important web standards" that ie7 does not support?"
Most of CSS2. Any part of CSS3. Hell... they still don't even have the CSS 1 box model right yet...
It's kind of annoying writing one stylesheet for your site... then writing another style sheet for IE 6. And then one more for IE 7. - kraniac, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Because Camino is not compatible with Firefox extensions.
- Satanael, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I recall an article where a Microsoft employee himself stated that IE would probably never support things such as CSS as well as FireFox.
- stimpack, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I am hoping this will strengthen the hand of KHTML. While I am a Firefox user, Its no good for just Gecko to be the only prominent rendering technology.
- bbardlbradd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Wow, a peaceful and positive outcome on digg??? BLASPHEMY!@
- Escamillo, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6@murdoc
MacIE wasn't "crap". It was the default Mac browser before Apple made Safari, and was praised by Jobs and Mac magazines as being the best Mac browser at the time (better than Netscape). After Apple made Safari as their default browser, Microsoft dropped Mac IE so as not to expend resources on it when it was likely that Mac users would move to Safari. - Izacus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4No, he lists things that are incosistent with the OS it's running on and when considering other browsers. Most of all other browsers use the same key combinations and interface quirks, so switching is really easy.
- kraniac, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3God, I hope not. That would mean that Firefox 3 got scrapped.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -7/+10Oh here come all the Apple apologists. It might totally suck ass but we think it's the best browser EVAR!
- BitSlash, on 10/11/2007, -7/+10Go play with the Firefox Alpha versions, and see which one is more stable. Hint: it's not Safari beta.
- brstilson, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Thanks for that. I guess I didn't play around with it enough.
- KeyLimePie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Some minor annoyances I've also come across is that it displays PNGs at a different gamma to JPEGs which is also true for IE. Also, the 'Ctrl + Backspace' way to delete whole words at a time isn't present in Safari and middle-click autoscroll/close tab functions are absent.
- audiowizard, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Thanks for the history lesson on MacIE. I had no idea.
When I jumped ship from winXP to MacOSX, IE5 was crap. At first I was excited, thinking I could do web dev tests on IE in OSX...meh.
But it's interesting to know there was a time when Safari didn't exist, and MacIE was the leading browser on MacOS's
I use a FF / Safari combo these days, and IE7 only for testing. - jeriqo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Most of the people I know who got Macs use Safari.
It is faster than Firefox and doesn't miss any feature, except maybe images auto-resizing.
The search function was better in Firefox than in Safari 2, but it's now best in Safari 3.
So. ?
I bet Apple will come with a new beta version in a few days, and that it will be stable in a few weeks.
I'll be happy to use Safari when using Windows on my Mac. - iFox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Done =)
- Escamillo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@futureguy
Actually, in the mid-90s, Microsoft did make Mac software that looked too much like Windows 3.x software, when they released MacWord 6. But they learned their lesson and righted their ways with Mac Office98. - tedc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I'm sure Stealther works just fine, but what I like about having private browsing built in is that I know it's going to be there when I'm using someone else's computer. That's mostly when I want it on, anyway. I wish all browsers had it.
- bbardlbradd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2 Yeah, I downloaded it as soon as I realized it was out, haven't had a problem with it since. There are minor differences in Firefox/safari hotkeys though, that's a bit annoying, so I don't use it on windows.
I had a firefox guru run a speed test between Firefox 2 and Safari 3, on a digg post that I picked out and sent him via aim... after all his high talking of firefox the page finished rendering in Safari 3 in 11 seconds, and then in Firefox 27 seconds...
I use Safari as my default browser on Mac (looking forward to FF3), but I wouldn't use it on a PC. Mac software just isn't the same on a PC as it is in a Mac...owell.
- tantalic, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3@ b1663r - There's a number of features, of primary importance to most developers/designers is CSS. There's a huge number of resources on the web describing these deficiencies and the problems with them so do a little Google search. For a more statistical analysis this is a pretty good report of the status of IE: http://www.webdevout.net/browser-support-summary
@chris9902 - Backward compatibility can be achieved while moving forward which is why modern browsers have a ''quirks mode" whose primary purpose is to render pages the same way IE used to. The reality is most of the standards that Microsoft doesn't support wouldn't cause "99.9% of websites would brake overnight". Do you think Opera/Firefox/Safari only work with .1% of the web? Of course not, a good portion of the so called site-breaking standards have been implemented in IE7, and web-sites have been making adjustments for the past year to account for that. What is left is simply a result of waiting to long to even try to implement web standards. - haylcron, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Wow, I didn't realize to write for Ars you can actually claim unsubstantiated "facts." I'm sorry safari kept crashing on you... but on what pages? how many tabs were open? what else was running? I've run the beta on my windows machine since it came out and have yet to see a crash. I've reported a half dozen bugs, but never had a crash. This is the problem with reviews like this, it's one person's experience with NO facts and it will be heralded by users everywhere simply b/c it's posted on a popular site.
I'm sure I'll be dugg down for this comment, but really, why don't we challenge this kind of stuff?
BTW, I use Firefox on my Mac and not safari so I'm not preaching how "great" safari is, but asking for people to do more than accept something at face value. - theMurdocVolta, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Okay, Hold on, I'm going to end this now, because its getting stupid.
I don't care about being Dugg down, the world will keep on spinning, but I never once said IE for Mac was "Crap".
"QUOTING MURDOC: 'I don't know why I'm being Dugg down, if you look at my previous posts I call IE for Mac "crap."'
there you go buddy, you called IE crap. live with it. I'm telling Mrs.Wilson, and Gates."
Well, I got caught in a typo, I will admit, theres suppose to be a don't in there, but I did however two post up say
"I don't recall saying that IE for Mac was "crap", care to quote me?"'
So... I never really said it, Escamillo had nothing to back that "quote" up on and this is the last post I will make on the subject.
Oh and my opinion on IE for Mac is this; It ain't love, but it ain't bad. - loof, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2IE is a very good browser. I'm still using firefox but I don't complain when I have to use IE7 at work.
Unfortunately for Apple and Mozilla, the majority of the browser market is held by IE which means that the majority of websites are designed for IE. Standards are great but the web is driven by IE which makes it the de facto standard. - blinking81, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I can't believe that all the crap that Apple and their fanboys (me included) give Microsoft for being unsecure and they even bother to release this hunk of junk for Windows. I mean surely they would want to impress everyone and show microsoft how to a secure browser should run instead of just becoming a laughing stock.
They must have realised that everyone was going to hack the crap out of it until they found some vulnerabilities as a point of principle that nothing is entirely invulnerable.
Shame. I'm using the Safari v3beta now on OS X and I love it, much faster and some well needed updates are finally there (along with some nice new ones to). -
Show 51 - 100 of 128 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is