Print 147 comment(s) - last by kalak.. on Jun 22 at 2:40 PM

Safari 3 on Windows XP
Apple makes its flagship browser available to Windows users for free

At its World Wide Developers Conference (WWDC) in San Francisco today, Apple demonstrated several features of its upcoming Leopard operating system which DailyTech covered previously. The biggest software announcement however comes in the form of Safari, OS X's default web browser. Like iTunes, Apple is now making its Safari web browser fully compatible with Windows.

Safari 3 is available today via a public beta download. According to Apple, Safari is roughly twice as fast as Internet Explorer and is roughly 42-percent faster than Firefox in terms of HTML browsing performance.

Safari 3 for Windows comes with the following features:
  • Pop-up blocking
  • Tabbed browsing
  • SnapBack
  • Private browsing
New to Safari is the ability to drag tabs out of the main browsing window. Doing so will turn a tab into its own browser window. This feature is available on both Mac and Windows versions of Safari. Private browsing turns off caching features, allowing users to browse without worrying that Google searches and page histories are saved.

No word from Apple on when the final release of Safari 3 will come but it's safe to say that when Leopard ships in October, Safari 3 will be finalized.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By TimberJon on 6/11/2007 3:08:03 PM , Rating: 3
I know nothing about Apple products..

But this browser sounds interesting.

Funny how I see only Pros but no Cons.

RE: Interesting
By Cobra Commander on 6/11/2007 3:10:11 PM , Rating: 3
How is it any different that Opera/IE7/FF from that small bullet list in teh article?

RE: Interesting
By michael2k on 6/11/2007 3:12:46 PM , Rating: 5
If you read the rest of the article:
Drag and drop tabs

RE: Interesting
By noxipoo on 6/11/2007 3:28:14 PM , Rating: 2
hehe porn-mode, so true... i mean, i don't know anything about that.

RE: Interesting
By Kougar on 6/11/2007 7:39:13 PM , Rating: 2
Opera already offers "fast", offers "porn mode" and offers drag and drop tabs.

RE: Interesting
By michael2k on 6/11/2007 8:09:39 PM , Rating: 1
For free? I thought Opera was paid for or ad supported?

RE: Interesting
By DaveSylvia on 6/11/2007 8:27:29 PM , Rating: 3
Just so ya know, Feel Free: Opera Eliminates Ad Banner and Licensing Fee:

RE: Interesting
By Kougar on 6/12/2007 9:20:50 AM , Rating: 2
As was said above, yes completely free and with no ads. :) I much prefer the extremely customizable interface. Forget drag & dropping tabs, you can drag & drop parts of the interface for however you want it to appear.

RE: Interesting
By enlil242 on 6/19/2007 7:55:37 AM , Rating: 2
When I had my G5, My browser preference was:

1. Opera *free w/o banners*
2. Firefox
3. IE
4. Safari

Safari always seem to lag behind in performance and didn't display some pages very well. It may have changed since I sued it, but I still have tiger on my iBook and do not see any difference. However, OSX Tiger on my g3 iBook is sssssssllllllllllloooooooooowwwwwwwwwwww anyway...

RE: Interesting
By GoodBytes on 6/11/2007 11:12:24 PM , Rating: 4
Drag and drop tabs are in Firefox 2.0 and IE 7....

RE: Interesting
By Mitch101 on 6/13/2007 9:30:01 AM , Rating: 2
Yes and not to mention the tons of plug-ins for firefox.

This is cool that there is another browser so I guess this comes down to which browser is the most secure for surfing the web?

RE: Interesting
By noxipoo on 6/13/2007 11:08:50 AM , Rating: 3
adblock plus and greasemonkey are 2 things i don't want to give up on firefox. unless opera has these, i prob won't use it even if its 2x faster in everything.

RE: Interesting
By kalak on 6/15/2007 4:05:05 PM , Rating: 3
Firefox is a lot more secure:

and have a HUGE community support and plug-ins...

RE: Interesting
By incompleteunit on 6/11/2007 3:20:39 PM , Rating: 5
Well, it is pretty quick.

Flash seems a bit slow.

The built-in RSS reader is pretty good, though I'd like it if it could do a 'live bookmark' list style, like Firefox.

It's got inline find, like FF, which is good, but it's glitchy. It won't scroll the page down when it finds occurrences of the word farther down. If you search for a word, then click in the window somewhere, ctrl+f doesn't bring you back into the search field until you've closed the search bar.

It's got a built-in spellcheck, but that doesn't seem to be enabled yet.

It seems like a good start though - still in beta and all, so we'll see how it goes.

RE: Interesting
By encryptkeeper on 6/11/2007 3:35:33 PM , Rating: 1
Still in beta and 42% faster than FF? I love my Fireweasel, don't get me wrong, but for 42% faster, it's worth a try. I like Itunes *much* better than Windows Media Player, so why not.

RE: Interesting
By eman 7613 on 6/11/2007 4:31:28 PM , Rating: 1
Ive got a mac as well as PC, and safari does load and render pages much faster, the exception is when you put rediculas amounts of jvscript or flash into the page, then its a more level playing field

RE: Interesting
By ebakke on 6/11/2007 5:19:24 PM , Rating: 5
Thanks for confirming the lack of a spell checker.

RE: Interesting
By MonkeyPaw on 6/12/2007 6:26:15 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it does have spell checker, or at least the option is in the menu. For some reason, it doesn't seem to be checking my spelling, and 2 of the options aren't available. Wonder what's going on?

RE: Interesting
By maroon1 on 6/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Interesting
By michael2k on 6/12/2007 12:23:50 PM , Rating: 3
Can you read?

He said he likes it better, he didn't say iTunes was better than WMP.

RE: Interesting
By Martimus on 6/14/2007 2:44:51 PM , Rating: 2
iTunes may be better than Media Player, but I still prefer WinAmp to both. It annoyed the heck out of me that I couldn't do half of the things I did in my 8 year old WinAmp in iTunes. I spent days trying to convert the songs I bought on iTunes to MP3 so that I could go back to WinAmp.

