What do you mean 'in current form'? I've been using it since 0.5 and haven't had any problem with it. Unlike other browsers that start with 1.0 as the basis and then build upon, Firefox started with 0.1 and went 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, et al up to 1.0 that is now.
So it had quite a few releases, albeit, officially unsupported, and in its current 1.0 release it kicks serious ass when compared to others that are at 6.0 or 7.54 or whatever. It was very stable and feature rich even in 2003 when this topic was started.
When I say "in current form" I mean Official version. Yes I tried using the previous pre release versions and I've preferred Safari over Firefox in most circumstances.
Quote:
If I was rude, I apologize.
No problem, its text messaging, hard to convey emotions thru this medium properly.
Quote:
Yes, it says 'it continues gains' which means that it was gaining even in its 0.x form. Which goes to show something.
I think the gains they are referring to refers to the number since the official release. But that's not the point.
Quote:
I don't really care what Apple's goal is and I don't really buy these 'switching' stories that Apple is advertising on their website and whatnot, but they could learn a thing or two from Firefox and Mozilla Foundation in general. That means improving the browser continuously and making the browser the lightest possible while offering a set of useful features.
Right now the browser is not light, doesn't have many features (although not as feature-lacking as initially), and is slow. It had its chance to do something, and it lost it. On these I concur with you.
Well, I think we should all care about Apple's goal, not only do I have emotional attachments but financial reasons too.
And yes, I see how Mozilla has done it, and Apple has much to learn.
I can't agree with your statement about Safari, but then again this isn't about Safari vs Firefox. It's about lost opportunity.
Quote:
p.s. and geez, take it easy. I don't think I said anything bad except that I didn't see how it made sense what you said. That's nothing bad, just an opinion.
Yes, I can see why you would not understand the rational of my statement; but in context of when it was originally said and why I said those things, I just felt the outcome could have been different with their current business plan.
I wasn't really saying anything about Firefox, it was about what was available one and half year ago. (which I didn't think was ready for public consumption)
I'm not a programmer, but I was given to understand that the Cocoa/Obj-C nature of Safari and most other Apple apps (except for iTunes) makes porting them to Windows prohibitively difficult.
Since when did MS say they're gonna stop making IE on Windows?
On this issue, I.P.Freely is correct for the most part. The announcement came more than a year ago, IIRC. Microsoft will drop IE as a standalone application on all platforms. IE for Windows will be folded into the OS. It will no longer be available as a separate application. IE for the Mac will be dropped. M$ will develop a new browser as part of its MSN client for the Mac. What all of this have in common is that M$ is shifting its resources to revenue-earning software and dropping development of software that does not earn revenue.
On this issue, I.P.Freely is correct for the most part. The announcement came more than a year ago, IIRC. Microsoft will drop IE as a standalone application on all platforms. IE for Windows will be folded into the OS. It will no longer be available as a separate application. IE for the Mac will be dropped. M$ will develop a new browser as part of its MSN client for the Mac. What all of this have in common is that M$ is shifting its resources to revenue-earning software and dropping development of software that does not earn revenue.
I heard the same thing but even though M$ said it i doubt it will happen: they tried this with win95/98 and well...remember the whole antitrust thing? The EU is still working out the settlements from that mess...and the malware could then use a brouser api to get core access to the system and the bluescreens of death from 98 will look like a walk in the park compared to the result of this.
1. Firefox is available and its really impressive.
2. IE 7 or whatever MS wants to call it. Will be in Longhorn, but it will be so integrated into the OS it might as well not exist.
Just read this Website Apple, along with iPod, iTunes, Mini Mac could make the transition easier for the switchers by offering them a familiar browser. Well now that role could be filled by Firefox.
I think it's too late for Safari to make affect on the Web, but I think Firefox will finally make web-surfing platform agnostic.
Thats the same mistake that Microsoft made with IE. They opened it for both Windows and Mac absolutely free. This caused them to pay thousands, even millions of dollars on this project with no revenue coming out of it. At least with iTunes, revenue can be generated for Apple, but safari show no way of generating any revenue and Apple will lose big $. Sure, they could slap advertising on it, but then I'd rather have Mozilla or Firefox which are ad free.
1. If Safari is available for Windows, and it becomes vaible alternative for browser then more website developers will make it work with their site.
2. IE for Windows will not exist after 6, so give people on that side of the fence choice for a standalone browser.
3. Since its all open source stuff, give it away for nothing but put lot of Apple logo's on it. Nothing beats Free Advertisting 8)
4. Who's the competition? Opera, Mozilla... Lightweights, If you put out a properly branded Browsers that people recognize then people will use it.
