Safari for Windows?

[arn]

MacPlus.org (http://www.macplus.org/magplus/imprimer.php?id_article=4466) reports that Apple may be porting Safari for Windows.

Safari is Apple's own Web Browser, which was released in January - to the surprise of many. Apple has already stated that iTunes 4 will be arriving for the Windows platform by the end of 2003, but has given no indications of porting other applications to the Windows platform.

[MacRumors]

can someone post a human translation of the article?

[ibookin']

The PC user in me says Yea!

The Mac User in me says "Why let Windows have our great browser?"

[Freg3000]

Wow, this is a little out there. I doubt Apple would ever really do this.....I mean, why would a PC user ever use Safari over IE 6?

[yzedf]

Originally posted by Freg3000
Wow, this is a little out there. I doubt Apple would ever really do this.....I mean, why would a PC user ever use Safari over IE 6?
tabs

[King Cobra]

Try this:

The English version (http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.macplus.org%2Fmagplus%2Fimprimer.php%3Fid_article%3D4466&lp=fr_en&tt=url)

[szark]

Why would a PC user use IE 6? I never have. :)

Choices are always good, but Safari will lose any speed advantage on Windows, since IE is integrated at the OS level.

[Sonofhaig]

Originally posted by ibookin'
The PC user in me says Yea!

The Mac User in me says "Why let Windows have our great browser?"

I couldn't agree with you more.....

[Freg3000]

Originally posted by yzedf
tabs

Maybe, but I doubt that a measurable percentage of PC users would switch because of tabs. Most probably wouldn't care.

[mattfelsen]

for a tabbed browser on windows, you can't do much better than mozilla firebird. aside from tabs, it duplicates a lot of features safari has, like the google search box in the toolbar, which itself is customizable in the same manner as all cocoa apps.

i doubt apple would port safari though, because this means they'd have to port a lot of frameworks which it relies on, such as cocoa and webcore.

we'll see though.

[testnull]

Believe it or not, this makes technical sense. Why? iTunes 4 uses the WebCore component for its HTML rendering! I doubt Apple seriously wants to do any more work than is strictly necessary, and choosing another embedded HTML engine than ones own mean yet more work.

As far as business sense - I've always wanted a KHTML browser for Windows, and it would surely be ironic to see people using an Apple browser on Windows. Whether that's worth the effort, I can't tell. Maybe if there's a non-deletable "Switch" bookmark in the bookmarks bar and it's the default web page...

[King Cobra]

Originally posted by testnull
As far as business sense - I've always wanted a KHTML browser for Windows, and it would surely be ironic to see people using an Apple browser on Windows.

Well then it's equally ironic to see Mac users use Internet Explorer.

And don't call me Surly.

[j763]

Originally posted by testnull
Maybe if there's a non-deletable "Switch" bookmark in the bookmarks bar and it's the default web page...

maybe that would be incredibly stupid and annoying.

[yumpin yiminy]

Originally posted by testnull
Believe it or not, this makes technical sense. Why? iTunes 4 uses the WebCore component for its HTML rendering! I doubt Apple seriously wants to do any more work than is strictly necessary, and choosing another embedded HTML engine than ones own mean yet more work.



wouldn't they just use whatever is available on windows(or something programmed especially for it) for HTML rendering? It doesn't seem like they would need to port Webcore. They'd just use something else.
That said, I can't see the advantage of giving Windows users another option for browsers. Linux users, yeah. Most browser makers don't make money off of browsers anymore. So, where would be an advantage for Apple? "It runs even better on a Mac?" scrolling across the bottom of every open Safari window?

[MoparShaha]

I think its nice that apple is trying to reach a broader base with porting various apps to windows, but I don't think its gonna catch on. As a lot of us have read in the "Whats the stupidest thing a PC user has asked you?" (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26640) post here on macrumors, its obvious many windows users don't have a clue. They'll just view safari as another "lame" apple product. I agree with the previous posters, why should we send our great browswer to the windows world, who probably won't appreciate it as much as we do.

I also question whether sending our apps to the windows platform is a smart move, business wise. One of the great things about the mac is all these wonderful, free apps that are included. So many of my PC using friends wish they had cool apps like the iLife apps. To me, this seems like an incentive to "switch", since such well written programs aren't readily available on windows. If apple starts marketing these apps to windows, where's the incentive to switch? I do understand porting iTunes to windows is necessary to get the Music Store working for them, but still, part of me wishes iTunes was still mac-only. That way many of my PC using friends wouldn't have the benifit of superior apple technology. (mean-spirited? YES!:D)

[dswoodley]

Given the looming release of iTunes for Windows, does anyone thing that the next version of iTunes (porbably coming out around the same time) will be closely bundled/integrated with Safari - so that in order to use iTunes you had to have Safari as well? Crazy idea or what?

[Dont Hurt Me]

Mopar is right, this is a good idea by apple and will awaken some pc'eer's out there they can do better. As soon as they fix a few gliches that is such as my weather maps not moving. But all in all i like safari better then explorer. faster and better looking.

[AntoineG]

Originally posted by Macrumors
can someone post a human translation of the article?

I corrected the mechanical translation as best as I could, I'm from Canada and it's written a little different then we do here... I did not correct error...

I have just received a rather original email, although relatively worthy of confidence, which announces to me proudly that the firm of Cupertino would have in project to release a Windows version of its own browser Safari! Yes you read well, an Apple browser for the cousins. This strategic opening of Safari would come along the Steve Jobs official announcment of the release of iTunes 4 for the operating system of Microsoft at the end of the year 2003 to benefit from the iMusic service launched lately. End of received information.

Why not? This port would not be so complicated to carry out, and would make it possible to open even more the Mac world to the remainder of the informatic world community. It would at least be a big inversion of situation, whereas during several years the firm of Redmond was our principal supplier on the matter (I do not forget Netscape, also...) on our hard disks. As for the veracity of this information which leaves some dreaming? We will see well when Santa Claus comes by the Ethernet cable in a few months. Apple continue to seek its developer to carry iTunes on Windows, it could very well have this mission in addition of carrying Safari, no? _: -)

[Billicus]

This might be a good idea, but when Apple releases their products for the dark side they remove a reason to switch to the Macintosh, don't you think?

[P-Worm]

Whoa, this sure came out of nowhere!

I don't know if this is feasable or not. Part of me begs the question, why would Apple ever do something like this? I thought that internet browsing on Windows was top-notch. Maybe there is a new addition in that GM version of Safari that none of us have heard of. It better be big, because everyone on Windows uses Internet Explorer.

P-Worm

[Le Big Mac]

Originally posted by yzedf
tabs

And a pop-up stopper you don't have to pay for. And that works. (Sorry panicware)

Microsoft must be reluctant to do that because advertisers would scream a monopolist is excluding them.

[P-Worm]

Originally posted by dswoodley
Given the looming release of iTunes for Windows, does anyone thing that the next version of iTunes (porbably coming out around the same time) will be closely bundled/integrated with Safari - so that in order to use iTunes you had to have Safari as well? Crazy idea or what?

I don't think that sounds so crazy. I mean I don't see why Windows users would want to use Safari at all (they're not used to doing things themselves) so expect that this must have something we haven't thought of, like tight integration.

This is getting exciting! :cool:

P-Worm

[Chef Ramen]

all i can think is


WTF will brushed metal look like in XP??? :confused:

[vniow]

Originally posted by Chef Ramen
all i can think is


WTF will brushed metal look like in XP??? :confused:

Possibly like Quicktime?

[testnull]

Originally posted by yumpin yiminy
wouldn't they just use whatever is available on windows(or something programmed especially for it) for HTML rendering? It doesn't seem like they would need to port Webcore.

Need? Possibly not. Would? I would. iTunes is not likely to be a one-off port to Windows. It will be maintained, and maintence of a port is much easier when you share components cross-platform.

Now that I think of it, porting Safari would be trivial anyway - most of WebCore consists of a QT->Cocoa layer - a layer that wouldn't need to be written for Windows, as they could simply use QT for Win32. Alternately, they could use the vestigal remnants of Yellow Box for NT still present in WebObjects to accomplish the same thing.

I've wondered about this before - it would be a great advertisement for Apple, and I hope they do it. If not, here's hoping a KHTML->Win32 project springs up :cool:

[MacFan26]

Originally posted by Billicus
This might be a good idea, but when Apple releases their products for the dark side they remove a reason to switch to the Macintosh, don't you think?


I would agree with this. If Apple does port Safari to windows, they might even consider porting more apps also. I have always used Apple software as part of the argument to switch, but if any windows user can use most of these applications, what's the point?

[iJed]

Originally posted by testnull
iTunes 4 uses the WebCore component for its HTML rendering! I doubt Apple seriously wants to do any more work than is strictly necessary, and choosing another embedded HTML engine than ones own mean yet more work.


No it does not use WebCore actually.

iTunes 4 links against the following libraries:

/usr/lib/libz.1.1.3.dylib (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 1.1.3)
/usr/lib/libSystem.B.dylib (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 60.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/Carbon.framework/Versions/A/Carbon (compatibility version 2.0.0, current version 122.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/IOKit.framework/Versions/A/IOKit (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 120.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/QuickTime.framework/Versions/A/QuickTime (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 171.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/vecLib.framework/Versions/A/vecLib (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 135.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/AGL.framework/Versions/A/AGL (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 1.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/OpenGL.framework/Versions/A/OpenGL (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 1.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/CoreAudio.framework/Versions/A/CoreAudio (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 1.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/AudioUnit.framework/Versions/A/AudioUnit (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 1.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/CoreServices.framework/Versions/A/CoreServices (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 14.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/SystemConfiguration.framework/Versions/A/SystemConfiguration (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 53.0.0)

[DeusOmnis]

Sorry, i havnt read all the posts before this one, but....


Apple's current strategy seems to be moving towards making windows users confortable with apple technology. When a windows user regularly uses apple's safari, apple's itunes, apple's quicktime, apple's ipod, etc, they will know the quality of apple and may be less afraid of moving into a macintosh environment - it will feel less foreign.


Personally, i think it's a great strategy, and mac users should feel great about apple doing this. I think it *may* be very effective, but only if apple can get windows users to use safair. Firebird is a HUGE contender.

[boobers]

yay for me.
I could see it happen but nothing can beat the install base. However it could make some strides as PC users would be tempted.

[Pedro Estarque]

Apple will never do this, as far as I can imagine.
First, it would be quite a developing effort, considering it must be at least much better then IE 6.
Second, IE in the win world is synonymous to web browsing, most people don't even remember there was a browser named netscape in there desktop a few years ago. They won't bother considering to switch, specially when they are very happy with web browsing.
And also mostly because apple wouldn't want to start a fight with MS about something that is almost impossible to accomplish (web monopoly) and make no profit out of it

[vniow]

Originally posted by DeusOmnis
Firebird is a HUGE contender.

Indeed, Mozilla Firebird is the best browser period in my opinion and it would be pretty hard to convince me to switch from it but if this rumor is true then its not going to be targeted at people like me, where did I hear about Firebird?
Places like /. and such, techy stuff, many more people know about Apple than a niche (although excellent) browser and Apple could use their marketing muscle and their presence in the computer industry to pre-install Safari on a Dell or something, I dunno...

[mim]

Originally posted by szark
Choices are always good, but Safari will lose any speed advantage on Windows, since IE is integrated at the OS level.

heh
hehehahahehe
hehehahHRHAHAHRHAHARHAHERREAAA
HHHHHHHHHHAARRRRRRAHHHHHAAARRRRRRRHHHHAERRRR
.....
.....
.....
<s******>

Although I see no reason why Explorer/Finder whatever functions can be done by a browser instead. Give me Safari based browsing and file sorting on my PC and I'll be a happy man.

Almost anything would be better than "Explorer" exploring my HD and the net. Fast, my arse.

<edit above blank is "s n i g g e r" - not fascit or nothing>

[Sol]

Originally posted by testnull
iTunes 4 uses the WebCore component for its HTML rendering!

I have doubts about a WebCore port being used for anything other than iTunes 4 on Windows. There is no money in web-browsers and releasing Safari for Windows would seem like a hostile move against Microsoft.

Now I am all for Mac domination but a little web-browser battle will not win any war for the desktop. Consider the risks of such a move: Microsoft could drop development of Office, or even worse, Halo for OS X!

Without a clearer picture of Apple's strategy for the next five years it is hard to imagine why they would release Safari at this point.

[j33pd0g]

I hope they don't. But if they did I wonder if they'll release Safari beta 1 for peecee and go through the same process as they did with us mac users. I think they would have to wow them something fierce to get them to use it. What would it look like? I wonder... (insert dreamy music)

[mim]

Maybe it's alonger term strategy. Microspud has been boasting about producing a search engine better than Google. Possibly it's a way of keeping Google tied into a browser NAME that has a level of "Joe Common's" attention. I use Firebird (let's call it "Flaming Rooster" since it will undoubtable be forced to change name AGAIN...), but I'm one of those rare folk like most of you who has actually heard of it.

A Google/Apple Safari alliance may actually make people think twice about using Microsearch which will be tied into Explorer for sure.

Also as a benifit, more web developers thinking about Safari and formatting for/supporting it's features is not a bad thing. The only way for that to happen is to get it onto more desktops, regardless of the platform.

[bretm]

Originally posted by mim
<s******>


<edit above blank is "s n i g g e r" - not fascit or nothing>

I think the word you were looking for is snicker? As in quietly laughing under your breath. No?

[j33pd0g]

Originally posted by mim
Maybe it's alonger term strategy. Microspud has been boasting about producing a search engine better than Google. Possibly it's a way of keeping Google tied into a browser NAME that has a level of "Joe Common's" attention. I use Firebird (let's call it "Flaming Rooster" since it will undoubtable be forced to change name AGAIN...), but I'm one of those rare folk like most of you who has actually heard of it.

A Google/Apple Safari alliance may actually make people think twice about using Microsearch which will be tied into Explorer for sure.

Also as a benifit, more web developers thinking about Safari and formatting for/supporting it's features is not a bad thing. The only way for that to happen is to get it onto more desktops, regardless of the platform.


Actually that sounds practical.

[richie]

I hope not, and I think not. Didn't Apple say that the reason they developed Safari was to fill a gap in the MacOS X experience? Porting Safari to Windows after that just seems odd. Besides, as people have said, if all the great iApps are ported to Windows, it's not a great way to endear yourself to your loyal customer-base :/

[mim]

Apple have to give all those folks who have been developing all these great apps for the past 2 years something else to do now!

I personally think they should give a hell of a lot more support to the open source projects. For instance they could take open-office and make it the killer app it should be (it really just needs the Apple touch - pretty buttons and interface now, which they could then sell as their proprietry bit). I don't know why they didn't do this with Firebird. It seems such a waste. They could have had every Linux *nix administrator in the world eternally grateful to them.

No bad thing seeing it's these kind of people advising companies what IT toys to buy....

[mim]

Originally posted by bretm
I think the word you were looking for is snicker? As in quietly laughing under your breath. No?

no that's a chocolate bar..


Aactually I just checked the dictonary:

The original word was T i t t e r (1619)
then S n i c k e r (1694)
then S n i g g e r (1706)

How about that, hey?

Sorry about the off topicness.

[sparkleytone]

Originally posted by szark
Why would a PC user use IE 6? I never have. :)

Choices are always good, but Safari will lose any speed advantage on Windows, since IE is integrated at the OS level.

how can you say that when Firebird makes IE look like molasses on a cold day? i use firebird every day at work and it is just damned FAST compared to IE.

[sergeantmudd]

Just a couple points

1. iTunes does not use WebCore. People have proven it by showing linked frameworks and you don't need a full rendering engine to render a handful of pages all put out by Apple.

2. KHTML on Windows is a bad idea. KHTML is heavily dependant on the Unix way of doing things. I am not a computer science major, but KHTML is written specifcally for the strucutre of a Unix operating system. Hence it's speed. IF possible, I would guess the speed of KHTML for Windows would be about the speed of IE for Mac.

3. Safari or KHTML? Say Apple was able to port KHTML, what good would it do. Not too many Mac users love Konquerer. We don't love the engine, we love the browser. And the browser needs Cocoa. The front end is heavily heavily dependant on the Cocoa frameworks. And the Cocoa frameworks are not available for Windows. The amount of work necessary is tremendous. So even if Apple ported KHTML, the Safari experience is not available.

4. Tabs are not needed for IE, because the task bar is basically tabs already. Not perfect, but for most people good enough. When I use a PC and IE, I browse with IE's window full screen. If I open a new window, it gets its own tab in the taskbar. To switch all I need is a mouse click. Same thing as tabs, just implemented system wide.

5. Windows sucks. I am 95% certain on all I have said. But I have been and will be wrong. I will try to find links to back up the Unix structure stuff.

[bertagert]

I doubt it would ever happen and why would they?

1. The browser war is over on the pc side. IE won. Not even Mozilla is a contender anymore (even though I use firebird and wish others did as well). IE is in the 90% usage range, opera and mozilla/netscape in the other 10%. If Mozilla can't get people back, how do you think Apple would do it?

2. As a web developer, I can't stand having all these browsers. It sucks having to make sites compatible with the currrent browsers and all the pervious browser and on different platforms. I don't want another one to code for. My fingers get tired. This is more of a dream so don't take offense :)

If there is any porting going on, it would be for itunes only. That way they don't have to rely on any version of IE to do the html render. All the html features would be on Apple's terms, not IE's.

Case closed!