RE: Interesting
By kalak on 6/15/2007 4:00:22 PM , Rating: 2
Try Media Monkey. It's free.

RE: Interesting
By Martimus on 6/16/2007 4:44:35 PM , Rating: 2
So is WinAmp. And I already use it and like it.

RE: Interesting
By kalak on 6/22/2007 2:40:20 PM , Rating: 2
Media Monkey is better... :-p

RE: Interesting
By stncttr908 on 6/11/2007 3:56:04 PM , Rating: 2
It's alright, but not great from what I've seen. I haven't noticed anything faster, and the font smoothing is irritating quite honestly. Safari is great on OS X, but on XP/Vista I'm not so sure.

RE: Interesting
By MonkeyPaw on 6/12/2007 6:32:44 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. The fonts do seem to lack the clarity found in all the other windows apps. Kinda reminds me of how old Linux distros antialiased fonts.

RE: Interesting
By cubdukat on 6/12/2007 11:46:09 AM , Rating: 2
It sounds pretty good, but I've used both it and its Linux version, Konqueror, and neither is ready for prime-time just yet. It has even more problems with rendering certain sites correctly than Firefox. But it definitely is noticeably faster than Firefox.

I'm still going to give it a try because I'd like to have something that's not one big, open and weeping security hole.

RE: Interesting
By walk2k on 6/12/2007 1:40:55 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Interesting
By almighty on 6/12/2007 1:44:15 PM , Rating: 2
I'm currently running vista with the safari doing this reply i hated IE7 on vista has it doesn't allow me to play flash but it allows shockwave to be played on it. It's kinda retard for the vista business default IE7 to give me this crap where it took such a long time to launch and stuff. The safari loads up faster. Well i guess it's always a fact that microsoft products tend to do too much with too many things that take longer time to launch and the WMP11 has bugs in it... Mac is built on simplicity while Microsoft builds on functionality.

Just my 2 cents.

RE: Interesting
By Master Kenobi on 6/13/2007 9:22:21 AM , Rating: 2
Flash works flawlessly on my 32bit and 64bit Vista IE7. Sounds like user error to me.

RE: Interesting
By Spivonious on 6/13/2007 9:45:40 AM , Rating: 2
It works on 64-bit now? Back when I was running the beta, Adobe hadn't put out a 64-bit version yet.

RE: Interesting
By Master Kenobi on 6/13/2007 11:26:33 AM , Rating: 2
I believe they have one now for 64 yes. If not, I was able to work around it by copying the Flash install folder from Wow64 into system32. Their installer uses a sys variable that points to wow64, but then the application tries to run from system32. Just copy the folder over and your fine.

RE: Interesting
By Martimus on 6/14/2007 2:48:11 PM , Rating: 2
You had to trouble shoot it to get it to work. I think you are kind of proving his point.

RE: Interesting
By Master Kenobi on 6/19/2007 7:21:43 AM , Rating: 2
Not my fault Adobe's installer is retarded.

RE: Interesting
By almighty on 6/13/2007 12:13:03 PM , Rating: 2
Flash works flawlessly on my 32bit and 64bit Vista IE7. Sounds like user error to me.

Tell me about it i've installed it several times and i had to disable active x control in order to install the flash object successfully but it still screwed up while loading some flash object. However it does load flash for certain webpages but not all im sure that's not a user error. Well is there anyway you could install IE7 back to the 32bit Vista Business? I've being trying but haven found a solution to the porblem

RE: Interesting
By 8steve8 on 6/14/2007 4:28:05 PM , Rating: 2

Flash Player is not supported for playback in a 64-bit browser.

However, you can run Flash Player in a 32-bit browser running on a 64-bit operating system.

weather or not u can hack it to sort of work it mute... it's not supported.. yet, but eventually they will have flash for ie7x64... for now most of us are stuck using ie7x32 even on vista x64.

RE: Interesting
By Master Kenobi on 6/19/2007 7:22:42 AM , Rating: 2

RE: Interesting
By walk2k on 6/12/2007 2:13:19 PM , Rating: 2
Well it seems to load pages a tiny bit faster (nothing earth shattering though) but THE MOUSE WHEEL DOESN'T WORK??

Geez, massive failure. Uninstalled.

RE: Interesting
By walk2k on 6/12/2007 2:16:28 PM , Rating: 2
Also why does it make all text BOLD ?

RE: Interesting
By michael2k on 6/12/2007 2:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
Did you log the bug?

My first guess: The rest of the OS doesn't properly bold text? Safari renders text the way it would appear on paper. Try printing the page and then comparing it to the screen and see if they match.

RE: Interesting
By walk2k on 6/12/2007 3:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
That makes no sense at all. Printing the page... what? Why would I do that, this is an internet browser, not a word processor....

IE displays bold text (and NON bold) just fine and so does every other app.

RE: Interesting
By michael2k on 6/14/2007 5:03:40 PM , Rating: 2
What does word processing have to do with anything?

The point is font rendering. Safari attempts to render fonts correctly; WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get).

I'm not joking. Print a page from Safari and a page from IE and then compare the output to the screen. Which browser more accurately renders the page?

It may not seem like a big deal, but you did ask why and I told you why.

yaa another chocie.
By michal1980 on 6/11/2007 3:34:52 PM , Rating: 2
and most mac users didn't like safari, maybe this one is better.

quite frankly. my ie7 in vista runs perfect so I see no need to deal with another browser. I dont see how much faster you can get, my ie7 starts when I click the e, and from then on its really dependant on my network speed

RE: yaa another chocie.
By RamarC on 6/11/2007 3:40:59 PM , Rating: 2
as you said, most mac users don't like safari. and most developers groan over supporting it because of it's quirky nature. to me, this is a pointless release since it can't possibly hope to gain even opera's acceptance.

RE: yaa another chocie.
By Assimilator87 on 6/11/2007 3:45:16 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah,if Safari is so good, why does my old High School have FireFox on every Apple computer?

RE: yaa another chocie.
By MADAOO7 on 6/13/2007 2:46:25 PM , Rating: 1
Because it's probably what the one IT guy who set it up likes. If you worked for a corporation with a real IT department maybe then your comment would have substance.

