Apple pushing Safari downloads on Windows users

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 114
    aplnubaplnub Posts: 2,584member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Suprisingly, the offical Apple Store in Paris that was rumoured to be built in 2007 never happened.
    This seems to be an authorized Apple reseller.



    Thanks for that link. I would be more inclined to visit if it were an official Apple store just to say I have been. I was fairly disappointed when I learned, yep, still no store. WTH are is Apple thinking?



    Maybe next time...
  • Reply 62 of 114
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aplnub View Post


    Thanks for that link. I would be more inclined to visit if it were an official Apple store just to say I have been. I was fairly disappointed when I learned, yep, still no store. WTH are is Apple thinking?



    Maybe next time...



    Who knows. iDevices can be sold through sold retailers much easier than Macs can so until Macs start becoming more mainstream in the EU we probably won't see an explosion of Apple Stores. (speculation)
  • Reply 63 of 114
    guinnessguinness Posts: 473member
    I found it worse, when Apple started pushing QuickTime, along with iTunes, than pushing Safari now.



    Safari 3.1 is actually good on both platforms (for once - before 3.1, I thought Safari was trash, on both platforms), and it's almost as good as FF3. if Safari had extensions though..



    I gave up on IE eons ago.



    QuickTime is complete garbage; Mac and PC. It's Real Player for the 21st Century. It doesn't even do MP4 well.
  • Reply 64 of 114
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by guinness View Post


    QuickTime is complete garbage; Mac and PC. It's Real Player for the 21st Century. It doesn't even do MP4 well.



    Are you being facetious?
  • Reply 65 of 114
    guinnessguinness Posts: 473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Are you being facetious?



    Absolutely not.



    VLC does MP4 better, with fewer resources (especially on Windows, what takes Apple a dual-core CPU, VLC could do with one), and QT doesn't offer anything in terms of features, outside of buying the "Pro" version, which nearly every other video player does for free. All QT can do OOB, is basically full-screen (now). Whoopty doo.



    It's just not a good video player IMO - clunky and slow. Like my on my PCs, QT is on my Mac, but it sits there, and it's only existence is due to iTunes requiring the damned thing.



    On Windows, I use WMP for video, iTunes for audio, and on my Mac, VLC and iTunes.
  • Reply 66 of 114
    djames42djames42 Posts: 298member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by guinness View Post


    On Windows, I use WMP for video, iTunes for audio, and on my Mac, VLC and iTunes.



    Blimey. I would never in a gazillion years use WMP for anything other than fodder for the recycle bin (which of course you can't do because it's integrated just like IE). Forgetting for a moment that its so-called interface is ugly, clunky, and weak, its support for embedded IE makes it just as much a target for all the ActiveX crap that invades one's computer through that horrible mess of a browser.



    I don't mind QT on the Mac at all, although I do use VLC more frequently. I agree that it's a dog on the PC, but then I don't generally have to use one of those either.



    Back on-topic, I am a little disappointed to see Apple pushing Safari this way. If I were the average PC user, I'd probably already not have a whole lot of love for Apple, and this sort of thing would almost certainly piss me off. Sure you can ignore it or otherwise choose not to install it, but I think it will leave a proverbial bad taste in the mouths of a lot of people.
  • Reply 67 of 114
    bigpicsbigpics Posts: 1,360member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


    The only reason I use IE on parallels is to access my bank site, I can access it using safari and firefox but I cannot do anything other than view statements. Firefox is fine but I hate how slow it is to start and load pages. I believe most Windows users don't like Safari because they are not used to the browser's theme, they are used to XP or Vista theme. I have to agree with them because when I ran Safari under windows it does not fit, just like running an XP program under Leopard using Parallels Coherence, it looks awful. The average person care more about the look, feel, and compatibility. I don't know why many websites are only designed to be best viewed on IE!



    Have you tried the IE Tab extension for FireFox for Windows?



    As I understand it, without starting an IE session, it uses the machinery of IE (it claims to "embed IE" in the tab) to display selected tabs in FF that "think" they're in IE, including the ultimate non-FF site, Windows Update. And has some other nice features.



    I don't know, but I expect, that leaves those tabs open to all IE security concerns, but it's a way to never have to figure out "what the hell is up with that ribbon bar thingie?" And makes some otherwise nearly unrenderable sites that depend on IE protocols display properly



    http://ietab.mozdev.org/
  • Reply 68 of 114
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cameronj View Post


    Saw this yesterday. While I can't blame them for trying to leverage their trojan horse, I don't like this kind of sneaky install at all. It does tell you what it's going to do, but for most users, a little more explanation is necessary for them to know what is happening.



    Trojan Horse? So you're implying that Apple takes over your computer by offering you completely optional, free software? And it doesn't tell you what it does? What part of the message don't you understand? Seems pretty clear to me.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by djdj View Post


    There is no way that Safari is ever going to become popular on Windows. It's okay on the Mac, but the user interface feels nothing like any other Windows app and it just feels totally out of place on Windows.



    This tactic of installing it via Software Update is more aggressive and sneakier than anything we've ever seen by Microsoft. It's essentially a virus when distributed this way. Boo Apple!



    Windows? Consistent? Did they ever figure out how to make apps consistent on Windows? Heck, last time I checked, they still can't even figure out whether to use MDI or SDI.



