Safari for Windows?

[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]

i called this one a few weeks ago.

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]

Winfari

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]

Another thought...

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]

No way...

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

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

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

 

[frozenstar]

Re: No way...

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]

after a little consideration

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]

already done...

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