PDA

View Full Version : Anger over Panther-only Safari


MacBytes
Feb 4, 2004, 09:45 AM
Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Anger over Panther-only Safari (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20040204104540)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by arn

millarj
Feb 4, 2004, 10:30 AM
"Is Apple now all about shareholders, marketing and sales?"
Answer: Yes

Duh.

1macker1
Feb 4, 2004, 10:54 AM
Things are getting pretty ugly.

RHutch
Feb 4, 2004, 10:59 AM
Does anyone know what is new in this version of Safari that could possibly make it Jaguar incompatible?

Has anyone tried to use it on Jaguar?

Laslo Panaflex
Feb 4, 2004, 11:18 AM
That is pretty lame that the new version of Safari doesn't work in Jag. I would be upset, it's not like Jag is OS 9, it's only a year and a half old, and can't run a web browser? That's pretty stupid.

1macker1
Feb 4, 2004, 11:23 AM
IE can work with Windows 98, which is very old. Yet they cant get Safari to work with Jag. which has only been out for a year and a half. I just think they are trying to force people to upgrade to Panther.

bousozoku
Feb 4, 2004, 11:34 AM
It's ridiculous for Apple to spend resources on anything but security for Jaguar.

I doubt there is anything Panther-specific which would make it impossible for their web framework enhancements to work on Jaguar and, if that is the case and it's only a re-compile, and weeks of testing, and thousands of dollars...they should just give it to the whiners. :D

1macker1
Feb 4, 2004, 11:39 AM
Maybe they made the "most advanced OS" too advanced for their own programmers.

mrsebastian
Feb 4, 2004, 11:40 AM
forget safari, why wouldn't someone upgrade to 10.3 when it's so much better. it's not like a jump from os9 where there were all kinds of application compatibility issues. back to safari, if it don't run your old op sys, then don't use it. i highly doubt that there are such huge differences between versions that you couldn't live without the upgrade.

0 and A ai
Feb 4, 2004, 11:41 AM
As i understand it safari works tightly with panther under the hood more so than it did with jaguar.

nagromme
Feb 4, 2004, 11:43 AM
Isn't Safari now integrated with and dependent on system-wide components outside the app? Could the answer lie there? Maybe making a version for Jaguar is a different task.

Which doesn't mean it's an impossible one. Tell Apple (not just each other) that it's worth their while to update Jaguar Safari, and you never know what may happen in response to demand....

wrldwzrd89
Feb 4, 2004, 12:00 PM
nagromme, you are correct. Safari 1.1 and 1.2 do in fact depend on several frameworks that are included in Panther but not Jaguar (such as WebCore and JavaScriptCore). If I'm not mistaken, Safari 1.0 (for Jaguar) bundles the frameworks differently than the Panther versions (since they aren't built-in).

Stella
Feb 4, 2004, 12:51 PM
I wonder if these winers are the same ones that complained about us G1 and G2 iPod owners complaining about not being able to use the iPod V2 software...

rjwill246
Feb 4, 2004, 01:02 PM
These are the folks who want free OSes, free Apple apps... who knows, free G5s?
Clearly they have no clue that as the OS matures and improves, so changes need to occur in the OS and apps too and then incompatibilites result: the alternative is not to improve either- clearly that's absurd... or stay with what you already have and don't upgrade. Why they bother to complain is beyond me. Thank heaven's these people are not influential in the business world... it would grind to a halt in nanoseconds.

1macker1
Feb 4, 2004, 01:41 PM
I have Panther, and I will stand up for the people with Jag. It's has nothing to do about wanting something for free, hell it is free(safari). It's about Apple updating OS every darn year. I've had Panther for about 5 months, and I dont see the so call 100 improvements and new features. They did the same thing to OS 9 users, and they are doing it to Jag. users. I say stand up and be heard. Because by next year, they will be doing the same thing to Panther users.

zellin
Feb 4, 2004, 02:22 PM
Guys, Apple is a business. Apple has to make money. Get it through your heads.

cbiagini16
Feb 4, 2004, 02:29 PM
How can you complain that your operating system gets better, faster, and cooler every single year?

