Safari for Windows Downloads Top 1 Million In 48 Hours

[clevin]

So, despite the different look, Safari also uses twice as much memory compared to Netscape

oooh, U missed the pics i had 3 days ago show 750MB memory usage of safari!

Apple wants the Apple interface everywhere. On your Mac. On your PC. On your iPhone. On your TV.

Safari will be free for both platforms. To suggest otherwise is, I think, to miss what Steve was saying. He said they have done it with iTunes, and would now do it with Safari.

I understand EXACTLY what he wants, and thats what Im saying, his philosophy is dumb in this judgment. Apple interface everywhere IS the problem. They use bloated codes to forcedly change UI, break windows UI guild line,

You see the "lack of shadow" under safari window? You see the 2X, 3X memory use? You see the non-resizable border? you see the inconvenient way of open new tab? etc etc, they all are results of this "Apple UI everywhere". And they are not good.

There is a reason why on betanews.com, mac version of safari got 4/5 rating, and windows version got 3. Take a look at the quicktime for win, check how windows users feel about it. Its freaking for windows, not for OSX users, so why not listen to their voice.

On windows platform, its really users driven, what users want is what important, there are so many alternatives, if not focus on users, you LOSE.

 

[weg]

They use bloated codes to forcedly change UI, break windows UI guild line,

Nowadays, developers at Apple don't even bother to stick to their own guidelines (iTunes looks different than other apps, the buttons in Apple Mail do not adhere to the Apple guideline...)

 

[CoreWeb]

oooh, U missed the pics i had 3 days ago show 750MB memory usage of safari!


I understand EXACTLY what he wants, and thats what Im saying, his philosophy is dumb in this judgment. Apple interface everywhere IS the problem. They use bloated codes to forcedly change UI, break windows UI guild line,

You see the "lack of shadow" under safari window? You see the 2X, 3X memory use? You see the non-resizable border? you see the inconvenient way of open new tab? etc etc, they all are results of this "Apple UI everywhere". And they are not good.

There is a reason why on betanews.com, mac version of safari got 4/5 rating, and windows version got 3. Take a look at the quicktime for win, check how windows users feel about it. Its freaking for windows, not for OSX users, so why not listen to their voice.

On windows platform, its really users driven, what users want is what important, there are so many alternatives, if not focus on users, you LOSE.

Then again, the average Windows user doesn't seem to care about user interfaces. After all, they use Windows. So maybe giving them iTunes and Safari is like giving a glass of ice water to someone in hell.

 

[killerrobot]

When I hear about a new browser I generally download it, check it out for a day and then toss it because there really hasn't been any great improvements that make it worth switching all my personal settings over to a new one. 1 million downloads and probably 900,000 uninstalls and visits to the trashcan.

 

[unclepunk]

How many uninstalls were there in the first 24 hours?

 

[Rodimus Prime]

I am rather shock that apple did not make Safari for windows support clear type. Review after review has rated M$ clear type better than what OSX font smoothing.

But for my windows computer Safari is install but I used it for 5 mins and went back to Firefox.

 

[milo]

In response to an earlier comment...

I presume it does work with Flash, I've not noticed any websites that particularly havent worked or displayed correctly yet.

The only issue I've had so far is with Lloyds TSB internet banking! I couldnt sign on at all, but in Firefox and IE it all worked fine.

Are you sure? Could you give an example of a flash site that worked in safari? Do you have to do a special flash install after installing Safari or something?

 

[Thomas2006]

The only problem I had was I wasn't able to get to my online email accounts, but this update has fixed that problem. Go Apple!

 

[clevin]

Then again, the average Windows user doesn't seem to care about user interfaces. After all, they use Windows. So maybe giving them iTunes and Safari is like giving a glass of ice water to someone in hell.

I bet SJ has exactly same attitude. LOL, but its hard to make good product when u hate your users. lol

They do care about UI, and they do think safari for win "needs a skin function".

BTW, the rate for safari for win is now 2.9/5
http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail/Safari_for_Windows/1042667790/2

 

[edesignuk]

Not surprised, I'm sure however most that did download (like me*) have realised their mistake and haven't touched it since.

*on Windows at least.