RE: yaa another chocie.
By arswihart on 6/11/07, Rating: -1
RE: yaa another chocie.
By ksherman on 6/11/2007 5:07:11 PM , Rating: 2
I am with the OP, IE7 is great. I HUGE imporvement over IE6. I like it so much I dont use FireFox when I use Windows.

That said, hopefully this Safari is better then the old version, as I dispise Safari on my Mac. I hate it so much, it was the first thing to get the boot on getting my MBP this last week...

RE: yaa another chocie.
By arswihart on 6/11/2007 5:24:11 PM , Rating: 2
Def. a huge improvement, I'd still urge people not to use it because of persistent bugs, but of course it's a hell of a lot better than IE6.

RE: yaa another chocie.
By pjpizza on 6/12/2007 2:18:29 AM , Rating: 2
I too am actually kinda pleased with IE7. Not to keen on the fact it usually hangs for about 5 - 10 seconds when a page has first loaded, and the strange way the "homepage" / "open tabs on next use" feature works (really, really bad...)

I would say Opera for all the money, but sometimes it hangs too (when I have about a gezillion tabs open)...

OK, Opera for ALL THE MONEY!

RE: yaa another chocie.
By pjpizza on 6/12/2007 2:29:49 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, forgot to comment on the Mac browser: This is great and all, but who needs it? Do we really need more stuff from Apple? Stuff that crashes even more on windows than ground up PC applications? I did try iTunes once; gave me a headache during install, not to mention after, when I found out it was duplicating all of my mp3's as some other god forsaken format...
If I ever buy a Mac, it will be because you can actually do MORE with it than a PC... (And yes, I've heard of boot camp). If I ever download Safari, it will be because I live in Africa.

RE: yaa another chocie.
By Wightout on 6/12/2007 3:02:46 PM , Rating: 2
Amazing how a simple program as itunes gives you a headache durring install when I have seen my little sister complete such a task flawlessly.

I am disapointed in your lack of enthusiasm in the new browser. At the very least it will do just as firefox has done for recent versions of IE, force it into improving. All competition helps us push tech.

RE: yaa another chocie.
By arswihart on 6/12/2007 3:38:11 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I have no idea why Apple release Safari for Windows, other than to serve as a tool for developers who don't own a Mac and would like to test there stuff on it. I wouldn't compare Safari on Windows to Firefox either, and I don't expect it to break even 1% market share in the next decade.

RE: yaa another chocie.
By EntreHoras on 6/11/2007 5:10:20 PM , Rating: 2
If you have problems programming for IE7, maybe the problem are the tools you're using.
Unless you're coding for specific segments (Mac, Linux or FF users), you have to code for IE.

RE: yaa another chocie.
By arswihart on 6/11/2007 5:31:04 PM , Rating: 5
You just echoed my point - you STILL have to "code for IE". You shouldn't have to code FOR any browser, if you follow web standards when coding HTML, CSS, Javascript, etc.. should work the same regardless of browsers. Of course I agree, you DO have to code FOR IE, and that is what sucks. Even the latest CSS books that have come out since IE7 continue to point out circumstances where IE7 fails to produce the correct rendering while all other browsers do it right.

Granted, it is a huge improvement from IE6, but why was it ever released? Because of Firefox taking away their market share, primarily. Otherwise they had no INCENTIVE to change things. That's what any company needs to change, INCENTIVE. I'd like to continue to give them this incentive by promoting Firefox and other browsers that STILL do a better job than IE7 with supporting web standards.

RE: yaa another chocie.
By finalfan on 6/11/07, Rating: -1
RE: yaa another chocie.
By arswihart on 6/11/2007 11:16:38 PM , Rating: 5
One of the biggest reason that FF actually prevails is it can render almost every "coded for IE" page correctly.

This is nonsense, when you "code for IE" you are adding special CSS tricks and hacks that are ignored or have no effect on the rendering in other browsers.

One thing I'll say is that one of the biggest reasons IE continues to have market dominance is that web designers have continued including all these hacks (again here I'm talking mostly about IE6 and earlier), and the end user sees the proper rendering and comes to the conclusion that IE is just fine. Meanwhile they have no idea the plague of bugs that had to be waded through to get everything looking that way.

If you don't believe in the premise of web standards, you are basically agreeing that powerful companies like MS should dictate what we should have, and we should all suffer. I believe this is the way much of our economy and government works, but I certainly don't SUPPORT it!

RE: yaa another chocie.
By mars777 on 6/12/2007 3:12:38 PM , Rating: 3
Just try to make a web application, than post comments like this.
Standards exists because we are not all the same, and because not everyone can use IE. But the web is for everyone, not only for people running Windows.
If I, a developer, have to loose time because of IE, well then I'm loosing money. If I oriented only for IE, then I would be a crappy web developer. And that is something that would please only MS, because support would go only to them.

I'm seeing you are beeing voted up, and that is a shame because we should not give point where point are not due. And points are not due to Microsoft for not conforming to standards. It doesn't matter how crappy the standards are.

RE: yaa another chocie.
By arswihart on 6/12/2007 3:34:35 PM , Rating: 2
I assume you meant to reply to finalfan and not me!

RE: yaa another chocie.
By finalfan on 6/13/2007 12:28:31 PM , Rating: 1
I understand your frustration since I code for living too. I write C++/Java and there are compatibility problems too. However, part of your pain comes from your denial of the de facto stardard that IE holds. If you insist to code using a standard that only supported by minority and condemn the majority not supporting it I am really sorry for you. A bunch of companies that never wrote one line of code for a browser out-voted MS means nothing to majority of the community. It doesn't matter you agree or not, people are still "coding for IE". One day, if FF or Safari has more market share than IE, people will "code for xxx" and business as usual.

By the way, in my humble opinion, FF does render the IE page the best among all non-IE browsers. Of course, it all depends if you code for W3C then hack for IE or you code for IE then hack for W3C.

I'm sorry if anything I wrote offends you.

RE: yaa another chocie.
By FITCamaro on 6/14/2007 8:31:27 AM , Rating: 2
IE continues to exist because thousands of businesses use it around the world. Now granted a lot of employees install Firefox but most business web applications use IE.