You could always just...not upgrade! But then you're not allowed to complain about having outdated software. See how that works?

1macker1
Feb 4, 2004, 02:38 PM
IE runs on 98 and XP, how in the hell apple can't get Safari to work on both Panther and Jaguar just amazes me.

wordmunger
Feb 4, 2004, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by 1macker1
IE runs on 98 and XP, how in the hell apple can't get Safari to work on both Panther and Jaguar just amazes me.
But IE 6 doesn't run in Panther OR Jaguar! *@#! Microsoft! They're just trying to sell us their latest OS!

If you want to run IE 6, go ahead and buy Windows 98. But then you'll have to use Windows 98.

Apple is not Microsoft. They have different strategies and agendas. Microsoft sells budget OS for budget computers, so they have to cater to the lowest common denominator. Apple tends to cater to those who want to be on the cutting edge. You don't hear much whining about when Longhorn is coming out, because most MS users couldn't care less. Mac users are always looking for the next great thing, which is why people still stuck on the last great thing don't get much sympathy in forums like this.

ITR 81
Feb 4, 2004, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by 1macker1
IE runs on 98 and XP, how in the hell apple can't get Safari to work on both Panther and Jaguar just amazes me.

Yeah and most Windows user have switched to Mozilla.

Safari uses parts of Panther and this will probably increase with 10.3.3 update.

Will I complain about some new cat OS upgrade?? No, I will welcome it as will others.

redAPPLE
Feb 4, 2004, 03:33 PM
didn't apple explain, why it is panther only?

at least they should explain why this is so.

people would stop whining if they now there is a credible reason.

i got panther. i got safari 1.2. :)

LethalWolfe
Feb 4, 2004, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by ITR 81
Yeah and most Windows user have switched to Mozilla.



ROFL

Please tell me you don't actually believe that.


Lethal

nagromme
Feb 4, 2004, 03:44 PM
There is one GOOD reason why OS X is updated so frequently compared to Windows: OS X is a newer OS. Changes and improvements happen very quickly in a new OS, and then slow down over time. The last "major" OS X update took 13 or 14 months. The next one may not even happen until 2005. Nonetheless, things are still changing faster than Windows. Therefore you are faced with choices--about upgrading or missing out--more often than Windows users. And more often than in the days of Classic Mac OS, which had matured (stagnated?) through the years.

If you really wish for less-rapid OS improvement (which I don't) then you can simulate that by using older versions of things :)

If you think browsers should be free like Safari, but don't care for Safari's system requirements.... pick a different free browser.

If you want your money back on Safari, I support that desire 100% :)

I DO feel the frustration that goes with rapid change. For me personally, the benefits far outweigh them. If every OS update is as big as Jaguar and Panther, then I consider that WORTH $129. 10.1 was not! (Oh... 10.1 was free :) )

1macker1
Feb 4, 2004, 03:53 PM
Mozilla sucks, and it's not better than IE

What parts of panther is being used?

That's a personal choice.
Originally posted by ITR 81
Yeah and most Windows user have switched to Mozilla.

Safari uses parts of Panther and this will probably increase with 10.3.3 update.

Will I complain about some new cat OS upgrade?? No, I will welcome it as will others.

1macker1
Feb 4, 2004, 03:56 PM
WHat are you talking about.
Originally posted by wordmunger
But IE 6 doesn't run in Panther OR Jaguar! *@#! Microsoft! They're just trying to sell us their latest OS!

If you want to run IE 6, go ahead and buy Windows 98. But then you'll have to use Windows 98.



IE 5 works in both Jag and Panther. They haulted the browser after Safari because they said Apple would be providing the latest browser to their own customers.

sjk
Feb 4, 2004, 04:10 PM
Sorry, but I have yet to read any really compelling reason for the "sympathy" some people seem to want over this issue.

What sort of expectations do people have when they purchased a particular version of Mac OS X that's now causing personal disappointment or even anger?