5. Make switching easier once they become familiar with the product that they would use most often.
6. What is MS going to do, stop Apple from giving away free software. Whoever heard of not charging people for product? Oh wait a minute, Microsoft does that!
Firefox is way more popular than anything (as a new product). Firefox is open source and brings compatibility with other Open source browsers, yes Safari is nice, but WHY make it on Windows. What does Apple gain? As far as I can see nothing, but more support.
The only reason why Apple would do this is if they opened up .Mac to Windows users. They would probabl want people to have a browser along with the service.
I think that Apple should open up Qicktime and iTunes to Linux first. Apple can worry about expanding software for windows later.
I think that Apple should open up Qicktime and iTunes to Linux first. [/B]
Precisely. I never understood why Linux people don't have at least QuickTime. And I'm sure they would gladly use iTunes as well, especially to buy songs. Just because they want freedom with their software, doesn't mean that they won't pay for their legal songs.
I mostly use Linux at home and I would pay for songs in iTunes. We do have some music stores in Linux, but nothing in the range of iTunes.
Firefox is way more popular than anything (as a new product). Firefox is open source and brings compatibility with other Open source browsers, yes Safari is nice, but WHY make it on Windows. What does Apple gain? As far as I can see nothing, but more support.
As I've said before, this thread was started on JUNE 21st 2003 Firefox was just a tiny blip on the radar.
If I had know Firefox would be this good, I wouldn't have said anything. Safari was good for Mac users and it would have been nice if Windows side had a equivalent version. Nothing wrong with that.
Precisely. I never understood why Linux people don't have at least QuickTime. And I'm sure they would gladly use iTunes as well, especially to buy songs. Just because they want freedom with their software, doesn't mean that they won't pay for their legal songs.
I run Linux mostly at home and I would pay for songs in iTunes. We do have some music stores in Linux, but nothing in the range of iTunes.
Apple isn't going to win many switchers from Linux so it's probably seen as lost investment.
As I've said before, this thread was started on JUNE 21st 2003 Firefox was just a tiny blip on the radar.
If I had know Firefox would be this good, I wouldn't have said anything. Safari was good for Mac users and it would have been nice if Windows side had a equivalent version. Nothing wrong with that.
Apple isn't going to win many switchers from Linux so it's probably seen as lost investment.
Yeah, I can see that, but there's another purpose to porting iTunes to Linux. Standards.
If iTMS wants to stay become the de facto standards setting music store it needs to open itself to some of the major platfoms. Mac, Windows, Linux. They did it with Mac + Windows but no Linux.
Now, I realize that not a lot of people will buy Apple computers to run Linux on them, but they will most likely buy an iPod or two.
Porting them to Linux wouldn't be a big money-spender for Apple either since both platforms are UNIX-like and share many of the same things. It would certainly be easier then porting it to Windows, but then again, Windows is where most of the money is, so...
Yeah, I can see that, but there's another purpose to porting iTunes to Linux. Standards.
If iTMS wants to stay become the de facto standards setting music store it needs to open itself to some of the major platfoms. Mac, Windows, Linux. They did it with Mac + Windows but no Linux.
Now, I realize that not a lot of people will buy Apple computers to run Linux on them, but they will most likely buy an iPod or two.
Porting them to Linux wouldn't be a big money-spender for Apple either since both platforms are UNIX-like and share many of the same things. It would certainly be easier then porting it to Windows, but then again, Windows is where most of the money is, so...
I don't know, I just don't see it happening. They are making rendezvous for Linux so maybe they will make iTunes as well?!
I don't know, I just don't see it happening. They are making rendezvous for Linux so maybe they will make iTunes as well?!
iTunes is a QuickTime/Aqua-based MacOS X application. To port iTunes, Apple would also have to port QuickTime and a substantial portion of Aqua, if not all of it. Rendezvous is also known as zeroconf. This IP-based background task has little interaction with the UI.
[B]iTunes is a QuickTime/Aqua-based MacOS X application. To port iTunes, Apple would also have to port QuickTime and a substantial portion of Aqua, if not all of it.
What?! Then how come I don't see Aqua AT ALL on Windows 2000/XP?
What?! Then how come I don't see Aqua AT ALL on Windows 2000/XP?
Probably because you aren't looking in the right place. A quick look at the Windows versions of iTunes and the QuickTime player show a lot of similarity to their MacOS X siblings. It is my understanding that behind the Mac-like GUI, a substantial fraction of MacOS X was ported to Windows to support QuickTime and iTunes on that platform.
