Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Safari 1.2 Released
- Thread starter Raveny
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In reply to my question about which features of Safari are tied to Panther:
Actually, I'm not asking, since I use Panther. But yes, I am talking about two Safari versions. My point was that they could choose to make changes in a Jaguar version of Safari for certain features that are changes only in the Safari code, even if other features rely on Panther internals and would be too much effort to implement under Jaguar (since it would require creating facilities equivalent to Panther's).
Agreed. In fact, it doesn't surprise me at all if Apple chooses not to update Safari for Jaguar (we still don't know that they won't). They know that piling on new features available to Panther users will encourage people to upgrade the O.S. Just as adding new .mac benefits from time to time encourages people to sign up.
john123
macrumors 68030
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For you ESL students
Are you kidding me? There are dozens -- probably even hundreds -- of examples of software that stopped being supported once a new version came out. New versions of software are designed to work with new versions of system software and sometimes legacy system software in the interest of higher sales.
Example: the Adobe "CS" line of products doesn't work with OS 9. Neither do tons of other software packages that are "OS X" only. Yet few people really make a fuss about this. But it's the same stupid principle -- it's new software which introduces features and fixes bugs but does not work with OSes produced before a particular threshold. In fact, in this case it ought to be seen as worse because users actually paid for programs like Photoshop 5.x or 6.x whereas Safari was provided free of charge.
I think the reason people are upset is not this principle that everyone keeps talking about, but rather the relative recency of the introduction of Jaguar (that people may have bought a copy of it only a matter of months ago).
But it has for years and years been the case that to run the latest versions of apps, you'll need increasingly recent versions of system software.
The debate about whether Safari's changes are technically rooted in 10.3's idiosyncrasies is, in my mind, irrelevant. Even if Apple just wanted to modify Safari for Panther only as a plot to get users to upgrade to Panther, it would be Apple's right to do so in my opinion.
On an unrelated note, this outrage in the Mac community (which caused Apple to make its statement today regarding technical feasibility) does one and only one thing: deter Apple from making incremental improvements to its software for fear of alienating segments of its user base. So congratulations to those of you that are complaining -- you've probably now contributed to a slowdown in improvments in Apple programming.
Are you kidding me? There are dozens -- probably even hundreds -- of examples of software that stopped being supported once a new version came out. New versions of software are designed to work with new versions of system software and sometimes legacy system software in the interest of higher sales.
Example: the Adobe "CS" line of products doesn't work with OS 9. Neither do tons of other software packages that are "OS X" only. Yet few people really make a fuss about this. But it's the same stupid principle -- it's new software which introduces features and fixes bugs but does not work with OSes produced before a particular threshold. In fact, in this case it ought to be seen as worse because users actually paid for programs like Photoshop 5.x or 6.x whereas Safari was provided free of charge.
I think the reason people are upset is not this principle that everyone keeps talking about, but rather the relative recency of the introduction of Jaguar (that people may have bought a copy of it only a matter of months ago).
But it has for years and years been the case that to run the latest versions of apps, you'll need increasingly recent versions of system software.
The debate about whether Safari's changes are technically rooted in 10.3's idiosyncrasies is, in my mind, irrelevant. Even if Apple just wanted to modify Safari for Panther only as a plot to get users to upgrade to Panther, it would be Apple's right to do so in my opinion.
On an unrelated note, this outrage in the Mac community (which caused Apple to make its statement today regarding technical feasibility) does one and only one thing: deter Apple from making incremental improvements to its software for fear of alienating segments of its user base. So congratulations to those of you that are complaining -- you've probably now contributed to a slowdown in improvments in Apple programming.
fartheststar
macrumors 6502a
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For you ESL students
What statement was this? Could you post a link please?
What statement was this? Could you post a link please?
