Considering that every day IE crashes on my PC for some odd reason or another, Safari on the PC couldn't come too soon.
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 for Windows?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Less foreign? Its a web browser thats very much like Mozilla and Opera. Nobody who uses Mozilla or Opera would see Safari as "foreign". A person who DOES see Safari as foreign would probably think Mozilla and Opera were foreign as well, but such people would probably never switch away from IE anyway.
EDIT: I also don't see Safari users on PC's switching to Apple because of a browser, iTunes, and iPod. Why would PC users switch when they're getting the great software for free? PC users don't want to switch not because they don't think the software is great, but because they don' t want to learn how to use a new OS, which would take time and effort. Giving them Safari and iTunes may give PC users a new alternative, but this software isn't what potential switchers are thinking of when they flirt with the idea of switching. Its the hassle of relearning everything they know how to do on a new OS, and purchasing all new software.
If Microsoft integrate their own search engine into IE, I can see another two lawsuits against Microsoft for using their size and power to pound the alternative browsers and search engines out of business.
Apple Software ported?
I know from a reliable source that Apple's long term business plan is to move from focusing on hardware to software. This will apparently go as far as releasing a version of OSX that will run on an X86 chipset ... yup that's Pentiums, Athlons etc. to you and me.
Because only a tiny percentage of computers worldwide run on an Apple OS the market for Apple hardware is really pretty small, which makes it that much harder for Apple to make a buck out of their hardware as their development costs are that much higher. I'm pretty sure this is why they want to shift the Apple experience from being hardware based to being software based.
Seems to me that porting apps like iTunes and Safari is not only functional (ie. windows users being able to buy music from the itunes store) but also the beginning of a process of 'acclimatisation' to start getting more Apple presence on Windows machines.
I know from a reliable source that Apple's long term business plan is to move from focusing on hardware to software. This will apparently go as far as releasing a version of OSX that will run on an X86 chipset ... yup that's Pentiums, Athlons etc. to you and me.
Because only a tiny percentage of computers worldwide run on an Apple OS the market for Apple hardware is really pretty small, which makes it that much harder for Apple to make a buck out of their hardware as their development costs are that much higher. I'm pretty sure this is why they want to shift the Apple experience from being hardware based to being software based.
Seems to me that porting apps like iTunes and Safari is not only functional (ie. windows users being able to buy music from the itunes store) but also the beginning of a process of 'acclimatisation' to start getting more Apple presence on Windows machines.
Search the net for OPENSTEP, specifically YellowBox...too bad they dropped it...if iTunes and Safari are any indication, they may resurect that as well, at least a Java version of Yellow Box wouldn't be so bad...Originally posted by Flynnstone
This could be great !
One thing I feel Apple is missing is a way to port Cocoa apps to Windows. As a developer, I prefer to develop one code base if possible. But Cocoa is very different from anything on the PC (except ... is it GNUStep?).
So ... if Apple ports iTunes and Safari and anything else to Windows, then they must likely have a method to port Cocoa to Windows. Perhaps an announcement at WWDC.
I bet they had to drop it so they could get MS Office support from Mr. Gatez...
ONE WORD+
Why?
(Would make more sense to make Safari than IE on the MAC first; THEN port it -maybe...)
Why?
(Would make more sense to make Safari than IE on the MAC first; THEN port it -maybe...)
Along side this is the possibility that Safari is being developed on Windows to complement more cross-platform Apple devices. Where's that new communication device, eh?
Re: Apple Software ported?
Yeah. We heard all these rumors like a hundred of times. And we heard the pro-x86 and con-x86 arguments.
And I doubt you have any serious information. This is pure speculation and personally, I don't see it happening.
And Safari for Windows is not going to happen.
Why should Apple?
iTunes and the Music Store generate profits.
But what would Apple get from releasing Safari for Windows?
The developement of a browser costs lots of money. And by releasing Safari for Windows potential 'switchers' can use cool Apple software on their Wintel machines.
Frankly, I don't see why Apple would throw its cash out of the window.
Safari for Mac makes perfect sense. Another strong argument for MacOS X. A great OS with a great browser.
Yeah. We heard all these rumors like a hundred of times. And we heard the pro-x86 and con-x86 arguments.
And I doubt you have any serious information. This is pure speculation and personally, I don't see it happening.
And Safari for Windows is not going to happen.
Why should Apple?
iTunes and the Music Store generate profits.
But what would Apple get from releasing Safari for Windows?