One more thing:

Le Big Mac wrote about a pop blocker that you don't have to pay for. Mozilla has had this and tabs for awhile now.

[maradong]

that would be particulary cool...

[mim]

Originally posted by sparkleytone
how can you say that when Firebird makes IE look like molasses on a cold day? i use firebird every day at work and it is just damned FAST compared to IE.

This is the absolute truth. And the Firebird team doesn't have access to secret Windows API's or nothing.

If anyone suggests ever again that Explorer is tied in some intrinsic way to the Windows operating system, I will be once again forced to s n i c k e r, and it won't be pretty.

Imagine if Safari became the best way of navigating a windows file system - not only the web. What a coup. And >not< unrealistic. Apple should just go for it.

[sergeantmudd]

Well, it's possible. But I am still saying not fast.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/khtml-win32/

[frozenstar]

Originally posted by sergeantmudd
4. Tabs are not needed for IE, because the task bar is basically tabs already. Not perfect, but for most people good enough. When I use a PC and IE, I browse with IE's window full screen. If I open a new window, it gets its own tab in the taskbar. To switch all I need is a mouse click. Same thing as tabs, just implemented system wide.

The critical difference is that with tabs, you don't need to open multiple browser windows.

[Flynnstone]

This could be great !
One thing I feel Apple is missing is a way to port Cocoa apps to Windows. As a developer, I prefer to develop one code base if possible. But Cocoa is very different from anything on the PC (except ... is it GNUStep?).
So ... if Apple ports iTunes and Safari and anything else to Windows, then they must likely have a method to port Cocoa to Windows. Perhaps an announcement at WWDC.
:) :) :)

[yumpin yiminy]

and someone mentioning Google and MS' efforts to remake its seach engine, and out do Google....maybe i can see this browser thing.
Not because of the search engine exactly or because of transporting the Mac experience, either.
The only reason Apple would really have to make a Windows app, like Apple Works or iTunes, is to make money off of sales.
So, what if Apple tried to get in on having people sign up for .Mac?
Selling services to Windows users...well it is a larger pool than us, right?

If you tie the services into the browser and sort of transform the browser into a webservices application, primarily used not to surf the web but to access those .Mac, whatever you could have, why not tap into a system that is an alternative to MSN?
I don't know if it is possible or wise, given MSN trying to co-op standards and still having that monopoly, but, that is a more valid purpose for such things, no?

oh yeah, the thing is anyone who uses Apple's oneclick implementation in iTunes will need an account anyhow. and it is the Apple ID. You see what I'm saying?

[???]

[psxndc]

Originally posted by Freg3000
Wow, this is a little out there. I doubt Apple would ever really do this.....I mean, why would a PC user ever use Safari over IE 6?

Originally posted by yzedf
tabs

already done and it uses the IE rendering engine.

www.crazybrowser.com

I can't use my Windows machines without it.

-p

[pimentoLoaf]

Considering that every day IE crashes on my PC for some odd reason or another, Safari on the PC couldn't come too soon.

[Abstract]

Originally posted by DeusOmnis
Sorry, i havnt read all the posts before this one, but....


Apple's current strategy seems to be moving towards making windows users confortable with apple technology. When a windows user regularly uses apple's safari, apple's itunes, apple's quicktime, apple's ipod, etc, they will know the quality of apple and may be less afraid of moving into a macintosh environment - it will feel less foreign.


Personally, i think it's a great strategy, and mac users should feel great about apple doing this. I think it *may* be very effective, but only if apple can get windows users to use safair. Firebird is a HUGE contender.

Less foreign? Its a web browser thats very much like Mozilla and Opera. Nobody who uses Mozilla or Opera would see Safari as "foreign". A person who DOES see Safari as foreign would probably think Mozilla and Opera were foreign as well, but such people would probably never switch away from IE anyway.

EDIT: I also don't see Safari users on PC's switching to Apple because of a browser, iTunes, and iPod. Why would PC users switch when they're getting the great software for free? PC users don't want to switch not because they don't think the software is great, but because they don' t want to learn how to use a new OS, which would take time and effort. Giving them Safari and iTunes may give PC users a new alternative, but this software isn't what potential switchers are thinking of when they flirt with the idea of switching. Its the hassle of relearning everything they know how to do on a new OS, and purchasing all new software.

If Microsoft integrate their own search engine into IE, I can see another two lawsuits against Microsoft for using their size and power to pound the alternative browsers and search engines out of business.

[CJYetman]

Someone please explain to me why Apple would spend one cent and/or one second on porting a free app to Windows... and don't say look at iTunes, cause they're making money off of iTunes through the music store, even if the app is actually free.

[MisterEdNZ]

I know from a reliable source that Apple's long term business plan is to move from focusing on hardware to software. This will apparently go as far as releasing a version of OSX that will run on an X86 chipset ... yup that's Pentiums, Athlons etc. to you and me.

Because only a tiny percentage of computers worldwide run on an Apple OS the market for Apple hardware is really pretty small, which makes it that much harder for Apple to make a buck out of their hardware as their development costs are that much higher. I'm pretty sure this is why they want to shift the Apple experience from being hardware based to being software based.

Seems to me that porting apps like iTunes and Safari is not only functional (ie. windows users being able to buy music from the itunes store) but also the beginning of a process of 'acclimatisation' to start getting more Apple presence on Windows machines.

[Fukui]

Originally posted by Flynnstone
This could be great !
One thing I feel Apple is missing is a way to port Cocoa apps to Windows. As a developer, I prefer to develop one code base if possible. But Cocoa is very different from anything on the PC (except ... is it GNUStep?).
So ... if Apple ports iTunes and Safari and anything else to Windows, then they must likely have a method to port Cocoa to Windows. Perhaps an announcement at WWDC.
:) :) :)
Search the net for OPENSTEP, specifically YellowBox...too bad they dropped it...if iTunes and Safari are any indication, they may resurect that as well, at least a Java version of Yellow Box wouldn't be so bad...

I bet they had to drop it so they could get MS Office support from Mr. Gatez...:mad:

[sinclairZX81]

Originally posted by mim
no that's a chocolate bar..


Aactually I just checked the dictonary:

The original word was T i t t e r (1619)
then S n i c k e r (1694)
then S n i g g e r (1706)

How about that, hey?

Sorry about the off topicness.

chortle :D

[usersince86]

Why?

(Would make more sense to make Safari than IE on the MAC first; THEN port it -maybe...)

[beatle888]

Originally posted by DeusOmnis
Apple's current strategy seems to be moving towards making windows users confortable with apple technology.

bingo

[mim]

Originally posted by beatle888
bingo

Along side this is the possibility that Safari is being developed on Windows to complement more cross-platform Apple devices. Where's that new communication device, eh?

[Doraemon]

Originally posted by MisterEdNZ
I know from a reliable source that Apple's long term business plan is to move from focusing on hardware to software. This will apparently go as far as releasing a version of OSX that will run on an X86 chipset ... yup that's Pentiums, Athlons etc. to you and me.

Yeah. We heard all these rumors like a hundred of times. And we heard the pro-x86 and con-x86 arguments.
And I doubt you have any serious information. This is pure speculation and personally, I don't see it happening.


And Safari for Windows is not going to happen.
Why should Apple?
iTunes and the Music Store generate profits.
But what would Apple get from releasing Safari for Windows?
The developement of a browser costs lots of money. And by releasing Safari for Windows potential 'switchers' can use cool Apple software on their Wintel machines.
Frankly, I don't see why Apple would throw its cash out of the window.

Safari for Mac makes perfect sense. Another strong argument for MacOS X. A great OS with a great browser.

[nuckinfutz]

I know from a reliable source that Apple's long term business plan is to move from focusing on hardware to software. This will apparently go as far as releasing a version of OSX that will run on an X86 chipset ... yup that's Pentiums, Athlons etc. to you and me.


This would only be as a last resort. One only needs to look at the margins available on Hardware versus Software to see the disparity. If your Microsoft you can make huge amounts of money on Software most others are barely getting by. If you see OSX on X86 that means the Macintosh is almost dead and on life support.

Someone please explain to me why Apple would spend one cent and/or one second on porting a free app to Windows... and don't say look at iTunes, cause they're making money off of iTunes through the music store, even if the app is actually free.

They won't. This makes absolutely NO financial sense for Apple. Not only that it would actually cause a deficit in revenue as they'd be deluged with support calls. This just isn't happening. Sure it's possible...just not probable.

PC users don't live under rocks. Sure not all have had first hand experience with Macs but a nifty Browser isn't going to hold sway with most when confronted with the Bottom Line....buying a Mac cost more money. Apple needs to improve Quicktime on PC and deliver iTunes PC before considering any other moves into PC Land.

[MacsRgr8]

Originally posted by Doraemon
Yeah. We heard all these rumors like a hundred of times. And we heard the pro-x86 and con-x86 arguments.
And I doubt you have any serious information. This is pure speculation and personally, I don't see it happening.


And Safari for Windows is not going to happen.
Why should Apple?
iTunes and the Music Store generate profits.
But what would Apple get from releasing Safari for Windows?
The developement of a browser costs lots of money. And by releasing Safari for Windows potential 'switchers' can use cool Apple software on their Wintel machines.
Frankly, I don't see why Apple would throw its cash out of the window.

Safari for Mac makes perfect sense. Another strong argument for MacOS X. A great OS with a great browser.

Totally agree.
OS X and iApps on x86. Apple wants to become a 2nd Microsnot..... yeah right.

[mim]

Originally posted by MacsRgr8
Totally agree.
OS X and iApps on x86. Apple wants to become a 2nd Microsnot..... yeah right.

[throws all caution to the wind]

What if Apple started making x86 hardware too?

[Vanilla]

I personally agree that porting Apple software to Windows is an excellent idea.

Once Windows users familiarise themselves with Apple software, appreciate the elegance, robustness and intuitiveness of the experience and realise that over time they are predominately using Apple software over Windows software its a short hop skip and a jump to buying the hardware.

Its a neat way of raising awareness of Apples strength in the windows user base, provides some revenue and removes one additional layer of uncertainty for potential switchers.

Vanilla

[physicsnerd]

Question that this brings up, and I must admit that I know very little about cocoa. Is it possible to make a complier (not sure if that the right term) that could complie Cocoa for both windows and OSX without tweaking the source code for each distro? If Apple could do something like this porting apps between the platforms could theoretically be seamless. Developers write everything for Cocoa, hit one button and it complies for OSX, and another for windows. Is just a dumb idea or something that Apple could pull off?

physicsnerd

-------------------
"Even logic must give way to physics" - Spock

[Fukui]

Originally posted by physicsnerd
Question that this brings up, and I must admit that I know very little about cocoa. Is it possible to make a complier (not sure if that the right term) that could complie Cocoa for both windows and OSX without tweaking the source code for each distro? If Apple could do something like this porting apps between the platforms could theoretically be seamless. Developers write everything for Cocoa, hit one button and it complies for OSX, and another for windows. Is just a dumb idea or something that Apple could pull off?

See my post above.
This has been done (over 10 years ago!), and can be done today. There is no real reason technically that apple couldn't do this (look for project builder screen shots from rapsody), but I suspect it has something to do with MS's gun pointed at Apples head (office IE etc.) keeping them from promoting YellowBox/OPENSTEP on windows...too bad too...OS X would literaly be swimming in Applications by now I they kept it up...

[elmimmo]

What for?

The only reasoning I see in Apple developing its own web browser was to fill the OS's astonishing lack of decent HTML/JavaScript rendering framework for whatever application that asks for it.

The browser itself, while coming along nicely, is pointless.

[X-Baz]

Originally posted by physicsnerd
Question that this brings up, and I must admit that I know very little about cocoa. Is it possible to make a complier (not sure if that the right term) that could complie Cocoa for both windows and OSX without tweaking the source code for each distro? If Apple could do something like this porting apps between the platforms could theoretically be seamless. Developers write everything for Cocoa, hit one button and it complies for OSX, and another for windows. Is just a dumb idea or something that Apple could pull off?
As people have said Cocoa is just the latest version of OpenStep/NextStep, which was available for Windows a few years back. My bet is that this is a big part of what "Marklar" has been all along - maintaining the "OpenStep/Cocoa libraries for Windows" so that apps can be ported quickly and easily. Just make it available to third parties - like me!

[The Reaper]

OMG, can you see the potential of what apple could do with this? they won't just hope that windows users like safari, and switch. i think it goes much deeper than just a web browser - imagine if apple wrote the installer to delete all traces of IE (or just deactivate them), INCLUDING THE INTEGRATED PARTS. Safari will then become the default windows explorer. with an integrated search bar to 'out-google google". such software will be less bloated and far faster than IE, and at the same time, every time a PC user wants to browse files, they will be using a mac product. now THAT'S advertising, and it will drive far more switchers than just another browser. this is where ALL other browsers on windows fail - they are not integrated. even if you use Mozilla or netscape, help files or windows explorer still use IE.

why would windows users use such a browser? apart from the obvious benefits (speed, tabs, integrated search etc), i have a feeling that apple has one more feature to add to safari (say by version 1.0) that will completely revolutionise the browsing experience. i mean, safari is good now, but apple HAS to have something else up there sleeves. do you honestly think that between now and v1.0, apple will add nothing new? of course not. apple loves surprises, and so do we.

in this way, apple could gradually replace windows software on their own turf (but only to a small extent, to get people interested in apple). trojan horse style.

oh, and one more thing... in response to the OS X on x86 comment, and hear me out first, i think that apple will release a version of OS X for PC... and it will be FREE. then, when curious PC users are upgrading their OS, they will try the mac alternative. they will become addicted. THEN, apple will simply not upgrade the PC version... but keep upgrading the mac version of OSX. the PC users who got hooked will switch with their next computer upgrade. the whole process could take as little as 2 years before the benefits pay off significantly.

obviously, to get PC users interested in the first place, they must be able to use their current PC apps within OSX PC. this can be done more easily than on a mac because the apps will be on a x86 chip (which they were written for), so it will be like running classic on a mac.

[PaisanoMan]

Originally posted by The Reaper
in this way, apple could gradually replace windows software on their own turf (but only to a small extent, to get people interested in apple). trojan horse style.


Boy, and people say Microsoft is evil. Sheesh.

[punter]

i haven't read thru ALL the posts, so incase someone has mentioned this I'll keep it short.

Safari for windows?!!! wow that would make apple.... ZERO dollars. If safari is a better product then leave it on apple so people have to switch to use it.

[F/reW/re]

Originally posted by szark
Why would a PC user use IE 6? I never have. :)

Choices are always good, but Safari will lose any speed advantage on Windows, since IE is integrated at the OS level.
Opera is faster than Explorer so I guess OS integration doesn't matter!

[PaisanoMan]

Originally posted by bertagert

2. As a web developer, I can't stand having all these browsers. It sucks having to make sites compatible with the currrent browsers and all the pervious browser and on different platforms. I don't want another one to code for. My fingers get tired. This is more of a dream so don't take offense :)


As another web developer, I would highly recommend reading about web standards. Designing pages for browser X or Y only reinforces their failure to adhere to long-published and oft-ignored web standards.

You CAN and SHOULD write XHTML/CSS that renders correctly in all modern browsers -- MSIE6, the Gecko family, Opera, Safari -- and be aesthetically pleasing at the same time (unlike the W3C's home page, for example).

If you are still laying pages out with tables and mucking about with invisible images, then I think you definitely need to see the benefits (http://www.wired.com/news/explanation.html) of learning modern web design principles (http://www.webstandards.org/about/). Trust me, it's for your own good. :)

[F/reW/re]

Originally posted by The Reaper
OMG, can you see the potential of what apple could do with this? they won't just hope that windows users like safari, and switch. i think it goes much deeper than just a web browser - imagine if apple wrote the installer to delete all traces of IE (or just deactivate them), INCLUDING THE INTEGRATED PARTS. Safari will then become the default windows explorer. with an integrated search bar to 'out-google google". such software will be less bloated and far faster than IE, and at the same time, every time a PC user wants to browse files, they will be using a mac product. now THAT'S advertising, and it will drive far more switchers than just another browser. this is where ALL other browsers on windows fail - they are not integrated. even if you use Mozilla or netscape, help files or windows explorer still use IE.

why would windows users use such a browser? apart from the obvious benefits (speed, tabs, integrated search etc), i have a feeling that apple has one more feature to add to safari (say by version 1.0) that will completely revolutionise the browsing experience. i mean, safari is good now, but apple HAS to have something else up there sleeves. do you honestly think that between now and v1.0, apple will add nothing new? of course not. apple loves surprises, and so do we.

in this way, apple could gradually replace windows software on their own turf (but only to a small extent, to get people interested in apple). trojan horse style.

oh, and one more thing... in response to the OS X on x86 comment, and hear me out first, i think that apple will release a version of OS X for PC... and it will be FREE. then, when curious PC users are upgrading their OS, they will try the mac alternative. they will become addicted. THEN, apple will simply not upgrade the PC version... but keep upgrading the mac version of OSX. the PC users who got hooked will switch with their next computer upgrade. the whole process could take as little as 2 years before the benefits pay off significantly.

obviously, to get PC users interested in the first place, they must be able to use their current PC apps within OSX PC. this can be done more easily than on a mac because the apps will be on a x86 chip (which they were written for), so it will be like running classic on a mac.
Opera has already got all the good things Safari's got and a lot more, but still less than 1% use prefer it over Explorer. It's gonna be even harder for Safari!