Rower_CPU
Moderator emeritus
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For you ESL students
No, I'm not kidding you. I'm not talking about application vendors like Adobe who sell boxed apps that costs a few hundred dollars and that's it. I'm talking about BIG vendors/solution providers. Look at the other big Unix vendors vendors; HP, IBM, Sun, even SGI. None of them would pull this whole "upgrade your OS so you can have bug fixes in one of our applications" BS that Apple is doing. Apple makes all this huff and puff about how they're now the largest seller of Unix. If Apple wants to play in the big leagues, they should act like it.
And we're not talking about OS 9 here. We're talking about one prior version of the same OS that was current just a few months ago. (And that Apple themselves call a dot one change. Though I'd admit it's more than that. They probably just want to keep the X thing going.)
No, I'm not kidding you. I'm not talking about application vendors like Adobe who sell boxed apps that costs a few hundred dollars and that's it. I'm talking about BIG vendors/solution providers. Look at the other big Unix vendors vendors; HP, IBM, Sun, even SGI. None of them would pull this whole "upgrade your OS so you can have bug fixes in one of our applications" BS that Apple is doing. Apple makes all this huff and puff about how they're now the largest seller of Unix. If Apple wants to play in the big leagues, they should act like it.
And we're not talking about OS 9 here. We're talking about one prior version of the same OS that was current just a few months ago. (And that Apple themselves call a dot one change. Though I'd admit it's more than that. They probably just want to keep the X thing going.)
crees!
Suspended
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For you ESL students
There is a previous post here where it is mentioned that Panther uses a new version of Darwin (think that's what it said), which is not part of pre OS 10.3, and that Safari uses parts of this update.. therefore that is why it's not compatible with previous OS's.
There is a previous post here where it is mentioned that Panther uses a new version of Darwin (think that's what it said), which is not part of pre OS 10.3, and that Safari uses parts of this update.. therefore that is why it's not compatible with previous OS's.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For you ESL students
It probably doesn't have much to do with Darwin. Darwin is the BSD layer and most of the proprietary stuff that Apple would call with Safari (that would make it incompatible) is higher up the chain. They wouldn't want to open source that.
It probably doesn't have much to do with Darwin. Darwin is the BSD layer and most of the proprietary stuff that Apple would call with Safari (that would make it incompatible) is higher up the chain. They wouldn't want to open source that.
john123
macrumors 68030
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For you ESL students
Show me where Apple wrote in print, or even gave the indication, that it wanted to be a "BIG vendor/solution provider." And, explain to me how the distinction between that and an "application vendor" even matters.
You reference "a few hundred dollars and that's it" -- so, um, what exactly is your problem shelling out far less than "a few hundred dollars" ($129.00 to be specific) for an OS upgrade? In fact, for a few hundred dollars, you can get a few rounds of OS upgrades.
IBM and Sun also don't have anything close to an OS X equivalent. Your analogy really doesn't hold here.
You want to dismiss my OS 9 example because it is inconvenient for your argument. That's typical. I bet you'll also dismiss the argument that lots of software -- from Apple or others -- requires 10.1.x or higher...and some requires 10.2.x or higher.
The point is you're ticked because it seems -- to you -- that you bought software "recently." But recently is a relative term, and therefore any cutoff point that we're talking about -- be it OS 9, 10.0, 10.1, or 10.2 -- is inherently arbitrary. It's just the nature of the beast that when a new operating system comes out, you'll be left behind in terms of advancements of third party software at some point in time.
Show me where Apple wrote in print, or even gave the indication, that it wanted to be a "BIG vendor/solution provider." And, explain to me how the distinction between that and an "application vendor" even matters.
You reference "a few hundred dollars and that's it" -- so, um, what exactly is your problem shelling out far less than "a few hundred dollars" ($129.00 to be specific) for an OS upgrade? In fact, for a few hundred dollars, you can get a few rounds of OS upgrades.
IBM and Sun also don't have anything close to an OS X equivalent. Your analogy really doesn't hold here.
You want to dismiss my OS 9 example because it is inconvenient for your argument. That's typical. I bet you'll also dismiss the argument that lots of software -- from Apple or others -- requires 10.1.x or higher...and some requires 10.2.x or higher.