Comments
What do you mean 'in current form'? I've been using it since 0.5 and haven't had any problem with it. Unlike other browsers that start with 1.0 as the basis and then build upon, Firefox started with 0.1 and went 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, et al up to 1.0 that is now.
So it had quite a few releases, albeit, officially unsupported, and in its current 1.0 release it kicks serious ass when compared to others that are at 6.0 or 7.54 or whatever. It was very stable and feature rich even in 2003 when this topic was started.
When I say "in current form" I mean Official version. Yes I tried using the previous pre release versions and I've preferred Safari over Firefox in most circumstances.
If I was rude, I apologize.
No problem, its text messaging, hard to convey emotions thru this medium properly.
Yes, it says 'it continues gains' which means that it was gaining even in its 0.x form. Which goes to show something.
I think the gains they are referring to refers to the number since the official release. But that's not the point.
I don't really care what Apple's goal is and I don't really buy these 'switching' stories that Apple is advertising on their website and whatnot, but they could learn a thing or two from Firefox and Mozilla Foundation in general. That means improving the browser continuously and making the browser the lightest possible while offering a set of useful features.
Right now the browser is not light, doesn't have many features (although not as feature-lacking as initially), and is slow. It had its chance to do something, and it lost it. On these I concur with you.
Well, I think we should all care about Apple's goal, not only do I have emotional attachments but financial reasons too.
And yes, I see how Mozilla has done it, and Apple has much to learn.
I can't agree with your statement about Safari, but then again this isn't about Safari vs Firefox. It's about lost opportunity.
p.s. and geez, take it easy. I don't think I said anything bad except that I didn't see how it made sense what you said. That's nothing bad, just an opinion.
Yes, I can see why you would not understand the rational of my statement; but in context of when it was originally said and why I said those things, I just felt the outcome could have been different with their current business plan.
I wasn't really saying anything about Firefox, it was about what was available one and half year ago. (which I didn't think was ready for public consumption)
Originally posted by I.P.Freely
2. IE for Windows will not exist after 6, so give people on that side of the fence choice for a standalone browser.
Since when did MS say they're gonna stop making IE on Windows?
Originally posted by yoda_four
Since when did MS say they're gonna stop making IE on Windows?
On this issue, I.P.Freely is correct for the most part. The announcement came more than a year ago, IIRC. Microsoft will drop IE as a standalone application on all platforms. IE for Windows will be folded into the OS. It will no longer be available as a separate application. IE for the Mac will be dropped. M$ will develop a new browser as part of its MSN client for the Mac. What all of this have in common is that M$ is shifting its resources to revenue-earning software and dropping development of software that does not earn revenue.
Originally posted by Brad
Where's the x86 version of Mac OS X?
Great question: when will jobs get his head out of his ass and sell it to disgruntled windows users?
Originally posted by Mr. Me
On this issue, I.P.Freely is correct for the most part. The announcement came more than a year ago, IIRC. Microsoft will drop IE as a standalone application on all platforms. IE for Windows will be folded into the OS. It will no longer be available as a separate application. IE for the Mac will be dropped. M$ will develop a new browser as part of its MSN client for the Mac. What all of this have in common is that M$ is shifting its resources to revenue-earning software and dropping development of software that does not earn revenue.
I heard the same thing but even though M$ said it i doubt it will happen: they tried this with win95/98 and well...remember the whole antitrust thing? The EU is still working out the settlements from that mess...and the malware could then use a brouser api to get core access to the system and the bluescreens of death from 98 will look like a walk in the park compared to the result of this.
1. Firefox is available and its really impressive.
2. IE 7 or whatever MS wants to call it. Will be in Longhorn, but it will be so integrated into the OS it might as well not exist.
Just read this Website Apple, along with iPod, iTunes, Mini Mac could make the transition easier for the switchers by offering them a familiar browser. Well now that role could be filled by Firefox.
I think it's too late for Safari to make affect on the Web, but I think Firefox will finally make web-surfing platform agnostic.
Originally posted by a_greer
Great question: when will jobs get his head out of his ass and sell it to disgruntled windows users?
noone will buy a browser these days. Everyone has IE and if they dont like it, there is a Free alternative (Firefox)
(yes i know about opera, but its not used very often)
Originally posted by I.P.Freely
I say YES for following reasons:
1. If Safari is available for Windows, and it becomes vaible alternative for browser then more website developers will make it work with their site.
2. IE for Windows will not exist after 6, so give people on that side of the fence choice for a standalone browser.
3. Since its all open source stuff, give it away for nothing but put lot of Apple logo's on it. Nothing beats Free Advertisting 8)
4. Who's the competition? Opera, Mozilla... Lightweights, If you put out a properly branded Browsers that people recognize then people will use it.