For casual, infrequent Mac users ~$130USD/year may be too much to pay for upgrades but I doubt anyone using this forum falls into that category. :rolleyes:

Really, which other product(s) do you use as much or often as OS X that give(s) you the same or more value and benefit per dollar?

If ~$0.29USD/day weren't worth it I wouldn't pay it or bicker about backwards compatibility.

Lancetx
Feb 4, 2004, 04:19 PM
Microsoft is going thru the same dilemma themselves with IE. Future versions of IE will be so tightly integrated into the OS that they will not be compatible with anything other than the current OS. IE 7 (or whatever they end up calling it) probably won't come along until Longhorn...and when it does it won't work with 95/98/ME nor 2000/XP.

This bickering and whining is pointless seeing as how there are plenty of free alternatives available. If you want the new Safari, you're going to have to upgrade to Panther. However, if you don't want to spend the $129 that's fine, but you'll either have to be stuck with Safari 1.0 or use any of the free alternatives available. No amount of crying is going to change that, so just deal with it.

Rower_CPU
Feb 4, 2004, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by 1macker1
...
[Microsoft] haulted the browser after Safari because they said Apple would be providing the latest browser to their own customers.

Wrong. MS will no longer provide any stand-alone IE updates.

http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-1011859.html

wordmunger
Feb 4, 2004, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by 1macker1
WHat are you talking about.


IE 5 works in both Jag and Panther. They haulted the browser after Safari because they said Apple would be providing the latest browser to their own customers.

My point is that IE 6 is not available for the Mac. Why aren't we complaining to Microsoft about forcing us to buy Windows? Older versions of Safari work in Jag, just like older versions of Explorer do. People who didn't upgrade to Panther because there were no compelling reasons are now starting to see compelling reasons. Some software--such as Safari 1.2 and IE 6--won't run in Jaguar. People who want this new software will have to either do without or "upgrade"--either to Panther or Windows.

Personally if I was happy with Jaguar I wouldn't see Safari 1.2 as the reason to upgrade. I'd probably be using Firebird or Camino as my primary browser, though.

NeoMayhem
Feb 4, 2004, 04:46 PM
I posted this on another forum, you can try changing the min requirement for safari 1.2 to 10.2.6 and see if it works, I have not tried it though...

http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=138340&st=0

<key>LSMinimumSystemVersion</key>
<string>10.3.0</string>

to

<key>LSMinimumSystemVersion</key>
<string>10.2.6</string>


Might just make it run...

radhak
Feb 4, 2004, 04:51 PM
Amazing how Apple can never do anything wrong for many here. If MS had made an upgrade to IE that worked only on Windows XP, the very same people would have jumped up and down denouncing the money-minded sinister upgrade-to-XP agenda.
I bought my first Apple 3 months ago, pre-installed 10.2.8. To pay $129 for an upgrade to Panther so soon is not in my budget. But there is no end to those who keep demanding, 'why dont you upgrade'? Dividing the cost by 365 to come up with dollars and cents is only math, not sense. I am into Macs not because its a religion for me, but because these are good products for the cost. The operative word here is 'for the cost'. After all, the difference between my car and a BMW is only $150 a month, or $5 a day, so why am I driving a less-than-classy-car? Because the car-envy the BMW generates is not worth the extra dent in my pocket. Apple needs money to survive, so I should shell out? :mad:
But when I protest that a simple upgrade to a browser should ethically be also available to an OS which is just 3 months out-dated, I am a whiner? How about taking a deep breath and accepting that Apple is just as much about gypping the paying public as any other monolithic software company?
Just recently I had said that Safari is below par when compared to Mozilla Firebird, and I had mentioned a couple of features that now appear on Safari 10.2; see here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57370)
now Apple has decided that if i want those additional features, i need to pay my dues, so to speak. No sir, I shall continue to use Firebird, which is written by a 'company' that is far more receptive to ideas than Jobs'...