 

[trashy]

In spite of not having any plugins I still tried this out at work. Crashes every time I try to open up an intranet web site. Doesn't seem to like .aspx very much. Totally useless to me. I guess I'll stick to Firefox on both Windows *and* my MacBook....

*shrug*

 

[MikeTheC]

Uh oh.

"Challenger, you are go at throttle-up."

Famous last words.

 

[CoreWeb]

I bet SJ has exactly same attitude. LOL, but its hard to make good product when u hate your users. lol

They do care about UI, and they do think safari for win "needs a skin function".

BTW, the rate for safari for win is now 2.9/5
http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail/Safari_for_Windows/1042667790/2

The average Windows user cares about UI? I find this hard to believe. They seem to care about flashy effects, until their charm wears off and they start to seem useless. I know, as I used to develop programs on Windows. I kept trying to replicate MS Office's look and feel, even though it wasn't practical. The focus is on making something which looks cool, even though it may not be useful. Too many programmers take that kind of approach. Apple doesn't tend to - though they sometimes do. Apple's effects are usually subtle.

Take, for example, the separating of tabs from a window in Safari 3. When you grab the tab, it grows into a new window. If you hold down the shift key while doing so, the whole procedure happens in slow motion. A lot of developers would have foregone the shift key, figuring the long transition looked cool, and it would then take 5-10 seconds to move a tab to a new window instead of one second.

Then, developers will figure it takes too long, and decide not to have any effects whatsoever. This wouldn't be so bad except that effects can be useful, and usually are, in Apple's case. For instance, the animation while moving a tab to a new window in Safari 3 makes it very very clear what the user is doing. Same with the animation for reordering tabs. In Firefox and IE, when reordering tabs, there is only a pointer of where the tab will go, which isn't as clear and doesn't make as much sense.

So, from my perspective, windows users don't actually care about user interface, but eye candy that has little other use. Mac users can often be the same way. Apple, however, tends to care about the user interface itself. Keep in mind that a user interface is not just the visual appearance of a program but the entire method the user uses to interact with the program.

Now, on the matter of UIs, I am a little biased: I am obsessed with user interfaces.

 

[ajhill]

Did I blink or what...

Last night I saw a rumor posted on one of the sights that mentioned certain mysterious components in the new WINDOWS version of Safari.

The story is now gone!


Does this mean that Apple may have one more secret feature in Leopard: That there is a second version that runs on PCs and directly competes agains windows?

It would be great if Apple could sell OS X to all the world. Given the choice between Vista and Leopard, I can tell you which I'd rather run...

 

[Much Ado]

It would be great if Apple could sell OS X to all the world. Given the choice between Vista and Leopard, I can tell you which I'd rather run...

Wahh???

Apple make no money selling OS X. It's all in the hardware. They might as well license the iPod OS for Sandisk...

The day Apple license OS X will be the day i become a nun.

 

[pohl]

Wahh???

Apple make no money selling OS X. It's all in the hardware. .

Listen to the All Things Digital interview with Jobs and Gates. Notice how many times Steve Jobs mentions that "it's all about the software", and how Apple now views itself as a software company. Also note how they dropped "Computer" from their name.

Things do change over time, you know. If revenues from music, movies, portable players, phones, and TV appliances continue to grow then it wouldn't be much of a risk for Apple to sell OSX for beige boxes.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/when-two-worlds-collide/gates-vs-jobs-the-complete-videos-264788.php

 

[Quillz]

You see, even Windows users know Apple software can be trusted to be high quality. (Although the beta flaws were surprising, but then its Windows)!

Except many people have had trouble with Safari 3 on OS X, as well. Not to mention that iTunes 7 has been terrible on Windows, at least up until the latest release, 7.0.2. So no, let's not blame Windows, let's blame Apple.

 

[Quillz]

I have to disagree.

I'm willing to bet that Safari 3 will be available for both Tiger & Leopard (as well as Windows XP and Windows Vista).

I would agree with this as well. If the beta can run on 10.4, there's no reason the final wouldn't, as well. Now, I'm quite sure Apple is done supporting 10.3, so Panther users are out of luck, but I would doubt very much that Safari 3 only runs on Leopard, since there will still be many Tiger users, just like there are still many XP users even though Vista has been out for a few months now.