5. Make switching easier once they become familiar with the product that they would use most often.
6. What is MS going to do, stop Apple from giving away free software. Whoever heard of not charging people for product? Oh wait a minute, Microsoft does that!
Firefox is way more popular than anything (as a new product). Firefox is open source and brings compatibility with other Open source browsers, yes Safari is nice, but WHY make it on Windows. What does Apple gain? As far as I can see nothing, but more support.
I think that Apple should open up Qicktime and iTunes to Linux first. Apple can worry about expanding software for windows later.
Originally posted by isomething
I think that Apple should open up Qicktime and iTunes to Linux first. [/B]
Precisely. I never understood why Linux people don't have at least QuickTime. And I'm sure they would gladly use iTunes as well, especially to buy songs. Just because they want freedom with their software, doesn't mean that they won't pay for their legal songs.
I mostly use Linux at home and I would pay for songs in iTunes. We do have some music stores in Linux, but nothing in the range of iTunes.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Firefox is way more popular than anything (as a new product). Firefox is open source and brings compatibility with other Open source browsers, yes Safari is nice, but WHY make it on Windows. What does Apple gain? As far as I can see nothing, but more support.
As I've said before, this thread was started on JUNE 21st 2003 Firefox was just a tiny blip on the radar.
If I had know Firefox would be this good, I wouldn't have said anything. Safari was good for Mac users and it would have been nice if Windows side had a equivalent version. Nothing wrong with that.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Precisely. I never understood why Linux people don't have at least QuickTime. And I'm sure they would gladly use iTunes as well, especially to buy songs. Just because they want freedom with their software, doesn't mean that they won't pay for their legal songs.
I run Linux mostly at home and I would pay for songs in iTunes. We do have some music stores in Linux, but nothing in the range of iTunes.
Apple isn't going to win many switchers from Linux so it's probably seen as lost investment.
Originally posted by I.P.Freely
As I've said before, this thread was started on JUNE 21st 2003 Firefox was just a tiny blip on the radar.
If I had know Firefox would be this good, I wouldn't have said anything. Safari was good for Mac users and it would have been nice if Windows side had a equivalent version. Nothing wrong with that.
Sorry I didn't realise.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Apple isn't going to win many switchers from Linux so it's probably seen as lost investment.
Yeah, I can see that, but there's another purpose to porting iTunes to Linux. Standards.
If iTMS wants to stay become the de facto standards setting music store it needs to open itself to some of the major platfoms. Mac, Windows, Linux. They did it with Mac + Windows but no Linux.
Now, I realize that not a lot of people will buy Apple computers to run Linux on them, but they will most likely buy an iPod or two.
Porting them to Linux wouldn't be a big money-spender for Apple either since both platforms are UNIX-like and share many of the same things. It would certainly be easier then porting it to Windows, but then again, Windows is where most of the money is, so...
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Yeah, I can see that, but there's another purpose to porting iTunes to Linux. Standards.
If iTMS wants to stay become the de facto standards setting music store it needs to open itself to some of the major platfoms. Mac, Windows, Linux. They did it with Mac + Windows but no Linux.
Now, I realize that not a lot of people will buy Apple computers to run Linux on them, but they will most likely buy an iPod or two.
Porting them to Linux wouldn't be a big money-spender for Apple either since both platforms are UNIX-like and share many of the same things. It would certainly be easier then porting it to Windows, but then again, Windows is where most of the money is, so...
I don't know, I just don't see it happening. They are making rendezvous for Linux so maybe they will make iTunes as well?!
Originally posted by MacCrazy
I don't know, I just don't see it happening. They are making rendezvous for Linux so maybe they will make iTunes as well?!
iTunes is a QuickTime/Aqua-based MacOS X application. To port iTunes, Apple would also have to port QuickTime and a substantial portion of Aqua, if not all of it. Rendezvous is also known as zeroconf. This IP-based background task has little interaction with the UI.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
[B]iTunes is a QuickTime/Aqua-based MacOS X application. To port iTunes, Apple would also have to port QuickTime and a substantial portion of Aqua, if not all of it.
What?! Then how come I don't see Aqua AT ALL on Windows 2000/XP?
Originally posted by Gene Clean
What?! Then how come I don't see Aqua AT ALL on Windows 2000/XP?
Probably because you aren't looking in the right place. A quick look at the Windows versions of iTunes and the QuickTime player show a lot of similarity to their MacOS X siblings. It is my understanding that behind the Mac-like GUI, a substantial fraction of MacOS X was ported to Windows to support QuickTime and iTunes on that platform.