It's Beta inflation! Some companies have gone so long and so public with Betas that people have started thinking of them as final releases.

"...some users have forgotten that "beta" means the software is still in development, and issues are bound to crop up"

Software going out for a public beta should be basically release ready and out there to find the odd missed bug or the rare bugs that are easier to track down with the increased user base compared to an internal beta.

This software is alpha quality (or maybe an early build internal beta) - the basics are in place but the quality ranges from buggy as hell to unstable/unusable.

Alpha releases are downright unusable. Safari for Windows isn't unusable.

I think a major part of the problem is Web vs Desktop Beta.

Many web "apps" are constantly in beta (al la Google), although they are fairly polished. Web apps can do this, beacuse they can be updated on demand, with no need to run an update, or download a patch.

Desktop apps on the other hand need to be updated. So beta should be treated as a phase, before the full, stable app can be downloaded.

I think that the perpetual web beta has confused the term in peoples minds (given that a much larger portion of the population use the web than are beta testers for software on the desktop).

Maybe Apple should have released it as an alpha? Maybe it should have gone out to developers only? (But of course, giving Safari for Windows to a bunch of Mac Geeks is probably not that fruitful). Well just have to wait and see how fast patches/updates are available.

I think the major issue here is that several exploits were found within hours of the public release. Is this truly shoddy programming on Apple's part?

Quote

Guest wrote:
"...some users have forgotten that "beta" means the software is still in development, and issues are bound to crop up"

Software going out for a public beta should be basically release ready and out there to find the odd missed bug or the rare bugs that are easier to track down with the increased user base compared to an internal beta.

This software is alpha quality (or maybe an early build internal beta) - the basics are in place but the quality ranges from buggy as hell to unstable/unusable.

You're right, it's not beta quality. It's better. I've been using it for 2 days now, on a Quad G5, a G5 iMac, a Macbook C2D under both MacOSX and Windows XP, and a friend installed it yesterday on an HP laptop running Vista. My friend hasn't used it that much, but she did go to all the websites she usually visits (including her bank) and has not a single issue with it. In fact she loves it compared to her alternatives. I haven't any issues with it either.

What's your problem with it? Got a web site that doesn't work well with it? Tell us. I'm sure there are some out there but I've not come across one yet.

I have been running Safari 3 on both OS X and WinXP for 1.5 days. Overall, the Windows version is definitely rougher but certainly at beta level. I am certain that the typical issues will be worked out.

So far, I like it. While I have FF, IE, Camino and Omniweb around me, Safari is refreshingly simple which is why I keep coming back to it on the Mac.

The Windows version will freeze with some Flash animations - I have yet to find a problem with the Mac version.

It says "beta", treat it that way.

This is *BETA*. It comes with warnings. It is publicly available, but it was announced and released at a DEVELOPER's conference.

Safari for Windows is perfectly fine as a beta development browser.

This means that you don't even install it on a mission critical machine or use it for critical tasks specifically including instances where stability and security are an issue.

A bunch of idiots who don't understand what beta means are ruining it for web developers who want beta browsers to be available so that they can make sure their web development is compatible with new browsers. The same is true for 3rd party add-on developers.

Safari for Windows greatly exceeds this minimum threshold for being beta release worthy.

How much of the security problems with the Windows version is Safari related and how much is Windows related?

That being said I think Apple should have released the beta version of Safari under the Apple Developers Program. It is going to get a bad reputation out there when any Tom, Dick, or Harriet can download it and have beta related problems.

I installed it on my HP and it works okay. I will get a chance to test it more in a few days.

Safari 3 for Mac is much better than for Win. I am using it on Mac without any big problems (just some widgets are not working) otherwise I like it. I love new search, because in old one it was very hard to locate what is actually highlighted.
But on the windows it different story, because on my PC I can't see any letters in Safari or in the pages, no menus, nothing. On Apple discussions this issue has over 7000 views in main thread and couple other threads with 300+ views in two days, which means that lot of people has the same problem. I have to say that if it can't get even properly installed on significant number of computers it should not be called beta, because its very disappointing for people.

To me, it finally removed one of the main reasons why I have used Firefox as a second browser; some buttons I need to click on to log in to one of my banks, were of that bulby, 3D-kind and the digits on them didn't show! Since those digits changed all the time, I had to open the page in FF to see the digits, but in Safari 3 I can see them:)
So far, it seems to be faster as well, both on my iMac and my iBook, but it seems like the fans on the iMac starts to work hard after a while using Safari. I am not 100% sure it is related, but...