As far as IE7, its a great browser that competes on the level of Firefox. The only thing it lacks are plugins and an inline spell check.

RE: yaa another chocie.
By RamarC on 6/12/2007 12:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
w3c standards are flawed. IE preceded most of the standards and when w3c came along they deliberately chose to spec functionality different than IE already implemented. simple proof is the xmlhttp object that IE had since the late 90s but the "standard" changed its api. the box model is another example of ambiguous language that IE implemented years before the standard was finalized. Later browsers had the luxury of implementing a 'fixed' standard but still there are differences.

as for coding for IE, it's not that bad. Just go to -- 100 designs and 98% render identically in IE6+, Mozilla, and Opera.

RE: yaa another chocie.
By wien on 6/12/2007 1:28:12 PM , Rating: 2
IE preceded most of the standards and when w3c came along they deliberately chose to spec functionality different than IE already implemented.
Well that's what you get when you implement a draft spec in a production browser. And it most certainly doesn't excuse the 6 years of neglect from Microsoft's side since version 6 came out. The state of IE is nothing but Mircosoft's own damn fault.

As for CSSZenGarden, the only reason they work at all in IE6 is that all the pages are hacked beyond belief to work in it. It says nothing about the CSS support in it. Hacking for IE really is an art-form in itself.

RE: yaa another chocie.
By arswihart on 6/12/2007 2:28:10 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you wien, someone who seems to have actually dealt with designing a website.

As I said, if you haven't made your own website, including coding the HTML and CSS yourself, your only impression of IE is how pages look when you're surfing. And they all look fine BECAUSE web designers have poured over the bugs tirelessly for years trying to make IE render correctly!

If you don't understand what I'm saying, go try to make your first website from scratch, test it in IE6 vs. IE7 / FF / Opera, and see the horror that was / is IE6. You'll find over and over that your site renders identically in all browsers EXCEPT IE. Everytime! I'll admit a lot was fixed for IE7, but believe me it's not over. It still doesn't support a lot of stuff that all the other browsers do, and does still have its share of bugs we have to workaround.

RE: yaa another chocie.
By Master Kenobi on 6/13/07, Rating: 0
RE: yaa another chocie.
By wien on 6/13/2007 4:46:56 PM , Rating: 2
If you code to the "Standards", your gonna be in for lots of headache. If you instead code to make sure it friggin works you will be just fine.
Sure, and that is of course what I do. But it annoys me that I have to limit myself and use roundabout techniques to achieve what I want... This is especially hard when accessibility and support for screen-readers/handhelds is required. (Ever listened to a table based layout in a screen reader?)

Designing when you just say "screw IE" and just use the standards as they were intended is pure bliss compared to that, and in my experience usually works right out of the box on compliant browsers (anything but IE). I wont be happy until IE allows me to do that, or just goes away.

RE: yaa another chocie.
By wien on 6/13/2007 4:56:28 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and your Java analogy is hardly appropriate. It's much more similar to the mess that was C++ compilers after the '98 standard release. No compiler had the same feature set, and all of them differed in their standards support in small and subtle ways. Visual C++ 6.0 was particularly bad, and there too it was because MS jumped the gun and implemented a standard draft in their product.

Coding cross platform back then was a nightmare, but still not as bad as coding modern XHTML/CSS is today if you ask me.

RE: yaa another chocie.
By thebrown13 on 6/12/2007 12:58:20 AM , Rating: 1
You mean they left shit in so they don't break the internet? No shit?

RE: yaa another chocie.
By arswihart on 6/12/2007 10:04:57 AM , Rating: 2
It might break your little sister's site running in IE's "quirks mode"; anything coded correctly would be just fine.

RE: yaa another chocie.
By wien on 6/12/2007 1:37:00 PM , Rating: 2
But they have still broken a heap of old sites, despite trying to keep "backwards compatibillity". And of course, now we have yet another browser we have to hack our sites to work with, incrasing the workload in creating new sites even more.

I just can't wait for IE8 to come out with even more quirks and bugs to work around while I still have to keep IE6 and 7 support so Joe Average's unpatched XP/Vista box will continue to work.

Bitter? You bet I am! I've wasted so much money and time on hacking for IE it's not even funny.

RE: yaa another chocie.
By mars777 on 6/12/2007 3:19:29 PM , Rating: 2
This pretty much sums the problem:

You have quirks in every version of the IE browser ranging from version 4 to 7. And it must be dealt separately.
There were problems with Mozilla before Firefox. But Opera and Firefox work flawlessly regarding W3C standards.

Some page made for firefox works in firefox 1.0 and in any version of Opera.

Some page made for IE 4 doesn't work correctly in IE7, nor 6. Maybe for 5.5, not to speak of other browsers.

RE: yaa another chocie.
By walk2k on 6/12/2007 1:43:45 PM , Rating: 2
Well so much for that theory

Massive security holes found -

By crystal clear on 6/12/2007 10:22:25 AM , Rating: 2
Apple clearly also hopes that Safari-compatible web apps attract a larger following because these will be the only ways for third-party developers to get onto the iPhone.

Jobs announced that any third-party applications that wish to get onto an iPhone will have to go through Safari to get there.

Even if the Windows versions of Safari don't gain any

significant traction, they should at least offer developers

a chance to test their wares without having to invest in a Mac.

By christojojo on 6/12/2007 11:53:42 AM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't it be sad if the iPhone failed, all because of a proprietary browser?

By crystal clear on 6/12/2007 12:13:15 PM , Rating: 2
Read this-

Forum: Safari 3 Public Beta for Windows

Initial responses are not good-lots of complaining.

By michael2k on 6/12/2007 12:14:54 PM , Rating: 2
That is the point of a beta you know.

Find problems.

If there were no problems, they wouldn't need a beta.

By crystal clear on 6/13/2007 1:53:59 AM , Rating: 3
"This is no beta, but a mislabeled pre-alpha,"

By crystal clear on 6/13/2007 2:53:28 AM , Rating: 3
1) I prefer safer & not faster & I am sure the majority will prefer the same.