NeoMayhem
Feb 4, 2004, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by radhak
Amazing how Apple can never do anything wrong for many here. If MS had made an upgrade to IE that worked only on Windows XP, the very same people would have jumped up and down denouncing the money-minded sinister upgrade-to-XP agenda.
I bought my first Apple 3 months ago, pre-installed 10.2.8. To pay $129 for an upgrade to Panther so soon is not in my budget. But there is no end to those who keep demanding, 'why dont you upgrade'? Dividing the cost by 365 to come up with dollars and cents is only math, not sense. I am into Macs not because its a religion for me, but because these are good products for the cost. The operative word here is 'for the cost'. After all, the difference between my car and a BMW is only $150 a month, or $5 a day, so why am I driving a less-than-classy-car? Because the car-envy the BMW generates is not worth the extra dent in my pocket. Apple needs money to survive, so I should shell out? :mad:
But when I protest that a simple upgrade to a browser should ethically be also available to an OS which is just 3 months out-dated, I am a whiner? How about taking a deep breath and accepting that Apple is just as much about gypping the paying public as any other monolithic software company?
Just recently I had said that Safari is below par when compared to Mozilla Firebird, and I had mentioned a couple of features that now appear on Safari 10.2; see here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57370)
now Apple has decided that if i want those additional features, i need to pay my dues, so to speak. No sir, I shall continue to use Firebird, which is written by a 'company' that is far more receptive to ideas than Jobs'...

If you got it 3 months ago, Panther would have been a free upgrade or have been installed...

This is February now, Panther has been out more then 3 months...

bousozoku
Feb 4, 2004, 05:07 PM
I cannot see how Apple is cheating (an alternative to the slur--gypsies are people too) by giving a free update to a free product because they won't make it available to those on Jaguar.

If they should make the update available, they should also make Safari run on Mac OS 10.1.x and 10.0.x, shouldn't they?

Well, they should also work on other things for free and, while we're at it, resurrect Mac OS 9.x and upgrade iTunes for it. :D

jasonbw
Feb 4, 2004, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by radhak
Amazing how Apple can never do anything wrong for many here. If MS had made an upgrade to IE that worked only on Windows XP, the very same people would have jumped up and down denouncing the money-minded sinister upgrade-to-XP agenda.


See the above links/stories. IE 7 will only work on whatever they decide to call the next version of windows.

I haven't heard any definate plans, but are they planning to definately not update safari for 10.2.x, or are they just slow to get it released?

MrMacMan
Feb 4, 2004, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by mrsebastian
forget safari, why wouldn't someone upgrade to 10.3 when it's so much better. it's not like a jump from os9 where there were all kinds of application compatibility issues. back to safari, if it don't run your old op sys, then don't use it. i highly doubt that there are such huge differences between versions that you couldn't live without the upgrade.
Because of the cost?
Um... I don't have $100+ dollars, mind if you give it to me?

Or ship me a copy of it, thanks.

Originally posted by rjwill246
These are the folks who want free OSes, free Apple apps... who knows, free G5s?
Clearly they have no clue that as the OS matures and improves, so changes need to occur in the OS and apps too and then incompatibilites result: the alternative is not to improve either- clearly that's absurd... or stay with what you already have and don't upgrade. Why they bother to complain is beyond me. Thank heaven's these people are not influential in the business world... it would grind to a halt in nanoseconds.
How about these are the people who want products to work with a year old operating system?

I mean really, if you want people to upgrade your next release, I want to make sure it works with the previous release.

I upgraded... and then what happpened, I used FileVault... and all my files got deleted, do I want that to happen EVER?

No, that was horrible, I had gigs of files and no spare hard drive to back them up, that was a horrible feeling, I reverted back.

Originally posted by bousozoku
I cannot see how Apple is cheating (an alternative to the slur--gypsies are people too) by giving a free update to a free product because they won't make it available to those on Jaguar.

If they should make the update available, they should also make Safari run on Mac OS 10.1.x and 10.0.x, shouldn't they?

Well, they should also work on other things for free and, while we're at it, resurrect Mac OS 9.x and upgrade iTunes for it. :D

There are fundamental differences bewteen Os X and Os 9.

Also I saw there was Os 9 Support for a good many months after Os X came out...

