Who are YOU to comment on MY experience with Safari for Windows?
I even said in a later post that I had recently updated a couple weeks ago and that it was BETTER but still did not surpass my experience with Firefox, seeing that it still stalled, devoured some of my forum posts and, on occasion, crashed.
Aside from all this, the newfound qulaity of Safari STILL DOES NOT JUSTIFY Apple's forceful including of it with every software update, related or not. Users should (and will) choose what browser they like the best - not what is, allegedly, the best.
This notion has been proven supremely by Apple's own iPod (Classic), who coexists in a market with cheaper, more-capable, PC-syching PMPs, yet the continues to dominate the field. Just because MS offers a PMP with a bigger screen and wireless tune-sharing doesn't give them the devine right to all electronics-section end-caps and a squadron of retail goons who will throw Zunes at you if you begin to drift towards the iPod section.
The fact is that Safari and iTunes are completely unrelated. If my Windows PC has one and not the other, it should stay that way until I decide otherwise.
-Clive
I'm not talking about YOUR experience. But, there are now two reviews that think 3.1 is pretty good, though not perfect.
As for the "push". It's not. The upgrade isn't being forced at you, it's a suggestion more than anything else. It's a way for them to let you know it's available, if you want it.
I don't see the problem here. One click dismisses it. Big deal.
I don't know who you are, what you are, or how long you've been it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo
...you're probably a Windows plant. Just the type of person that can't be taken as serious in the Mac community.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo
I do smell reality I smell a rat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo
You know I don't believe you are what you say you are because you know nothing about public forums that I can see. AND YES THIS MY OPINION if you don't like ignore it.
Why is it so important to you to identify me as a Windows shill and, ergo, a liar?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo
I've seen your post for quite a long time and it mostly is bashing.
That's because of two things. 1) You only notice me when I making a statement that goes against the norm. 2) When I read a potentially controversial article and agree with popular opinion, I'm not going to join a thread of 20 posters to say "I agree." I tend to post on something I disagree with and I feel is worth defending versus just being another "I agree"-man on the forum. Who needs that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo
Gimme a break, if you're writing for tech mags after saying this outlandish bull crap, you need to find a new profession because you suck at it.
Eh? Where exactly am I missing the facts? I acknowledged the FACT that trying to bundle Safari with other unrelated updates wasn't illegal, but have stated my OPINION that such was a cheap move on Apple's part, and stated my belief that Apple should rely on the quality of the programs to carry themselves. I can comprehend that one might disagree, but I fail to see how this classifies my argument at "outlandish bull crap."
I also referenced the FACT that some users have reported problems with recent versions of Safari and the FACT that some users have not. Based on this, I formed the OPINION that Safari 3 was not yet ready for complete mainstream adoption. Again, how are these opinions outlandish?
Third, I stated the FACT that other browsers have features that surpass those of Safari. I then gave my OPINION that these features were useful enough to keep me from fully adopting Safari at this point in time, stating specific reasons why: built-in spell-check, and Ad-Block.
So question: are you capable of acknowledging a legitimate argument even though you may not agree with it? If so, what makes my stances so illegitimate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo
You know I don't believe you are what you say you are...
MacRumors User Profile. (4 years and 1000 posts can't be all Apple-flaming or I would've been banned by now.)
Personal blog entry detailing steps on one of my many Mac-related projects. (If I hate Macs so much, why on Earth would I be working to hard to preserve what I feel is the most beautiful Mac designs ever?)
The upgrade isn't being forced at you, it's a suggestion more than anything else. It's a way for them to let you know it's available, if you want it.
I don't see the problem here. One click dismisses it. Big deal.
If it's a suggestion or a way to let users know it's available, then why not have it appear without the automatic check-mark?
I know it sounds like a small detail, but it's awfully presumptuous of Apple to assume that everyone will want to download THEIR browser especially when they haven't, to date. I would find this to be a happy medium.
Sure, it's "just one click," but there's a lot of silent imperialism going on in that automatic checkmark.
If it's a suggestion or a way to let users know it's available, then why not have it appear without the automatic check-mark?
I know it sounds like a small detail, but it's awfully presumptuous of Apple to assume that everyone will want to download THEIR browser especially when they haven't, to date. I would find this to be a happy medium.
Sure, it's "just one click," but there's a lot of silent imperialism going on in that automatic checkmark.
-Clive
Some analysts disagree. Also...dude...black links on blue? Whatever you are web designer you're not.
The guy called Safari "malware" and has mobilized the freetards to reject it in a clever ploy without actually calling out the pitchforks and torches directly. Hence maintaining plausible deniability while giving his competitor a quick one two.