That said; it is really weird how some people get upset when Apple claims its OS is more secure than Windows. Maybe that has changed, finally, after a zillion patches and with Vista, but who in their right mind can deny that there has been a security problem with Windows and not with the Mac?
I can accept that all OSes are vulnerable but what with ActiveX, the Registry and how all applications could write into it and I don't know what, it seems to me that they just made some foolish decisions securitywise up at Redmond, which were Gefundenes FreЯen for hackers and crackers and script kiddies alike.

So, now they find some vulnerabilities in Mac OS and I am sure there will be more. And then they start to crow; What didn't we say!? What didn't we say!? And the chorus will grow so overwhelming that anyone may doubt, especially since there is obviously a trend among old and new Mac-users trying hard not to appear as a "fanboy". Thus one must show some scepticism:)

Well, I know how it is. It has happened time and time again that I have become convinced; PCs must be just as good or even better, just because I have been shouted down so many times, if I have been foolish enough to say that I actually like the Mac better than a Windows-PC. So then I have tried PCs agaian, either because I've had to or just because - and each time I am left with the same sensation: Ha! How on Earth can some people claim that this works just as well as a Mac?

OK, so if you've built your own PC and if you're a geek who's been finetuning the machine and the software and if you're really, really careful and smart etc. and if you spend hundreds and thousands of dollars in annual upgrades. But I am sorry; for an average user like me, I'd like a car which just starts. I am not interested in opening the hood and stand over the innards hours after hours...

So, to round it off - let us hope Safari will go out of beta soon and then these people will probably relax and find other things to shout about, like hacking a MacBook now and then:)

I had Safari open in the background with four open tabs and it was using just under 500 MB of memory. I like being able to use Safari on my work system, but for now it's just not ready.
I think a beta to Developers only would have made a lot more sense, per Sir Harry. It's just not at the point that is should be available to the general public, even as a beta.

Quote

Staggie wrote:
I had Safari open in the background with four open tabs and it was using just under 500 MB of memory. I like being able to use Safari on my work system, but for now it's just not ready.
I think a beta to Developers only would have made a lot more sense, per Sir Harry. It's just not at the point that is should be available to the general public, even as a beta.

Yes, I know it is beta. So is Boot Camp and that works well... Windows Safari 3 beta is, for me, totally unusable. It crashes when authenticating to our proxy server and it fails to load our protected intranet pages.

I'm an Apple fan but Apple screwed up big time in releasing Safari for Windows in its current state. It will end up being a PR disaster and may well taint Safari for Windows forever.

Caveat utilitor. For you it's unusable, sure. For many it is not. Probably, and this is the whole point of beta testing, the squeaky wheels will get the oil. Those people who have no problems probably won't report that it's working fine. Did you tell Apple that Boot Camp is without a glitch?

I suggest you report the problems you are having to Apple, so that it knows about it. Apple will love you for it.

PR disaster? taint Safari for Windows forever? Have you been taking your hyperbole pills again?

I've been using it on a Windows PC and on my Mac and I haven't seen anything wrong with either. I haven't had any crashes. My text is NOT blurry and all the features that I used in 2.0 work in 3.0 so far. So either you have a lot of extra crap from 3rd party vendors installed or maybe you need to run a diagnostic program on your computer. Believe me I've seen really bad beta's but Safari 3.0 isn't one of them, not even close.

Quote

Guest wrote:
"...some users have forgotten that "beta" means the software is still in development, and issues are bound to crop up"

Software going out for a public beta should be basically release ready and out there to find the odd missed bug or the rare bugs that are easier to track down with the increased user base compared to an internal beta.

This software is alpha quality (or maybe an early build internal beta) - the basics are in place but the quality ranges from buggy as hell to unstable/unusable.

Quote

Sir Harry Flashman wrote:


That being said I think Apple should have released the beta version of Safari under the Apple Developers Program. It is going to get a bad reputation out there when any Tom, Dick, or Harriet can download it and have beta related problems.