2) I prefer honesty & not claims that cannot be supported.

Now you can enjoy worry-free web browsing on any computer. Apple engineers designed Safari to be secure from day one.

The above is not true !

* Vulnerabilities for Safari on Windows

Apple Safari for Windows Protocol Handler Command Injection Vulnerability (BID 24434)
Apple Safari for Windows Unspecified Denial of Service Vulnerability (BID 24431)
Apple Safari for Windows Unspecified Remote Code Execution and Denial of Service Vulnerabilities (BID 24433)

* Safari for Windows, 0day exploit in 2 hours

* Apple Safari for Windows - Out with a crash

* As days go by one could add more to this list.

To summarize it all-

"It will take one full year" till all those gliches/bugs/etc are corrected & working properly.

"It will take one full year" for a series of security updates & hot fixes/patches etc in the months ahead to have a SAFE browser ready for use.

Conclusion-Better to wait, let Apple fix all the above items-Whats to hurry !

By crystal clear on 6/13/2007 2:56:43 AM , Rating: 2
correction- should read "Whats the HURRY"

Anyone else having odd text issues?
By gamephile on 6/11/2007 3:09:21 PM , Rating: 3
I just downloaded the Beta. It installs correctly and appears to run fine but most text areas on the interface and some text areas of rendered pages are completely garbled. I've posted a screen grab:

A friend who just downloaded the beta is complaining that all his text areas and blank.

Anyone else having this problem?

By incompleteunit on 6/11/2007 3:21:57 PM , Rating: 2
Bizarre. Everything renders correctly for me so far. (Running on XP sp2.)

By awer26 on 6/11/2007 3:35:35 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe you have it set for the wrong language? It seems weird that both the browser buttons AND the webpage would be off...

By cochy on 6/12/2007 12:50:42 AM , Rating: 2
I'm having a problem with some iGoogle gadgets causing Safari to refresh 1000 times/s

By gamephile on 6/12/2007 1:25:55 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, no idea why this is happening. It's some weird text encoding issue, because if I copy a selection of garbled text, it pastes as the correct words. As for language options, Safari's help file directs you to Windows' language preferences. In my case they are all set to United States English.

Did any of you install it in a non-standard directory? I chose another folder from the C:\ default.

RE: Anyone else having odd text issues?
By MrBungle on 6/12/2007 11:32:20 AM , Rating: 2
I just installed it on Windows XP (fully updated) and am having exactly the same issue as your friend - I see no text at all, either in the browser viewport or in any of the menus, drop-downs included.

I don't have time at the moment but I'm probably going to mess around with it later - I would be very interested to hear how you and/or your friend are able to fix the problem if you are.

By MrBungle on 6/12/2007 11:34:32 AM , Rating: 2
...forgot to mention that I installed to the default directory, picked the Safari + Quicktime option on the download page, and left all of the installation options at their defaults.

I haven't installed any of the plug-ins ( yet, and I'm wondering if that will have any effect.

Safari on Windows: performance/implementation
By soydios on 6/12/2007 12:00:12 AM , Rating: 4
"We have a little bit of expertise in doing that because of iTunes."

iTunes for Windows is still a horrible memory hog, and whenever you connect an iPod to a Windows machine, it locks up the computer until it's done thinking (I have a rather powerful computer, mind you: E6600, 4GB RAM, 2x 320GB hard drives, etc.). And don't even get me started on iTunes+Vista compatibility issues.

By christojojo on 6/12/2007 11:47:42 AM , Rating: 2
Note: I am not slamming you. This is more curiosity. So please correct/ inform me of your opinions.

Why own an iPod then? I keep reading/ hearing/ seeing the prices are higher. That the software is a pain. That it tries to force you into using its proprietary formats. Why keep buying these things.

I have experience with Sansa mp3 players (which the earphone plugs have failed on 2 out of 2). Is the Apple hardware worth all the hassle. Isn't there something better out there?

Please explain. I want the best product for the buck.

RE: Safari on Windows: performance/implementation
By soydios on 6/13/2007 10:43:53 AM , Rating: 2
The iPod isn't the most full-featured or best-designed portable media player, but it has the best integration with your PC music organizer on the market. iTunes is a great way to organize music, it's just that it's slow and has not been updated for Windows Vista, despite all the public betas that were available.
The iPod hardware is fine, and the interface is simple. My entire music collection is also non-DRM MP3s, so I could very easily move it into Windows Media Player.

By christojojo on 6/13/2007 1:24:25 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you

RE: Safari on Windows: performance/implementation
By Martimus on 6/14/2007 2:53:05 PM , Rating: 2
I still feel that WinAmp works better at organizing music than iTunes. It just seems to work better, and is simpler to use. I tried iTunes for a little while, but I went back to WinAmp because iTunes just wasn't very intuitive on how to do basic things like Shuffle and making play lists, plus it was a huge memory hog.

By christojojo on 6/15/2007 1:54:58 PM , Rating: 2
As far as software goes I use Quintessential Player now; I was using MusicMatch until they deactivated some features because I didn't pay for a new version. I paid (not rented)for my version I should be able to use the features when ever I want.

Interesting move
By ajfink on 6/11/2007 4:52:00 PM , Rating: 2
This is an interesting move by a company that has said in the not-too-distant past that it is a hardware company rather than a software company. With the exception of iTunes (necessary to sell more iPods) and Quicktime, I think this is the first major piece of software from Apple for Windows.

RE: Interesting move
By michael2k on 6/11/2007 5:16:44 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing has changed. They are still a hardware company; 45% Mac, 55% iPod. The reason they released Safari for Windows was to jump start iPhone application development; I suspect Apple envisions them moving to 30% iPhone, 30% iPod, and 40% Mac in the near future.

RE: Interesting move
By noirsoft on 6/11/2007 5:21:39 PM , Rating: 3
With the exception of iTunes (necessary to sell more iPods) and Quicktime, I think this is the first major piece of software from Apple for Windows.

Oh yeah, and given how stable Quicktime is on Windows (i.e. not at all) I will never touch Windows software written by Apple. I mean, if you were a Windows programmer who really followed all the guidelines and wrote great, robust code, would you work for APPLE? I think not.