[mathiasr]

Originally posted by MisterEdNZ
I know from a reliable source that Apple's long term business plan is to move from focusing on hardware to software. This will apparently go as far as releasing a version of OSX that will run on an X86 chipset ... yup that's Pentiums, Athlons etc. to you and me.
WWDC 2003: 64 bits computing is the future
WWDC 2004: G4 in a coffin, PowerPC 980 introduced
WWDC 2005: Itanium in a coffin, PowerPC64 has 70% of market share among 64 bits workstation and servers

Why would Apple port Mac OS X to x86? IBM wants Apple to help them bring PowerPC64 to the desktop, this is a strategic move.

By the way the POWER5 is coming (fast):
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-ppc&m=104791921406815&w=2

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by testnull
iTunes 4 uses the WebCore component for its HTML rendering!

No, it doesn't. Feel free to browse the package or examine the app binary. It does use WebServicesCore, which is an entirely different framework for XML-RPC stuff. That basically means that the app can talk to a specialized web app without a browser interface.

iTunes does link to the rather primitive HTMLLib in Carbon, so I suppose they could replace that with WebCore in the future if the situation demanded it.

[mathiasr]

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
Apple needs to improve Quicktime on PC and deliver iTunes PC before considering any other moves into PC Land.
Too late:
iDisk Utility for Windows XP (http://www.mac.com/1/idiskutility.html)

[bdkennedy1]

Unless Apple has something up their sleeve, I don't see how this makes any sense. However I do wonder if porting these apps over to Windows has anything to do with Apple possibly moving to x86 processors.

Personally, I think Apple has something up its sleeve.

[hvfsl]

Originally posted by bryank1
Unless Apple has something up their sleeve, I don't see how this makes any sense. However I do wonder if porting these apps over to Windows has anything to do with Apple possibly moving to x86 processors.

Personally, I think Apple has something up its sleeve.

Maybe it is not the switch to PPC970 that will be anounced in June, but switch to intel/amd chips.

[MikeH]

I can't think of one good reason why Apple would want to port Safari to Windows.

iTunes yes, as Apple receives a cut for each track sold via the iTunes store. But what will they get for Safari? They can't charge for it (who would pay?) and there's no way they will even dent IE's strangle hold on the PC browser market - so whats the point. If anything it's just going to reduce the incentive to buy Apple hardware.

Sounds & smells like ********* to me.

[valypan]

Just a crazy thought...but what if they were porting slowly all the apple software to the pc world? And maybe open up Mac os x for non-mac hardware? I read an article a few days ago about some company making a pc that wud also be able to run mac os x...hmmm
what do you guys think if apple really tried to make its software available to wintel machines too? including mac os x?
I mean they sure would give a real alternative to windows to all the other users and they could make a big profit too. At least this would give the windows users an idea of what mac os x is like and what apple can do! Until now they are just very mistrustful and they believe all ************ ppl say about apple being lame etc...

[niar]

Why? it would never be integrated into OS like IE..

[whooleytoo]

Originally posted by MisterEdNZ
I know from a reliable source that Apple's long term business plan is to move from focusing on hardware to software. This will apparently go as far as releasing a version of OSX that will run on an X86 chipset ... yup that's Pentiums, Athlons etc. to you and me.


Obviously, they're trying to emulate the success of OpenStep on the Intel platform..... oh dear...

Or maybe, they're trying to emulate the success of BeOS on the Intel platform.... oh my....

:)
This could only be as a last resort; once Apple moved to x86 they concede any lead they have in hardware/software integration; and concede any control they have over their own destiny; they would be reliant on Intel/AMD, who would tailor their efforts to their biggest target audience, Windows.

Mike.

[Zaid]

If Apple were to port Safari, i doubt that it would have anything to do with moving the platform to x86. Maybe they are porting it to increase the user base of non-IE browsers. If successful more sites would be stds complient rather than IE complient, improving the surfing experience for non-IE users.

just my 2p

[MikeH]

OK, lets say Apple are shifting there focus from hardware to software, wouldn't it make more sense to port an application they could charge for and would be competitive in the Windows world, such Final Cut Pro?

And if this is the case why are ceasing development of the Windows version of Shake?

Doesn't make sense to me.

[Vlade]

That would be great! Then at school I could use a browser that actually works!

why 66% of you think this is negative. If windows users see that itunes4, ipod, and safari are great, they might switch over to the mac

[MikeH]

Personally speaking I'm not trying to be negative, I use a PC at work and would love to use more Apple software - I'm looking forward to the realease of iTunes for the PC.

But Safari is a different case, think of it from Apples position. Why go to all the trouble of making a piece of software for a rival platform, which already has a truly dominant embeded application available already? On top of which they can't charge for it.

iTunes on the other hand encourages people to buy iPods, and music from the online store, for which Apple gets a cut. On top of which owning an iPod may make people look more favourably on other Apple hardware such as iMac's and iBooks etc.

I think Safari, as good as it is, on the PC would just end up as some minority oddball browser, that people who are forced to work with PC's use.

[codecrafter]

Originally posted by Billicus
This might be a good idea, but when Apple releases their products for the dark side they remove a reason to switch to the Macintosh, don't you think?

On the contrary, with users upgrading their PCs every 2 -3 years, I think it makes them more aware of another option when it comes time to get a new machine.

[zac4mac]

Ok, I don't do software. I loathe programming.
But. it seems to me that the addition of the Music Store to iTunes 4 is "browser" stuff. Quite possibly, once that's done for Windows, there's very little work to porting the rest of the code to make Safari stand-alone. It's all about making the Music Store viable and secure from IE tweaks from Redmond.
Anybody remember how much trouble QT for Windows was a few years back? Now almost every PC I see at work has QT on it.

[kikimus]

Not to crash the party, but Mozilla had tabbed browsing long before Safari.

The only reason Apple would do this is that it is needed to support iTunes.

[synergy]

This eWeek article says AOL 9.0 is dropping Real Player in favor of quicktime:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1099484,00.asp

See the second page of the article. As well with ITMS out the word has been AOL wants ITMS for their primary music delivery service as well. 2 apple products now bundled with AOL software. Certainly AOL does have netscape as its browser of choice in some instances. But would they just skip netscape and instead use Safari if Apple ported it? If that is the case, IE would suddenly find a new competitor on the scene who just jumped up in market share.

Will have to wait and see.

[X-Baz]

Originally posted by synergy
But would they just skip netscape and instead use Safari if Apple ported it?

I seriously doubt it - it's taken almost 5 years for Mozilla (nee Netscape) and its variants to become usable (and they are very usable now). I don't think they'll chuck that investment away that quickly.

[GeneR]

Perhaps IE will still be faster because of its integration into Windows. However, Apple has been on the right track making "innovation" its focus of attention during this economic period thus developing its name as a brand synonymous with quality.

STEP 1: Develop Brand for Excellence. Check!
STEP 2: Port that brand over to the PC market to continue developing Brand awareness within the PC community. Check!
STEP 3: Allow awareness of quality products such as the IPOD, ITUNES 4, and SAFARI to establish Apple as the center of the digital lifestyle. Check!

Since M$ has cornered the perception that it is the market authority in the business, sector, why not let Apple make the biggest splash where the consumer really cares: at home? Hmmm. Way to go, Apple. Sounds like a good idea.

[pcp_ip]

just to correct the first page of posts-

tabs and (free) pop-up blocking existed in windows browsers (mozilla for one) long before safari or camino.

[hazmat]

1. Typically Apple sofware has always sucked on Windows. One word: Quicktime.

2. All I use now under Windows at work is Firebird. Awesome. I'm looking forward to seeing how the Mac version of that goes, but it's still way too clunky, interfacewise. But the extensions RULE.

3. People in difference places keep on saying that Firebird copied Safari's Google search bar. I may be wrong, but I believe that Phoenix (before it was called Firebird) had this before Safari even came out. So I think Safari had it after, and maybe copied Phoenix.

So anyway, I think it's a dumb idea to port Safari to Windows. I bet it would suck.

[CaptainScarlet]

Originally posted by pcp_ip
just to conrrect the first page of posts-

tabs and (free) pop-up blocking existed in windows browsers (mozilla for one) long before safari or camino.


Yes but Mozilla kinda sucks for windblows. It's not pretty....Flame me already...Anyway Windblows lacks a good browser, besides IE. I would LOVE to have Safari for windblows!!!! I work on a Mac, but at home I'm on a PC. So I'm stuck using IE for at home...Tabbed browsing, for me, is no big deal...I just want a better browser then IE...Sh** I would take Camino over IE!!!!!!

[hazmat]

Originally posted by CaptainScarlet
Yes but Mozilla kinda sucks for windblows. It's not pretty....Flame me already...Anyway Windblows lacks a good browser, besides IE. I would LOVE to have Safari for windblows!!!! I work on a Mac, but at home I'm on a PC. So I'm stuck using IE for at home...Tabbed browsing, for me, is no big deal...I just want a better browser then IE...Sh** I would take Camino over IE!!!!!!

http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firebird/

Seriously. It's actually come to the point that I am looking forward to the Mac version getting more Mac-like, like Camino. It's amazing. When I first started using Phoenix on Windows at work it was because IE decided not to load images anymore. I Was using Chimera at the time on the Mac. Phoenix/Firebird has now lept way past Camino in functionality, but as I said that Mac version is still clunky. The extensions have become invaluable. Tabbed browser extensions, mouse gestures, etc.

[contempt]

I think it's a terrible idea. Why? Because Microsoft is notorious for changing around it's OS code to make other products look bad. Microsoft could bog the speed down of Safari which would make Windows users think Apple is just a looks cool but but buggy and slow system. IE works well on the PC because and only because of it's integration into the OS.

Then again, who's to say Microsoft won't try to sabatoge iTunes. Even though Windows Media Player doesn't compare whatsoever.

[mdavis]

Hasn't anyone noticed Apple is becoming greedy? They have been charging for more and more things and they are now starting to make products for Windows. iPod, iTunes, SAFARI for crying out loud. THIS IS ************. Honestly. Where is their Mac spirit? I for one am becoming disgusted with Apple recently. I think I might start a petition to not buy Apple products until they stop making products for Windows. Apple is becoming a big, pride-less, greedy piece of **** company, honestly.

[mim]

Originally posted by GeneR
Perhaps IE will still be faster because of its integration into Windows.

Going once, going twice, going three times....IE IS NOT FAST AND IS NOT TIED "INTO" WINDOWS.

Sorry. Just had to set that straight again. In this respect alone x86 Safari would be welcome. Sure, FireDuck is sweet. But there's nothing wrong with a bit of competition to stimulate innovation (and COMPLIANCE!).

Originally posted by GeneR
However, Apple has been on the right track making "innovation" its focus of attention during this economic period thus developing its name as a brand synonymous with quality.


Yes!

So if we see Safari for windows it's because of some wider strategy for leveraging the Apple brand amongst the Windows population.

It may be as simple as "Ok, here's iTunes to make your iPod sweet and let you use the iTMS, while you're at it why don't you install this neat browser as well?" Suddenly everyone with a WinPod is looking at an Apple logo everytime they surf. HOW VALUABLE IS THAT? That's damn valuable.

All those billions people on Slashdot would be either using FireDuck or Safari. And if they're IT administrators they'll probably think about switching their stock of machines over too. Canyou say BRAND IDENTIFICATION? Apple making the best browser for Windows. Joe user might not care, but it would certainly catch the attention of the people who matter - IT administrators. Word spreads.

There's lots of good reasons why Apple might do this.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by mdavis
Hasn't anyone noticed Apple is becoming greedy? They have been charging for more and more things and they are now starting to make products for Windows. iPod, iTunes, SAFARI for crying out loud. THIS IS ************. Honestly. Where is their Mac spirit? I for one am becoming disgusted with Apple recently. I think I might start a petition to not buy Apple products until they stop making products for Windows. Apple is becoming a big, pride-less, greedy piece of **** company, honestly.

Good luck with that.

[Windowlicker]

Ok, here's what first came to my mind when readin the article: what if apple ported its iApps for windows and then asked money for them? I don't know how it would work.. I myself wouldn't buy anything because there are free apps (not as good as iApps though) around..

Don't know if this is good or not.. it just sounds a bit stupid to give out all our great apps because then people wouldn't switch to mac anymore. or maybe if they port just a couple of apps (QT which is as terrible on windows as wmp is on mac, iTunes & Safari).

Ok this is quite a messed up reply, but it's the best I can do right now ;)

[JohnHummel]

Hold on - just think me out.

Apple places iTunes and Safari for Windows - the cost of doing this is made up from the Music Store.

Then, they go ahead and put over iDVD and iMovie too. BUT! - these two applications cost money for Windows folks, to the tune of $200 - $300. And while they don't run as quickly/cool as under OS X, there's still Windows people paying for them.

Then Apple comes along with iWork - on OS X, it costs you $99. On Windows, it costs $300 (because they have to port all the OS X tools over to justify the cost).

Now, you're a Windows person who has gotten hooked on iLife, and you're finding iWork works as well as MS Office, only it's a bit cheaper and more intuitive (I'm assuming here, of course).

You see a iMac for $1500 - only it comes with iLife and iWork for *free*. All of the sudden, you think - "Hey - instead of paying $1000 for a PC and then buying that iLife stuff and iWork stuff I like, I could just get an iMac and get it cheaper. And my iPod could work over that firewire stuff and be faster/better than the USB 2.0 stuff."

It's a totally "out there" idea, but I think if Apple does it right and charges for the Windows versions of their products by not a *huge* amount, but enough that if people like them they'll see that switching to OS X is actually cheaper (which I've always figured, since by the time you compute all the goodies you get in OS X that work well, plus a well designed machine, it's about the same as a Windows box cost wise), we could get more "Switchers" out there.

Just an idea, I could be wrong - but who knows.

[deejemon]

*

[Foocha]

iTunes 4 does not currently use Webcore because Webcore is still in beta. The Webcore code is presumably embedded into the app.

I suspect this will change when Webcore is finished.

Distributing Safari for Windows would be a bizzarre move - surely pointless when there's no shortage of great Windows browsers. It's quite possible that Apple will include Webcore code in the Windows iTunes, but surely more likely that they'll use the Explorer APIs.

[deejemon]

*

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by sergeantmudd
Just a couple points

1. iTunes does not use WebCore. People have proven it by showing linked frameworks and you don't need a full rendering engine to render a handful of pages all put out by Apple.


Personally, I don't buy it. Yes, iTunes4 is (obviously) not using WebCore as a shared library (if it were, it would have to include it in its resource bundle as WebCore is not an OS shared library yet! You don't need to list all the dylib data on iTunes to see that!)

That doesn't mean that the presentation code from WebCore was not statically linked into iTunes though. Using the WebCore shared library would have meant that iTunes would either have to put a copy of said shared lib into the system (can not rely on Safari being present, and Safari uses a "captive instance" of the shared library within its resource bundle) or contain the entire lib (3.3MB in Safari). Either way, this adds 3.3MB to the download (possibly more if other Safari frameworks were used). If iTunes instead compiled against the WebCore code statically, gcc could remove unused code and leave only those portions which iTunes actually uses.

Thus, there is a more than feasible method for iTunes4 to be using WebCore, and here's the motive: rewriting code is bad. If Apple is not reusing their own code, they are in very sorry shape developmentally. Given the software they've put out, I do believe that they have some engineers working there with a head on their shoulders. Reinventing the wheel for no cost gain is bad, very bad. Entire development teams have lost their jobs for less.


2. KHTML on Windows is a bad idea. KHTML is heavily dependant on the Unix way of doing things. I am not a computer science major, but KHTML is written specifcally for the strucutre of a Unix operating system. Hence it's speed. IF possible, I would guess the speed of KHTML for Windows would be about the speed of IE for Mac.


Huh? What exactly is the "UNIX way of doing things" from a developer's perspective? I mean, UI and configuration issues aside (which don't in themselves affect performance), why would KHTML/Windows be different from KHTML/Linux? KHTML relies on the Qt system libraries (KDE basis), which exist (although for a fee) on Windows and, last I heard, ran quite well on Windows.


3. Safari or KHTML? Say Apple was able to port KHTML, what good would it do. Not too many Mac users love Konquerer. We don't love the engine, we love the browser. And the browser needs Cocoa. The front end is heavily heavily dependant on the Cocoa frameworks. And the Cocoa frameworks are not available for Windows. The amount of work necessary is tremendous. So even if Apple ported KHTML, the Safari experience is not available.


The thinking (not saying it is correct :) goes that if Apple is porting a huge chunk of Cocoa to Windows (necessary for iTunes4, so the thinking goes) then it might as well use this development effort in more than one product.

And, IMHO, what I love about Safari is not the Cocoa interface (although I don't mind that!) or the engine itself (although it is shaping up to be one of the best for standards compliance, and its performance is great!), but the fact that it gives Apple an "in" do innovate in the browser space. Snapback, while no replacement for tabs, is a very nice feature. The bookmarks pane, IMHO, is an improvement in bookmark management. I expect to see more UI innovations coming from Apple here, and those innovations are just as likely to bear fruit on Windows as on OS X.


4. Tabs are not needed for IE, because the task bar is basically tabs already. Not perfect, but for most people good enough. When I use a PC and IE, I browse with IE's window full screen. If I open a new window, it gets its own tab in the taskbar. To switch all I need is a mouse click. Same thing as tabs, just implemented system wide.