The point is you're ticked because it seems -- to you -- that you bought software "recently." But recently is a relative term, and therefore any cutoff point that we're talking about -- be it OS 9, 10.0, 10.1, or 10.2 -- is inherently arbitrary. It's just the nature of the beast that when a new operating system comes out, you'll be left behind in terms of advancements of third party software at some point in time.
zync
macrumors 68000
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For you ESL students
Agreed. Recently is a relative term (didn't notice you had said that 🙂). Sure someone could've bought Jaguar in September and that would be recent. If, however, Panther had shipped in February the purchase wouldn't have been recent. In this same regard, Jaguar is not exactly a recent release. In many cases just upgrading recently and being denied updates is partly your fault. Based on the OSX upgrade cycle it would've been stupid to get Jaguar around September. This happened to me with my 20GB iPod when the 40 debuted on my birthday after my iPod was only 4 months old. I wasn't an avid reader of macrumors so I just didn't know better. This, however, makes me think that Apple should be more open on the subject of new releases.
Agreed. Recently is a relative term (didn't notice you had said that 🙂). Sure someone could've bought Jaguar in September and that would be recent. If, however, Panther had shipped in February the purchase wouldn't have been recent. In this same regard, Jaguar is not exactly a recent release. In many cases just upgrading recently and being denied updates is partly your fault. Based on the OSX upgrade cycle it would've been stupid to get Jaguar around September. This happened to me with my 20GB iPod when the 40 debuted on my birthday after my iPod was only 4 months old. I wasn't an avid reader of macrumors so I just didn't know better. This, however, makes me think that Apple should be more open on the subject of new releases.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For you ESL students
It was quite obvious from Panther's announcement that Safari was dead for Jaguar. Too much was changing under the hood and it is only with Panther that Apple claimed Safari as the default browser.
Are you willing to pay the cost that comes with playing in those leagues because I'm reasonably certain 99.999% of the mac user base wouldn't be. Yes you can get better support from HP, IBM and Sun but you also pay for it.
It was quite obvious from Panther's announcement that Safari was dead for Jaguar. Too much was changing under the hood and it is only with Panther that Apple claimed Safari as the default browser.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For you ESL students
How about the Xserve, their enterprise support group, the advanced computing group, and the fact that they jumped all over the chance to install 1100 G5 machines over at Virginia Tech. Sorry, but Adobe doesn't do any of that.
IBM and Sun have workstations that, while they don't run Office, run different apps that would not run on OS X. Sorry, but Solaris and AIX are not that wildly different from OS X.
I've made a big deal in this thread about enterprise support and playing in the big leagues. Everyone here is like, "what's the big deal, it's only $129." Well, what happens to the company that has to upgrade thousands of machines (probably at a license discount, but still there's more involved than just the license cost.) And this is what's required to get app updates that consist of mostly bug fixes?
Also, the OS 9 and OS 10.2 arguments are pretty different. Apple gave everyone a pretty good roadmap that OS 9 would not be supported or receiving application updates in the future. No such indication was given for 10.2.
How about the Xserve, their enterprise support group, the advanced computing group, and the fact that they jumped all over the chance to install 1100 G5 machines over at Virginia Tech. Sorry, but Adobe doesn't do any of that.
IBM and Sun have workstations that, while they don't run Office, run different apps that would not run on OS X. Sorry, but Solaris and AIX are not that wildly different from OS X.
I've made a big deal in this thread about enterprise support and playing in the big leagues. Everyone here is like, "what's the big deal, it's only $129." Well, what happens to the company that has to upgrade thousands of machines (probably at a license discount, but still there's more involved than just the license cost.) And this is what's required to get app updates that consist of mostly bug fixes?
Also, the OS 9 and OS 10.2 arguments are pretty different. Apple gave everyone a pretty good roadmap that OS 9 would not be supported or receiving application updates in the future. No such indication was given for 10.2.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For you ESL students
What type of costs are we talking about here? Though I'm sure some of the OS cost is subsidized through hardware sales (same with Apple), you can get a Sun SPARC workstation for less than the high end G5s.