RE: Interesting move
By InternetGeek on 6/11/2007 7:03:02 PM , Rating: 2
Watch the Jobs/Gates interview. MAC is a software company. The hardware is just a nice dress for their software. iTunes itself is just software (The player, the program and the store).

Today, more than ever, it is about the software (75%) and then the hardware (25%).

RE: Interesting move
By michael2k on 6/11/2007 7:37:57 PM , Rating: 2
Well, sure. Without software nothing Apple sells would work, except their mice and keyboards.

The iPod requires iTunes and it's own internal OS
The iPhone requires Mac OS X, Safari, and Mail
The Mac requires OS X, Safari, iTunes, Mail, iLife, iWork, etc

But if Apple sold only the software, they would be fighting:
1) Free email and web browsing software very little profit
2) Entrenched competitors who make $50 a copy, or compete by being free
3) Free web or client based media programs

The software is dressing. The hardware is the money.

RE: Interesting move
By MrPickins on 6/11/2007 7:47:53 PM , Rating: 2
MAC is a network adapter identifier.

Apple is a company...

Not surprised
By Griswold on 6/11/2007 4:40:57 PM , Rating: 3
Considering this rather dull and boring keynote, stevie had to have an "ace" up his sleeve that keeps his company in the news: something nobody wanted or asked for - safari for windows.

Hell, not even the apple maniacs really like that thing, now he wants to "bless" the other 90% of the market with it.

Brilliant move, steve, that'll yield some headlines tomorrow!

RE: Not surprised
By michael2k on 6/11/2007 5:14:41 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe you missed the part where Safari will be the initial SDK for the iPhone?

This being a Developer's Conference and all, this kind of news/product is crucial for first mover advantage for platfor development.

RE: Not surprised
By walk2k on 6/12/2007 2:32:04 PM , Rating: 2
90%? You mean the other 95%

Geez all of 5% market share? Wow!

Can you imagine if Steve Ballmer got on the stage, started hopping around like a monkey proudly proclaiming that IE now has a whopping 5% market share?


RE: Not surprised
By michael2k on 6/14/2007 5:08:57 PM , Rating: 2
You make it sound like a bad thing :)

Apple can double their profit by getting to 10%.
Microsoft, unfortunately, can't. They need to introduce several new products, dominate those markets, and continue to dominate PCs in order to double their profit.

Regardless, Microsoft faces the same situation... in smartphones and music players. Apple has the lion's share of music players, so don't feel so bad for Apple's 5% yet.

RE: Not surprised
By Screwballl on 6/13/2007 10:02:52 PM , Rating: 2
IE holds on average 50-60% of all webpage views, Firefox has 25-30%, and all the others combined (including Safari) make up less than 5%. Of course the exception are sites like and such then it may be 40% Safari, 15% IE and 40% Firefox.
These number are of course made up. Considering that the majority of people that use IE only do because they have not been notified that there is something better OR they know barely enough to turn the computer on and don't want to learn something other than IE.

By maroon1 on 6/12/2007 5:58:11 PM , Rating: 6
Windows Safari beta riddled with security holes

Read this

and this

By cochy on 6/13/2007 7:54:11 AM , Rating: 2
Welcome to the world of Windows programming Apple.

By crystal clear on 6/13/2007 9:06:11 AM , Rating: 3
This is what apple claims-

Now you can enjoy worry-free web browsing on any computer. Apple engineers designed Safari to be secure from day one.

Now read this-The guy who started it all-VERY STRANGE !

Monday, June 11, 2007

Posted by David Maynor at 1:48 PM
These bugs have been verified in the current PRODUCTION copy on OSX (Safari 2.0.4).

Dumb question...
By HotdogIT on 6/11/2007 3:38:46 PM , Rating: 2
But I'm going to guess there aren't a huge amount of addons/plugins, ala Firefox?

I have no problems with IE, in all honesty... I just like all the adblock/flashblock/gmail notifier/forecast fox plugins I can run in Firefox, heh.

RE: Dumb question...
By ouikikazz on 6/11/2007 3:40:24 PM , Rating: 4
i had no problems with IE, except for the fact it KEPT crashing when i ran too many pages or if a page overwhelmed it then it crashes and i lose the other pages i had open when i was doing research...then i said F U IE went to FF

RE: Dumb question...
By dcalfine on 6/11/2007 7:19:40 PM , Rating: 2
Safari addons are no where NEAR as abundant as those of FireFox. There are plenty of plugins, but if you want addons, you're going to have to search. There are some for adbolocking and whatnot (though they may not yet be compatible with the new version) but Apple doesn't flaunt them the way the do plugins.

For mac users, Safari 3 is essentially Webkit: a sped up version that doesn't work with old addons. A shame, however, updates are surely on the way.

Hopefully no dropback to Aero basic upon use...
By Fox5 on 6/11/2007 3:02:35 PM , Rating: 2
Would be a shame if Apple's products fully supported Aqua yet can't even work in tandem with Aero.

RE: Hopefully no dropback to Aero basic upon use...
By Hare on 6/11/2007 4:55:24 PM , Rating: 1
It works perfectly fine with Aero. I'm running iTunes and Safari on my Vista Business installation. No problems.

RE: Hopefully no dropback to Aero basic upon use...
By phreaqe on 6/11/2007 6:22:23 PM , Rating: 2
i think he means that it doesn't have the glass and whatnot. it just does not fit with the rest of the vista interface. in my eyes safari stick out like a sore thumb with the rest of vista. i have a hard time using it just for that reason. if they would just make it fit better i might consider using it cause it does seems snappy. however it seems to also have the same problem itunes has where it resizes the window really really slowly if you try to grab the corner and resize it.

By walk2k on 6/12/2007 2:23:48 PM , Rating: 2
Yes this is the biggest problem with all Apple software on Windows...

It's Mac software, written for the Mac, and "ported" to the PC in the most direct and hard-coded way possible.

They do not re-write the GUI to use Windows API, buttons, windows, scroll bars etc.. They just copy the Mac ones over, and as a result they run super slow, in addition to looking totally different than every other piece of software.

