That's a really sad news for me. I used Safari for Windows at work and on my home windows machine which i use mostly for games.
We are allowed to bring and use our own computers at work, many brings their macs with them, but i prefer to use windows machine with Safari installed. I take only my iPad with me.
So, use only Safari on my Macs and PCs. Commonly because i can set the fonts in it to look like it is on the mac. I prefer apple's antialiasing, this is the look and feel of internet for me
Also, no problems using if on Win7 x64 on Core 2 and 4 gigs of ram.
Hope they'll release a new version or just continue support it like in Snow Leopard and Leopard. (no 6 version as i know?)
If it means they can use more OS X frameworks in Safari now, I'm all for it.
I don't agree with the article that Apple released Safari for Windows to help spread web standards. That may have been a secondary goal, but the primary reason (as I recall) was that the original iPhone was a web-apps only device, and they released Safari for Windows to let Windows developers write iPhone OS apps. Of course nowadays iOS has a proper SDK and I don't know of many people still writing pure web apps.
Me too. I don't know of many Mac users that don't use Safari as their primary browser. In fact, the only one I can think of that won't use it would probably use Terminal and a text-bases browser with ASCII images if that were an option. ????
I haven't used Safari in years. I used Firefox until they went the 'rapid development' route. Now I use Chrome on my MacPro, MacBookPro, iPhone and iPad. It too syncs my bookmarks, etc. between all devices.
It's just a web browser, not a measure of devotion to a company.
Or Apple is simply waiting to see how Windows 8 pans out. They may have to re-write Safari, or if Windows 8 bombs they simply aren't wasting their time on it.
This very much.
If you notice, Safari (and Chrome) are still 32bit on Windows, and Chrome is a horribly bloated pig no matter what OS is being used. You only get 64-bit in Nightly Firefox, or Internet Explorer. But the 32-bit version of IE is used by default on Windows. It would be best if Microsoft does not release another 32bit-x86 OS as an OEM version (upgrade only) as doing so is just going to keep holding back developers from making 64bit software.
Herein lies the elephant in the room on the Windows platform. Developers are not moving forward, they're just inching ahead when the OS forces them to. On the Mac, you see the same kind of hold outs (Carbon API anyone?) If with Windows 8 Microsoft is trying to pull an Apple and drop MFC with Metro and .NET, and C/C++ with C#. You see this with the Express editions of the C++ compiler not being equipped to compile MFC, only .NET. frameworks.
PS: I've only ever used MFC to compile windows apps from source, I had to install the windows DDK to do so. Why doesn't Microsoft relent and just include everything you need to compile ANY C/C++ application in the operating system, since windows doesn't come with a system compiler, it's the only platform you can't just "download the source and hit compile"
Safari on Windows performs exactly the same as Chrome, if not somewhat better. But this is only because Safari doesn't span 2 instances per tab and gobble up RAM like Chrome does. If Firefox ever releases a 64-bit firefox as a release version, I'm switching back to Firefox. I only switched to Chrome because I needed a browser that could still run flash back when Adobe took their sweet time releasing a 64bit flash plugin for it.
The mobile side, Webkit pretty much has a monopoly. If you don't develop your websites on Chrome or Safari, you probably won't have them work as expected on the iPad/iPhone/Android/Blackberry platforms.
Nope you can erase it all on the available services, and you can of course enable/disable many privacy options in Chrome, but you should have noticed if you were not so bent on spreading FUD and lies.
Edit: I almost forgot, here you can monitor all that data "stolen" from you: http://www.google.com/dashboard
also https://www.google.com/history/
does Google really delete Data?... or do they just flag it "not for display?".
It should say something like; Thank you for wanting to try Safari for your Windows machine. Frankly we recognize your wise choice because the Safari browser is indeed superior and gives a much better experience. Since you are willing to try another browser other than Windows we recommend that you just take another step forward on your journey to a better computing experience and buy a Mac.
I think that WAS one of the points of Windows Safari - to give Windows users a glimpse of how things worked on the Mac side and convince them to make the switch.
Unfortunately, Safari for Windows is dead clunky compared to the OS X version. There was a risk that it was giving an inaccurate impression of Mac software. That, combined with its continuing poor market share, were good reasons to kill it. iPad and iPhone do a better job of converting Windows users to Mac than Safari ever could.
Why would any Windows user bother to install Safari? Is there anything unique about it?