The developement of a browser costs lots of money. And by releasing Safari for Windows potential 'switchers' can use cool Apple software on their Wintel machines.
Frankly, I don't see why Apple would throw its cash out of the window.
Safari for Mac makes perfect sense. Another strong argument for MacOS X. A great OS with a great browser.
This would only be as a last resort. One only needs to look at the margins available on Hardware versus Software to see the disparity. If your Microsoft you can make huge amounts of money on Software most others are barely getting by. If you see OSX on X86 that means the Macintosh is almost dead and on life support.
They won't. This makes absolutely NO financial sense for Apple. Not only that it would actually cause a deficit in revenue as they'd be deluged with support calls. This just isn't happening. Sure it's possible...just not probable.
PC users don't live under rocks. Sure not all have had first hand experience with Macs but a nifty Browser isn't going to hold sway with most when confronted with the Bottom Line....buying a Mac cost more money. Apple needs to improve Quicktime on PC and deliver iTunes PC before considering any other moves into PC Land.
Re: Re: Apple Software ported?
Totally agree.
OS X and iApps on x86. Apple wants to become a 2nd Microsnot..... yeah right.
Totally agree.
OS X and iApps on x86. Apple wants to become a 2nd Microsnot..... yeah right.
Re: Re: Re: Apple Software ported?
[throws all caution to the wind]
What if Apple started making x86 hardware too?
[throws all caution to the wind]
What if Apple started making x86 hardware too?
I personally agree that porting Apple software to Windows is an excellent idea.
Once Windows users familiarise themselves with Apple software, appreciate the elegance, robustness and intuitiveness of the experience and realise that over time they are predominately using Apple software over Windows software its a short hop skip and a jump to buying the hardware.
Its a neat way of raising awareness of Apples strength in the windows user base, provides some revenue and removes one additional layer of uncertainty for potential switchers.
Vanilla
Once Windows users familiarise themselves with Apple software, appreciate the elegance, robustness and intuitiveness of the experience and realise that over time they are predominately using Apple software over Windows software its a short hop skip and a jump to buying the hardware.
Its a neat way of raising awareness of Apples strength in the windows user base, provides some revenue and removes one additional layer of uncertainty for potential switchers.
Vanilla
Question that this brings up, and I must admit that I know very little about cocoa. Is it possible to make a complier (not sure if that the right term) that could complie Cocoa for both windows and OSX without tweaking the source code for each distro? If Apple could do something like this porting apps between the platforms could theoretically be seamless. Developers write everything for Cocoa, hit one button and it complies for OSX, and another for windows. Is just a dumb idea or something that Apple could pull off?
physicsnerd
-------------------
"Even logic must give way to physics" - Spock
physicsnerd
-------------------
"Even logic must give way to physics" - Spock
See my post above.
This has been done (over 10 years ago!), and can be done today. There is no real reason technically that apple couldn't do this (look for project builder screen shots from rapsody), but I suspect it has something to do with MS's gun pointed at Apples head (office IE etc.) keeping them from promoting YellowBox/OPENSTEP on windows...too bad too...OS X would literaly be swimming in Applications by now I they kept it up...
What for?
The only reasoning I see in Apple developing its own web browser was to fill the OS's astonishing lack of decent HTML/JavaScript rendering framework for whatever application that asks for it.
The browser itself, while coming along nicely, is pointless.
The only reasoning I see in Apple developing its own web browser was to fill the OS's astonishing lack of decent HTML/JavaScript rendering framework for whatever application that asks for it.
The browser itself, while coming along nicely, is pointless.
As people have said Cocoa is just the latest version of OpenStep/NextStep, which was available for Windows a few years back. My bet is that this is a big part of what "Marklar" has been all along - maintaining the "OpenStep/Cocoa libraries for Windows" so that apps can be ported quickly and easily. Just make it available to third parties - like me!