Edit: Oh, and I've got a Sun machine too. The Solaris updates (even between versions) are free as long as you have the SPARC hardware.
What type of costs are we talking about here? Though I'm sure some of the OS cost is subsidized through hardware sales (same with Apple), you can get a Sun SPARC workstation for less than the high end G5s.
Edit: Oh, and I've got a Sun machine too. The Solaris updates (even between versions) are free as long as you have the SPARC hardware.
john123
macrumors 68030
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For you ESL students
* The 10.2.x OS
* The 10.3.x OS
* The Safari app
You also completely ignored what I said about many programs requiring 10.1.x as a minimum, or 10.2.x as a minimum. Like I said before, you're not arguing about a principle -- you're upset because you don't like the way this particular situation affects you in your personal circumstances.
More to the point, you're not entitled to bug fixes. Apple could decide to start charging tomorrow for Safari rather than making it free. That's their prerogative. That's exactly what they did with iLife (first the apps were free, then there was going to be a charge, then they changed it to a charge only for media/iDVD, now it's $49 for the suite, period).
It's already been noted in this thread that 10.2 is fully "supported." The only issue is that a little program (which has many other competitors that do the exact same thing, also free) hasn't been updated for your aging operating system.
Just because Apple sells hardware doesn't mean it wishes to swim with the same fish as HP, IBM, etc.
For Solaris and AIX, please give me the following analogs for the purposes of your argument:
* The 10.2.x OS
* The 10.3.x OS
* The Safari app
If a company has thousands of machines, then it's doing some pretty high-level work and probably doesn't care about Safari that much. Safari is a consumer app. There are other browser options as well (Camino, Firebird, etc.)
I already addressed this in previous posts. System software changes and evolves, and as a result, it has always been the case that newer applications will set as a "cutoff" some OS version that's the minimum to run the application. This is just Common Sense 101 -- no roadmap required.
You also completely ignored what I said about many programs requiring 10.1.x as a minimum, or 10.2.x as a minimum. Like I said before, you're not arguing about a principle -- you're upset because you don't like the way this particular situation affects you in your personal circumstances.
More to the point, you're not entitled to bug fixes. Apple could decide to start charging tomorrow for Safari rather than making it free. That's their prerogative. That's exactly what they did with iLife (first the apps were free, then there was going to be a charge, then they changed it to a charge only for media/iDVD, now it's $49 for the suite, period).
It's already been noted in this thread that 10.2 is fully "supported." The only issue is that a little program (which has many other competitors that do the exact same thing, also free) hasn't been updated for your aging operating system.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For you ESL students
Well, for Solaris:
Solaris 8
Solaris 9
Netscape (the one that Sun themselves port) or HotJava
(And let's not talk about Netscape is available for OS X blah blah blah. Sun ports their own version from the Mozilla source to make it run on top of Solaris. Apple did similar things with KHTML. They chose how to architect their app.)
Some companies are reluctant to implement Camino or Firebird becasue of the lack of support. If there's a problem, they want to get someone on the horn to chew out and get things fixed. That's why IE has done pretty well in the Windows enterprise arena. There is one vendor to call. Now that Apple got MS to discontinue IE for Mac because of Safari (and made Safari the default browser), they have a level of responsibility that they wouldn't have had if Safari remained a second tier app (like, oh, say, Cyberdog) and not the premier browser.
Also, the statement that Safari is just a consumer app is completely false. Many (and I mean MANY) companies are implementing web based applications as a way to thin out client installation. I myself develop and administer one such application. It is critical for two groups in our company as well as our supply chain. And we have many more web based apps like this. Our workflow packages, our query interfaces to our ERP systems, our HR apps, our Java based time reporting apps; all web based. This means that we don't have to re-install each app on each machine when we do a version upgrade. We upgrade the app on the web server or cluster and then move on.
However, it's very important that the browser follow and implement standards because otherwise it results in our apps not rendering or not being functional for the users. The changes in Safari fixed a lot of issues with Java, ECMAscript (JavaScript), and CSS. And to get those fixes, a company would have to upgrade OSes across the enterprise.