It allows the truest representation of iOS rendering, short of owning the real thing, for testing purposes. All the third-party emulators seem to have their own idiosyncrasies.
I don't know that I can prove God exists, not to anyone's satisfaction anyway, but a good divorce attorney could subpoena a so-called "deleted" Google search history in about 72 hours.
And, yes, those are opposite ends of the spectrum...
Well Safari was used by by probably less than 2% of Windows users, if so much, so from a business perspective of using resources to develop something and test something that nobody uses, Apple did the right thing. What's the point having engineers working on something nobody is gonna use?
Well Safari was used by by probably less than 2% of Windows users, if so much, so from a business perspective of using resources to develop something and test something that nobody uses, Apple did the right thing. What's the point having engineers working on something nobody is gonna use?
How is this trolling? Its common sense. Its just like any company would kill a product that doesn't make sense in the market.
Apple gives it away for free. But there are engineers that have to code and test the thing as well as do multiple updates and bugfixes. What's the point when practically nobody in windows land uses it?
Not saying its a bad browser, just saying chrome, IE and firefox have pretty much sewn up the windows browser market.
Economics.
It IS however, VERY popular on Mac. Just not so much on windows.
I remember reading in Jobs' biography that he wanted iTunes (and other Mac SW) only available for Mac and eventually relented. I guess things have come full circle.
According to these stats, Safari has a 4.7% market share overall on the desktop, where OS X itself has a 6.7% market share. Given that Safari is the default browser on the Mac and has platform-specific advantages, realistically, how much of that 4.7% do you think comprises Windows users? I'm guessing it's 0.5% or less.
Even a company the size of Apple doesn't have infinite engineering resources to throw at projects which just aren't taking off. Safari on Windows is a failure. Why not reallocate the resources to the wildly successful Mobile Safari?
If the project was a success then why did Apple can it?
Well, "Windows 8" is really Windows 7 with Metro stuck on top, so the browser would run exactly the same. Apple supporting Metro by making a Metro browser would be a bad idea too.
I think this is primarily about the fact that with Chrome on Windows, there's no real reason to have Safari (as the article notes), but also because at this point, making the OS X desktop required for some of the more advanced iOS integration is only going to make Windows look bad and drive more people towards the Mac.
Windows as a consumer OS is definitely failing. Even people who like Windows and have no problem with it would probably seriously consider switching to OS X if the desktop OS doesn't integrate with their iOS devices now.
I think Apple is really trying hard to drive the emergent perception that "Windows is for work/corporate use" and OS X is for home/consumer use, and I think it's working.
I apologize for the threadjack, but I think you're being a little dismissive of Windows 8.
We've been screwing around with it at work. I do my CAD and such on my Mac Pro, but one of the IT guys threw the Win8 preview on a few of the older Athlons in the bullpen and it's breathed new life back into them. I actually like Windows 8 BECAUSE it's reminiscent of OSX. They've made moving things onto the "quick bar" at the bottom similar in function and scope to OSX. The Metro UI is essentially a skinned version of the launchpad.
Win 8 has definitely made my computing time away from my Macs more bearable. I hope Apple releases a Win8 version of Safari, Windows users would benefit.
Also, at the risk of sounding argumentative, there's hardly any real threat of a mass exodus of Windows users when Win 8 comes out. Microsoft's worst case scenario is a low adoption rate that barely breaks even. Their OEM partners will push Windows 8, and in my opinion it's a great option for WinXP machines that don't quite have the juice to run Win7 smoothly.
If you notice, Safari (and Chrome) are still 32bit on Windows, and Chrome is a horribly bloated pig no matter what OS is being used. You only get 64-bit in Nightly Firefox, or Internet Explorer. But the 32-bit version of IE is used by default on Windows. It would be best if Microsoft does not release another 32bit-x86 OS as an OEM version (upgrade only) as doing so is just going to keep holding back developers from making 64bit software.
Herein lies the elephant in the room on the Windows platform. Developers are not moving forward, they're just inching ahead when the OS forces them to. On the Mac, you see the same kind of hold outs (Carbon API anyone?) If with Windows 8 Microsoft is trying to pull an Apple and drop MFC with Metro and .NET, and C/C++ with C#. You see this with the Express editions of the C++ compiler not being equipped to compile MFC, only .NET. frameworks.