Apple has every right to offer Apple programs to anyone who uses their free software. That right is the cost to you for getting something for nothing. If you don't agree with that policy, then delete Apple's software.
As far as the check box being defaulted, it's not Apple imperialism (whatever that means), it's checked for the convenience of the many people who do use and want Safari. Those who don't use it can deselect the check box.
The Mozilla article was a cheap shot motivated by fear of competition, plain and simple. IMHO such a cheap shot has no defense.
If it's a suggestion or a way to let users know it's available, then why not have it appear without the automatic check-mark?
I know it sounds like a small detail, but it's awfully presumptuous of Apple to assume that everyone will want to download THEIR browser especially when they haven't, to date. I would find this to be a happy medium.
Sure, it's "just one click," but there's a lot of silent imperialism going on in that automatic checkmark.
-Clive
I've always believed that people who claim to be educated, and are computer users, particularly those using PC's, with all their known problems, would be responsible enough to READ what they are clicking on, before actually doing so.
Unfortunately, it seems to not be the case. Otherwise PC users wouldn't subject themselves to all the problems that are out there.
Apple is likely assuming too much on the part of these people, thinking that they actually WILL read what they are clicking on, and figuring that they would know if they do have an Apple browser already. Being that Apple distributed the beta, this would be an upgrade for those who had tried it. I'm not sure if Apple's software on the PC is capable of knowing whether a beta is on the system, especially if it were removed, as many of us do with buggy betas after a while. If not, then that would also explain why they offer this the way they do.
Also, it's far more likely that someone who is already using iTunes for whatever reason, and it turns out that many more PC users are using iTunes to manage their music than people who have iPods, strange as that may sound, may HAVE the Safari beta. There was a fair amount of the beta's downloaded, though I can't remember the number. So, these people are already more, er, attuned to the idea of trying Safari than the PC population in general. For that reason, leaving it checked isn't such a big leap in faith.
It's certainly not perfect, but it's really not a problem either. After all, everyone should be able to admit that this is not spyware, or adware, or any other sort of ethically, or criminally, intended software, but merely a free browser.
Comments
Who are YOU to comment on MY experience with Safari for Windows?
I even said in a later post that I had recently updated a couple weeks ago and that it was BETTER but still did not surpass my experience with Firefox, seeing that it still stalled, devoured some of my forum posts and, on occasion, crashed.
Aside from all this, the newfound qulaity of Safari STILL DOES NOT JUSTIFY Apple's forceful including of it with every software update, related or not. Users should (and will) choose what browser they like the best - not what is, allegedly, the best.
This notion has been proven supremely by Apple's own iPod (Classic), who coexists in a market with cheaper, more-capable, PC-syching PMPs, yet the continues to dominate the field. Just because MS offers a PMP with a bigger screen and wireless tune-sharing doesn't give them the devine right to all electronics-section end-caps and a squadron of retail goons who will throw Zunes at you if you begin to drift towards the iPod section.
The fact is that Safari and iTunes are completely unrelated. If my Windows PC has one and not the other, it should stay that way until I decide otherwise.
-Clive
I'm not talking about YOUR experience. But, there are now two reviews that think 3.1 is pretty good, though not perfect.
As for the "push". It's not. The upgrade isn't being forced at you, it's a suggestion more than anything else. It's a way for them to let you know it's available, if you want it.
I don't see the problem here. One click dismisses it. Big deal.
Yeah, melgross. Who are YOU to comment on other people's experience with Safari on Windows. Didn't you know only Clive was allowed to do that?
I wasn't even trying to do that. I was just showing that the review (now two reviews) thought it was pretty good.
It's up to him to figure out why he isn't happy with it.
I don't know who you are, what you are, or how long you've been it.
...you're probably a Windows plant. Just the type of person that can't be taken as serious in the Mac community.
I do smell reality I smell a rat.
You know I don't believe you are what you say you are because you know nothing about public forums that I can see. AND YES THIS MY OPINION if you don't like ignore it.
Why is it so important to you to identify me as a Windows shill and, ergo, a liar?
I've seen your post for quite a long time and it mostly is bashing.
That's because of two things. 1) You only notice me when I making a statement that goes against the norm. 2) When I read a potentially controversial article and agree with popular opinion, I'm not going to join a thread of 20 posters to say "I agree." I tend to post on something I disagree with and I feel is worth defending versus just being another "I agree"-man on the forum. Who needs that?
Gimme a break, if you're writing for tech mags after saying this outlandish bull crap, you need to find a new profession because you suck at it.