IMHO, completely different concepts. Tabs allow grouping. The Windows Task Bar has no grouping cpabilities whatsoever (except "by application", making all windows of a particular app into one button with a hidden menu to get the actual windows). By the same reasoning, tabs are not important in Safari because a right-click on the Safari icon in the dock lets me switch instantly to any Safari window.

Tabs are organizational, not just "single-button window switching".


5. Windows sucks.


That goes without saying :) But that doesn't mean we can't have a great application on there!


I am 95% certain on all I have said. But I have been and will be wrong. I will try to find links to back up the Unix structure stuff.

I look foward to reading it ...

[cdburrows]

I know this may seem very bad...

But to every cloud there is a silver lining:rolleyes:

You see if Apple port Safari to windows, it will have positive side effects for Mac users.... =:confused: Web pages will move to increase compatibility and in turn reward us, as net companies see Safari as big player they actually begin to recognise that it is there and they need to sort some possible compatibility issues out.

On the other hand, by holding iApps(etc) back... Apple can help market share and inevitably fight back....

Maybe I am a little confused :confused:

[psxndc]

Originally posted by mdavis
Hasn't anyone noticed Apple is becoming greedy? They have been charging for more and more things and they are now starting to make products for Windows. iPod, iTunes, SAFARI for crying out loud. THIS IS ************. Honestly. Where is their Mac spirit? I for one am becoming disgusted with Apple recently. I think I might start a petition to not buy Apple products until they stop making products for Windows. Apple is becoming a big, pride-less, greedy piece of **** company, honestly.

Seriously! Can you believe they actually want to INCREASE market share by introducing Windows users to the great world of Apple. I mean, letting windows people buy iPods led to Apple doubling the number sold?? WTF? Man I'm glad I'm not a stockholder because this whole trend of Apple making money and making inroads into the computer market is just unacceptable. As a business, it is a bad decision to try and make more money. They should stay a niche product and an also-ran. WTF are they thinking?

</sarcasm>

-p

[scribbleed]

It's funny how people easily panic into thinking that Apple is going to port everything to Windows and abandon the Mac.

The logic is simple:
- iTunes need a browser. Since Mac iTunes uses Safari, therefore the programming uses Safari (or KHTML) conventions, it's logical to program an iTunes for Windows using the same conventions - less rewriting of code. Hence, create a Safari for Windows.

- Why not use Mozilla/Phoenix? Apple has no control over the program. And if the program changes, Apple has to rewrite iTunes.

- Why not Internet Explorer? Oh, puh-leeeze, everybody knows why not.

- Will Apple release Safari for Windows and earlier that iTunes? Most likely. Why? So the users can beta test it.

- Will people migrate en masse to Safari? Unlikely, but if Safari can keep the speed (startup and page loading), tabs and pop-up blocks, plus improve on the security and plugins (that's for Mac Safari too), quite a number will use it. And the less the monopoly IE has, the better.

- Having a presence, and a significant one at that, on Windows is more likely to make users to think to switch for their next PC purchase.

With the ability to record to AAC, less will hopefully use WMAs. If only we could get rid of WMV and RA/RM as well!

[edenwaith]

Ooooh, rumors, rumors delight! IF Safari is ported over to Windows, I'd be all over that...plus a great browser for the PC! Unfortunately, the unwashed masses just don't realize what a bunch of crap IE is. What has IE innovated? Umm...hmmm...yea, I'm out of ideas, too. It has barely changed at all in the past several years. No tabs, no search bar in the main window, and unless something has just changed, I don't know of IE being able to block pop-ups...the PC version of IE isn't even compliant with the Mac version! I find it kind of funny when PC users are using IE and a bunch of pop-ups fly across their screen and I mutter, "Oh, yeah, I nearly forgot about those...all of my Mac browsers have those annoying things turned off." Then the PC user says: "Well, I just have to download a program and it will turn those off." Oh, great. Just what I'D LOVE to do. To get extra functionality which should already be included, I'd have to download another program. That's like buying a car which has a gas pedal, but no brake, BUT you can buy the brake for extra.

But if Apple does start invading some space in the Windows world and makes some money for Apple, that would be great, too. :)

[edenwaith]

Originally posted by JohnHummel

It's a totally "out there" idea, but I think if Apple does it right and charges for the Windows versions of their products by not a *huge* amount, but enough that if people like them they'll see that switching to OS X is actually cheaper (which I've always figured, since by the time you compute all the goodies you get in OS X that work well, plus a well designed machine, it's about the same as a Windows box cost wise), we could get more "Switchers" out there.

Just an idea, I could be wrong - but who knows.

I think what is missing is expecting Average Joe Blow to think and analyze things. Seriously, if everyone thought and researched before making any computer-related product, would Microsoft even exist?

If I consider people who I used to work with, or even my parents, these are people who just work with whatever is slapped in front of them. "Well, everyone else is using Windows and MS Office, so we should, too." Until enough people finally wake up, understand more about computers, and realize that, yes, there is a better solution out there, people will continue on being ignorant and eating whatever s*** is being shoved down their throats.

But if Apple do make a Windows version of Safari, best of luck to them. If it means they can add on at least another million people to use it, great. :) But maybe it is being used as more of a tool to get a better foothold into the Windows market, then try and sell other products. Then again, maybe not. This is all speculation.

[hazmat]

There are also the people who might use it because it's cool stuff from Apple. There are PC users out there who want Macs but can't justify the cost considering you can get a new super fast PC for $600. For me it's a non-issue because of OS X. But not everyone thinks like me/us.

[jcr]

Originally posted by testnull
iTunes 4 uses the WebCore component for its HTML rendering!

Sorry to disillusion you, but it doesn't. Try running 'strings' against the iTunes executable.

Porting Safari to windows would probably be more work than porting the whole OS to x86. Windows doesn't have Quartz2D, it doesn't have a lot of the BSD communications API that Safari uses, and so on.

iTunes is a different story, because it can live pretty easily on any machine with QuickTime, which includes a lot (although not all, by any means) of what is now called Carbon.

[Frobozz]

Apple has branded themselves as a lifestyle outside of any particular piece of hardware or software line. They've been doing this since the re-introduction of Steve Jobs.

My guess is that, if they do this, it will be to saturate any market they can with the Apple brand.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by hazmat

2. All I use now under Windows at work is Firebird. Awesome. I'm looking forward to seeing how the Mac version of that goes, but it's still way too clunky, interfacewise. But the extensions RULE.


Firebird is my favorite Windows browser by far. Still, it is pulling teeth to get someone not-as-geeky to use it. Why? no, not because IE is bundled with the system. It is because Firebird's interface is clunky and takes a relatively long time to start up. Don't even get me started on the abortive disgusting UI that Mozilla offers as its default!

Safari for Windows may well get better render times than Firebird (it renders faster than Mozilla main), but I would hope that it retains the Mac elegance (but brushed metal really doesn't work on Windows ...)


3. People in difference places keep on saying that Firebird copied Safari's Google search bar. I may be wrong, but I believe that Phoenix (before it was called Firebird) had this before Safari even came out. So I think Safari had it after, and maybe copied Phoenix.


You are right, they are wrong. Firebird (and Mozilla proper) had the integrated "google bar" long before Safari debuted. In fact, the configurability of Firebird's google bar is still miles ahead of Safari's (I personally like being able to use the same text to search a given page after using it to search Google) ... but, of course, you pay for features with complexity, and you pay for complexity with unfortunately fewer users ...

[MacKid]

Why? I'm sure this has been asked before, but I'm just posting on impulse? What is a practical reason for it? iTunes doesn't use Safari for the Music Store. It uses the same engine, but not the program itself. SO, WHY?:confused:

[elmimmo]

I think you are all missing the point of developing Safari for the Mac. The same that system wide font rendering services, image displaying & importing services, sound playing services, etc are a must have for any OS with a GUI since ages ago, for some years now it is also a must to have system wide HTML rendering services for whatever developer that might need it in their app.

There are gazillions of applications in Windows that use Internet Explorer's HTML rendering services, starting by the Windows Help System. It is Internet Explorer, "the HTML rendering service", that is key to Windows because so many applications expect it to be there, and make good and fair use of it. Internet Explorer, "the browser", is just once in that zillion of applicatioins that use Internet Explorer, "the HTML rendering service".

Must have as a system wide HTML rendering service might be, the one in OS X version < 10.3 sucks at an incredible indecent level. Curiously, the same example application I put when talking about Windows exists in Mac OS X too, its help files, and, oh boy, how limited they are.

Safari, "the browser", is just the Apple's excuse aimed to the masses for it to appear like it is moving at full steam ahead from Windows making its OS the best, and while it might be the best in usability (it definitely IS in my opinion), it has many shortcomings in features such as this comparing to Windows.

Up until now Mac OS X did not have one of the features that is definitely a must have for any modern and mass oriented operating system. And it still sort of does lack it since it is not something that the OS has off the shelf, yet.

iTunes for Windows? What would be so bad about it using Internet Explorer, "the HTML rendering service", the same as a massive ammount of other applications do, and that do very well with that BTW.

[MacSlut]

Makes more sense than Safari for Mac.

That may sound stupid, but stay with me...

Safari in of itself for the Mac only makes sense in terms of other integrations...ie iTunes, Sherlock, and other iApps.

To simply launch a browser for the Mac would've been retarded. I didn't see this at first, but now that I see where they're heading, it makes sense that Safari is one component in all that is Mac.

It would've made no sense as a "better browser" initiative. This is because under this role, the best Safari could do is dominate as the Mac browser...this would've been a bad thing...no revenue from this, but a responsibility to update a product since there's no competition.

But with what they're doing with Safari, it makes sense instead of working with third parties.

Now with Windows, it makes even more sense. It's not about competing with Explorer, it's about offering revenue generating services to the Windows platform. Doing so not only will make them money, but it will ensure that Macs get to participate...and first/better at that.

--kevine

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by jettredmont
Personally, I don't buy it. Yes, iTunes4 is (obviously) not using WebCore as a shared library (if it were, it would have to include it in its resource bundle as WebCore is not an OS shared library yet! You don't need to list all the dylib data on iTunes to see that!)

That doesn't mean that the presentation code from WebCore was not statically linked into iTunes though.

Well, there are no symbolics that would indicate that WebCore is statically linked. That's not a 100% foolproof determiner since the internal symbols could be stripped. However, iTunes does link to the HTMLLib rendering library in Carbon, which is a lightweight HTML renderer that is currently used by Apple Help. Given that iTunes HTML needs are pretty simple, it could easily be using that, without the need for the code bloat that introducing a statically linked WebCore would add. It would make sense for iTunes (and Apple Help) to use WebCore in the future when it's part of the OS (I'm guessing Panther), but I don't think there's any convincing evidence that points to it being used today.

[Frozone]

Apple could get Safari out into the open if they just had it install automatically when you install iTunes4 for Windows. That way it's on there desktop and people might test it. And I know a bunch of people that dont have a Mac because of cost that are waiting for iTunes and if Apple came out with Safari for Windblows then I'm sure they would give that a go to.

[u2mr2os2]

Originally posted by mdavis
Hasn't anyone noticed Apple is becoming greedy? They have been charging for more and more things and they are now starting to make products for Windows. iPod, iTunes, SAFARI for crying out loud. THIS IS ************. Honestly. Where is their Mac spirit? I for one am becoming disgusted with Apple recently. I think I might start a petition to not buy Apple products until they stop making products for Windows. Apple is becoming a big, pride-less, greedy piece of **** company, honestly.

Okay, let's get this straight: you are going to boycott Apple products until they stop charging for them?

This is implied by what you said because your first and last gripe was that they are being greedy and charging for more and more things. So it seems the "Mac spirit" means giving stuff away. Great for you - bad for them, since it would ultimately mean the death of them.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by mdavis
Hasn't anyone noticed Apple is becoming greedy? They have been charging for more and more things and they are now starting to make products for Windows. iPod, iTunes, SAFARI for crying out loud. THIS IS ************. Honestly. Where is their Mac spirit? I for one am becoming disgusted with Apple recently. I think I might start a petition to not buy Apple products until they stop making products for Windows. Apple is becoming a big, pride-less, greedy piece of **** company, honestly. you should statr your own computer company and try to make money without selling things.

plus, try and understand, these are rumors. the only apple product you mentioned that is PC-compatible is the iPod. the other two are still and may ever remain mac-only.

also, since when has apple become prideless? they're one of the most arrogant corporations in america. good gracious!

[u2mr2os2]

No one said that even if they ported other apps to Windows, that they wouldn't charge for them. Quicktime pro costs money. "Free" iTunes will enable music store revenue. A Safari port will likely be there to support iTunes under the hood so that Apple has control over it rather than being yanked around by MS with the IE HTML engine and its security problems. This means that Safari as a browser front end might not appear, but the engine would be there in iTunes.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by u2mr2os2
No one said that even if they ported other apps to Windows, that they wouldn't charge for them. Quicktime pro costs money. "Free" iTunes will enable music store revenue. A Safari port will likely be there to support iTunes under the hood so that Apple has control over it rather than being yanked around by MS with the IE HTML engine and its security problems. This means that Safari as a browser front end might not appear, but the engine would be there in iTunes. but why bother to port an entire browser? they just need to include the safari webcore framework in iTunes, like they do on the mac. you do realize, of course, that iTunes 4 will work with the apple store whether you have safari or any other browsers or not, right?

[u2mr2os2]

Here's how Apple porting apps to Windows is a good thing.

First, as I said, they won't (all) be free. This is simple since when you buy a Mac, Apple gets the profit, so including Apple software with that is fine for Apple. Making the software free for Windows doesn't make them money directly, so it won't be free for Windows. There might be a token free app to get people started, or like Quicktime, have a free version. The idea of charging way more for it on Windows than competing apps as a way to get people to switch to the Mac is dumb - they will just buy the cheaper competing app before they buy a whole new more expensive computer to get a deal on a few apps.

Now, one of the reasons a PC user wouldn't switch is because he uses many programs not available on the Mac. Obviously, MS Office, MS IE, Quicken, etc. are available, but there are others that are not. Given how crummy IE for the Mac is, it's not much of a reason to switch.

If Apple ported their apps to Windows, this gives the Windows users a chance to see how good Apple software is. Otherwise they are not going to see that. They are not going to buy a Mac just to try out Apple software. Think about Linux - people tried it because it ran on their existing PCs. If they had to buy a new expensive "LinuxBox" computer to try it, Linux would be nowhere today (and don't give me "it was because Linux is free", because many people paid $30+ for a boxed distro - much cheaper than a $1000+ computer). All Windows users have to go on right now is heresay about iPhoto, etc. are easy and good. But they have no idea where that ranks against apps they use, so they don't know how much better it could be.

If Apple apps are really better, then they should be able to stand alone on their own merit against Windows apps. The best way to prove this would be to port Apple apps to Windows. Surem they might lack a thing or two by not being on OS X, but they should still shine.

Once more people are using Apple software on Windows, then moving to a Mac with OS X would be not hard at all since it runs the same apps and is compatible with their data. This is a long term switcher plan. You could then lure them over to Apple hardware on the true merits of OS X since the apps would not be an issue. Like the apps, if OS X is really so good, it should be able to stand on its own merits and not be "good" only because it has these nice apps that come with it. Right now, no matter how good OS X is, many people wouldn't consider it since it doesn't run the apps they use.

The other good thing is the fallback position it would give Apple. Certainly along the way, they would be making a nice living on revenue for their apps on Windows. If the Mac hardware doesn't make it, at least they'll have a source of income as a good app vendor for Windows and we would still be able to use that nice software rather than it also dying with the Mac hardware.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by u2mr2os2
Here's how Apple porting apps to Windows is a good thing.

First, as I said, they won't (all) be free. This is simple since when you buy a Mac, Apple gets the profit, so including Apple software with that is fine for Apple. Making the software free for Windows doesn't make them money directly, so it won't be free for Windows. There might be a token free app to get people started, or like Quicktime, have a free version. The idea of charging way more for it on Windows than competing apps as a way to get people to switch to the Mac is dumb - they will just buy the cheaper competing app before they buy a whole new more expensive computer to get a deal on a few apps.

Now, one of the reasons a PC user wouldn't switch is because he uses many programs not available on the Mac. Obviously, MS Office, MS IE, Quicken, etc. are available, but there are others that are not. Given how crummy IE for the Mac is, it's not much of a reason to switch.

If Apple ported their apps to Windows, this gives the Windows users a chance to see how good Apple software is. Otherwise they are not going to see that. They are not going to buy a Mac just to try out Apple software. Think about Linux - people tried it because it ran on their existing PCs. If they had to buy a new expensive "LinuxBox" computer to try it, Linux would be nowhere today (and don't give me "it was because Linux is free", because many people paid $30+ for a boxed distro - much cheaper than a $1000+ computer). All Windows users have to go on right now is heresay about iPhoto, etc. are easy and good. But they have no idea where that ranks against apps they use, so they don't know how much better it could be.

If Apple apps are really better, then they should be able to stand alone on their own merit against Windows apps. The best way to prove this would be to port Apple apps to Windows. Surem they might lack a thing or two by not being on OS X, but they should still shine.

Once more people are using Apple software on Windows, then moving to a Mac with OS X would be not hard at all since it runs the same apps and is compatible with their data. This is a long term switcher plan. You could then lure them over to Apple hardware on the true merits of OS X since the apps would not be an issue. Like the apps, if OS X is really so good, it should be able to stand on its own merits and not be "good" only because it has these nice apps that come with it. Right now, no matter how good OS X is, many people wouldn't consider it since it doesn't run the apps they use.