I don't see why they can't support 10.2.


I want more upgrades (that cost) for features that are new like Exposť.

While I don't want to pay for upgrades like making Preview faster because I see no reason for that not to be just a normal downloadable upgrade.

radhak
Feb 4, 2004, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by NeoMayhem
If you got it 3 months ago, Panther would have been a free upgrade or have been installed...

This is February now, Panther has been out more then 3 months...

I got it a few days before Panther was announced; yeah, i know, idiot me :(


Originally posted by bousozoku
I cannot see how Apple is cheating (an alternative to the slur--gypsies are people too) by giving a free update to a free product because they won't make it available to those on Jaguar.

If they should make the update available, they should also make Safari run on Mac OS 10.1.x and 10.0.x, shouldn't they?


i apologize; i used gypping as defined in the dictionary, and did not mean it as a slur.

the small difference in version numbers is not the thing, its the time elapsed since the last upgrade. within months of releasing a newer OS, we get a minor upgrade to the primary browser, and that upgrade is only compatible with the latest version of the OS. that's as good as saying, we don't support the earlier OS. its not cheating in the legal sense, but blatant arrogance, and that makes it so difficult to digest. there is no other way for me to explain this - no commercial product is expected to depreciate in value so fast; ask any accountant.


Originally posted by jasonbw
See the above links/stories. IE 7 will only work on whatever they decide to call the next version of windows.


apart from hypothesizing about IE 7, as far as their track record goes, IE continues to work with very old versions of Windows; my organization still has a couple of Windows 95, and they are able to run IE 6.0 without any major mishaps!

bcstanding
Feb 4, 2004, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by radhak

But when I protest that a simple upgrade to a browser should ethically be also available to an OS which is just 3 months out-dated, I am a whiner?

Give me a break. I'm not an "Apple can do no wrong" person, but you have no idea what it would take to make Safari 1.2 compatible with Jaguar do you? Do you work for Apple on Safari's development team? How is it then, that you think it is unethical for Apple to make it available for Jaguar users - and this when the application is free, anyway.

Maybe you should look at this more objectively and see this as a "bonus" for Panther users: i.e. "Woohoo, a better Safari", than a "<nelson> HA HA </nelson>" for Jaguar users. Having Safari 1.2 is not a right! There has to be a cut off point at some time.

FYI - I'm not going so far as to call you a whiner, but I do think it is silly to expect freebies. Apple must make money somewhere. Sometimes you get good deals, and sometimes you get shafted. That's all there is to it.

latergator116
Feb 4, 2004, 06:13 PM
How about these are the people who want products to work with a year old operating system?

I mean really, if you want people to upgrade your next release, I want to make sure it works with the previous release.

I upgraded... and then what happpened, I used FileVault... and all my files got deleted, do I want that to happen EVER?

No, that was horrible, I had gigs of files and no spare hard drive to back them up, that was a horrible feeling, I reverted back.


Exactly. Not everyone can keep up with apple's yearly $100+ os updates. They can't stop giving support for an os only a few months after it was discontinued... thats is just irresponsible of apple.

I know there has to be a cutoff point somewhere, but not so soon after the product was discontinued.

eazyway
Feb 4, 2004, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by radhak
Amazing how Apple can never do anything wrong for many here. If MS had made an upgrade to IE that worked only on Windows XP, the very same people would have jumped up and down denouncing the money-minded sinister upgrade-to-XP agenda.
I bought my first Apple 3 months ago, pre-installed 10.2.8. To pay $129 for an upgrade to Panther so soon is not in my budget. But there is no end to those who keep demanding, 'why dont you upgrade'? Dividing the cost by 365 to come up with dollars and cents is only math, not sense. I am into Macs not because its a religion for me, but because these are good products for the cost. The operative word here is 'for the cost'. After all, the difference between my car and a BMW is only $150 a month, or $5 a day, so why am I driving a less-than-classy-car? Because the car-envy the BMW generates is not worth the extra dent in my pocket. Apple needs money to survive, so I should shell out? :mad:
But when I protest that a simple upgrade to a browser should ethically be also available to an OS which is just 3 months out-dated, I am a whiner? How about taking a deep breath and accepting that Apple is just as much about gypping the paying public as any other monolithic software company?
Just recently I had said that Safari is below par when compared to Mozilla Firebird, and I had mentioned a couple of features that now appear on Safari 10.2; see here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57370)
now Apple has decided that if i want those additional features, i need to pay my dues, so to speak. No sir, I shall continue to use Firebird, which is written by a 'company' that is far more receptive to ideas than Jobs'...