World's Best Browser?
By cochy on 6/11/2007 8:09:43 PM , Rating: 2
On the Apple web site they claim Safari is the world's best browser. Can someone explain how they can make these claim, or is Apple once again just assuming their point of view is the way things are

RE: World's Best Browser?
By T4RTER S4UCE on 6/11/2007 8:56:05 PM , Rating: 2
As much as I like Apple I dont like them saying "worlds best browser"

RE: World's Best Browser?
By Hoser McMoose on 6/12/2007 2:13:47 PM , Rating: 2
I've got only, umm.. 5 words for you:

"Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field"

MS will feel an itch inside
By thartist on 6/11/2007 3:18:06 PM , Rating: 2
This is VERY interesting for me... Think of this...
Pressure from Opera; duh
Pressure from Firefox; ouch
Pressure from Mac, now at your own home; man, that's gotta hurt!

I'm sure MS wouldn't tolerate now being surpassed at home by Mac's new entry on the Windows board, so if Safari started to get a good reputation and become the popular buzz instead of IE7, MS would be on red alert (hopefully), awake from laziness and start working harder at making better software!

It's to be seen if Apple can introduce good enough products, and which ones may follow after Safari. Don't know if Apple has really great software, but i hope that fear alone makes MS awake from it's money bed-

RE: MS will feel an itch inside
By incompleteunit on 6/11/2007 3:28:03 PM , Rating: 2
If it makes them get off their ass and start doing a decent job with IE, then great.

IE 7 is an improvement, but not as much as I would expect five years later. And the day when I don't have to watch IE mangle a site that works correctly in every other browser will be a good day indeed.

RE: MS will feel an itch inside
By arswihart on 6/11/07, Rating: -1
RE: MS will feel an itch inside
By walk2k on 6/12/2007 1:47:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I'm sure MS is really scared of some browser with less than 5% market share. I heard Steve Ballmer got all sweaty just reading the press release.

By electriple9 on 6/11/2007 5:23:43 PM , Rating: 1
I even use Firefox on osx. Cant get used to safari.

RE: Firefox
By spillai on 6/13/2007 10:35:33 PM , Rating: 2
I am also using firefox for 2 years now.No malware, no adware and it is definetly fast.

RE: Firefox
By spillai on 6/13/2007 10:35:52 PM , Rating: 2
I am also using firefox for 2 years now.No malware, no adware and it is definetly fast.

edit - preferences needs some work
By kattanna on 6/11/2007 5:55:18 PM , Rating: 2
i dont care for how the edit/preferences window does not follow the standard windows format with a OK/APPLY/CANCEL button

i understand thats how it is on the mac, but this is windows.

By walk2k on 6/12/2007 2:27:33 PM , Rating: 2
But Mac is "better". A snotty teenager in the ads clearly says so, therefore it must be true.

Im totally freaked out right now...
By T4RTER S4UCE on 6/11/2007 8:52:22 PM , Rating: 2
Just today when I was leaving my house, I thoguht "The best thing Apple could do is let Windows use Safari" dude im really scared lol
But on an important note im poosting this with safari and I have to say its nice!
Very fast looks cool and is simplistic!

By SiliconAddict on 6/12/2007 9:35:00 PM , Rating: 2
Simplistic is overrated.

Still no reason...
By Mudvillager on 6/11/2007 4:26:12 PM , Rating: 1
... to switch from Opera

RE: Still no reason...
By Pirks on 6/11/07, Rating: 0
RE: Still no reason...
By Mudvillager on 6/13/2007 3:07:52 AM , Rating: 2
I have a feeling that Firefox users voted us down.

RE: Still no reason...
By MatthewAC on 6/11/07, Rating: 0
Well Crashes on mine
By lickerish on 6/12/2007 2:35:18 AM , Rating: 3
Well I downloaded it, installed it, first time and any run after that, it doesnt load the GUI properly, crashes on me, cant even open the site properly, shows everything to the one side of the screen, even worst, I cant get to the menu system or close the browser, gotta use the task manager.

By sprockkets on 6/11/2007 4:15:57 PM , Rating: 2
I don't remember KHTML being that much faster than other renderers in Linux, i.e. Konqueror vs. Opera or FF, but whatever.

By SiliconAddict on 6/11/2007 9:49:15 PM , Rating: 2
I use firefox. I use Firefox's extensions extensivly. I like Firefox. I don't care. Now if Windows only had Internet Exploder that would be another matter.

I contest the claim that...
By Pythias on 6/11/2007 10:14:19 PM , Rating: 2
... Safari is roughly twice as fast as Internet Explorer and is roughly 42-percent faster than Firefox in terms of HTML browsing performance.

Being the tech addict that I am, I had to give it a try.

It certainly doesnt seem twice as fast as IE or 42% faster than FF to me.

memory hog
By mforce on 6/12/2007 2:29:26 AM , Rating: 2
Just open some web pages in Safari for Windows and compare the memory usage for Firefox or Opera or whatever . It's such a memory eater ... But it's still beta , might get better in the final version though but still ...

By daftrok on 6/12/2007 7:03:41 AM , Rating: 2
It takes more memory usage than Firefox and the Javascript is on par with Firefox (I dont have IE7 to compare and don't feel like getting it). And quite frankly, if you are going to put a fully fledged web browser on the iPhone, you need to use something that takes as little memory as possible, which is why Firefox, Opera and even Mobile Explorer would be preferable.

Safari = worst browser ever
By maroon1 on 6/12/2007 8:02:09 AM , Rating: 2
I have tried it now and I can tell you this is one of the worst browser I ever used

First: You can't read Arabic fonts with this browser.
Second: Ctrl + scroll doesn't work with this browser.
Third: It is not as fast as they claim
Forth: The interface suck compared to firefox and even IE7

So, no Apple need to fix many things in safari if they want to compete with firefox or even IE7

big deal?
By Moishe on 6/12/2007 11:09:54 AM , Rating: 2
It's beta, so I'll give em a little slack on that.
1.) The feature list is just like the other browsers
2.) The speed increase might be real, but measured in times that are hardly noticeable to most people won't really make a big difference
3.) The *missing* feature list compared to other browsers is big and (for me) more than offsets the neatness brought to the table.