The other good thing is the fallback position it would give Apple. Certainly along the way, they would be making a nice living on revenue for their apps on Windows. If the Mac hardware doesn't make it, at least they'll have a source of income as a good app vendor for Windows and we would still be able to use that nice software rather than it also dying with the Mac hardware. i don't think they have enough windows programmers to start porting their apps en masse, and i really don't think things would go as you suggest if they did start doing so. apps like iTunes, Safari, iChat... they all have counterparts in windows that are both free and better in many ways. Winamp3 is a great example of that. also, having their apps on windows, i think, is a stupid idea if they want to give an impression that apple stuff is stable. when you put it on XP, it will, for lot's of people, crash. there are just a lot of XP users that screw up their machines to no end, without even realizing it. and they will blame the apps they are running, which would then include Apple stuff.

also, why would apple need to port its oen apps to windows for users to have files that are mac compatible? there are relatively few types of files right now that don't open just fine on a mac.

I really don't think this is a good venue for the switch campaign.

[u2mr2os2]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
there are relatively few types of files right now that don't open just fine on a mac.

True, but people do resist learning another application that does the same thing even if it is file compatible. Many people view learning a new app as a lot of work and so want to stick with the one they know, even if it is that shareware app of 1000 that came on a CD attached to a Windows magazine.

I'll grant you a little on the point about Apple software on Windows being not exactly top notch. However, there are a lot of competent Windows programmers in the world that can be hired.

I just think that if Apple keeps playing it safe by keeping its apps to itself, saying that they are better because they are on a Mac where they control the software and hardware, then PC users hear that as either an admission that the software by itself is not spectacular or that Apple is just saying that since the PC user would have to buy a Mac just to find out - he can't try a demo.

In the end, my cynical self thinks the switcher campaign is a lost cause. Sure you'll snag a few: fence sitters mostly. It's just that much of the Mac advantage is stuff that a PC user doesn't care about or can even see. Aesthetics: look at the cases they think are nice looking. Simplicity: "It only has one button? My PC mouse has 5! " Quality: There are far more choices for anti-virus software for the PC than for the Mac. Value: "with a PC, I can go to anyone for help with problems." Comfort: when PC users have problems, they know that nearly everyone else has the same problem, so they are normal, and it gives them something in common to talk about. Productivity: a PC user feels productive when they managed to solve or work around a Windows problem. Where's the fun in a computer that just works? However, the idea of it being a bit more challenging to find some software for the Mac is just too much bother.

[abdul]

Originally posted by zac4mac

Anybody remember how much trouble QT for Windows was a few years back? Now almost every PC I see at work has QT on it.
no. y dads got an ancient win 3.11 machine in the house that we found and that had quicktime on it.

what prob?

[GregA]

Originally posted by MacFan26
I would agree with this. If Apple does port Safari to windows, they might even consider porting more apps also. I have always used Apple software as part of the argument to switch, but if any windows user can use most of these applications, what's the point? If Apple's applications became available on Windows, and you thought there was no point buying a Mac then, doesn't that say how important the OS and machine is to you?

I'm all for Apple 'stuff' everywhere - just make it stand for style and quality wherever it is and whatever it is working with.

[abdul]

quicktime on the pc uses some kind of html engine doesnt it? cos it brings up the hotopicks page straight away when connected.

is that html or just quicktime pictures?

and why is everyone slagging quicktime on the pc. i use it and think it good

[elmimmo]

Abdul wrote:
and why is everyone slagging quicktime on the pc. i use it and think it goodTry to use it on my Pentium 233 w 160 MB RAM. Surely mine is not any programmer's target platform, but in my PC Windows Media Player kicks QuickTime's bad ass. As a matter of fact I now do not allow any Quicktime plug-in or player to launch, since, besides not standing the awfully long time it takes to open up, once it has launched it becomes useless because it cannot play any movie at decent rates. Sure there are some high end codecs for WMP that present the same problem, such as DivX (and I do understand that most QT movies are Sorenson 3, which is also high end), but still WMP loads fast and plays, mpegs for example, perfectly nice, whereas QT chokes on everything I have tried.

Surely if you've got a P4>2GB you will not see any difference between both.

And BTW, in such an ancient PC as mine, IE 5.5 does noticeably fly comparing to Firebird.

[GregA]

Originally posted by Flynnstone
This could be great !
One thing I feel Apple is missing is a way to port Cocoa apps to Windows. As a developer, I prefer to develop one code base if possible. But Cocoa is very different from anything on the PC (except ... is it GNUStep?).
So ... if Apple ports iTunes and Safari and anything else to Windows, then they must likely have a method to port Cocoa to Windows. Perhaps an announcement at WWDC.
:) :) :) That would be excellent. Especially if it's seamless.
Originally posted by CJYetman
Someone please explain to me why Apple would spend one cent and/or one second on porting a free app to Windows... and don't say look at iTunes, cause they're making money off of iTunes through the music store, even if the app is actually free. If Apple made a cross platform development easy - they could use their own applications to test the seamlessness, and prove how easy it is - this is good advertising.

While I think Safari (if it gets ported) may turn out to be written using a cocoa on windows - the webcore might instead actually be part of the cocoa environment (much as they're saying it'll be built into X10.3).... the same goes for quicktime's core functions. A full app like Appleworks might be more of 'proof' of seamlessness.

If it REALLY is easy to write an app in cocoa and compile to Mac & Windows, then it costs Apple very little to have all their (cocoa) apps available on Windows. And if developers see how easy it is to write apps this way, we may see more developers. Maybe Safari could be made Apple-open-source as an example application.

ps. As for free Apple iApps on Windows?, if a pc user subscribed to ".mac" could we give them iPhoto & iCal ? .mac is revenue generating, and iPhoto must give Apple a cut for upload prints, just as much as iTunes does for downloading songs.
pps. YellowBox (now Cocoa) used to work on HP/UX, SunOS, etc. Why not do Linux and really turn some heads and get people talking.

[JJTiger1]

Originally posted by u2mr2os2
Here's how Apple porting apps to Windows is a good thing.
-snip-


I totally agree. :D

Competition is GREAT.
-
... now if the zealots :mad: would be so kind as to mind their ways, and view the big picture... it's not just a matter of invading the Dark Side by showing the Evil Empire the folly of their ways.

Apple must offer viable solutions to everyday computer tasks.

First: QuickTime. Then iPods.
Why not iTunes and Safari?
Maybe then they will be in the market for a cheap eMac so as to have a proper iPod mothership? :eek:
-
JJ

[DeusOmnis]

I want to see apple selling a windows version of iLife. They already have the programers now, under the iTunes and Safari cover. They can just use those programmers to quietly make iLife, w00t!

After a windows user gets a taste of the magical apple, they'll have to have the whole thing!

[sparks9]

IE 6 is perfect for pc. no need for safari.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by sparks9
IE 6 is perfect for pc. no need for safari. well that's a bit of an overstatement. i mean, the popup blocker is definitely a valuable feature that those schmucks at MS left out (i'll bet someone is paying them not to implement it), but they have Mozilla, Firebird, and so on for that.

[MacKid]

Originally posted by u2mr2os2
Here's how Apple porting apps to Windows is a good thing.

First, as I said, they won't (all) be free. This is simple since when you buy a Mac, Apple gets the profit, so including Apple software with that is fine for Apple. Making the software free for Windows doesn't make them money directly, so it won't be free for Windows. There might be a token free app to get people started, or like Quicktime, have a free version. The idea of charging way more for it on Windows than competing apps as a way to get people to switch to the Mac is dumb - they will just buy the cheaper competing app before they buy a whole new more expensive computer to get a deal on a few apps.

Now, one of the reasons a PC user wouldn't switch is because he uses many programs not available on the Mac. Obviously, MS Office, MS IE, Quicken, etc. are available, but there are others that are not. Given how crummy IE for the Mac is, it's not much of a reason to switch.

If Apple ported their apps to Windows, this gives the Windows users a chance to see how good Apple software is. Otherwise they are not going to see that. They are not going to buy a Mac just to try out Apple software. Think about Linux - people tried it because it ran on their existing PCs. If they had to buy a new expensive "LinuxBox" computer to try it, Linux would be nowhere today (and don't give me "it was because Linux is free", because many people paid $30+ for a boxed distro - much cheaper than a $1000+ computer). All Windows users have to go on right now is heresay about iPhoto, etc. are easy and good. But they have no idea where that ranks against apps they use, so they don't know how much better it could be.

If Apple apps are really better, then they should be able to stand alone on their own merit against Windows apps. The best way to prove this would be to port Apple apps to Windows. Surem they might lack a thing or two by not being on OS X, but they should still shine.

Once more people are using Apple software on Windows, then moving to a Mac with OS X would be not hard at all since it runs the same apps and is compatible with their data. This is a long term switcher plan. You could then lure them over to Apple hardware on the true merits of OS X since the apps would not be an issue. Like the apps, if OS X is really so good, it should be able to stand on its own merits and not be "good" only because it has these nice apps that come with it. Right now, no matter how good OS X is, many people wouldn't consider it since it doesn't run the apps they use.

The other good thing is the fallback position it would give Apple. Certainly along the way, they would be making a nice living on revenue for their apps on Windows. If the Mac hardware doesn't make it, at least they'll have a source of income as a good app vendor for Windows and we would still be able to use that nice software rather than it also dying with the Mac hardware.

All I want to say is THANK YOU because I have been waiting and waiting and waiting for someone to finally say why Safari would actually do something on Windows that would be beneficial.

But I do have a question: If Apple starts making a habit out of porting apps to Windows (or even just a few), then what happens when PC users get comfortable with using Apple apps on Windows computers? The apps would have to be fully functional to get people to use them, but if there's no catch, and they don't know how good the apps are in OS X anyway, then what would make them switch? If they already have the apps they want/need, why switch?

[The Reaper]

i know you're all sick of the OSX on x86 rumors, but i just thought i'd put an idea i had for why apple would do this.

i'm sure you've all heard the argument that OSX on PC will make PC users switch, and then the counter arguments that people will see no incentive to switch if they have all the software. not to mention software developers not wanting to code for windows, OSX mac AND OSX PC. i think there is a solution. please, first read this in full before you form an opinion.

i think that apple will release a version of OS X for PC... and it will be FREE. then, when curious PC users are upgrading their OS, they will try the mac alternative, at pretty much no risk - they don't have to pay for it before they find out it doesn't work (of courst it will work, this is just as a reassurance).

this OSX version will have one simple purpose - to get PC users hooked on the OS. nothing else. OS X PC will need to do the following:
[list=1]
support all current Windows software. this can be done more easily than on a mac because the apps will be on a x86 chip (which they were written for). basically it will be like running classic, rather than running Virtual PC.
provide all of the apps that come with OSX (such as mail, adress book, iApps etc).
have all of the same features as the current mac version, including eye candy etc.
3rd party mac software developers will NOT need to rewrite their apps for this OS. this is because this OS is almost like a demo - it runs all of your windows software, but in an awesome environment, complete with all of Apple's own free software (iApps etc) as well as any other non free apps that apple makes for this OS (keynote etc). note that 3rd party 'OSX for PC' support is NOT needed or recommended. basically, OSX PC has one underlying purpose: to make users see the flaws with windows, and make them dependent on the mac. i, for one, would never go back to windows.
[/list=1]

they will become addicted. THEN, apple will simply not upgrade the PC version... but keep upgrading the mac version of OSX. the PC users who got hooked will switch with their next computer upgrade. the whole process could take as little as 2 years before the benefits pay off significantly.

[MacKid]

Originally posted by GregAussie

pps. YellowBox (now Cocoa) used to work on HP/UX, SunOS, etc. Why not do Linux and really turn some heads and get people talking.

LOL I just wanted to point out something: do you really expect a bunch of people who won't even pay much (or pay at all) for a new computer to get a new OS (Linux) to pay for a new computer for the apps they already have?:eek: :cool: :D

[rjwill246]

Originally posted by GregAussie
I'm all for Apple 'stuff' everywhere - just make it stand for style and quality wherever it is and whatever it is working with.

Absolutely!

If Apple can get Safari and iTunes for Windows on as many PCs as possible, it can only be to Apple's benefit even if the software is free. IT IS ADVERTISING if nothing else- and it certainly will be more than that! History has shown that Apple's absence in the PC user's world has done zip to get PC users to switch. The only other thing is to expose them to Apple product. It can't be done by hardware exposure... although the Apple Stores may be slowly changing that... but since Apple is both a hardware and software manufacturer, the only other reasonable and cheap way to get to the PC user is to DUMP software on him/her. Now, this may still do nothing, granted, but the current approach is not doing a lot either. Apple has nothing to lose by this sort of exposure and has much to gain. They need to take a leaf from the Micrsoft page and disable at least one desirable feature in each of the programs, making it only available under MacOS!!! just kidding

[u2mr2os2]

Originally posted by MacKid
All I want to say is THANK YOU because I have been waiting and waiting and waiting for someone to finally say why Safari would actually do something on Windows that would be beneficial.

But I do have a question: If Apple starts making a habit out of porting apps to Windows (or even just a few), then what happens when PC users get comfortable with using Apple apps on Windows computers? The apps would have to be fully functional to get people to use them, but if there's no catch, and they don't know how good the apps are in OS X anyway, then what would make them switch? If they already have the apps they want/need, why switch?

A good question. I think that Apple apps ported to the PC must be as fully functional as possible (there may be some things OS X gives them that Windows can't). This is because if Apple were to make them crippled, someone else will make or already have a product that will fill that hole and the Apple app will lose. Claiming that you can get the full functionality by buying a Mac is true, but is a totally ridiculous solution.

Most PC users are not going to switch until they are ready to upgrade their machine anyway. They are PC users. They are part of a market driven by price - not style. They don't just buy a new box right after they got a new one because the new one is a little easier to use. They hardly think about ease of use anyway because of the Windows conditioning. This is where I think MS was clever: spend years making Windows ubiquitous and crappy so that most everyone thinks this is how computers are and will always be, so that's why they don't really believe that a Mac is a savior. So if they never get exposed to a Mac or even Apple software, they will never know that things can be better. MS makes them think that MS is who can make things better by only improving Windows in small increments as needed to keep eyes away from the Mac or as people hear of Mac features that they think are nice.

So, if Apple procudes fully functional ports of their apps, and a PC user starts to use a bunch of Apple software, then why would he buy a generally more expensive Apple computer to have the same Apps?

Well, we know he won't do this until he's ready to upgrade anyway. Maybe he'll do it sooner if he can sell his PC easily, and some who can afford it or have the space would keep their PC for a while during the switch honeymoon.

However, what's clear is that no sensible person is going to switch if they are going to have to re-buy Mac version of a bunch of software. But, a new Mac already comes with most of that same sofware the Apple ported the the PC user was using. Some programs that don't have Mac versions will have to move to equivalents. Others, like MS Office, exist, but do not come with the Mac. These are the ones that can start adding up in order to switch to Mac versions. Some companies allow you to just get the Mac version for no cost. Others will require you to "upgrade" to the Mac version, but at least it's only an upgrade price, and you might have an older version anyway, so not too bad. Others will require you to totally re-buy the product, which will suck. Also, where the PC use will have to switch to a Mac equivalent program, they might allow a competetive upgrade.

What I think is that Mac software vendors should help in the switch effort by all offering free (or minimal) switching from their PC version (if they have it) or competetive upgrade pricing from an equivalent PC program. It's in their interest to have more Mac users after all.

Additional switcher thought: once more Mac users are out there, then the network effects start to help by there being more Mac users to be showing PC user friends their nice Macs and how they can really interchange data with them.

[zzal]

Hey! Has anyone made the relation between the current news (apple’s looking for devloppers to port Safari to Windows) and the fact that, to port itunes to windows, thay actually need the music store to be ported too? And what is the engine for the display into iTunes? Surely not the HTML rendering engine of Mail.... And maybe simply using the KHTML code is not enough, they’ll need to port Safari to windows, or maybe in part....:p

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by zzal
Hey! Has anyone made the relation between the current news (apple?s looking for devloppers to port Safari to Windows) and the fact that, to port itunes to windows, thay actually need the music store to be ported too? And what is the engine for the display into iTunes? Surely not the HTML rendering engine of Mail.... And maybe simply using the KHTML code is not enough, they?ll need to port Safari to windows, or maybe in part....:p iTunes doesn't use the safari webcore? i was sure i'd heard it did... and it's in XML, i think,and i think they have very specific reasons for making it in XML.

[zach]

There are already rumors of Apple also porting iTunes. Think about it, people. Safari and iTunes for Windows. Suddenly, apple loses two good reasons to switch to mac. Neither iTunes nor Safari will be porting IMO.

I do believe, however, that Apple will produce a highly stripped version of iTunes so the music store can be acessed. Just enough so that people will say "hey, this is damn spankin', but i want the full version." So they go buy a mac. You know, just like unlicenced shareware.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by zap23
There are already rumors of Apple also porting iTunes. Think about it, people. Safari and iTunes for Windows. Suddenly, apple loses two good reasons to switch to mac. Neither iTunes nor Safari will be porting IMO.

I do believe, however, that Apple will produce a highly stripped version of iTunes so the music store can be acessed. Just enough so that people will say "hey, this is damn spankin', but i want the full version." So they go buy a mac. You know, just like unlicenced shareware. yeah, and iTunes to go with their iPods, because musicmatch sucks sucks sucks.