OMG, can you see the potential of what apple could do with this? they won't just hope that windows users like safari, and switch. i think it goes much deeper than just a web browser - imagine if apple wrote the installer to delete all traces of IE (or just deactivate them), INCLUDING THE INTEGRATED PARTS. Safari will then become the default windows explorer. with an integrated search bar to 'out-google google". such software will be less bloated and far faster than IE, and at the same time, every time a PC user wants to browse files, they will be using a mac product. now THAT'S advertising, and it will drive far more switchers than just another browser. this is where ALL other browsers on windows fail - they are not integrated. even if you use Mozilla or netscape, help files or windows explorer still use IE.
why would windows users use such a browser? apart from the obvious benefits (speed, tabs, integrated search etc), i have a feeling that apple has one more feature to add to safari (say by version 1.0) that will completely revolutionise the browsing experience. i mean, safari is good now, but apple HAS to have something else up there sleeves. do you honestly think that between now and v1.0, apple will add nothing new? of course not. apple loves surprises, and so do we.
in this way, apple could gradually replace windows software on their own turf (but only to a small extent, to get people interested in apple). trojan horse style.
oh, and one more thing... in response to the OS X on x86 comment, and hear me out first, i think that apple will release a version of OS X for PC... and it will be FREE. then, when curious PC users are upgrading their OS, they will try the mac alternative. they will become addicted. THEN, apple will simply not upgrade the PC version... but keep upgrading the mac version of OSX. the PC users who got hooked will switch with their next computer upgrade. the whole process could take as little as 2 years before the benefits pay off significantly.
obviously, to get PC users interested in the first place, they must be able to use their current PC apps within OSX PC. this can be done more easily than on a mac because the apps will be on a x86 chip (which they were written for), so it will be like running classic on a mac.
why would windows users use such a browser? apart from the obvious benefits (speed, tabs, integrated search etc), i have a feeling that apple has one more feature to add to safari (say by version 1.0) that will completely revolutionise the browsing experience. i mean, safari is good now, but apple HAS to have something else up there sleeves. do you honestly think that between now and v1.0, apple will add nothing new? of course not. apple loves surprises, and so do we.
in this way, apple could gradually replace windows software on their own turf (but only to a small extent, to get people interested in apple). trojan horse style.
oh, and one more thing... in response to the OS X on x86 comment, and hear me out first, i think that apple will release a version of OS X for PC... and it will be FREE. then, when curious PC users are upgrading their OS, they will try the mac alternative. they will become addicted. THEN, apple will simply not upgrade the PC version... but keep upgrading the mac version of OSX. the PC users who got hooked will switch with their next computer upgrade. the whole process could take as little as 2 years before the benefits pay off significantly.
obviously, to get PC users interested in the first place, they must be able to use their current PC apps within OSX PC. this can be done more easily than on a mac because the apps will be on a x86 chip (which they were written for), so it will be like running classic on a mac.
i haven't read thru ALL the posts, so incase someone has mentioned this I'll keep it short.
Safari for windows?!!! wow that would make apple.... ZERO dollars. If safari is a better product then leave it on apple so people have to switch to use it.
Safari for windows?!!! wow that would make apple.... ZERO dollars. If safari is a better product then leave it on apple so people have to switch to use it.
Opera is faster than Explorer so I guess OS integration doesn't matter!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.
Originally posted by bertagert
2. As a web developer, I can't stand having all these browsers. It sucks having to make sites compatible with the currrent browsers and all the pervious browser and on different platforms. I don't want another one to code for. My fingers get tired. This is more of a dream so don't take offense
As another web developer, I would highly recommend reading about web standards. Designing pages for browser X or Y only reinforces their failure to adhere to long-published and oft-ignored web standards.
You CAN and SHOULD write XHTML/CSS that renders correctly in all modern browsers -- MSIE6, the Gecko family, Opera, Safari -- and be aesthetically pleasing at the same time (unlike the W3C's home page, for example).
If you are still laying pages out with tables and mucking about with invisible images, then I think you definitely need to see the benefits of learning modern web design principles. Trust me, it's for your own good.
Re: Apple Software ported?
WWDC 2004: G4 in a coffin, PowerPC 980 introduced
WWDC 2005: Itanium in a coffin, PowerPC64 has 70% of market share among 64 bits workstation and servers
Why would Apple port Mac OS X to x86? IBM wants Apple to help them bring PowerPC64 to the desktop, this is a strategic move.
By the way the POWER5 is coming (fast):
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-ppc&m=104791921406815&w=2
WWDC 2003: 64 bits computing is the future
WWDC 2004: G4 in a coffin, PowerPC 980 introduced
WWDC 2005: Itanium in a coffin, PowerPC64 has 70% of market share among 64 bits workstation and servers
Why would Apple port Mac OS X to x86? IBM wants Apple to help them bring PowerPC64 to the desktop, this is a strategic move.
By the way the POWER5 is coming (fast):
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-ppc&m=104791921406815&w=2