    And more aggressive and sneakier than Microsoft? You have a future in comedy. How about writing Windows to make it look like DR-DOS wouldn't work? Or sending messages saying that QT had bugs? Or tying IE into the OS so you HAD to have it installed? Or per-CPU licenses. Or a zillion other things.



    I guess with as bad as Windows is, you could see Apple's offering of free software as a threat - after all, who would want Microsoft software after they've used good software, but 'aggressive and sneakier' is absurd.
  • Reply 69 of 114
    Until FireFox 3 comes out of beta I know I am definitely sticking with Safari 3.1 for my Mac, it really is WAY faster which surprised me as I thought it was just my internet. It still smokes FireFox 3 in Javascript by like 2 fold, but that is a lot better then FF2 that ram leaking crap hole (and I used to use FF2 for like 6months)



    Not sure how it does on the PC side of things though.
  • Reply 70 of 114
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by reallynotnick View Post


    Until FireFox 3 comes out of beta I know I am definitely sticking with Safari 3.1 for my Mac, it really is WAY faster which surprised me as I thought it was just my internet. It still smokes FireFox 3 in Javascript by like 2 fold, but that is a lot better then FF2 that ram leaking crap hole (and I used to use FF2 for like 6months)



    Not sure how it does on the PC side of things though.



    last year WebKit had some major breakthroughs with JS.
    WebKit r31201 ---- 3,694.0 ms

    Safari 3.1 ------- 4,164.8 ms

    Firefox 3.04b ---- 4,579.8 ms

    Firefox 2.0.0.9 - 15,123.6 ms
  • Reply 71 of 114
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    last year WebKit had some major breakthroughs with JS.
    WebKit r31201 ---- 3,694.0 ms

    Safari 3.1 ------- 4,164.8 ms

    Firefox 3.04b ---- 4,579.8 ms

    Firefox 2.0.0.9 - 15,123.6 ms




    I just ran the test on the latest 2.4GHz iMac and got the following result for Safari 3.1: 3237.6ms +/- 0.3%



    That is hell fast. It would be interesting to see some Windows results.
  • Reply 72 of 114
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by A Grain of Salt View Post


    I just ran the test on the latest 2.4GHz iMac and got the following result for Safari 3.1: 3237.6ms +/- 0.3%



    That is hell fast. It would be interesting to see some Windows results.



    If that is your Safari 3.1 result I wonder what your WebKit result will be.
  • Reply 73 of 114
    mt2mt2 Posts: 1member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    There is nothing to indicate that will ever happen. While iTunes uses WebKit for the iTS, there is no need for Safari. Quicktime is another matter and components are definitely required for iTunes to function.



    I do fault Apple for making me manually remove the QT shortcut from the Desktop, Start » Programs, the Task Bar and removing the auto-run syntax from the Registry each and every time there is an update to QT. This is much more viral than adding an option to DL their browser.



    Actually, iTunes does not use WebKit to display the store, or anything else for that matter. As far as I can tell, this hasn't changed recently.
  • Reply 74 of 114
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mt2 View Post


    Actually, iTunes does not use WebKit to display the store, or anything else for that matter. As far as I can tell, this hasn't changed recently.



    Thanks. I was very misinformed.
  • Reply 75 of 114
    mr omr o Posts: 1,046member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mr O View Post


    The latest version of Safari does not let me write capitals in my Gmail without always jumping to the subject box.



    It is pretty annoying as I have to write my messages in Pages and copy paste them to Gmail.



    I haven't lost my mind just yet



    Silly me, I might just write them in Firefox ?
  • Reply 76 of 114
    mr omr o Posts: 1,046member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wilco View Post


    Whatever.



    If MS did something like this, all of you Jobs knob-gobblers would going apeshit.







    dear Wilco,



    I am with you on this one!
  • Reply 77 of 114
    If this is OK with some people, then every software maker out there should include invitations to download other products every time you update their software.
  • Reply 78 of 114
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wilco View Post


    Whatever.



    If MS did something like this, all of you Jobs knob-gobblers would going apeshit.







    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mr O View Post


    dear Wilco,



    I am with you on this one!



    They would be, but remember that Mac users are not used to this sort of underhanded marketing. This is common in Windows by MS and many common program developers. While this is sneaky, it's not outside what WIndows users are used to. But should be hold Apple to a different standard on Windows? Can you even get an IM client without having some browser toolbar trying to install itself?
  • Reply 79 of 114
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    I hardly see how Apple is forcefully pushing Windows users to use Safari, or how it is doing, what some people here are suggesting, something secretive. Apple is merely asking Windows users who already have Apple software installed if they want to try out the new Safari. It isn't installing it without the user's permission.
  • Reply 80 of 114
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    They would be, but remember that Mac users are not used to this sort of underhanded marketing. This is common in Windows by MS and many common program developers. While this is sneaky, it's not outside what WIndows users are used to. But should be hold Apple to a different standard on Windows? Can you even get an IM client without having some browser toolbar trying to install itself?



    How is it underhanded asking users who already have your software installed if they want to try out more software? It isn't like Apple is installing something without asking the user's permission. Moreover, you can shut off the autmotic software update notice if you want.



    I do not know about you guys, but if I enjoy using free software from a company, I want to be told that the same company is making more free software I can try out. Ultimately, I can choose not to try it out.
Sign In or Register to comment.