I used Safari on Windows XP today. I have to say, I didn't notice any difference in safari's speed over internet explorer. I loaded in to each www.wotmania.com, www.youtube.com, video.google.com, and www.tomshardware.com on different tabs (I normally surf with between 5 to 10 browser windows open) and found that they each seemed just as responsive as the other. I checked my memory load and noticed one strange thing, IE had 68 megs of memory used and safari had 140 megs of memory used. As far as looks go, safari looked like it had all the text bold face compared to IE's normal, which aethetically didn't please me, and it seemed to show colors darker than IE. As far as features go, like all non IE XP browsers it wasn't able to take advantage of the premium extentions of exchange server 2003's web interface, and it lacked the capability to zoom in on a webpage, a feature that I have a huge love for in IE 7.0.

All in all, it's an alright browser, I don't think I'll use it much tho.

Perhaps it's that slick Apple advertising blurb that makes people overlook the fact that it's beta.

"Safari has always been the fastest browser on the Mac and now it’s the fastest browser on Windows, loading and drawing web pages up to twice as fast as Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 and up to 1.6 times faster than Mozilla Firefox 2."

Sure, the word BETA is up there, but Apple makes it look so good that you think it's a finished product without any bugs.

Sometimes the Apple hype machine is too slick for its own good!

Quote

Sir Harry Flashman wrote:
How much of the security problems with the Windows version is Safari related and how much is Windows related?

Quote

gslusher wrote:
That might not get it really tested under Windows. One of the big problems Windows applications have is the mind boggling array of CPUs, graphics cards, sound cards, etc. that are running Windows. The only way to really test it is to let a lot of people with a wide variety of hardware use it. It will also more likely show up problems that arise from user errors--we ordinary folks are more likely to make such errors than developers.

Betas should go to the user community, not just experts.

Quote

daemon wrote:
I used Safari on Windows XP today. I have to say, I didn't notice any difference in safari's speed over internet explorer. I loaded in to each www.wotmania.com, www.youtube.com, video.google.com, and www.tomshardware.com on different tabs (I normally surf with between 5 to 10 browser windows open) and found that they each seemed just as responsive as the other.

... but I'm liking it on my MBP.

I really like the new Find command, the faster speed and spell check in text boxes! I haven't found any problems yet, but I haven't been trying to break it. I've simply been using it. It works.

I wish it hadn't broken Acid Search, but I imagine that this will be fixed. I use it all the time, so I hope it's fixed soon!

The problem arises when a company tells the public its the "best browser available". First of all thats subjective. Second of all, if you want to make the beta argument which is correct, then is Jobs reffering to a "beta" as being the best browser or the current stable version being safari 2?

The more Apple enters into the technical landscape of applications that are cross platform, spewing loaded words, showing cutesy pictures or advertisements aren't going to get you by.

We're doomed, Captain Mainwaring, we're doomed!

Bloody troll - what's your point?

I'm a software developer. I do a lot of unit testing, because I like a quiet life. But there's a point at which I can test no further, because I've exhausted all the possible (and impossible) things that can go wrong. At that point I pass it over to the testers, and there follows a number of (hopefully few) "D'oh" moments. I go back, fix the problem up, and it goes back to the testers with promises on both sides of beer for failure. That's how the Software Development Life Cycle works.

This is a beta test. It says so when you download it. Jobs said it's Beta - that's a fact. He said it's the best browser available - that's marketing.

Get a grip.

Quote

LaurieF wrote:
We're doomed, Captain Mainwaring, we're doomed!

Bloody troll - what's your point?

I'm a software developer. I do a lot of unit testing, because I like a quiet life. But there's a point at which I can test no further, because I've exhausted all the possible (and impossible) things that can go wrong. At that point I pass it over to the testers, and there follows a number of (hopefully few) "D'oh" moments. I go back, fix the problem up, and it goes back to the testers with promises on both sides of beer for failure. That's how the Software Development Life Cycle works.

This is a beta test. It says so when you download it. Jobs said it's Beta - that's a fact. He said it's the best browser available - that's marketing.

Get a grip.

You mean like Bill Gates claiming that Vista is "dramatically more secure than any other operating system released"?

Those kinds of overloaded claims?

If you can't see marketing for what it is, then there really is no hope for you.

I have mixed feelings on that. Mac users understand the concept of a Beta. I am using Safari 3 on my Mac, and it solves a bunch of minor issues with the previous version, so I am glad I did not have to wait. Especially when I have no known bugs. I am also running a four year old Mac.