Eh? Where exactly am I missing the facts? I acknowledged the FACT that trying to bundle Safari with other unrelated updates wasn't illegal, but have stated my OPINION that such was a cheap move on Apple's part, and stated my belief that Apple should rely on the quality of the programs to carry themselves. I can comprehend that one might disagree, but I fail to see how this classifies my argument at "outlandish bull crap."
I also referenced the FACT that some users have reported problems with recent versions of Safari and the FACT that some users have not. Based on this, I formed the OPINION that Safari 3 was not yet ready for complete mainstream adoption. Again, how are these opinions outlandish?
Third, I stated the FACT that other browsers have features that surpass those of Safari. I then gave my OPINION that these features were useful enough to keep me from fully adopting Safari at this point in time, stating specific reasons why: built-in spell-check, and Ad-Block.
So question: are you capable of acknowledging a legitimate argument even though you may not agree with it? If so, what makes my stances so illegitimate?
You know I don't believe you are what you say you are...
Again, with the doubt of my identity.
One such HardMac article. (note the author)
MacRumors User Profile. (4 years and 1000 posts can't be all Apple-flaming or I would've been banned by now.)
Personal blog entry detailing steps on one of my many Mac-related projects. (If I hate Macs so much, why on Earth would I be working to hard to preserve what I feel is the most beautiful Mac designs ever?)
-Clive
The upgrade isn't being forced at you, it's a suggestion more than anything else. It's a way for them to let you know it's available, if you want it.
I don't see the problem here. One click dismisses it. Big deal.
If it's a suggestion or a way to let users know it's available, then why not have it appear without the automatic check-mark?
I know it sounds like a small detail, but it's awfully presumptuous of Apple to assume that everyone will want to download THEIR browser especially when they haven't, to date. I would find this to be a happy medium.
Sure, it's "just one click," but there's a lot of silent imperialism going on in that automatic checkmark.
-Clive
If it's a suggestion or a way to let users know it's available, then why not have it appear without the automatic check-mark?
I know it sounds like a small detail, but it's awfully presumptuous of Apple to assume that everyone will want to download THEIR browser especially when they haven't, to date. I would find this to be a happy medium.
Sure, it's "just one click," but there's a lot of silent imperialism going on in that automatic checkmark.
-Clive
Some analysts disagree. Also...dude...black links on blue? Whatever you are web designer you're not.
http://www.macworld.com/article/1326...3/mozilla.html
And heh...I think the whining is $$$ driven:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=8286
The guy called Safari "malware" and has mobilized the freetards to reject it in a clever ploy without actually calling out the pitchforks and torches directly. Hence maintaining plausible deniability while giving his competitor a quick one two.
MS would be proud.
Apple has every right to offer Apple programs to anyone who uses their free software. That right is the cost to you for getting something for nothing. If you don't agree with that policy, then delete Apple's software.
As far as the check box being defaulted, it's not Apple imperialism (whatever that means), it's checked for the convenience of the many people who do use and want Safari. Those who don't use it can deselect the check box.
The Mozilla article was a cheap shot motivated by fear of competition, plain and simple. IMHO such a cheap shot has no defense.
That's all I'm going to say about this thread.
If it's a suggestion or a way to let users know it's available, then why not have it appear without the automatic check-mark?
I know it sounds like a small detail, but it's awfully presumptuous of Apple to assume that everyone will want to download THEIR browser especially when they haven't, to date. I would find this to be a happy medium.
Sure, it's "just one click," but there's a lot of silent imperialism going on in that automatic checkmark.
-Clive
I've always believed that people who claim to be educated, and are computer users, particularly those using PC's, with all their known problems, would be responsible enough to READ what they are clicking on, before actually doing so.
Unfortunately, it seems to not be the case. Otherwise PC users wouldn't subject themselves to all the problems that are out there.
Apple is likely assuming too much on the part of these people, thinking that they actually WILL read what they are clicking on, and figuring that they would know if they do have an Apple browser already. Being that Apple distributed the beta, this would be an upgrade for those who had tried it. I'm not sure if Apple's software on the PC is capable of knowing whether a beta is on the system, especially if it were removed, as many of us do with buggy betas after a while. If not, then that would also explain why they offer this the way they do.
Also, it's far more likely that someone who is already using iTunes for whatever reason, and it turns out that many more PC users are using iTunes to manage their music than people who have iPods, strange as that may sound, may HAVE the Safari beta. There was a fair amount of the beta's downloaded, though I can't remember the number. So, these people are already more, er, attuned to the idea of trying Safari than the PC population in general. For that reason, leaving it checked isn't such a big leap in faith.
It's certainly not perfect, but it's really not a problem either. After all, everyone should be able to admit that this is not spyware, or adware, or any other sort of ethically, or criminally, intended software, but merely a free browser.