If they'd port Mail and iChat, I could get rid of my Mac now!

Apparently TMO's user authentication actually works in Safari on Windows! Wow!

Apple better stop using Safari as a caret to get Mac users to upgrade to the latest OS X to get the latest Safari if they're going to support Windows XP (which goes back to 2002).

They should at least support 10.3.9 (Panther) which most Macs in use today can run, or even better, back to 10.2.8, which is still in use on my Macs than Apple would even guess.

If they don't then they're providing better support for Windows than their own OS.

Also, where is the Linux version? Why you are at it, where are the Linux versions of Quicktime and iTunes? I don't have the option of Apple hardware at my day-job, but am fortunate to be a Linux developer, so I don't have to use Windows much. It would be nice to run iTunes and Safari at work without having to lower myself to using Windows.

Downloaded the new Safari for Mac. The search is great, and I intend to get a lot of use out of the resizable text fields. I'm soooo happy!

It's 2007 buddy, if you want to use old tech, go ahead, but linux has had a decade to try to get noticed and hasn't. Maybe it's time to catch up to the rest of us?

I think it is cool apple ported Safari to Windows. It 1) helps keep open standards, 2) allows people like me to use Safari at work, and 3) will hopefully increase its market share.

However, I do not see why this is being called version 3. As far as I can tell, there is nothing different about it.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Apple better stop using Safari as a caret to get Mac users to upgrade to the latest OS X to get the latest Safari if they're going to support Windows XP (which goes back to 2002).

They should at least support 10.3.9 (Panther) which most Macs in use today can run, or even better, back to 10.2.8, which is still in use on my Macs than Apple would even guess.

If they don't then they're providing better support for Windows than their own OS.

Also, where is the Linux version? Why you are at it, where are the Linux versions of Quicktime and iTunes? I don't have the option of Apple hardware at my day-job, but am fortunate to be a Linux developer, so I don't have to use Windows much. It would be nice to run iTunes and Safari at work without having to lower myself to using Windows.

First, it's "carrot," not "caret," which is a punctuation mark (^).

It's also "WHILE you are at it," not "Why you are at it."

Unfortunately, some of the features in the Tiger version of Safari will not work in OS 10.3.9, as they require technologies that arrived with Tiger and are not part of Panther, much less Jaguar.

It's not just Safari that has been updated: Mail, Address Book, iCal, iChat AV, etc. have all been updated with Tiger, though (except for iChat) not as much as Safari.

As for your comment that most Macs today can run OS 10.3.9, those can also run Tiger if they have at least 256 MB RAM. The system requirements for Panther and Tiger are the same except for RAM.

You could send a note to Apple suggesting that they make a Linux version of Safari.

Dear Apple,

Please make a Linux version of Safari. Linux is very 133t and all the h4x0r5 love it. Linux also is not windows, much like GNU is not unix (get it?) and my ass is not fat from sitting all day. Why you are at it, please make a Linux version of the command line tool "lipo".

Signed,

The grammar-challenged guest who gets to use Linux at work

("stoopid" as in pop culture reference, not that you all are stupid
Safari on Windows is for iPhone app development and for no other purpose. It will not grow marketshare, it will not get people to switch to the Mac.

What it will do is allow developers that use Windows to develop Web 2.0 apps that will work on the iPhone. See how it makes sense now?

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Apple better stop using Safari as a caret to get Mac users to upgrade to the latest OS X to get the latest Safari if they're going to support Windows XP (which goes back to 2002).

I have a feeling that the final version of Safari 3 may run on Tiger rather than having the beta expire as Leopard comes out. Why? Because when you install the Safari 3 beta you no longer have Safari 2. Sure, it can be reinstalled, but I think it would lead to a lot of problems for less savvy users who tested Safari 3, who would not understand and possibly end up defecting to another browser when the beta ran out. Apple surely doesn't want to lose Safari users for something as silly as that. Also, if they're going to position Safari as an all-around competitive browser as is hinted at with the Windows release, I bet the final version will support 10.4, 10.5, XP and Vista.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Also, where is the Linux version? Why you are at it, where are the Linux versions of Quicktime and iTunes?