Agreed, but usually you provide fixes to your installed base for issues like I mentioned above.
No I'm not ignoring that. I can DEFINITELY understand if those programs were providing new features. But I would expect that I have working software for my users on an OS release that was current a few months ago. That's just part of being in the software business. Whether there is a separate version or they make 1.2 work on 10.2, I don't care. They should provide some sort of fix for all the issues in the buggy 1.0 release that they got out into the public's hands.
Uh huh, and iLife still works with 10.2. I purchased a copy because it's got a s**t ton of great stuff that's new. If they released Safari as a stand alone app that worked with 10.2, I would go out and buy a copy. But Apple is forcing you to upgrade your OS for bug fixes to another application.
And yes, I think ALL USERS are ENTITLED to bug fixes no matter what the platform or application. Here's to accountability for software vendors. If you have to pay a little bit, fine, but offer it to me as a standalone app, not with some tie-in scheme that smacks of Microsoft.
Well, for Solaris:
Solaris 8
Solaris 9
Netscape (the one that Sun themselves port) or HotJava
(And let's not talk about Netscape is available for OS X blah blah blah. Sun ports their own version from the Mozilla source to make it run on top of Solaris. Apple did similar things with KHTML. They chose how to architect their app.)
Some companies are reluctant to implement Camino or Firebird becasue of the lack of support. If there's a problem, they want to get someone on the horn to chew out and get things fixed. That's why IE has done pretty well in the Windows enterprise arena. There is one vendor to call. Now that Apple got MS to discontinue IE for Mac because of Safari (and made Safari the default browser), they have a level of responsibility that they wouldn't have had if Safari remained a second tier app (like, oh, say, Cyberdog) and not the premier browser.
Also, the statement that Safari is just a consumer app is completely false. Many (and I mean MANY) companies are implementing web based applications as a way to thin out client installation. I myself develop and administer one such application. It is critical for two groups in our company as well as our supply chain. And we have many more web based apps like this. Our workflow packages, our query interfaces to our ERP systems, our HR apps, our Java based time reporting apps; all web based. This means that we don't have to re-install each app on each machine when we do a version upgrade. We upgrade the app on the web server or cluster and then move on.
However, it's very important that the browser follow and implement standards because otherwise it results in our apps not rendering or not being functional for the users. The changes in Safari fixed a lot of issues with Java, ECMAscript (JavaScript), and CSS. And to get those fixes, a company would have to upgrade OSes across the enterprise.
Agreed, but usually you provide fixes to your installed base for issues like I mentioned above.
No I'm not ignoring that. I can DEFINITELY understand if those programs were providing new features. But I would expect that I have working software for my users on an OS release that was current a few months ago. That's just part of being in the software business. Whether there is a separate version or they make 1.2 work on 10.2, I don't care. They should provide some sort of fix for all the issues in the buggy 1.0 release that they got out into the public's hands.
Uh huh, and iLife still works with 10.2. I purchased a copy because it's got a s**t ton of great stuff that's new. If they released Safari as a stand alone app that worked with 10.2, I would go out and buy a copy. But Apple is forcing you to upgrade your OS for bug fixes to another application.
And yes, I think ALL USERS are ENTITLED to bug fixes no matter what the platform or application. Here's to accountability for software vendors. If you have to pay a little bit, fine, but offer it to me as a standalone app, not with some tie-in scheme that smacks of Microsoft.
CmdrLaForge
macrumors 601
I am one of those who are mad 😡 at Apple because they didn't release Safari 1.2 for Jaguar as well. And I really don't care at all what the reasons behind are. Really - I simply don't care. I still use Jaguar don't think about upgrading to Panther at all and Safari is my main browser. That means I like to get all updates. Period.