If you bought a mac 3 months ago you are eligible for the $19.95 panther upgrade.Especially from 10.2.8!! (at least you should be.) I bought a PB almost 5 months ago and was eligible for the upgrade. You should check on it.

As far as Safari only running on 10.3 that is likely a release issue. usually earlier versions get supported later. (sometimes much later ... that is the way it works to be most effective... the people on these boards are more up to date than most and as a result see the impact more. And they are also not a very patient bunch .... as the rate of speed of posting of these comments indicate)

Finally Safari works on my Bank and research sites because of Java 1.4.2 .

bousozoku
Feb 4, 2004, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by radhak

...

i apologize; i used gypping as defined in the dictionary, and did not mean it as a slur.

the small difference in version numbers is not the thing, its the time elapsed since the last upgrade. within months of releasing a newer OS, we get a minor upgrade to the primary browser, and that upgrade is only compatible with the latest version of the OS. that's as good as saying, we don't support the earlier OS. its not cheating in the legal sense, but blatant arrogance, and that makes it so difficult to digest. there is no other way for me to explain this - no commercial product is expected to depreciate in value so fast; ask any accountant.
...


I understand your point. I think, if it's not too expensive for them, they should do it. However, after dealing with software development, upgrade cycles, and costs in enterprise environments, I still see Apple as being somewhat philanthropic.

Working for software development companies, I've seen most support one to two releases for 13 to 18 percent of the current cost of their software. Apple charge $129 a release and give you all the bugs and bug fixes we (and they) can handle. They also throw in freebies, such as Safari.

Here's another thought. If the web framework didn't affect iTunes as well, it should not even matter. What if Apple already tried the Safari update with Jaguar and it affected iTunes negatively?

ipoddin
Feb 4, 2004, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by Lancetx
Microsoft is going thru the same dilemma themselves with IE. Future versions of IE will be so tightly integrated into the OS that they will not be compatible with anything other than the current OS. IE 7 (or whatever they end up calling it) probably won't come along until Longhorn...and when it does it won't work with 95/98/ME nor 2000/XP.



Except in MS's case, XP will be about 5 years old when Longhorn debuts. Panther's only been out for about 3 months and it has already alienated Jaguar which is hardly 5 years old.

And I like this from the article:

Safari 1.2 offers several powerful new features: the ability to resume downloads; a feature that lets users see image sizes; extended Tabs support; and features that take the browser closer to providing accessibility for some users, such as the ability to Tab between form elements on a Web page.

Um, those are considered such powerful new features that they will only work on Panther???

crackpip
Feb 4, 2004, 08:36 PM
I wonder if people would still be angry if apple charged like $20 or $30 for Safari on 10.2, like they do for iChat. Certainly, it would be cheaper than upgrading osx, yet may help recoup some of the costs of testing, debugging, etc.

crackpip

rjwill246
Feb 4, 2004, 10:24 PM
Of course they would be angry. If you remain ignorant of why Apple has to charge for software and you WANT everything in life for NOTHING, of course, you'll be angry. That's how dingbats are!

1macker1
Feb 4, 2004, 10:49 PM
IE7 may only work with the new Windows program, but look how long it's been for IE6 or whatever the current version of IE is. The point I think the jag users trying to get across is, "Jag is only 1 and half years old, why is is obsolete already when trying to use the current web browser." I think they feel pressured by apple to upgrade to a new OS so soon, when we all were told that OS X (jaguar) was such a solid platform. I personally have no problem with upgrading, but I can understand the gripes of those who do.