Unfortunately, Linux is not a mainstream end-user OS. The kind of people who use it are already running third-party solutions for their iPods, if they have one. Also, Linux is much more a moving target than Windows XP or OS X. With those systems it's easy to say "requires XYZ version or higher" but there are so many Linux distributions that bundle different versions of the kernel, different versions of X11, different versions of various libraries and other supporting software, that they'd probably have to target just a couple distributions. And even then I think it would be a support nightmare.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disparaging Linux. I love Debian and have a lot of faith in it as I use it for my own servers. However, I just can't see Apple releasing software for Linux until more regular non-geek desktop users are running it and one or two major distributions is clearly dominant and safe to target.

run windows safari under WINE if it's such an issue.

Quote

DanielDecker wrote:
Safari on Windows is for iPhone app development and for no other purpose. It will not grow marketshare, it will not get people to switch to the Mac.

What it will do is allow developers that use Windows to develop Web 2.0 apps that will work on the iPhone. See how it makes sense now?

What a stupid statement. Let me count the ways:
1. A couple of months ago, 3rd party development was not going to be allowed. They ported Safari to Windows and QA'd it in a couple of months?!? Impressive!
2. There are no other standards compliant web2.0+ajax capable browsers for Windows?!?
3. How would Safari on Windows help with iPhone development? Does it include the iPhone user interface?
4. What about Linux developers who want to create web-based OGG and DIVX players?

First off, don't berate me, Jack@$$.

1.a Apple never said that there would be no 3rd party app development, they have always maintained a "not at this time" statement.
1.b The Q and A is why it's a BETA... And I'm sure they are totally incapable of maintaining 2 complete code bases in secret, because they have never done that before. (Except for iTunes, and OS X, but let's not count those)
2.There are no other WebKit browsers on Windows, so there.
3.Yes, it does have the iPhone UI, because, as stated in the Keynote, 3rd Party Apps will be allowed as web apps. The browser on the iPhone is Safari (WebKit), Safari on Windows has OS X style widgets (drop downs, check boxes). so there's the UI.
4.WTF are you talking about?

Oh yeah, and the close knit timing of the 2 statements in the Keynote, Safari for Windows and then web based 3rd party iPhone apps, that is such a coincidence!

I am still using panther because it runs faster on 867 Quicksilver. It really bugs me that I can't have the latest version of Safari, and windows users can....

His analysis makes all of the allusions SJ has made to the iPhone over the past couple O months make sense. WebKit was the biggest issue for making the device truly cross platform.

Quote

burrito wrote:
run windows safari under WINE if it's such an issue.

Or better yet use Konqueror, which is where Safari's engine came from to begin with.

Quote

DanielDecker wrote:
Safari on Windows is for iPhone app development and for no other purpose. It will not grow marketshare, it will not get people to switch to the Mac.

Biff is half right. The first sentence is just plain drain bamaged. Drecks is half right. His second sentence is closer to the truth than anyone knows. Firefox already has the anti-Microsoft faction on board. And not using IE at all is a PITA, because many apps (including one I develop) embed the ActiveX control. So go kiss and make up you two.

However, in the future, if iTunes + QuickTime + Safari are bundled and provide certain integration that Microsoft's user experience doesn't match, they could compete quite nicely and will wave the Apple flag loudly. Interesting times...

apple probably did this because:

1) it was easy to do

2) it familiarizes people with safari, so if a bunch of windows users run out and buy iphones, they'll at least have a layman's knowledge of what they're getting into.

3) it entices people with the os x experience. itunes 4 on windows is what first pushed me towards the mac, and i haven't looked back sense. safari for windows is quick and easy advertising.

4) maybe they wanted to give the finger to microsoft, and steal some of their vista/IE7 thunder.

it's really kinda ironic, if you think about it. a few years ago it was a big deal to get microsoft internet explorer on the mac, and now apple's homebrew browser is available windows.

Working great in Windows Vista, finally a real alternative to using FireFox, which for some reason I've never gotten into using.

I think this is primarily a developer move, if Safari is going to be the main dev platform for iPhone (and perhaps most/all future iPod variants) then it makes sense to make it available to Windows users for that reason. Also like David Nelson said, if you're running Linux you more or less have this browser already.

@DanielDecker: I wouldn't worry about what THAT guy says, I doubt even he knows what he is talking about most of the time.

Quote

Biff wrote:

Quote

DanielDecker wrote:
Safari on Windows is for iPhone app development and for no other purpose. It will not grow marketshare, it will not get people to switch to the Mac.

What it will do is allow developers that use Windows to develop Web 2.0 apps that will work on the iPhone. See how it makes sense now?