😡 😡 😡 😡 😡 😡
😡 😡 😡 😡 😡 😡
john123
macrumors 68030
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For you ESL students
* companies spend millions of dollars to implement Macs (that's what it would cost to deploy "thousands")
* companies then write web-based programs for use on those Macs
* companies then choose to use Safari -- a free application -- knowing that there are (well-documented) bugs with Safari AND knowing that there are no warranties or written agreements, express or implied, that those bugs or newly discovered bugs will be fixed in any time period?
Businesses that follow that kind of business model are not going to be businesses for very long.
If I sell you a car as a private citizen, you may have some legal rights (i.e., I can't misrepresent the car's condition to you), but I also may sell you the car "as-is," with no warranties.
If I give you a car and sell it to you "as-is", and the muffler falls off as you're driving it away, then that's just too bad for you. You can go buy a new muffler though, at your own expense, or you can junk the car if that's a dealbreaker for you. It's hardly incumbent on me to fix anything and everything wrong with the car. It was, however, free.
Keep in mind -- you didn't pay for Safari.
You can get Apple on the horn to chew them out about problems with Safari? Maybe you can, but given how stingy they are about AppleCare on hardware, this is news to me.
Are you telling me that:
* companies spend millions of dollars to implement Macs (that's what it would cost to deploy "thousands")
* companies then write web-based programs for use on those Macs
* companies then choose to use Safari -- a free application -- knowing that there are (well-documented) bugs with Safari AND knowing that there are no warranties or written agreements, express or implied, that those bugs or newly discovered bugs will be fixed in any time period?
Businesses that follow that kind of business model are not going to be businesses for very long.
They did. It costs $129 and comes with a ton of awesome features that go WAY beyond web browsing. It's all about how you look at it, I guess....
If I own a car lot and I sell you a brand new car, it'll have a warranty. Even if I sell you a used car, it'll have a warranty.
If I sell you a car as a private citizen, you may have some legal rights (i.e., I can't misrepresent the car's condition to you), but I also may sell you the car "as-is," with no warranties.
If I give you a car and sell it to you "as-is", and the muffler falls off as you're driving it away, then that's just too bad for you. You can go buy a new muffler though, at your own expense, or you can junk the car if that's a dealbreaker for you. It's hardly incumbent on me to fix anything and everything wrong with the car. It was, however, free.
Keep in mind -- you didn't pay for Safari.
johnnyjibbs
macrumors 68030
For all of those Jaguar users still complaining...
Safari 1.2 requires lots of code that is core to Panther not Jaguar, therefore it will not run on Jaguar at all. Also, 1.2 is not the first Panther-only release. No-one complained about 1.1.1 being for Panther (came with it to begin with) even though it fixed some bugs for me when I upgraded to Panther.
Advice to Jaguar users: if you don't want to upgrade to Panther, stick with 1.0 - it works for most things and then you have the option to go to the latest version by buying 10.4 next year (10.4 will be better value for you than us Panther users).
I'm sure if Apple could easily find a way to implement these things in Jaguar, they would have done so. They aren't keeping you out just because of spite. Note that Bluetooth 1.5 is Panther-only, so are a number of other updates, so it's not just Safari. The same case could be applied to those. You could even argue that 10.1 users can't have Bluetooth functionality...
Safari 1.2 requires lots of code that is core to Panther not Jaguar, therefore it will not run on Jaguar at all. Also, 1.2 is not the first Panther-only release. No-one complained about 1.1.1 being for Panther (came with it to begin with) even though it fixed some bugs for me when I upgraded to Panther.
Advice to Jaguar users: if you don't want to upgrade to Panther, stick with 1.0 - it works for most things and then you have the option to go to the latest version by buying 10.4 next year (10.4 will be better value for you than us Panther users).
I'm sure if Apple could easily find a way to implement these things in Jaguar, they would have done so. They aren't keeping you out just because of spite. Note that Bluetooth 1.5 is Panther-only, so are a number of other updates, so it's not just Safari. The same case could be applied to those. You could even argue that 10.1 users can't have Bluetooth functionality...