PS: I've only ever used MFC to compile windows apps from source, I had to install the windows DDK to do so. Why doesn't Microsoft relent and just include everything you need to compile ANY C/C++ application in the operating system, since windows doesn't come with a system compiler, it's the only platform you can't just "download the source and hit compile"
Safari on Windows performs exactly the same as Chrome, if not somewhat better. But this is only because Safari doesn't span 2 instances per tab and gobble up RAM like Chrome does. If Firefox ever releases a 64-bit firefox as a release version, I'm switching back to Firefox. I only switched to Chrome because I needed a browser that could still run flash back when Adobe took their sweet time releasing a 64bit flash plugin for it.
The mobile side, Webkit pretty much has a monopoly. If you don't develop your websites on Chrome or Safari, you probably won't have them work as expected on the iPad/iPhone/Android/Blackberry platforms.
That is a great perspective.
People often complain when Apple forces people to upgrade at what some consumers would deem arbitrary intervals, but it does help them in the long run. One of the best and worst things about Windows is that Microsoft lets you get away with using legacy tech for MUCH longer. It used to irk me when there would be an OSX upgrade, and a program I liked suddenly no longer worked. But as I looked at it more and more, Apple was forcing people to adopt features that might not otherwise get used. Microsoft (or any developer really) could have probably made a better go at some of it's less than successful products if they'd adopted a similar strategy earlier on.
According to these stats, Safari has a 4.7% market share overall on the desktop, where OS X itself has a 6.7% market share. Given that Safari is the default browser on the Mac and has platform-specific advantages, realistically, how much of that 4.7% do you think comprises Windows users? I'm guessing it's 0.5% or less.
Even a company the size of Apple doesn't have infinite engineering resources to throw at projects which just aren't taking off. Safari on Windows is a failure. Why not reallocate the resources to the wildly successful Mobile Safari?
If the project was a success then why did Apple can it?
With Mountain Lion it's the first time I ever thought of leaving Chrome for Safari, but I need synchronized bookmarks, so I guess I have to stay with Chrome then.
With Mountain Lion it's the first time I ever thought of leaving Chrome for Safari, but I need synchronized bookmarks, so I guess I have to stay with Chrome then.
With Mountain Lion it's the first time I ever thought of leaving Chrome for Safari, but I need synchronized bookmarks, so I guess I have to stay with Chrome then.
You do understand that Safari synchronizes bookmarks across all platforms, don't you?
Comments
We are allowed to bring and use our own computers at work, many brings their macs with them, but i prefer to use windows machine with Safari installed. I take only my iPad with me.
So, use only Safari on my Macs and PCs. Commonly because i can set the fonts in it to look like it is on the mac. I prefer apple's antialiasing, this is the look and feel of internet for me
Also, no problems using if on Win7 x64 on Core 2 and 4 gigs of ram.
Hope they'll release a new version or just continue support it like in Snow Leopard and Leopard. (no 6 version as i know?)
If it means they can use more OS X frameworks in Safari now, I'm all for it.
I don't agree with the article that Apple released Safari for Windows to help spread web standards. That may have been a secondary goal, but the primary reason (as I recall) was that the original iPhone was a web-apps only device, and they released Safari for Windows to let Windows developers write iPhone OS apps. Of course nowadays iOS has a proper SDK and I don't know of many people still writing pure web apps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Me too. I don't know of many Mac users that don't use Safari as their primary browser. In fact, the only one I can think of that won't use it would probably use Terminal and a text-bases browser with ASCII images if that were an option. ????
I haven't used Safari in years. I used Firefox until they went the 'rapid development' route. Now I use Chrome on my MacPro, MacBookPro, iPhone and iPad. It too syncs my bookmarks, etc. between all devices.
It's just a web browser, not a measure of devotion to a company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy
Or Apple is simply waiting to see how Windows 8 pans out. They may have to re-write Safari, or if Windows 8 bombs they simply aren't wasting their time on it.
This very much.
If you notice, Safari (and Chrome) are still 32bit on Windows, and Chrome is a horribly bloated pig no matter what OS is being used. You only get 64-bit in Nightly Firefox, or Internet Explorer. But the 32-bit version of IE is used by default on Windows. It would be best if Microsoft does not release another 32bit-x86 OS as an OEM version (upgrade only) as doing so is just going to keep holding back developers from making 64bit software.
Herein lies the elephant in the room on the Windows platform. Developers are not moving forward, they're just inching ahead when the OS forces them to. On the Mac, you see the same kind of hold outs (Carbon API anyone?) If with Windows 8 Microsoft is trying to pull an Apple and drop MFC with Metro and .NET, and C/C++ with C#. You see this with the Express editions of the C++ compiler not being equipped to compile MFC, only .NET. frameworks.
PS: I've only ever used MFC to compile windows apps from source, I had to install the windows DDK to do so. Why doesn't Microsoft relent and just include everything you need to compile ANY C/C++ application in the operating system, since windows doesn't come with a system compiler, it's the only platform you can't just "download the source and hit compile"
Safari on Windows performs exactly the same as Chrome, if not somewhat better. But this is only because Safari doesn't span 2 instances per tab and gobble up RAM like Chrome does. If Firefox ever releases a 64-bit firefox as a release version, I'm switching back to Firefox. I only switched to Chrome because I needed a browser that could still run flash back when Adobe took their sweet time releasing a 64bit flash plugin for it.
The mobile side, Webkit pretty much has a monopoly. If you don't develop your websites on Chrome or Safari, you probably won't have them work as expected on the iPad/iPhone/Android/Blackberry platforms.
does Google really delete Data?... or do they just flag it "not for display?".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels
It should say something like; Thank you for wanting to try Safari for your Windows machine. Frankly we recognize your wise choice because the Safari browser is indeed superior and gives a much better experience. Since you are willing to try another browser other than Windows we recommend that you just take another step forward on your journey to a better computing experience and buy a Mac.
I think that WAS one of the points of Windows Safari - to give Windows users a glimpse of how things worked on the Mac side and convince them to make the switch.
Unfortunately, Safari for Windows is dead clunky compared to the OS X version. There was a risk that it was giving an inaccurate impression of Mac software. That, combined with its continuing poor market share, were good reasons to kill it. iPad and iPhone do a better job of converting Windows users to Mac than Safari ever could.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
Why would any Windows user bother to install Safari? Is there anything unique about it?
It allows the truest representation of iOS rendering, short of owning the real thing, for testing purposes. All the third-party emulators seem to have their own idiosyncrasies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodshotrollin'red
and that god exists whilst you're about it.
I don't know that I can prove God exists, not to anyone's satisfaction anyway, but a good divorce attorney could subpoena a so-called "deleted" Google search history in about 72 hours.
And, yes, those are opposite ends of the spectrum...
Well Safari was used by by probably less than 2% of Windows users, if so much, so from a business perspective of using resources to develop something and test something that nobody uses, Apple did the right thing. What's the point having engineers working on something nobody is gonna use?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3
Well Safari was used by by probably less than 2% of Windows users, if so much, so from a business perspective of using resources to develop something and test something that nobody uses, Apple did the right thing. What's the point having engineers working on something nobody is gonna use?
I see the trolls are awake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I see the trolls are awake.
How is this trolling? Its common sense. Its just like any company would kill a product that doesn't make sense in the market.
Apple gives it away for free. But there are engineers that have to code and test the thing as well as do multiple updates and bugfixes. What's the point when practically nobody in windows land uses it?
Not saying its a bad browser, just saying chrome, IE and firefox have pretty much sewn up the windows browser market.
Economics.
It IS however, VERY popular on Mac. Just not so much on windows.
I remember reading in Jobs' biography that he wanted iTunes (and other Mac SW) only available for Mac and eventually relented. I guess things have come full circle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I see the trolls are awake.
It's not trolling. It's pragmatic truth.
According to these stats, Safari has a 4.7% market share overall on the desktop, where OS X itself has a 6.7% market share. Given that Safari is the default browser on the Mac and has platform-specific advantages, realistically, how much of that 4.7% do you think comprises Windows users? I'm guessing it's 0.5% or less.
Even a company the size of Apple doesn't have infinite engineering resources to throw at projects which just aren't taking off. Safari on Windows is a failure. Why not reallocate the resources to the wildly successful Mobile Safari?
If the project was a success then why did Apple can it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Well, "Windows 8" is really Windows 7 with Metro stuck on top, so the browser would run exactly the same. Apple supporting Metro by making a Metro browser would be a bad idea too.
I think this is primarily about the fact that with Chrome on Windows, there's no real reason to have Safari (as the article notes), but also because at this point, making the OS X desktop required for some of the more advanced iOS integration is only going to make Windows look bad and drive more people towards the Mac.