I downloaded the new safari, and i dont see the difference, so Jag. users shouldn't worry too much.

sjk
Feb 5, 2004, 12:58 AM
There've been at least a few security updates for Jaguar and it's "reasonable" to expect other important bugs (including those in Safari) will continue to be fixed until official product end-of-life announcements (have there been any yet for OS X?). If that's not happening then I think there are some valid objections.

If anything, Apple could be clearer about whether or not, for how long, and to what degree they'll be supporting older versions of OS X and primary bundled applications (e.g. Safari).

I wish there were less negative speculations and assumptions being made without understanding the situation more clearly.

MacBandit
Feb 5, 2004, 02:39 AM
If Safari was a product you had to pay for I would understand the need for Apple to provide a bug update. As it stands though Safari was free and didn't cost you a thing it was an optional browser no different then any other optional free browser out there. In fact there are better browsers out there.

If Apple had not came out with this update would you at this very moment be screaming as loud as you are at Apple about the bugs in your browser? I think not you would find them a nuisance but you lived with them. Just because there is a new product out that doesn't work on your system doesn't mean the company has to provide it to you at no cost. Those people that paid for Panther also were paying for Safari. Remember the first version of Safari that would not run on Jaguar was the one that came with Panther. Panther owners are now receiving and update to a system program that they paid for.

1macker1
Feb 5, 2004, 09:33 AM
Paying for a web browser. AHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH! If apple want people to stop complaining they need to give out more information about supporting their OS. Just because it's free, doesn't mean they shouldn't support Jag users.

radhak
Feb 5, 2004, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by rjwill246
Of course they would be angry. If you remain ignorant of why Apple has to charge for software and you WANT everything in life for NOTHING, of course, you'll be angry. That's how dingbats are!

i am so sorry, i just did not get why Apple has to charge for software; i guess it must be for reasons much different from other software makers. ..? why do they charge for software, rjwill? and how did you know we all are dingbats? i though we hid it well ;)


Originally posted by MacBandit
If Safari was a product you had to pay for I would understand the need for Apple to provide a bug update. As it stands though Safari was free and didn't cost you a thing it was an optional browser no different then any other optional free browser out there. In fact there are better browsers out there.

If Apple had not came out with this update would you at this very moment be screaming as loud as you are at Apple about the bugs in your browser? I think not you would find them a nuisance but you lived with them. Just because there is a new product out that doesn't work on your system doesn't mean the company has to provide it to you at no cost. Those people that paid for Panther also were paying for Safari. Remember the first version of Safari that would not run on Jaguar was the one that came with Panther. Panther owners are now receiving and update to a system program that they paid for.

Let me get it straight : is Safari free, or is its cost built into the cost of the OS? if the latter, then it is not free, just billed differently.

The Safari that i use now has one major bug that i cannot live with: it does not function with my online bank page. the other stuff is nice to have, and if i don't find it with Safari, i go elsewhere.

There is a fundamental issue here : would i pay for any browser as long as i am able to find an equivalent (or better!) browser for free? the whole reason Netscape sank (as a company, and as a browser) was that MS decided to make IE available for free. IE then was much inferior to Netscape as a browser, but it did not matter. The reason for this is that a browser, a text editor or a JPEG viewer, are not the stuff for which anybody wants to pay money for, not the majority at least. these are the basic software, unlike an image editor or a movie maker, where users look for more than just the cost. GIMP is a great image manipulator, and it is free (Open Source). But it is nowhere close to as popular as the other commercial software (eg PaintShop Pro) available for around $50. But browsers? Only the cheapest will be popular.

At the same time, Open Source has shown that giving away anything free is not enough. You need to work at it to popularize its usage. If the product is not good enough, after the initial buzz, you lose customers. If IE had not improved as much it has done in the past 6 years, it would not be as popular, despite its cost (or lack thereof). So, please don't cry yourselves hoarse, 'it is free, it is free, so take it or leave it'. Even if it is free, Apple needs to make sure it is the best of the breed, and that is what they are attempting, with all these upgrades, minor or major. Otherwise it might not have a browser to boast of.

The beef with the latest release has nothing to do with the browser; it is, why is Jaguar already a forgotten child?

MacBandit
Feb 5, 2004, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by radhak
i am so sorry, i just did not get why Apple has to charge for software; i guess it must be for reasons much different from other software makers. ..? why do they charge for software, rjwill? and how did you know we all are dingbats? i though we hid it well ;)




Let me get it straight : is Safari free, or is its cost built into the cost of the OS? if the latter, then it is not free, just billed differently.

The Safari that i use now has one major bug that i cannot live with: it does not function with my online bank page. the other stuff is nice to have, and if i don't find it with Safari, i go elsewhere.

There is a fundamental issue here : would i pay for any browser as long as i am able to find an equivalent (or better!) browser for free? the whole reason Netscape sank (as a company, and as a browser) was that MS decided to make IE available for free. IE then was much inferior to Netscape as a browser, but it did not matter. The reason for this is that a browser, a text editor or a JPEG viewer, are not the stuff for which anybody wants to pay money for, not the majority at least. these are the basic software, unlike an image editor or a movie maker, where users look for more than just the cost. GIMP is a great image manipulator, and it is free (Open Source). But it is nowhere close to as popular as the other commercial software (eg PaintShop Pro) available for around $50. But browsers? Only the cheapest will be popular.

At the same time, Open Source has shown that giving away anything free is not enough. You need to work at it to popularize its usage. If the product is not good enough, after the initial buzz, you lose customers. If IE had not improved as much it has done in the past 6 years, it would not be as popular, despite its cost (or lack thereof). So, please don't cry yourselves hoarse, 'it is free, it is free, so take it or leave it'. Even if it is free, Apple needs to make sure it is the best of the breed, and that is what they are attempting, with all these upgrades, minor or major. Otherwise it might not have a browser to boast of.

The beef with the latest release has nothing to do with the browser; it is, why is Jaguar already a forgotten child?

The version of Safari that could be downloaded and ran on 10.2 was free. The Safari that came with 10.3 on the install disks was obviously not free as it came on the install disks. The version of Safari that was updated was the version that came on the install disks with 10.3.

MacBandit
Feb 5, 2004, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by 1macker1
Paying for a web browser. AHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH! If apple want people to stop complaining they need to give out more information about supporting their OS. Just because it's free, doesn't mean they shouldn't support Jag users.

What do you mean give out more information? Do you even follow the open source community that Apple works with? All the code for Safari is public and can be easily implemented in the Konqueror engine and much of it has been. Also Apple publishes changes to the mach Kernel as well.

sjk
Feb 5, 2004, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by MacBandit
All the code for Safari is public [...]Not all of it. The WebKit framework, for example, is Apple proprietary code.

MacBandit
Feb 5, 2004, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by sjk
Not all of it. The WebKit framework, for example, is Apple proprietary code. '


True but that is part of the OS not so much part of Safari. Isn't it the rendering engine used in Mail and such? So it wouldn't be necessary for implementation into a browser like the Konqueror.

sjk
Feb 5, 2004, 08:58 PM
WebCore is Apple's KHTML-based (and LGPL-licensed) rendering engine framework. Apple contributes WebCore changes back to KHTML developers which can then become part of Konqueror.

WebKit uses WebCore (and JavaScriptCore) frameworks.

Mail uses WebKit. Safari does too, of course.

NetNewsWire was one of the first non-Apple products to use WebKit. DEVONagent/DEVONthink use it, too. Since those apps run on Jaguar it's not WebKit that's keeping Safari 1.2 from being Jaguar-compatible.

BYOB: Build Your Own Browser (http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2004/01/23/webkit.html) is the first of two O'Reilly MacDevCenter articles about developing applications using WebKit.

OmniWeb 4.5+ uses customized versions of WebCore and JavaScriptCore, plus more of their own frameworks, instead of WebKit (with its limitations). Added work for OmniGroup, but more flexibility.