What a stupid statement. Let me count the ways:
1. A couple of months ago, 3rd party development was not going to be allowed. They ported Safari to Windows and QA'd it in a couple of months?!? Impressive!
2. There are no other standards compliant web2.0+ajax capable browsers for Windows?!?
3. How would Safari on Windows help with iPhone development? Does it include the iPhone user interface?
4. What about Linux developers who want to create web-based OGG and DIVX players?

There are so many differences between browsers that it is vitally important for Apple to have a way for Windows developers to make Safari-compatible Web 2.0 apps. I do this at work all the time. Things that work beautifully in Firefox don't work at all in IE, and quite often behave strangely in Safari (though they do at least work most of the time). Also, I've noticed that Safari's layout engine displays things a bit differently. So this is great news I think.

Quote

David Nelson wrote:

Quote

burrito wrote:
run windows safari under WINE if it's such an issue.

Or better yet use Konqueror, which is where Safari's engine came from to begin with.

Close. Safari is based on "khtml" on which library Konqueror is similarly based.

I downloaded the Safari-QuickTime combo and installed it on my HP Notebook running XP. When it first launched I got some error message that I don't remember, but a few seconds later it opened to the home page. Understanding that it is beta:

• I couldn't get videos to work, I think I need to install Flash
  
• I could not log onto the discussion forums at Apple.com
  

I didn't do much testing, but for the most part I was able to surf the web and the pages looked good.

1. System spell check in text fields - e.g. a nice red squiggly underline for my username above!

2. Breaks SIMBL hacks - e.g. Acid Search.

The wheels of progress must be oiled.

Quote

DanielDecker wrote:

1.a Apple never said that there would be no 3rd party app development, they have always maintained a "not at this time" statement.

You're kidding, right? Should I post like 30 links to show how wrong you are, or can you handle the Google search on your own?

Quote

DanielDecker wrote:

1.b The Q and A is why it's a BETA... And I'm sure they are totally incapable of maintaining 2 complete code bases in secret, because they have never done that before. (Except for iTunes, and OS X, but let's not count those)

Q and A? Question and answer? Sorry I was referring to Quality Assurance testing. Do you really want to try and convince me that a port of Safari to Windows would not require more than a couple of months of QA testing to get to a level of stability that would be suitable for a public beta? But I can see you know I'm right because you started with the "maintain two code bases in secret" thing. But of course this means they were working on Safari since LONG before the iPhone was even announced. Which means, of course, that you are wrong.

Quote

DanielDecker wrote:

2.There are no other WebKit browsers on Windows, so there.

Oh cool. And it includes an IDE too? Or is that left as an exercise to the user? So Apple wants to make sure all those Windows-using Webkit developers can test on their favorite OS. Because they certainly wouldn't test their software on the actual device it's targetted at. But apparently Apple doesn't feel its worth the effort to provide any sort of IDE. Yeah, this really seems like a developer-focused release.

Quote

DanielDecker wrote:

3.Yes, it does have the iPhone UI, because, as stated in the Keynote, 3rd Party Apps will be allowed as web apps. The browser on the iPhone is Safari (WebKit), Safari on Windows has OS X style widgets (drop downs, check boxes). so there's the UI.

You are telling me that the entire iPhone user interface is somehow already present in Safari? So if I bring up Google mail it will show me the little contact cards just like on the iPhone? I can make calls by tapping on my computer screen? Guess what, G? You can't fully QA your iPhone app without an iPhone! Wow! Who woulda thunk it!?!?

Quote

DanielDecker wrote:

4.WTF are you talking about?

Sorry. I wanted to quickly poke fun at the Linux guy, but I was too lazy to make a separate post. But I am genuinely concerned about how he will watch his fan-subbed anime downloads on his iPhone.

It will go away if I think hard enough...

I thought this whole "my computer is better than your computer" thing went out with the Atari ST and the Amiga 500? Evidently, it's still alive and kicking the MacObserver world!

Safari would be useful running natively alongside OpenOffice and Bluefish and Evolution, but I just run it on VMware.

As for this load of FUD:

Quote

David Nelson wrote:
Unfortunately, Linux is not a mainstream end-user OS. The kind of people who use it are already running third-party solutions for their iPods, if they have one. Also, Linux is much more a moving target than Windows XP or OS X. With those systems it's easy to say "requires XYZ version or higher" but there are so many Linux distributions that bundle different versions of the kernel, different versions of X11, different versions of various libraries and other supporting software, that they'd probably have to target just a couple distributions. And even then I think it would be a support nightmare.