Windows as a consumer OS is definitely failing. Even people who like Windows and have no problem with it would probably seriously consider switching to OS X if the desktop OS doesn't integrate with their iOS devices now.
I think Apple is really trying hard to drive the emergent perception that "Windows is for work/corporate use" and OS X is for home/consumer use, and I think it's working.
I apologize for the threadjack, but I think you're being a little dismissive of Windows 8.
We've been screwing around with it at work. I do my CAD and such on my Mac Pro, but one of the IT guys threw the Win8 preview on a few of the older Athlons in the bullpen and it's breathed new life back into them. I actually like Windows 8 BECAUSE it's reminiscent of OSX. They've made moving things onto the "quick bar" at the bottom similar in function and scope to OSX. The Metro UI is essentially a skinned version of the launchpad.
Win 8 has definitely made my computing time away from my Macs more bearable. I hope Apple releases a Win8 version of Safari, Windows users would benefit.
Also, at the risk of sounding argumentative, there's hardly any real threat of a mass exodus of Windows users when Win 8 comes out. Microsoft's worst case scenario is a low adoption rate that barely breaks even. Their OEM partners will push Windows 8, and in my opinion it's a great option for WinXP machines that don't quite have the juice to run Win7 smoothly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misa
This very much.
If you notice, Safari (and Chrome) are still 32bit on Windows, and Chrome is a horribly bloated pig no matter what OS is being used. You only get 64-bit in Nightly Firefox, or Internet Explorer. But the 32-bit version of IE is used by default on Windows. It would be best if Microsoft does not release another 32bit-x86 OS as an OEM version (upgrade only) as doing so is just going to keep holding back developers from making 64bit software.
Herein lies the elephant in the room on the Windows platform. Developers are not moving forward, they're just inching ahead when the OS forces them to. On the Mac, you see the same kind of hold outs (Carbon API anyone?) If with Windows 8 Microsoft is trying to pull an Apple and drop MFC with Metro and .NET, and C/C++ with C#. You see this with the Express editions of the C++ compiler not being equipped to compile MFC, only .NET. frameworks.
PS: I've only ever used MFC to compile windows apps from source, I had to install the windows DDK to do so. Why doesn't Microsoft relent and just include everything you need to compile ANY C/C++ application in the operating system, since windows doesn't come with a system compiler, it's the only platform you can't just "download the source and hit compile"
Safari on Windows performs exactly the same as Chrome, if not somewhat better. But this is only because Safari doesn't span 2 instances per tab and gobble up RAM like Chrome does. If Firefox ever releases a 64-bit firefox as a release version, I'm switching back to Firefox. I only switched to Chrome because I needed a browser that could still run flash back when Adobe took their sweet time releasing a 64bit flash plugin for it.
The mobile side, Webkit pretty much has a monopoly. If you don't develop your websites on Chrome or Safari, you probably won't have them work as expected on the iPad/iPhone/Android/Blackberry platforms.
That is a great perspective.
People often complain when Apple forces people to upgrade at what some consumers would deem arbitrary intervals, but it does help them in the long run. One of the best and worst things about Windows is that Microsoft lets you get away with using legacy tech for MUCH longer. It used to irk me when there would be an OSX upgrade, and a program I liked suddenly no longer worked. But as I looked at it more and more, Apple was forcing people to adopt features that might not otherwise get used. Microsoft (or any developer really) could have probably made a better go at some of it's less than successful products if they'd adopted a similar strategy earlier on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I see the trolls are awake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious
It's not trolling. It's pragmatic truth.
According to these stats, Safari has a 4.7% market share overall on the desktop, where OS X itself has a 6.7% market share. Given that Safari is the default browser on the Mac and has platform-specific advantages, realistically, how much of that 4.7% do you think comprises Windows users? I'm guessing it's 0.5% or less.
Even a company the size of Apple doesn't have infinite engineering resources to throw at projects which just aren't taking off. Safari on Windows is a failure. Why not reallocate the resources to the wildly successful Mobile Safari?
If the project was a success then why did Apple can it?
lol.... POW!
With Mountain Lion it's the first time I ever thought of leaving Chrome for Safari, but I need synchronized bookmarks, so I guess I have to stay with Chrome then.
Synchronized with what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MojoDK
With Mountain Lion it's the first time I ever thought of leaving Chrome for Safari, but I need synchronized bookmarks, so I guess I have to stay with Chrome then.
You do understand that Safari synchronizes bookmarks across all platforms, don't you?