[gunnmjk]

I think it's OBVIOUS that Apple is porting Safari to windows. I mean, didn't they already announce that they are porting iTunes? What interface does the iTunes music store interact with again? oh yea, Safari's. So duh, it's only natural to make a standalone browser availible as well.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by gunnmjk
I think it's OBVIOUS that Apple is porting Safari to windows. I mean, didn't they already announce that they are porting iTunes? What interface does the iTunes music store interact with again? oh yea, Safari's. So duh, it's only natural to make a standalone browser availible as well. it's not "only natural." iTunes doesn't use safari, it uses webCore. that's not safari. safari uses webcore. porting safari would ba a lot more work than porting webcore. i don't even know that you have to port webcore. so no, it's not "natural"or "duh."

[u2mr2os2]

Originally posted by zap23
I do believe, however, that Apple will produce a highly stripped version of iTunes so the music store can be acessed. Just enough so that people will say "hey, this is damn spankin', but i want the full version." So they go buy a mac. You know, just like unlicenced shareware.

Honestly, do you all really believe people are going to buy a Mac just to get the few extras they might leave out of an iTunes "lite" for Windows? Let's see: hey, I just bought this $400 portable music player and it comes with Windows software to access ths music store to buy songs and do other cool stuff, except that it doesn't have Rendevous music sharing, integration with iLife apps and a few other things. Damn, I really want those few extras, but I need to buy an $800+ computer to get it.

Sorry, I don't see it happening.

I see some other software for Windows swooping in to fill that lack of functionality and steal the thunder from iTunes for Windows. That is why it must have full functionality. If it has anything less, then how are PC users ever going to know what a Mac is like? Or is the plan to have this "lite" version of iTunes frequently pop up with annoying banners telling how great it is if you only would lay down some big bucks on a Mac? I think that'd not only make me not want to buy a Mac, it'd make me think twice about an iPod if I were a Windows user.

[u2mr2os2]

I'll also predict that they will also make iTunes for Windows available as a stand alone app as a lure to sell iPods.

This could be a free "lite" version since you won't have to lay down serious money on hardware to get it, this could have limited functionality. The full version could be a $20 item. It would let you do everything, but you'd have to get an iPod to make those AAC files you'd been buying from the music store portable. But this might be suitable for people who want to buy music but don't use a portable player.

With the advantage of the music store, iTunes for Windows could really take the market for Windows music player software if it doesn't skimp on features in the for-pay version. It should still be able to do MP3 and sync those to other players.

[zzal]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
iTunes doesn't use the safari webcore? i was sure i'd heard it did... and it's in XML, i think,and i think they have very specific reasons for making it in XML.

Yes that?s right. iTunes needs safari (safari == KHTML) to exist on Windows. But do Apple need to take the Safari project and make it a product that runs on Bill's gate? I don't think so...

[killjoy]

I think itunes for windows is needed to really enjoy the music store experience, but Apple has done this thing before. Remember Claris Works for windows? They never embraced a very nice suite of features, instead paying any price for MS validation using MS Office.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
apps like iTunes, Safari, iChat... they all have counterparts in windows that are both free and better in many ways. Winamp3 is a great example of that.

WinAmp3? It has disgusting interface (skinning is "cool" but the UI is horrible), has pathetic music management and organization abilities (ie, not much beyond "I don't like this anymore; delete the file"), and can't even display your track's file name if it's a few subdirectories deep (the "File Info" dialog box can not be widened and lists the full pathname of the track at the top, truncating pretty much everything beyond "C:\Documents and Setti..."!).

IMHO, if WinAmp3 was our only competition, iTunes would blow the Windows world away!

That having been said, the real competition is the highly-entrenched Windows Media Player. It has massive UI faults, poor management, and persistent bugs as well, but it has a fundamental, probably-not-surmountable advantage: it is "built in" to Windows and as such weasles its way into nearly every facet of the OS experience from web browsing to file browsing to virulently absconding file associations (might be fixed with XP SP1, but I gave up that fight long ago ...)

The clear competition is WMP, not WinAmp.

[mrjamin]

Originally posted by PaisanoMan
As another web developer, I would highly recommend reading about web standards. Designing pages for browser X or Y only reinforces their failure to adhere to long-published and oft-ignored web standards.

You CAN and SHOULD write XHTML/CSS that renders correctly in all modern browsers -- MSIE6, the Gecko family, Opera, Safari -- and be aesthetically pleasing at the same time (unlike the W3C's home page, for example).

If you are still laying pages out with tables and mucking about with invisible images, then I think you definitely need to see the benefits (http://www.wired.com/news/explanation.html) of learning modern web design principles (http://www.webstandards.org/about/). Trust me, it's for your own good. :)

damn right - couldn't agree more. I can't believe the number of high-traffic sites that just DO NOT work under any browser other than IE6 on windows. IE is CRAP at so much stuff - like CSS, and especially the PING graphics support. I HATE ie with a passion. Check out this page (http://www.macrabbit.com/cssedit/) for an AMAZING example of what PNGs can do (hint: scroll down!).

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by jettredmont
WinAmp3? It has disgusting interface (skinning is "cool" but the UI is horrible), has pathetic music management and organization abilities (ie, not much beyond "I don't like this anymore; delete the file"), and can't even display your track's file name if it's a few subdirectories deep (the "File Info" dialog box can not be widened and lists the full pathname of the track at the top, truncating pretty much everything beyond "C:\Documents and Setti..."!).

IMHO, if WinAmp3 was our only competition, iTunes would blow the Windows world away!

That having been said, the real competition is the highly-entrenched Windows Media Player. It has massive UI faults, poor management, and persistent bugs as well, but it has a fundamental, probably-not-surmountable advantage: it is "built in" to Windows and as such weasles its way into nearly every facet of the OS experience from web browsing to file browsing to virulently absconding file associations (might be fixed with XP SP1, but I gave up that fight long ago ...)

The clear competition is WMP, not WinAmp. i don't think so. in fact, i think, criticizing the skinning feature, you're biting yourself in the ass. that's the best part. you can totally change it. in fact, you can change it almost infinitely, and you can download some extremely pro-looking skins made by people creative enough to be mac users. as for the media library, you also don't know much about that either. it has organization by album, artist, song, genre, and so on, and has just as advanced id3 tag editing capabilities. seriously, don't go off on a program you haven't looked into.

if you want to have a look at the full extension in the info, why not try highlighting it? i mean, really. is that the best you can come up with?

that said, WMP is a gila monster with its jaws latched to windows. iTunes has as much luck ousting it as winamp. but that doesn't make winamp an inferior program.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
i don't think so. in fact, i think, criticizing the skinning feature, you're biting yourself in the ass. that's the best part. you can totally change it. in fact, you can change it almost infinitely, and you can download some extremely pro-looking skins made by people creative enough to be mac users.


All IMHO, of course, but I have yet to see a WinAmp skin that I can use and which looks good. I am not going to invent their UI for them, and really don't feel inclined to mod my own skins.

I really would much rather have one working, consistent, maintained UI than the thousands of minorly-flawed skins WinAmp has.

I've been using WinAmp since 1.x on Windows; I just find that iTunes is soooo much more adept at working with music files than WinAmp!


as for the media library, you also don't know much about that either. it has organization by album, artist, song, genre, and so on, and has just as advanced id3 tag editing capabilities. seriously, don't go off on a program you haven't looked into.


For the record, I am talking about WinAmp 3 build 488 (August of last year ... might be a newer build out there by now).

1) UI is completely unlike the rest of Windows. You think skinnability is its best feature; skinnability means the UI looks and acts unlike everything else (and, no, you can't make it act like a "normal" Windows program with a different skin!) Skinnability was WinAmp's trademark eye-catcher back in 1998 or so (I forget when I started using it ... sometime in 1998-2000 time period), but it's IMHO no more useful than chrome on a Yugo. Somewhere in there they forgot to get the core UI paradigm sorted out, leaving that messy task to the skin modders. And so, what you are left with is a system where every skin leaves something to be desired, and a core program which forces compromise on the UI inventor (the skin modder).

2) "Media Library" tracks every file ever played in WinAmp. It doesn't organize the files themselves, and gives no indication (until I try to play one and nothing happens) that a file has been deleted. It is a database lookup, not a music management system.

3) Again, for all its faults, its competition (WMP) isn't much better ("me-too" skinning and inconsistent UI, poor to nonexistent file management ...) However, WinAmp still isn't as ubiquitous as WMP (on virtually every Windows computer shipped the last several years). If for no reason other than that, WinAmp isn't iTune's most visible competition. And, no, iTunes won't be shipping with Windows either, but there's a much better chance people will say "Apple, iTunes ... yeah, I want that" than "Nullsoft, WinAmp ..." Brand recognition buys worlds here.


if you want to have a look at the full extension in the info, why not try highlighting it? i mean, really. is that the best you can come up with?


First: just tried again with last August's build of WinAmp3, and, nope, selecting the file name does not do anything different. I click-and-drag across the file name, I double-click, I right-click, and the only one of those that does anything (the right click) still doesn't allow me to see the whole frickin' name!

Since I have to organize my files by myself, I have to know which specific file (the file name and the ID3 info can be quite different!) I am listening to in order to move it around/rename it, and WinAmp3, to the best of my knowledge, does not do that.

Second, no, it's just my most recent frustration with WinAmp.


that said, WMP is a gila monster with its jaws latched to windows. iTunes has as much luck ousting it as winamp. but that doesn't make winamp an inferior program.

WinAmp is cool. That's why I used it for so long. It is also very stable, which can't be said for much of the competition (MusicMatch has crashed on me more times than i can count ...) and comes from an almost-sorta more trustworthy source than WMP (a "rogue" group of AOL vs Microsoft ...), which keeps the DRM monsters at bay at least for now.

It just has severe (IMHO) UI problems.

[shadowfax]

i do believe winamp has come a long way since then... wasn't 488 still while in beta stage? honestly, though, i am too lazy to check all the version changelogs for bugfixes. most winamp skins leave a lot more than a little to be desired, i'll give you that. but there are a few out there that really shine and leave little if anything to be desired in the way of UI.

this (http://winamp.com/skins/detail.jhtml;$sessionid$PTBUU2S1E5A0HTN24UYBCYY?componentId=132937) one ought to remind you of something...
this (http://winamp.com/skins/detail.jhtml;$sessionid$PTBUU2S1E5A0HTN24UYBCYY?componentId=122902) is one of the best skins ever, and by far the most popular out there.
this (http://winamp.com/skins/detail.jhtml;$sessionid$PTBUU2S1E5A0HTN24UYBCYY?componentId=124070) one is maybe a bit of a rip off mmd3, but nonetheless very good.

[psxndc]

WinAmp3 sucks. Resource hog. Why do you think there are still so many WinAmp2 users?

Personally, I use QCD on my Windows machine (get at least 3.51). Way better.

www.quinnware.com (http://www.quinnware.com)

-p

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by psxndc
WinAmp3 sucks. Resource hog. Why do you think there are still so many WinAmp2 users?

Personally, I use QCD on my Windows machine (get at least 3.51). Way better.

www.quinnware.com (http://www.quinnware.com)

-p by that logic, you'd never use OS X. why do you think there are still so many 9 users?

of course people still use WA2. there are lots of stupid, cheap, lousy PC users who refuse to buy computers that have GPUs that will offload their CPU. these are people that still have pentium IIs and windows 98. really, windows 98 will do it for you. WA3 sucks on everything but W2k and XP, because of transparency issues. but really. i had a P3 933 MHz, and ran WA3. it ran faster than iTunes does on my TiBook does. resource hog, ha! but of course, i had a 64MB GeForce3.

[psxndc]

by that logic, you'd never use OS X.

Wrong. OS X gives me many many things that OS 9 wouldn't have (I'm a switcher. I only used OS 9 casually before I got my iBook): command line, unix stability, free software (as in freedom, not as in beer). WA3 ran like crap on my P3-800MHz Win2k machine whereas WA2 didn't. WA3 plays mp3s. So does WA2. I'm not looking for tons of bells and whistles. I just want it to play mp3s without stuttering when I open TextPad or Visual Studio (and yes I have plenty of RAM and WA2 didn't behave that way). I would expect some bells and whistles from an OS so the analogy between OS 9 -> OS X isn't quite accurate.

why do you think there are still so many 9 users?

Because they are poor misguided souls (or they are audio engineers and the software companies haven't gotten off their duffs to make the OS X version of their software (sorry, my friend is one and complains about it). :-)
-p

[Tsuimonster]

MacPlus.org (http://www.macplus.org/magplus/imprimer.php?id_article=4466) reports that Apple may be porting Safari for Windows.

Safari is Apple's own Web Browser, which was released in January - to the surprise of many. Apple has already stated that iTunes 4 will be arriving for the Windows platform by the end of 2003, but has given no indications of porting other applications to the Windows platform.
Yeah like they ever will... Probably not until about another 10 months or so. 5-7 months to translate the codes and data to be compatible to Microsoft Windows... 3 Months (at least) for the testing of the software... and the distribution. So not in about ten months or so... I predict that. It took that much to make iTunes 4 for Mac & Windows.

[MacFan25863]

Yeah like they ever will... Probably not until about another 10 months or so. 5-7 months to translate the codes and data to be compatible to Microsoft Windows... 3 Months (at least) for the testing of the software... and the distribution. So not in about ten months or so... I predict that. It took that much to make iTunes 4 for Mac & Windows.

You do realize this was posted a year and a half ago?

[Xtremehkr]

Apple products that have gained wider public attention have been good for Apple.

The iPod has been an amazing success, it's the kind of quality product that garners loyalty from consumers.

The iPod helped bring iTunes to the PC. The music store was a coup, and strong enough to survive the initial period of intense competition.

The quality of iTunes as a music player helps promote the company. If Safari ran as well on a windows machine as on a regular machine it would be another example of who has the better product.

If people start to show a preference for these programs that are not native but superior they make the connection that it would be even better on an Apple computer.

At least, that is the outcome you would hope for.

Or maybe Safari could be a profitable browser in wider release. People are getting sick of IE.

[egor]

If people are prepared to switch to a new browser, they're gonna go firefox, us windows users don't really have much of a need for Safari, we already have good alternatives. Apple wouldn't do this, it would be a waste of time.

[Bruce Lee, PhD]

From the point of view of a web-based application, the browser IS the OS. This is a big reason why MS put such huge effort into IE.

So one reason for doing a port is that Apple could write web based applications which relied on proprietary features in the browser. If they could find a killer app that would force adoption, they'd gain some control over the desktop. Or perhaps if it's just installed as part of the iTunes for windows install, they could better integrate iTunes with web content. By adding a browser, they've sort of got their own little microcosm in a Windows machine.

This doesn't really add up, though. My guess is they just needed web integration with iTunes for Windows (e.g. for the music store) and so they ported what they needed and the rumor got blown out of proportion.

[JFreak]

windows users do not REALLY want alternatives. it is only microsoft who states that "choices" are all pc users want, but fail to mention that their goal is to force people not choose but rather use their product instead.

who CHOOSES idiot exploder? who CHOOSES windows media player? who CHOOSES microsoft messenger? -nobody. microsoft installs those so people wouldn't choose and therefore wouldn't choose better alternatives.

safari for windows would be nice. i could install that on my work pc. it will not however change anything on the pc side - at least in my current knowledge of apple strategies - and that can be proved by asking people who uses netscape/firefox today... almost all netscape users use unix. almost all windows users use the idiot exploder.

it's not about choice at all. it's about forcing people not to choose!

(for example: as long as apple doesn't allow wma files to play in ipod, apple has a chance of forcing ipod-people not to use wma and give them a reason to think about choosing aac instead.)

[Zaty]

This doesn't really add up, though. My guess is they just needed web integration with iTunes for Windows (e.g. for the music store) and so they ported what they needed and the rumor got blown out of proportion.

I totally agree, I think after a year and half, we're not one inch closer to a Safari version for Windows. There are a few alternative browsers available for Windows (e.g. Mozilla/Netscape, Firefox, Opera) that hardly anyone would notice, let alone use, Safari for Windows. Anyway I don't understand why this thread has been revived at all.

[Xtremehkr]

From other boards I visit that are populated by mainly PC people, Fire fox is taking off. For many reasons now. IE is slow, unpredictable and prone to regularly crashing. People hate pop up windows and IE still does not have a solution for that problem.

IE is missing tabbed browsing and is not nearly as advanced as browsers like Safari.

How long before IE has RSS? I am not sure about Mozilla or Firefox (Same thing basically right?) and how long it will be before they have RSS. From what has been released, Safari 2.0 is going to place it way ahead of the pack.

Firefox, Mozilla and some of the other smaller browsers don't have a home page, which some people don't like. But being faster and more reliable than IE seems to make up for that.

I would like to see Safari on PCs so that I could use it on a PC when I am at work or somewhere that doesn't have Macs available.

It's conceivable that Apple could sell software for all computers, while retaining their hardware unit as well. There are always going to be people who prefer to use a better system with superior software.

[wdlove]

I want Apple to concentrate on products for our beloved Mac first. Unless Apple already has a Microsoft unit working on software to work on the PC. I wouldn't be surprised, since Microsoft has on for Apple.

[Zaty]

From other boards I visit that are populated by mainly PC people, Fire fox is taking off. For many reasons now. IE is slow, unpredictable and prone to regularly crashing. People hate pop up windows and IE still does not have a solution for that problem.

IE is missing tabbed browsing and is not nearly as advanced as browsers like Safari.

How long before IE has RSS? I am not sure about Mozilla or Firefox (Same thing basically right?) and how long it will be before they have RSS. From what has been released, Safari 2.0 is going to place it way ahead of the pack.

Firefox, Mozilla and some of the other smaller browsers don't have a home page, which some people don't like. But being faster and more reliable than IE seems to make up for that.

I would like to see Safari on PCs so that I could use it on a PC when I am at work or somewhere that doesn't have Macs available.

It's conceivable that Apple could sell software for all computers, while retaining their hardware unit as well. There are always going to be people who prefer to use a better system with superior software.


Firefox and Mozilla are not the same thing. Firefox is Mozilla.org's next generation browser and its latest version 1.0 preview now has RSS but only as bookmarks. So I guess Safari's RSS integration will be better. But then, Mozilla.org has still a few months to improve Firefox until Tiger with Safari 2.0 is released.

[Timelessblur]

How long before IE has RSS? I am not sure about Mozilla or Firefox (Same thing basically right?) and how long it will be before they have RSS. From what has been released, Safari 2.0 is going to place it way ahead of the pack.

Mozilla and firefox are pretty close to the same thing. Firefox is more or less just the browser part of Mozilla. Mozilla has a lot of other stuff built into it (Email clinet is include and some other stuff but I never used it so I would not know)

Umm firefox 1.0PR has RSS so firefox and mozilla pretty much already have it. Back when this was oringally posted Safari stood a good chance if it was ported over. But apple missed the boat on it if they ever where planing to do it since firefox pretty much has taken off and people are getting it like crazy.

I seen a lot of Mac users end up choosing Firefox over Safari so that should sign to show that Firefox by a lot of people is consider the best browser out there. From what I have look at in Safiari I find firefox to be a lot better. I really like Camio on the mac but it just can not get exintions.

A year ago it was a good idea and would of been nice but not that firefox has gotten up to the leval of Sarfiee and in many ways surpassed it it just became a lot harder for Safiree to stand much of a chance on Windows side

[Xtremehkr]

Mozilla and firefox are pretty close to the same thing. Firefox is more or less just the browser part of Mozilla. Mozilla has a lot of other stuff built into it (Email clinet is include and some other stuff but I never used it so I would not know)

Umm firefox 1.0PR has RSS so firefox and mozilla pretty much already have it. Back when this was oringally posted Safari stood a good chance if it was ported over. But apple missed the boat on it if they ever where planing to do it since firefox pretty much has taken off and people are getting it like crazy.

I seen a lot of Mac users end up choosing Firefox over Safari so that should sign to show that Firefox by a lot of people is consider the best browser out there. From what I have look at in Safiari I find firefox to be a lot better. I really like Camio on the mac but it just can not get exintions.

A year ago it was a good idea and would of been nice but not that firefox has gotten up to the leval of Sarfiee and in many ways surpassed it it just became a lot harder for Safiree to stand much of a chance on Windows side

Safari 2.0 is looking like a winner. I have both Mozilla and Firefox but am not familiar with the RSS functions. According to this article (http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/safari.html) RSS is going to be intergrated into Safari in such a manner as to make it an easily usable function for most users.

From the article...

Safari RSS even lets you know if you’ve landed on a Web site that offers an RSS feed by displaying an RSS icon in the Safari address field. Simply click the RSS indicator icon and Safari automatically formats the feed and displays it right in the browser. Bookmark the RSS feed so you can quickly return to it later.


Personal News Clipping Service


With Safari RSS you can create your own personal news service about the topics you care about most. Enter a topic keyword into the special RSS search field and Safari RSS will search across all of your RSS feeds for matching headlines and then display the results on a single page in Safari. Bookmark the search and Safari RSS will update your custom news feed as new articles become available, making sure you have the latest headlines from the feeds covering your search topic.

It seems that Apple is taking this browser stuff seriously, especially areas like privacy which is great. I wouldn't count them out just yet, ease of use is among the most important factors for any kind of product. Everyone would be using Linux or Unix otherwise I guess. I hear that they are great programs, just require a lot more familiarity than most other computers.

[Timelessblur]

Meh is all I can say. The power of firefox is not in the browser it self (which is really good) but in the exention add-ons to it. That is what makes the browser really great. I would not be surpised to see an extention to add RSS feed. Also remember firefox is constanily getting better and a fairly rapid rate for a browser so by April or when even Tiger comes out we have to see where firefox is by then. With firefox they can not state what they will have more than a .1 verson ahead really.

as for easie of use firefox is great. I have gotten a lot of people who are very computerenpted and just like easy things to use. Put them on firefox and they loved it. Found it extermly easy to use

[BWhaler]

I never understand rumors like this.

Why would Apple spend money to make the windows platform better with zero opportunity for revenue for them? When there is already free and better alternatives to IE on the 'Doze platform?

To show people how good Apple is? They have the iPod to do this.

This rumor simply makes zero business sense. Zero.

[egor]

Also they would have to keep windows' safari constantly updated, discontinuing it would look bad, and keeping it going with no return in revinue would suck, complete tosh!

[Timelessblur]

Also they would have to keep windows' safari constantly updated, discontinuing it would look bad, and keeping it going with no return in revinue would suck, complete tosh!

Well another view would it would help Apple redem it self from it Quick time port over to windows. I am sorry but Quicktime for windows is a joke and a POS (out side of being used for webpages) iTunes was nice but to a lot of people see it as a way to make money for them (which it is) Quicktime they see as a free program from apple that is well crap so it would give them a chance to redime themselves and make a quility program for windows besides iTunes. It will take more than one good program to repear the damage 1 bad program did

[GregA]

I never understand rumors like this.

Why would Apple spend money to make the windows platform better with zero opportunity for revenue for them? When there is already free and better alternatives to IE on the 'Doze platform?

To show people how good Apple is? They have the iPod to do this.
This rumor simply makes zero business sense. Zero.Well if we add 1 or 2 things in that make business sense could we score a 1 in 5 (or 1 in 100? or....)

1. If Apple releases Safari for Windows - big or small developers could easily check their websites are usable and look good in Safari, without having to buy a Mac.

2. Even with a small percentage of people on Windows using Safari, there'd be a bigger market of Safari users, so more web-developers would want to test their sites were working under it.

Other arguments are really just opinions - like whether Safari makes people buy other Apple products or not, and so on. I have my opinion but when I think about it, it's really about the whole Apple strategy and what I'd like.... more than this thread!

[GFLPraxis]

Wow, this is a little out there. I doubt Apple would ever really do this.....I mean, why would a PC user ever use Safari over IE 6?

Are you insane?
IE actually just lost a 1% marketshare recently. FireFox is growing rapidly, because IE is a SUCKY browser (FireFox has the features of Safari, such as tab browsing and popup blocking and faster speeds and a cleaner interface).

The question is, why would a PC user use Safari over FireFox? Apple will have to REALLY give Safari some sweet features, since FireFox just got RSS.

[MacBandit]

Well another view would it would help Apple redem it self from it Quick time port over to windows. I am sorry but Quicktime for windows is a joke and a POS (out side of being used for webpages) iTunes was nice but to a lot of people see it as a way to make money for them (which it is) Quicktime they see as a free program from apple that is well crap so it would give them a chance to redime themselves and make a quility program for windows besides iTunes. It will take more than one good program to repear the damage 1 bad program did

As funky as Quicktime is for Windows it's far better then Real and in my oppinion on par with the really ugly and crash happy WMP.

[GFLPraxis]

Well another view would it would help Apple redem it self from it Quick time port over to windows. I am sorry but Quicktime for windows is a joke and a POS (out side of being used for webpages) iTunes was nice but to a lot of people see it as a way to make money for them (which it is) Quicktime they see as a free program from apple that is well crap so it would give them a chance to redime themselves and make a quility program for windows besides iTunes. It will take more than one good program to repear the damage 1 bad program did

Are you nuts? Almost everyone I know has quicktime and has had it for years, even before I became a Mac nut. Quicktime for Windows rules! :)

[Timelessblur]

As funky as Quicktime is for Windows it's far better then Real and in my oppinion on par with the really ugly and crash happy WMP.

Ok a lot of people only have quicktime mainly because of web content that uses it. Real player well I give you there it even worse and most people dont even put it on there computer.

As for WMP well it is better than quicktime for windows. For quicktime to come close you have to pay money for it. Quicktime for windows can not do full screen. It pretty week. A lot of windows people like me have a crack codex so we can run quicktime files though WMP or some other media player for windows. (Winamp is one of them). WMP is a lot better on the windows side.

If quick time files could be easily played on any player I can promises you that quicktime would take a huge hammering. To see how good it is look at how many windows computer have quicktime as there defaut media player. It will be even lower than Real player being on some computer. you will find a large number of winamp and WMP on windows computer for media players for playing all but offal quicktime files.

Quicktime files I say are great for the web and I think it a great media player for running on the web. Better than WMP but take that away and it would just never be used

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

The question is, why would a PC user use Safari over FireFox? Apple will have to REALLY give Safari some sweet features, since FireFox just got RSS.

According to the Tiger-Safari-page (http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/safari.html) RSS is coming, along with other long missed features like saving/e-mailing webpages.

But, I got to admit, Firefox is looking mighty sharp... my former primary browser may yet again become number one at the expence og Safari, if Apple makes a bo-bo or gets delayed with Safari 2.0...

[ASP272]

It's getting kind of scary - that is - Apple offering ports to Windows. These apps may open doors to hackers and virus creators previously unable or unwilling to tackle OS X. Yes, Apple's market share does give us a lot of protection from virus creators, but delving into Windows with too many Mac apps could lead to interest in OS X attacks that weren't there before. Just a thought. :cool:

[topdog1]

Hi
my understanding is that Safari is more than just a browser for MACs but is an interface for many other system plugins.
What would be good is to have a MAC compatible browser for windows - not that I have any passions about some 'precious browser' just a question of cross platform testing.
On the other hand with 98% of the world viewing the web using Windows MSIE mac anything is insignificant. So what if it looks crap on a MAC - get a propper browser.
So if you want a site to look ok on a Mac, or an Atari or a ZX81 maybe ensure there is a browser that runs of the 98% of the systems.
What kills me is web sites that are developed on the oh so pretty Macs and look weird on the Majority platform.
If 98% of the world used Macs then I would be fine with that, I would just have a PC for occasional testing.
Incidently if you find my view offensive - consider when a manufacture brings out a new cpu chip the first software they bring out is a C cross compiler for the PC and the new CPU. So it is in the best interest of Mac to get a version of Safari for the PC, even if it is to glote with a sticker to say 'runs 5 times faster on a Mac'
Just my option as a Technical Architect of some 25 year experince.

[mrgreen4242]

Hi
my understanding is that Safari is more than just a browser for MACs but is an interface for many other system plugins.
What would be good is to have a MAC compatible browser for windows - not that I have any passions about some 'precious browser' just a question of cross platform testing.
On the other hand with 98% of the world viewing the web using Windows MSIE mac anything is insignificant. So what if it looks crap on a MAC - get a propper browser.
So if you want a site to look ok on a Mac, or an Atari or a ZX81 maybe ensure there is a browser that runs of the 98% of the systems.
What kills me is web sites that are developed on the oh so pretty Macs and look weird on the Majority platform.
If 98% of the world used Macs then I would be fine with that, I would just have a PC for occasional testing.
Incidently if you find my view offensive - consider when a manufacture brings out a new cpu chip the first software they bring out is a C cross compiler for the PC and the new CPU. So it is in the best interest of Mac to get a version of Safari for the PC, even if it is to glote with a sticker to say 'runs 5 times faster on a Mac'
Just my option as a Technical Architect of some 25 year experince.


Wow - not only was that nearly unintelligable, it was also stupid! Your 'syle' of writing is extremely difficult to read. There is very little internal structure to your prose, and your grasp of grammar and general writing structure seems pretty limited. If you are a non-native english speaker, ignore that, as I am sure if I tried to write something in your native language it would read like a 3 year old composed it. If you are a native english speaker, then I suggest you go to your local community college and take a basic english composition class.

Onto the actual content of what you have to say... firstly, the Safari browser is built on a cross platform HTML renderer called KHTML that is used in many browsers, notably the Konqueror browser that is the 'core' of the KDE graphic user interface for Linux/XWindows. It, unlike the browser used by "98% of the world" is fully standards compliant, meaning that a page will look like the author intended, regardless of what system it is being viewed on.

IE is built on a terrible rendering library that is not standards compliant at all, and often horribly misrenders HTML files so badly that most sites have to have errors left in them intentionally as 'dirty hacks' to make it look acceptable on IE. Sadly because of the number of IE users out there, pages must be left broken so that people can view them in a manner close to what the author intended.

Fortunately, 98% of the world doesn't use IE anymore! Right now, IE commands a roughly 71% market share. Every day more and more people are using standards compliant browsers, mostly Mozilla's browsers (21%), namely Firefox. In fact at Mozilla's current growth rate it will overtake all versions of IE in about 18 months. As a recreational and sometimes professional web developer I can't wait for this!

On my personal sites I have often grown so tired of adding 'hacks' to make my page render properly in IE that I have given up supporting it at all, and simply direct users of IE to a page explaining why my site looks 'funny' in IE, and also other various benifits to switching to either Mozilla or a KHTML based browser.

In summary, if a page is designed and looks great on a Mac, it WILL look great on ANY machine running a STANDARDS COMPLIANT browser. The fact that IE mutilates pages has nothing to do with Apples small market share. If you want to launch some sort of tirade about Macs on an Apple site, the least you can do is form you post in a readable and thoughtful manner, not just a semi-random collection of sentances.

For the record, I do not own a Mac, and I am posting this from my PC running Linux. I'm looking forward to getting a Mac, however, for so many reasons, one of which is that it's a fully supported OS that sports a fully standards complaint HTML renderer at it's core. I will continue my practice of reffering IE users to mozilla.org to upgrade so they can view my websites properly.

[wrldwzrd89]

<snip>
firstly, the Safari browser is built on a cross platform HTML renderer called KHTML that is used in many browsers, notably the Konqueror browser that is the 'core' of the KDE graphic user interface for Linux/XWindows. It, unlike the browser used by "98% of the world" is fully standards compliant, meaning that a page will look like the author intended, regardless of what system it is being viewed on.
This is correct. I must add, though, that Safari's engine (which Apple calls WebKit, and in turn uses another engine called WebCore) is implemented in Mac OS X 10.3 in such a way that any Mac developer can make their own web browser based on it. MSIE doesn't make it that easy, on the other hand.

IE is built on a terrible rendering library that is not standards compliant at all, and often horribly misrenders HTML files so badly that most sites have to have errors left in them intentionally as 'dirty hacks' to make it look acceptable on IE. Sadly because of the number of IE users out there, pages must be left broken so that people can view them in a manner close to what the author intended.

Fortunately, 98% of the world doesn't use IE anymore! Right now, IE commands a roughly 71% market share. Every day more and more people are using standards compliant browsers, mostly Mozilla's browsers (21%), namely Firefox. In fact at Mozilla's current growth rate it will overtake all versions of IE in about 18 months. As a recreational and sometimes professional web developer I can't wait for this!

On my personal sites I have often grown so tired of adding 'hacks' to make my page render properly in IE that I have given up supporting it at all, and simply direct users of IE to a page explaining why my site looks 'funny' in IE, and also other various benifits to switching to either Mozilla or a KHTML based browser.

In summary, if a page is designed and looks great on a Mac, it WILL look great on ANY machine running a STANDARDS COMPLIANT browser. The fact that IE mutilates pages has nothing to do with Apples small market share. <snip>

For the record, I do not own a Mac, and I am posting this from my PC running Linux. I'm looking forward to getting a Mac, however, for so many reasons, one of which is that it's a fully supported OS that sports a fully standards complaint HTML renderer at it's core. I will continue my practice of reffering IE users to mozilla.org to upgrade so they can view my websites properly.
One more thing I should mention: watch out for those little transpose errors. Using "standards complaint" when you meant "standards compliant", for example, makes a significant difference in the meaning of your post (although I knew what you meant :cool: :) ).

[JJTiger1]

Hi
my understanding is that Safari is more than just a browser for MACs but is an interface for many other system plugins.
{...sigh}
Just my option as a Technical Architect of some 25 year experince.

... you got it backwards. Safari is just a browser. Some other applications have plugins that work with Safari.

Some people design bad looking websites. Looks bad on a Mac using Safari, and just as bad in Internet Explorer. The chip in the machine couldn't help a bad looking website.
=-=
I'm almost tempted to make a comment that someone who truly is a Technical Architect understands that MicroSoft got it wrong. The user has the right to use the browser of the user's choice. The browser should not have tentacles into all aspects of the Operating System. :mad:

I'm almost tempted to make a comment that you should try it before you take a broadside shot at it.

I'm almost tempted to make a comment about children masquerading as adults. :cool:

... and please, proof-read before you send. Use a spell checker. :p

[mcarvin]

On my personal sites I have often grown so tired of adding 'hacks' to make my page render properly in IE that I have given up supporting it at all, and simply direct users of IE to a page explaining why my site looks 'funny' in IE, and also other various benifits to switching to either Mozilla or a KHTML based browser.

Give Dean Edwards' IE7 (http://dean.edwards.name/ie7/) extension a shot. It uses an IE Conditional to call an external javascript file which parses your CSS and feeds IE a compatible set of declarations. I know it looks like a hack at first, but you don't need to dirty up your CSS at all and the end result is that IE will render CSS _almost_ as good as Gecko/KHTML browsers. I have a site in beta which is using it, and I can tell you now that I'm not going to have to do anything to get my CSS to work equally well across platforms/browsers. Easy to use, easy to implement, easy for me to like.