I might agree with you about releasing it as a Windows Beta. However, I think the problem is more the way Apple released it. It is already marketing it as the best and fastest browser. Jobs should have said Apple intends for it to be the best and fastest browser when released. Apple also should make it more clear when people are downloading Safari exactly what Beta means. Many people do not know. Apple should also make it more clear that many of the plugins are needed to make the browser functional.

For what it is worth, I installed it painlessly on my girlfriend's XP machine. The only issue was I had to install some plugins. However, she has been using it exclusively since Monday, and hasn't complained of any bugs yet. It is also interesting to note that she is studying online for the Nursing Exam using Kaplan. Firefox had issues using some of Kaplan's calculator functions, so much so that she had to use Explorer instead. Safari has not had the Firefox problems.

Quote

Sir Harry Flashman wrote:
How much of the security problems with the Windows version is Safari related and how much is Windows related?

That being said I think Apple should have released the beta version of Safari under the Apple Developers Program. It is going to get a bad reputation out there when any Tom, Dick, or Harriet can download it and have beta related problems.

I installed it on my HP and it works okay. I will get a chance to test it more in a few days.

Quote

gslusher wrote:

Unfortunately, that's not a good way to test browser speed, as it depends very much upon the Internet response, which can change from second to second. The best way to test browsers is to load pages from your hard drive. One way to come close to this is to:

Quote

1. Clear the browser's cache.

2. Load a fairly complicated web page, but not one that has dynamic content (e.g., ads that change every few seconds). Do not use a site like YouTube, which does change every time you access it.

3. Close that page and quit the browser. (Also quit any other applications you have running.)

4. Open the browser and go to the SAME page, precisely--use the history menu.

What this does is to load all the images, CSS, javascripts, etc., into the cache. When the page is loaded a second time, your browser should get all that from the cache, rather than downloading it.

An even better way would be to download an entire page, including all images and other stuff, then clear the cache, quit and relaunch the browser, and open the page you downloaded, from the hard drive, not from the Internet.

Quote

daemon wrote:

Quote

gslusher wrote:

Unfortunately, that's not a good way to test browser speed, as it depends very much upon the Internet response, which can change from second to second. The best way to test browsers is to load pages from your hard drive. One way to come close to this is to:

Oh, you're completely correct, I mean, whenever I browse the Internet I always want last week's macobserver page and I don't want the current news, just stuff I've already read. /sarcasm

Quote

gslusher wrote:

Get rid of the sarcasm. It's unbecoming.

Quote

The question is to test BROWSER speed, irrespective of the speed of your Internet connection.

Quote

Loading random pages, especially without clearing the cache, tells you very little.

Quote

In a similar vein, when comparative speed tests are done on computers, standard tasks are used, like applying a Gaussian blur to a large image in Photoshop, sorting a large database, running a standard series of calculations, etc. When testing printer speeds, a set of standard pages is used.

It's about controlling variables--the fewer uncontrolled/unknown variables, the more accurate the test--the more it reflects the inherent speed of the software and/or hardware or whatever you're trying to test.

Quote

Engine Joe wrote:
Alpha releases are downright unusable. Safari for Windows isn't unusable.

Quote

LaurieF wrote:
This is a beta test. It says so when you download it. Jobs said it's Beta - that's a fact. He said it's the best browser available - that's marketing.

Quote

Intruder wrote:
You mean like Bill Gates claiming that Vista is "dramatically more secure than any other operating system released"?

Those kinds of overloaded claims?

If you can't see marketing for what it is, then there really is no hope for you.

I am a big fan of Mozilla products, hence I use Camino and Firefox as much or more than I use Safari. But all these people howling at how unstable Safari is in one breath and exalting the virtues of Firefox in the next are either 1) relatively new to the world of non-MS web browsing, 2) purposefully disingeuous, or 3) stupid. I love Firefox. I am TRYING to love Camino...But it was a LONG, buggy, sometimes painful road for those programs to get where they are and they did so through WIDESPREAD public beta testing. That way, every flash video, porn site, online gaming, imbedded chat, graphics-intensive, sound intensve, web 2.0 (I hate tha phrase) site that could be thrown at them ACTUALLY got thrown at them. I now have Safari on my work machine...so far, so good. Not perfect, but not awful and I have no doubt that the updates will be many and frequent.

What the cut-throat attitude towards beta software has done in the Windows sphere has been to give rise to better-baked betas.