Re: For you ESL students
Which is probably why Apple can't seem to increase their marketshare in the enterprise. Would you pick a vendor that did what Apple is doing? I wouldn't. I'd look over at Microsoft and say, "Oh, hey, they support all the same upgrade and bug fixes for their browser all the way back to OS versions from years ago." Granted, companies have to weigh that against all the security flaws inherent in MS software too but those are all factors that weigh into a purchasing decision.
I said standalone app. Not OS upgrade. Let's not start twisting things around. OmniWeb is a standalone app. Panther is an OS upgrade which many people may not want for a variety of reasons. Personally, I either can't use nor want many of the features in Panther. IMO, $129 for a browser that works is not a good value for anybody. But that's what you get with this bundling scheme.
People don't pay for IE, or Mozilla, or Netscape either. Welcome to the browser business.
Which is probably why Apple can't seem to increase their marketshare in the enterprise. Would you pick a vendor that did what Apple is doing? I wouldn't. I'd look over at Microsoft and say, "Oh, hey, they support all the same upgrade and bug fixes for their browser all the way back to OS versions from years ago." Granted, companies have to weigh that against all the security flaws inherent in MS software too but those are all factors that weigh into a purchasing decision.
I said standalone app. Not OS upgrade. Let's not start twisting things around. OmniWeb is a standalone app. Panther is an OS upgrade which many people may not want for a variety of reasons. Personally, I either can't use nor want many of the features in Panther. IMO, $129 for a browser that works is not a good value for anybody. But that's what you get with this bundling scheme.
People don't pay for IE, or Mozilla, or Netscape either. Welcome to the browser business.
titaniumducky
macrumors 6502a
frankly
macrumors 6502a
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For you ESL students
If you have thousands of machines then you simply use Mac OS X Server which will cost your company a whopping $999 and will allow you to have unlimited clients.
That is less than it would cost to upgrade 8 individual machines. That is one hell of a discount if you have 1000 machines.......
So, I don't think this has any affect on their enterprise customers.
Also, you keep going on and on about how they caused Microsoft to stop developing IE for the Mac and so that should require them to release new version of Safari for Jaguar. You then brush aside the fact that there are other options. There are no fewer than 8 web browsers available for the Mac and most of them are updated very often. Mac users are not on an island where Safari is the only raft home.
Finally, if you are so adamant about this why didn't you care that Safari was never released for 10.1??? When Safari was originally released 10.1 wasn't that old. In fact, 10.2 wasn't that new.
Later, Frank
If you have thousands of machines then you simply use Mac OS X Server which will cost your company a whopping $999 and will allow you to have unlimited clients.
That is less than it would cost to upgrade 8 individual machines. That is one hell of a discount if you have 1000 machines.......
So, I don't think this has any affect on their enterprise customers.
Also, you keep going on and on about how they caused Microsoft to stop developing IE for the Mac and so that should require them to release new version of Safari for Jaguar. You then brush aside the fact that there are other options. There are no fewer than 8 web browsers available for the Mac and most of them are updated very often. Mac users are not on an island where Safari is the only raft home.
Finally, if you are so adamant about this why didn't you care that Safari was never released for 10.1??? When Safari was originally released 10.1 wasn't that old. In fact, 10.2 wasn't that new.
Later, Frank
frankly
macrumors 6502a
Re: Re: For you ESL students
What reasons (aside from $129) would someone give for not wanting Panther?
Which features of Panther can't you use?
Look, Apple is brand new to the browser game and they have just started adding this functionality to their OS. Microsoft did this years ago so therefore it is much easier for them to make their browser backwards compatible. It isn't as if all of Apple's software is going to stop working with previous version but that is exactly how you and some of the others here are acting.
Later, Frank
What reasons (aside from $129) would someone give for not wanting Panther?
Which features of Panther can't you use?
Look, Apple is brand new to the browser game and they have just started adding this functionality to their OS. Microsoft did this years ago so therefore it is much easier for them to make their browser backwards compatible. It isn't as if all of Apple's software is going to stop working with previous version but that is exactly how you and some of the others here are acting.
Later, Frank