And I guess TopDog1 hasn't been following the recent news from WebSideStory and OneStat - IE/Win is down to around 88-90%, Gecko/KHTML around 6-7%. Back in May, IE was hanging around 95-96%, so we're talking a conservative full 5% drop in 6 months. Someone on this board did a little regression and figured that, at the current rates of gains and drops, Gecko browsers and IE/Win could have more equal market shares by the end of '05. (Sorry MrGreen, I wish it really was 71/24! When Firefox hits 10%, it'll be huge news.)

[mrgreen4242]

IE/Win is down to around 88-90%, Gecko/KHTML around 6-7%. Back in May, IE was hanging around 95-96%, so we're talking a conservative full 5% drop in 6 months. Someone on this board did a little regression and figured that, at the current rates of gains and drops, Gecko browsers and IE/Win could have more equal market shares by the end of '05. (Sorry MrGreen, I wish it really was 71/24! When Firefox hits 10%, it'll be huge news.)

My numbers came from here: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp and also http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm#source5

It looks like IEs overall marketshare is something like 70-75%. I didn't intend to indicate that Firefox was the lions share of the other 30%... more I was trying to convey that the Gecko catagory of browsers was the largest part of that 30% and that Firefox is the fastest grower in that, or any, group. Firefox's number may be under 10% right now, but it is mosty responsible for 'stealing' 1-2% of IE users away each month.

Rob

[Xtremehkr]

I've found that Firefox is faster than Safari, which is disappointing. But it does require more plug ins.

Isn't losing 5% market share is such a short time usually considered disasterous?

Not that it would take long for Microsoft to fix IE. I imagine that will arrive when Longtooth does.

[maxterpiece]

I've found that Firefox is faster than Safari, which is disappointing. But it does require more plug ins.

Isn't losing 5% market share is such a short time usually considered disasterous?

Not that it would take long for Microsoft to fix IE. I imagine that will arrive when Longtooth does.

by fix do you mean further integrate it in the system and make it harder to avoid?

[jiv3turkey748]

thats bs windows losers dont diserve to get safari thats just one less reason for them to switch i really hope this rumor isnt true

_______________

-ibook g3 900mhz/40gb/256mb
-4g 20gb ipod

[jiv3turkey748]

I hope they don't. But if they did I wonder if they'll release Safari beta 1 for peecee and go through the same process as they did with us mac users. I think they would have to wow them something fierce to get them to use it. What would it look like? I wonder... (insert dreamy music)

it would probaly look the same way itunes for windos looks which is pretty much the same

[lordmac]

I don't see apple doing this.
There is nno reason for them to Firfox is already almost as good as safari(only thing firfox dosn't have is the sexxyness)
Plus what would aple get out of becoming a dominate web browser even if they were successful at doing this.



-Just my thoughts :cool:

[Platform]

Don't let windows get it there is FireFox for them and why give such a great browser to the competitor?

[wrldwzrd89]

Don't let windows get it there is FireFox for them and why give such a great browser to the competitor?
Welcome to the forums Platform!

I couldn't agree with you more.

It just doesn't make sense for Apple, since they won't really gain anything from it. This is in stark contrast to iTunes, where there was a clear benefit to Apple to porting it to Windows.

[sebisworld]

Believe it or not, this makes technical sense. Why? iTunes 4 uses the WebCore component for its HTML rendering!

No, it doesn't. iTMS is not coded in HTML. I'm too lazy to look for a source, but if you want to make sure, check Dave Hyatt's Weblog.

[mcarvin]

My numbers came from here: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp and also http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm#source5

It looks like IEs overall marketshare is something like 70-75%. I didn't intend to indicate that Firefox was the lions share of the other 30%... more I was trying to convey that the Gecko catagory of browsers was the largest part of that 30% and that Firefox is the fastest grower in that, or any, group. Firefox's number may be under 10% right now, but it is mosty responsible for 'stealing' 1-2% of IE users away each month.

Rob

Those sites are primarily tech users who are more likely to be using Firefox, whereas OneStat and WebSideStory service a much more mainstream array of sites. I trust the numbers from OS and WSS as being more realistic.

That being said, there are lies, d-mn lies, and statistics.

[grafenberg]

firefox! firefox! :D

[Platform]

Welcome to the forums Platform!

I couldn't agree with you more.

It just doesn't make sense for Apple, since they won't really gain anything from it. This is in stark contrast to iTunes, where there was a clear benefit to Apple to porting it to Windows.

Thank you

About iTunes i very much agree with you, becasue there apple can get a benefit for wintel users not with safari !

[dlisle20]

It would be outrageous if they allowed windows to have safari because it would make apple look bad and no one would buy them eventually because you would get all the mac software for windows!


Powerbook 17" 1GHZ 512 RAM

[carlos700]

I don't see the point. FireFox is taking off in the Windows world. What I would like to see for Windows is that rumored iWork package. That would be nice to PC users who don't want the high price of office or the clunky nature of OpenOffice.org

[iFaulder]

It would be outrageous if they allowed windows to have safari because it would make apple look bad and no one would buy them eventually because you would get all the mac software for windows!


I see what your saying and I felt the same way when I heard about iTunes for Windows but if Apple were to upstage MS on its own platform it may give Apple an advantage.

[Timelessblur]

well to counter the agurment saying it would not help apple so there no point.
It would help apple by making sarfari a real browser in the eyes of the web devepore world in more making sure it works on it. As it currently stands Sarfari does not even make the radar. For staticits it is still under .5%. It would help make it real player bedause right now the 3 plays are IE, Moz/Firefox/ and Oprea and then that followed by netscape.

To the people who think it that windows should not have a great program made by apple get off you soup box and get that stick out of your rear. You are more of a problem for apple than you think because I know a lot of people who hate apple due to the elitest atitude far to many of hte users have.

It if over all a worth the money to do it no really and it woudl take some deal cutting with like HP getting it pre installed and make it the deafult browser to help get it kick off in the windows world and then it would have some stiff compition from Firefox but over all it could be a good idea

[hexdcml]

... and it's called FireFox.

Ignoring the underlaying technologies (khtml and what not), it is almost like Safari for Windows.
You have the Google search on the top right, tabs. It's the browser of choice when forced to use a PC.

[JJTiger1]

well to counter the agurment saying it would not help apple so there no point.
It would help apple by making sarfari a real browser in the eyes of the web devepore world in more making sure it works on it. As it currently stands Sarfari does not even make the radar. For staticits it is still under .5%. It would help make it real player bedause right now the 3 plays are IE, Moz/Firefox/ and Oprea and then that followed by netscape.

To the people who think it that windows should not have a great program made by apple get off you soup box and get that stick out of your rear. You are more of a problem for apple than you think because I know a lot of people who hate apple due to the elitest atitude far to many of hte users have.

It if over all a worth the money to do it no really and it woudl take some deal cutting with like HP getting it pre installed and make it the deafult browser to help get it kick off in the windows world and then it would have some stiff compition from Firefox but over all it could be a good idea

.... huh ??? :confused:

[wrldwzrd89]

well to counter the agurment saying it would not help apple so there no point.
It would help apple by making sarfari a real browser in the eyes of the web devepore world in more making sure it works on it. As it currently stands Sarfari does not even make the radar. For staticits it is still under .5%. It would help make it real player bedause right now the 3 plays are IE, Moz/Firefox/ and Oprea and then that followed by netscape.

To the people who think it that windows should not have a great program made by apple get off you soup box and get that stick out of your rear. You are more of a problem for apple than you think because I know a lot of people who hate apple due to the elitest atitude far to many of hte users have.

It if over all a worth the money to do it no really and it woudl take some deal cutting with like HP getting it pre installed and make it the deafult browser to help get it kick off in the windows world and then it would have some stiff compition from Firefox but over all it could be a good idea
.... huh ??? :confused:
Allow me, JJTiger1...

(rephrasing Timelessblur's post...)

Well, to counter the argument saying it would not help Apple, so there's no point in porting Safari to Windows doesn't stand up to reality.
It would help Apple by making Safari a real browser in the eyes of the web developer world in making sure sites work on it. As it currently stands Safari does not even make the radar. Its market share is still under .5%. Porting Safari would help make it a "real player" because, right now, the big 3 players are IE, Mozilla/Firefox and Opera, and then after that Netscape.

To the people who think that Windows should not have a great program made by Apple: get off your soap box and get that stick out of your rear. You are more of a problem for Apple than you think because I know a lot of people who hate Apple due to the elitist attitude far too many of their users have.

It is, in the long run, worth the money to do it - no really - and it would take some deal cutting with companies like HP getting it pre-installed and making it the default browser to help kick it off in the Windows world. Then, it would have some stiff competition from Firefox - overall, it could be a good idea.

[DickArmAndHarT]

Wow, this is a little out there. I doubt Apple would ever really do this.....I mean, why would a PC user ever use Safari over IE 6?


Why because IE is the worst program. It very open, begging to reel u in some viruses, and alll sort of crap. Whoo

[pascalpp]

Believe it or not, this makes technical sense. Why? iTunes 4 uses the WebCore component for its HTML rendering!

I'm pretty sure I read in David Hyatt's blog that iTunes does NOT use WebCore. (Hyatt is the lead developer for Safari.)

[Platform]

Why because IE is the worst program. It very open, begging to reel u in some viruses, and alll sort of crap. Whoo

Agree

IE is one of the biggest spreades of viruses and has had a lot of security problems, and there will allways be crackers that will use IE not safari to spread viruses

Safari is a lot better :D

[TheMasin9]

anything ported to windows from mac is going to lose speed no matter how well they do it, its just the structure of the windows os (SUX). take itunes for instance, it works wonders on mac, but give it to pc users and it crashes just like every other app. i hope that apple keeps safari as an apple only.

the mac revolution is coming.....windoze beware......

[F/reW/re]

And a pop-up stopper you don't have to pay for. And that works. (Sorry panicware)

Microsoft must be reluctant to do that because advertisers would scream a monopolist is excluding them.
If you knew anything about Windows you would know that theres alot of free browsers available for Windows with popup blockers and tabs.
Tabs and popup blockers was available on Windows long before Safari ever reached beta 0.0.0.0.1!

Firefox is alot better on windows than Safari is on Mac so i doubt would ever use Safari if there was a windowsversion for it.

[F/reW/re]

anything ported to windows from mac is going to lose speed no matter how well they do it, its just the structure of the windows os (SUX). take itunes for instance, it works wonders on mac, but give it to pc users and it crashes just like every other app. i hope that apple keeps safari as an apple only.

the mac revolution is coming.....windoze beware......
haha, thats stupid!
All my mates with Windows including myself use iTunes with Windows an it works great! Never crashed!

[sinisterdesign]

anything ported to windows from mac is going to lose speed no matter how well they do it, its just the structure of the windows os (SUX). take itunes for instance, it works wonders on mac, but give it to pc users and it crashes just like every other app. i hope that apple keeps safari as an apple only.

the mac revolution is coming.....windoze beware......
haha, thats stupid!
All my mates with Windows including myself use iTunes with Windows an it works great! Never crashed!

yeah, but they have a point there: IF Safari got ported over to windows, you're still relying on all the OS underpinnings to make it secure, correct? safari is a pretty stable, fairly safe browser due in a large part to OSX's UNIX core, correct?

i'm FAR from a programmer, but i don't see Safari going to M$ b/c a lot of the vulnerabilities that have been shredding IE for the past couple years have got to come from it's interaction btw windows & IE, not just crappy IE code. can someone w/ more knowledge on this confirm or correct this?

also, what would be the win for Apple to do this? to say that windows users are using another piece of Apple software? it's not driving them to a music store, or convincing anyone to Switch ("wow, this is a great piece of free software, maybe i should plunk down a couple thousand on a new Apple")

just don't see it happening...

[dvdh]

well to counter the agurment saying it would not help apple so there no point.
It would help apple by making sarfari a real browser in the eyes of the web devepore world in more making sure it works on it. As it currently stands Sarfari does not even make the radar. For staticits it is still under .5%. It would help make it real player bedause right now the 3 plays are IE, Moz/Firefox/ and Oprea and then that followed by netscape.

To the people who think it that windows should not have a great program made by apple get off you soup box and get that stick out of your rear. You are more of a problem for apple than you think because I know a lot of people who hate apple due to the elitest atitude far to many of hte users have.

It if over all a worth the money to do it no really and it woudl take some deal cutting with like HP getting it pre installed and make it the deafult browser to help get it kick off in the windows world and then it would have some stiff compition from Firefox but over all it could be a good idea


At least Safari makes good use of the system wide spell check . . . . sigh, too bad there is no system grammer check . . . .

[Timelessblur]

At least Safari makes good use of the system wide spell check . . . . sigh, too bad there is no system grammer check . . . .
'

yeah wouldnt used and I wrote that when I barily was fully awake and it was not writen on my normal keyboard so it has more errors than normal in it. Besides you can kiss my dylixiaci rear end about you and you complaints.

It was there to say there to point out that there is a value in apple porting it windows in the fact that it would make the browser a more rear browser in the eyes of web designers. Currently Safari does not even make the raider in browsers it useage % is to low to even make it. It goes IE, Moz/Firefox, Oprea or netscape. those pretty much take up most of it leaving less than 1% for all others and things below 1% just are not bother to be check.

Safari is hurt by at most it can only run on about 3% of computers and then from there IE eats up a fair size chunk, the Moz browsers eat up another chunk, Oprea eats up some more, Netscape eats up some more. Safari is at best used on 80% of the macs out there chances are it lowers a lot lower.

[zom97]

Maybe it's because just like in the real world, 95% of all browser users are windows based including website designers. Wouldn't you rather they got to test their sites on Safari? There is a substantial difference in how the major browsers IE, Netscape, Opera, Firefox, & Safari render pages.

[Bakey]

[QUOTE=TheMasin9]...take itunes for instance, it works wonders on mac, but give it to pc users and it crashes just like every other app...QUOTE]

Have you actually used iTunes on Windows??? Clearly not!!

Personally I use it everyday, probably everytime I power up the Windows box iTunes is one of the first things I start to use... it has never crashed!! Many things around it do, but that's Windows.

[Twinkie]

At least Safari makes good use of the system wide spell check . . . . sigh, too bad there is no system grammer check . . . .You mean grammar check, right ;)

[~loserman~]

Why would a Windows user want to use such a piece of junk as Safari.
I cat even stand Safari on my MAC

[Twinkie]

Why would a Windows user want to use such a piece of junk as Safari.
I cat even stand Safari on my MACI wouldn't call it a "piece of junk".

There are a lot of things it does really well, and it's very, VERY fast.

I only wish Apple would figure out a way to keep it from beachballing on SSL pages. It shouldn't take 30 seconds to log in to my bank account on a dual-processor PowerMac G5 with two gigs of RAM.

But compared to FireFox (I'm sorry, but the Mac port is dog slow) and Camino (which seems to be unloved by its developers), there's not a whole lot around that's worth using. Opera flat out sucks, and OmniWeb, while nice, isn't worth the price tag.

[~loserman~]

Maybe it's because just like in the real world, 95% of all browser users are windows based including website designers. Wouldn't you rather they got to test their sites on Safari? There is a substantial difference in how the major browsers IE, Netscape, Opera, Firefox, & Safari render pages.

There is more to it than that. Many web sites send different code to your web browser depending on the user agent the web server reads. If you want to see an example of this... enable debug mode on safari and set the agent to a different browser.
Many times a web server... especially IIS will give bunk code to any browser that doesnt register itself as IE.

[slooksterPSV]

I'd love to have Safari for Windoze.

[GregA]

I'd love to have Safari for Windoze.As Apple gets .Mac going more fully, the arguments for Safari etc on Windows increases.

I'd use Safari on Windows to get my bookmarks synced.
I'd use iCal on Windows to keep a common calendar.
I'd buy iSight if I could chat to my parents on Windows.
(actually... I haven't looked recently, does video conferencing work with AOL now?)

[arcterix100]

can someone post a human translation of the article?

It's a shame to see that somebody can actually say things like that. Thinking that a language is supperior to another is called pure racism. And by the way sir, 80% of english words come from french roots.


Who actually let you become administrator of this site. You may know html but you sure dont know respect.

[jsw]

It's a shame to see that somebody can actually say things like that. Thinking that a language is supperior to another is called pure racism. And by the way sir, 80% of english words come from french roots.


Who actually let you become administrator of this site. You may know html but you sure dont know respect.
You misunderstood the post. The request was for a translation done by a human, not by automated translators, which weren't as good two years ago (not that they are perfect now).

[GregA]

It's a shame to see that somebody can actually say things like that. Thinking that a language is supperior to another is called pure racism. And by the way sir, 80% of english words come from french roots.

Who actually let you become administrator of this site. You may know html but you sure dont know respect.Did someone say one language was superior to another?

If I remember correctly, the translation was hard to read. I believe it was done by computer.

The insult is against badly written english, or perhaps bad computer translators, nothing whatsoever to do with whatever original language it might have been.

Why respect a bad translation of a good article?

edit: ooops you beat me to it...

[Juventuz]

It's a shame to see that somebody can actually say things like that. Thinking that a language is supperior to another is called pure racism.

Wow, get off your high horse would you. He was simply asking for a translation, there was no maliciousness behind it.

And by the way sir, 80% of english words come from Latin roots.

fixed your post!