Linux is a moving target only to hackers. I can quite happily install OpenOffice and Skype, (which have release cycles comparable to Safari) wherever I like. They run on whatever X-server, kernel version, libraries and (?!) supporting software. Whether I run a Debian-based system or Red Hat or Gentoo, it doesn't really matter. Of course, you wouldn't know about that because you haven't even tried because you prefer to talk crap off the top of your head.

And an aside to the "Close" guy: Safari's engine *did* come from Konquerer, because KHTML was developed *for* Konquerer. So David Nelson was right on one point, and the "Close" guy was... well, close.

Aww heck you people aren't worth it.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
As for this load of FUD:

Quote

David Nelson wrote:
Unfortunately, Linux is not a mainstream end-user OS. The kind of people who use it are already running third-party solutions for their iPods, if they have one. Also, Linux is much more a moving target than Windows XP or OS X. With those systems it's easy to say "requires XYZ version or higher" but there are so many Linux distributions that bundle different versions of the kernel, different versions of X11, different versions of various libraries and other supporting software, that they'd probably have to target just a couple distributions. And even then I think it would be a support nightmare.

Linux is a moving target only to hackers. I can quite happily install OpenOffice and Skype, (which have release cycles comparable to Safari) wherever I like. They run on whatever X-server, kernel version, libraries and (?!) supporting software. Whether I run a Debian-based system or Red Hat or Gentoo, it doesn't really matter. Of course, you wouldn't know about that because you haven't even tried because you prefer to talk crap off the top of your head.

I did not in any way intend to disparage Linux or spread FUD. Please consider the following:

I have tried just about every major Linux distribution at some point, and I have used Debian, Red Hat, CentOS, Fedora and the distribution formerly known as Mandrake as desktops side by side with my Mac in the past. I currently run Debian GNU/Linux on a couple servers. I would say without hesitation that I trust Debian above Mac OS X for that task. I have experienced some real nightmares with Mac OS X Server, and I do not consider it the ideal tool for all jobs. I say all this to establish for you that my opinions on Linux are, on the whole, far more positive than negative. I would gladly take it as my primary OS before ever considering Windows.

That said, my experience on Linux has been that if you choose to manually install a program (ie. download it from the developer's website) you almost always have to hunt down and install/update other software to make it run. There are no problems if you stick to the distro's built-in package management system where they have all the proper dependencies sorted out (I love APT!), but it can get sticky real fast if you venture outside of that.

Again, I did not intend to disparage Linux. I am just trying to explain why I don't feel the average home user is really prepared to jump in and start installing new software on their own.

Quote

David Nelson wrote:
I did not in any way intend to disparage Linux or spread FUD. Please consider the following:

(blah Linux positive blah blah Windows and Mac OS X server negative blah)

That said, my experience on Linux has been that if you choose to manually install a program (ie. download it from the developer's website) you almost always have to hunt down and install/update other software to make it run. There are no problems if you stick to the distro's built-in package management system where they have all the proper dependencies sorted out (I love APT!), but it can get sticky real fast if you venture outside of that.

Still a load of FUD. You're either doing something wrong, or your not doing it at all. Ever heard of LSB?

Quote

http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/LSB wrote:

The Linux Standard Base delivers interoperability between applications and the Linux operating system. Currently all major distributions comply with the LSB and many major application vendors, like MySQL, RealNetworks and SAP, are certifying. The LSB offers a cost-effective way for application vendors to target multiple Linux distributions while building only one software package. For end-users, the LSB and its mark of interoperability preserves choice by allowing them to select the applications and distributions they want while avoiding vendor lock-in. LSB certification of distributions results in more applications being ported to Linux and ensures that distribution vendors are compatible with those applications. In short, the LSB ensures Linux does not fragment.

Take an example from there: MySQL. Hugely powerful package, lots of components including filesystem stuff, networking, security, encryption... Plonk that on any Linux, and it just works.

If you're saying the company that is known for the phrase "just works" can't take KHTML, wrap it in a new GUI, and make that LSB compliant, then you're talking FUD. All very reasonable FUD, and it makes nice reading, but it's still FUD.

Personally, for me I don't mind that Apple has dropped 10.3 (Panther) support as I will soon be updating to 10.5 (Leopard). But I can see how it could upset those who cannot or refuse to run newer Mac OS X versions.

On another note, I believe Apple software should stay on Apple hardware. That is the reason I switched in the first place. Do not get upset when future apps such as QuickTime drop 10.3 (Panther)... as it is very likely. Apple tends to only support the latest two OS X releases.