 

[theBB]

Thats not fair. Or is Safari 2 available for Mac OS 9?

Which part is not fair? IE7 is not available for Windows 2000, Safari 3 is not available for 10.3. I am pretty sure IE6 is not available for Windows 98 if you want an analogy for your Safari2-OS9 analogy.

The whole question about proprietary is also about alternatives. You can't easily switch off QuickTime but you can easily switch off all Microsoft apps in XP SP2 or Vista. Apple will go the same long way Microsoft have with implementing features to compete.

Sorry, the definition of proprietary is not negotiable. If the source code is available, you cannot call it proprietary. BTW, I have no idea what you mean by "switch off". If you don't like QuickTime, don't use it. How do you "switch off" Explorer or Windows Media Player?

 

[WilliamLondon]

A guy with an IBM laptop calling Safari a piece of 'stuff'.........

Websters should add that to the definition of 'incongruous'.

Actually, I love the IBM laptops. Used to work there (please don't hold it against me!) - the first laptop I ever used was an Apple and I've had Dells and HPs and Sonys, and the IBM still is the best in my mind (though, have to say I am patiently, very patiently, waiting for the rumoured ultraportable Apple laptop, in which case I will make the switch and happily resign my IBM to the back corner of my desk).

 

[theBB]

Sorry, I'm a little bit stupid,

I agree.

My argument was about Mac OSX. Keynote might be as proprietary as PowerPoint, I've got no argument there. However, just because some software is not cross platform does not mean it is proprietary. If its source is open, it is not proprietary. You can modify it to run on other operating systems or hardware. OSX has a lot more open-source pieces to it than Windows. FCP or iWork may not have any, but again, my comparison was OSX vs. Windows.

 

[AllieNeko]

I'm writing from Safari on Windows now

I LOVE the font rendering (OSX style) compared to ClearType. It is more artistic, looks better, and is just as easy if not easier to read.

Actually, the font rendering is THE reason I'm now using it instead of IE7
(I rather dislike Firefox myself).

See, Cleartype nudges fonts into the pixel grid. It makes them crisper but it messes up the design and makes them ugly. Apple's font rendering doesn't. Different philosophy is all. (Microsoft - sharper fonts are easier to read and look better, Apple - fonts that match how they look in print are easier to read and look better. It's a matter of opinion, but Apple is right ).

My wish for Safari on Mac and Windows would be GMail support. Work with Google to get Google Talk in Gmail and rich text editor support working and I'll be 110% for Safari!

 

[weg]

Sorry, the definition of proprietary is not negotiable. If the source code is available, you cannot call it proprietary.

You're right and you're not right. The definition of proprietary
is not negotiable, true. But "proprietary" has nothing to do with availability of source code. The source code of Windows is available as well (just not to the public). And, before you come up with new suggestions, neither is it related to Bill Gates or Steve Jobs.

 

[weg]

If its source is open, it is not proprietary. You can modify it to run on other operating systems or hardware.

When was the last time you did that? (And last time I checked, running OS X on non-Apple hardware was not legal - well, now you can claim that you referred to Darwin, but you didn't. You explicitely talked about OS X). Darwin is just the very core of OS X, and to the average user, Darwin by itself is of no use at all. If you advocate open source, you should be consistent and promote Linux. Darwin basically consists of a Mach kernel and BSD code, both of which were "open" and "non-proprietary" before Apple integrated them into OS X (sorry to disappoint you, Apple did NOT invent open source, even if you're inclined to believe that).

 

[killerrobot]

I'm writing from Safari on Windows now

I LOVE the font rendering (OSX style) compared to ClearType. It is more artistic, looks better, and is just as easy if not easier to read.

Do you own a Mac? Because when I switched from PC I had headaches for months trying to read the screen. I'm used to it now, but I would not even venture to say it's better.

My wish for Safari on Mac and Windows would be GMail support. Work with Google to get Google Talk in Gmail and rich text editor support working and I'll be 110% for Safari!

I love all the people that keep wishing Safari had all the features that Firefox has. (Not to mention all the 3rd party plugins that work on Mac or Windows already.)