The days of the "Hey! It didn't kill my system when I started it! PUSH IT OUT!" betas have been dead since the days of Windows 95.

If you're going to offer software on a platform with industrial strength threats, you have to do industrial strength QC.

Simply running it in a clean Windows VM on a mock Internet on your LAN and having it not kack Windows doesn't cut it.

Welcome to the real (PC) world. We don't pussyfoot around. Either you deliver the goods, or it's end of the line for you. If you can't compete in an open environment, don't whine when we beat your crappy pre-alpha "beta" release into the ground.

Quite right. Hey, Apple, why don't you make your software as crappy as all the other stuff that's around?

Sigh.

Hey, anonymous troll, do you know for sure that Safari/Windows is rubbish, or are you just trying to compensate for your choice of computing platform? Have you investigated a large sample of the people who have downloaded Safari to find out whether the majority are happy or not? Have you tried it? did it work? did you find any problems? did you report them? (hint - it's in one of the drop-down menus)

No you didn't. You're a troll. You're being a prat. Go away.

Quote

LaurieF wrote:
Quite right. Hey, Apple, why don't you make your software as crappy as all the other stuff that's around?

Sigh.

Hey, anonymous troll, do you know for sure that Safari/Windows is rubbish, or are you just trying to compensate for your choice of computing platform? Have you investigated a large sample of the people who have downloaded Safari to find out whether the majority are happy or not? Have you tried it? did it work? did you find any problems? did you report them? (hint - it's in one of the drop-down menus)

No you didn't. You're a troll. You're being a prat. Go away.

aPPLe Fan Boys unite...god forbid infallable apple release a crappy product.

Oh wait...that's all they do.

DIAF.

I was going say "Welcome to the 1990's" but this is even better. Now that Apple has has a browser of its own, we get OS wars and browser wars rolled into one! I can't wait to see where this goes.

Oops, wrong title for the article. We know it's a beta. Safari for Windows Beta Hammered for Being BUGGY

There seems to be a large misunderstanding as to what beta means.

Quote

Wikipedia wrote:
A beta version is the first version released outside the organization or community that develops the software, for the purpose of evaluation or real-world black/grey-box testing. The process of delivering a beta version to the users is called beta release.

The users of a beta version are said beta testers. They are usually customers or prospective customers of the organization that develops the software. They receive the software for free or for a reduced price, but act as free testers.

Beta versions test the supportability of the product, the go-to-market messaging (while recruiting Beta customers), the manufacturability of the product, and the overall channel flow or channel reach.

Beta version software is likely to be useful for internal demonstrations and previews to select customers, but unstable and not yet ready for release. Some developers refer to this stage as a preview, a prototype, a technical preview (TP) or as an early access. As the second major stage in the release lifecycle, following the alpha stage, it is named after the Greek letter beta, the second letter in the Greek alphabet.

Often this stage begins when the developers announce a feature freeze on the product, indicating that no more feature requirements will be accepted for this version of the product. Only software issues, or bugs and unimplemented features will be addressed.

Beta versions stand at an intermediate step in the full development cycle. Developers release either a closed beta or an open beta; closed beta versions are released to a select group of individuals for a user test, while open betas are to a larger community group, usually the general public. The testers report any bugs that they found and sometimes minor features they would like to see in the final version.

Quote

LaurieF wrote:
There seems to be a large misunderstanding as to what beta means.

See Marc Zeedar's article on MacOpinion for an intriguing idea of what might be Apple's/Jobs' motivation behind Safari for Windows. A few tidbits:

"Apple isn't trying to create Windows software on Windows. Apple is creating Mac software on Windows. That's a very different thing.

"In a way, Apple doesn't care if people adopt their Windows software or not. Apple's software on Windows is meant to sell other things -- iPods, Macs, iPhones, AppleTVs. That's what this is really about."

"What Apple really wants is an easy way to let PC web developers make sure their sites are compatible with iPhones (and Macs and, eventually, maybe AppleTVs)."

"Steve Jobs knows exactly what he's doing. People already have cell phones. People already have PDAs and media players. But no one has a true handheld Internet device. Except Apple. Converging the three into one Must-Have is genius. (Think of the cell phone aspect as a mere Trojan Horse to get people to carry the Internet Device around with them -- that's the way Jobs looks at it, I'm sure.) But the content and web apps must be there and Steve just put out the tool to ensure that they will be. Brilliant."

See the article for more--it's really good.