Basically, it's mac software running on Windows. This isn't a good thing to me. FF can do SO much more and gives you the extensive list of choices. Mac software is "clean" and "simple" because it tends to simply not offer you a lot of choices. Sorry, but I love choices.

I like being able to go to a site like this ( where the certificate is not for this URL. FF says "Hey dude, you're still encrypted but we can't vouch for the certificate signee, Do you wanna continue or not?" Safari says "cannot load page". No choice, no prompting, just breaking.

I like being able to open a large select box and use the letter keys to scroll to the first instance of that letter... Hit 'T' go to the T's. Wow cool, something I use every day. Safari ignores me.

I like being able to tell FF to carry my domain account with it, so I can login automatically to the firm intranet. Yes I had to about:config, but I like that I can. No can do in Safari!

I do like that the select box in Safari has transparency and the pop-up portion extends to display the longest option text. FF tries to extend but covers the last couple chars with the scrollbar.

The aliased fonts on Safari are really annoying. Looks like EVERYTHING is bolded, which I did not ask for. Where is my choice? (OK so this is subjective)

I like being able to manage the search engines in FF.
I'll just stop because it's the details that make a browser good.

OK I lied... I spent 15 minutes looking at Safari Beta and I said I'd give them some slack. Well, there are too many little details missing. I don't use a browser for it's widgety animations and clean look, I use it for browsing the web and getting what I need fast and easy. Safari can't compete with FF or IE7 right now.

too bad.

Can't use a proxy
By rackley on 6/12/2007 12:15:48 PM , Rating: 2
No support for proxies/firewalls? Talk about lacking a BASIC feature. Come on. What a useless browser in this day and age where almost every network is behind a firewall of some sort. Waste of my time to even download/install/uninstall.

Safari vs. Firefox
By grayfox1169 on 6/13/2007 9:28:13 AM , Rating: 2
Funny how I see only Pros but no Cons.

I tried this on Tuesday. IMHO Firefox has nothing to worry about. I realize this is just a beta but I found even rendering -- pretty basic -- was so-so. I use IE only occasionally so it might compete for this audience, but Firefox vs. Safari is a clear win for Firefox.

as a mac user...
By colonelclaw on 6/13/2007 11:50:15 AM , Rating: 2
i use a mac at home and pc at work. on my mac i use firefox, which i prefer to safari. the reason why i don't use safari is only small yet it bugs the hell out of me. when you click a bookmark folder in the toolbar bookmarks area all the bookmarks open in a scrolling list (obviously). problem is when you move the mouse to another folder on the toolbar it doesnt open that folder - you have to click the folder again to see it's contents. this is inconsistant with how general menus work on both pcs and macs, and for some reason it drives me mad. naturally apple have ported this 'feature' over to the pc version

one really nice thing ive noticed about the pc version of safari is you get the mac-style font rendering for the first time on windows, and boy is it gorgeous to look at. fix that bookmark thing and i may switch over

as for the vulnerabilities in safari that have been discovered, all browsers are like cheese graters when it comes to security, sounds like much ado about nothing to me. if you really worry that much about vulnerabilities unplug from the net

By Oregonian2 on 6/13/2007 2:07:05 PM , Rating: 2
Safari is roughly twice as fast as Internet Explorer and is roughly 42-percent faster than Firefox in terms of HTML browsing performance.

Faster than firefox in terms of browsing? I tried it, it's not even close. In firefox there is a must-have plugin (couple versions available actually) where one can use "strokes" to navigate with. That makes Firefox able to change to a other page or make a new tab before one can even start thinking about what to do in Safari (or IE). The time for the engine to "interpret" HTML isn't significant on any PC I browse with (where I can tell there's a delay anyway). There's more to browse-time than html-to-screen engine time.

That's like picking a desktop computer just by how many dhrystones per second it can do. An ok benchmark but misses the big picture of how things are used.

I found safari 3 beta to be "okay" but very crude and awkward (doesn't have the plethora of kewl stuff available as Firefox plugins). Not even close unless the final version has incredible functional improvements. IMO.

Fast and Sleek
By spillai on 6/13/2007 10:26:02 PM , Rating: 2
Safari is a fast and sleek internet browser in Mac OS. But there are a lot of very good browsers in windows that are fast, offers tabbed browsing and popup blocking.Tell us whether Safari has anything New to offer.


not working...
By swizeus on 6/18/2007 1:46:07 AM , Rating: 2
I tried
and dissapointed.

Menus not appear and not functional

Hmm... I Wonder, IE7 and Safari has a very...really...VERY similar interface...wonder who duplicate who

By Fox5 on 6/18/2007 11:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
Yet I bet half the people who are trying out safari haven't even touched Opera. Just cause it's apple doesn't make it gold, opera has always been pretty damn good, but with opera 9 I'd say it's definetely grabbed the browser crown for me.
1. Fastest modern browser by far in existence
2. Opera for devices is muy cool, even if it doesn't directly affect the PC version. Still, best mobile/embedded browser around as well.
3. Security and customibility right up there with firefox.
4. Some smart design decisions included by default that put it above firefox out of the box. Check out its list of features on opera's webpage.

Now, the downsides are that it's not open source, which isn't a downside in usability but there's a warm fuzzy feeling with going as open source as possible and...that's about it really. Firefox is second best after opera (or best if you have some really obscure plugin needs), and IE 7.0 is 3rd. Safari doesn't even register on the map, imo.
That said, I expect competition between opera and firefox to be close in the future, but right now opera is the tops. Oh, and let's not forget the best web 2.0 compatibility around.

I'd have to pledge my support more with firefox though. Opera is the better product (right now anyhow) and fills a much needed niche on many devices, but firefox is the reason microsoft got off its ass and updated IE, and is the reason opera is now free. Not to mention that the whole open source movement really needs to be supported as much as possible as its really the only serious opposition to a microsoft code dominated world.

"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007
Related Articles
Apple Previews OS X 10.5 Leopard
August 7, 2006, 1:38 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki