How exactly is Safari for XP awful? Doesn't seem any better or worse than it is on OS X. Actually, it crashes less on XP when playing some QuickTime videos compared to my aging PowerBook G4 running Tiger.
I'm really crossing my fingers for a Safari speed bump at Macworld, but I don't care much about new features as I use NetNewsWire for RSS with Safari set to open pages in the background.
Safari on XP does a terrible job integrating into the look and feel and normal usage patterns of an XP workstation. It feels like a Mac app on Windows. That feels as wrong to me as a Windows app sitting on my Mac desktop. The font rendering is well-known to be different than all the other Windows apps (and ignore Windows font rendering preferences), and the menus in the title bar is truly weird. Basically, Safari feels very natural on my Mac but very alien on Windows.
Firefox does a much better job of blending to both platforms, but ends up with too much of a "lowest common denominator" solution.
does Tiger get Safari 3 now? havent used Tiger in forever... when i used to use Safari 2 it was so unstable i dumped it.. but since Safari 3... after a few bug fixes, its been great.... though most of the time I'm still on Firefox since its just what I've been using for years.
Yeah...I'm using Safari 3.2.1 in Tiger 10.4.11 right now. Notice the Safari for Tiger option on this page?
So far, Safari market share has been shielded from the new browser.
On the Mac, yes. But don't you think Chrome would have already eaten into Safari's market share on Windows since Internet Explorer is a terrible browser and Windows has a far larger global market share compared to Macs? If Chrome for Mac is anything like Chrome for Windows, I don't see it eating into Safari's market share at all.
Safari on XP does a terrible job integrating into the look and feel and normal usage patterns of an XP workstation. It feels like a Mac app on Windows.
Thank god! That's what I like about it: it doesn't look like crap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booga
That feels as wrong to me as a Windows app sitting on my Mac desktop. The font rendering is well-known to be different than all the other Windows apps (and ignore Windows font rendering preferences), and the menus in the title bar is truly weird. Basically, Safari feels very natural on my Mac but very alien on Windows.
So should Apple make iTunes look like Windows XP's Fisher Price junk too?
Apple makes Safari on Windows look as close to Safari on Mac as possible for simplified customer support and to entice people to the Mac, as well as making the transition seamless if they do switch. Obviously, it's also for Windows-based companies who want to develop iPhone/iPod touch web apps and custom iPhone-friendly websites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booga
Firefox does a much better job of blending to both platforms, but ends up with too much of a "lowest common denominator" solution.
I thought FF2 looked alright on XP, but FF3 is ugly imo. And on the Mac it just looks like a Safari knockoff. At the end of the day, I care about text/page rendering and speed, which Safari excels in.
Chrome sucks. I tried it on my PC at work, and it sucks. If it ever shows up on Mac OS X, it won't make a ripple in what people use. That's probably why Google has been so slow to release it.
Apple's future as a computer company is very bright. The facts that Vista is widely considered a failure, early reports of Windows 7 being lukewarm at best, and the latest Zune debacle are clobbering Microsoft's ill-deserved reputation for being the only game in town.
Another part of what is helping Apple's computers are the non-computer devices that caused Apple to drop the word Computer from the company name. (I still argue that Apple is subversively causing people to become Mac users when the buy iPhones or iPod Touches.) Once people see how well iPhones and iPods work, it helps them believe that the computers may also be as good. To Mac fans like me, this has been apparent for many years, but if this is the way some people need to be convinced, so be it.
Looking at the other results, I can't believe how pathetic the Wii's web share is. The PS3, which has a far smaller install base, is beating it 4 to 1! And Sony doesn't even advertise or talk about their console's web browser, while I'm pretty sure I remember Nintendo talking about their system's Opera browser. Maybe it says something about the average Wii user: not very technologically informed. But then, I have a Wii, most of my friends do, and none of us browse the web on it much, probably because it's slow and kind of clunky. If Apple TV gains the ability to browse the web, I question how much it would be used.
I can think of a couple other possible factors. Is the Wii browser still a separate cost? If it costs more money to use the web, then maybe that's a big deterrent? How about the TV? Even if it's only $5 worth of points, to me, it makes more sense to spend that on games, though I don't know, I'm not a Wii user and not really interested in the machine as it is, maybe the next iteration. Also, using the web in standard definition may not be as desirable to use as it would be on an HDTV in HD resolutions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macFanDave
Chrome sucks. I tried it on my PC at work, and it sucks. If it ever shows up on Mac OS X, it won't make a ripple in what people use. That's probably why Google has been so slow to release it.
If it lets them take the time to fix it, that's fine. If it's going to help them drive their web platform, then they are going to have to keep improving it.
If Chrome for Mac is anything like Chrome for Windows, I don't see it eating into Safari's market share at all.
Regardless of whether it sucks or not, Chrome will grow some market share. It is, as others have stated, a new and perhaps somewhat immature browser. That doesn't mean Google is not going to stick with it and continue to improve it. I never said it would completely erode away Safari market share. Just that millions of mac users have not even had the chance yet to try it. When they do have that chance, some will stick with it. People have their own opinions and agendas.
I can think of a couple other possible factors. Is the Wii browser still a separate cost? If it costs more money to use the web, then maybe that's a big deterrent? How about the TV? Using the web in standard definition may not be as desirable to use as it would be on an HDTV in HD resolutions.
The Wii's Opera browser was a free download for the first six months, I believe, then it became something like a $2 to $5 charge. I wasn't intending to list all the factors affecting the Wii's browser share, just a few major ones. But yeah, just the fact it has to be downloaded is a barrier as new users may have no idea they can browse the web if its not on the system at start up; putting a price on it is even worse.
As for browsing on SD vs HD sets, its not a wonderful experience in either case, but it would likely be better in SD, contrary to logic, because the Wii outputs in 480p. The higher the resolution of the TV, the more glaring the Wii's standard definition graphics are, especially using the stock composite cables all Wiis ship with.
Even with all those shortcomings though, it's still a fairly enjoyable experience to browse around and YouTube videos, for instance. The Wii's installed base is so large, I don't understand how - even with a minority of users downloading the browser - its browser share isn't larger. The PS3's 0.04% share isn't much to write home about either, but when compared to the far more popular Wii, you've gotta admit it's notable.
Regardless of whether it sucks or not, Chrome will grow some market share. It is, as others have stated, a new and perhaps somewhat immature browser. That doesn't mean Google is not going to stick with it and continue to improve it. I never said it would completely erode away Safari market share. Just that millions of mac users have not even had the chance yet to try it. When they do have that chance, some will stick with it. People have their own opinions and agendas.
Sure. I just don't see Chrome eating into Safari's share. I see both Safari's and Chrome's (and Firefox's) total cross-platform browser shares increasing at the expensive of Internet Explorer. Chrome can't easily eat into Safari's marketshare because it's a moving target riding the Mac's coattails.
I was trying to say that SD just isn't much of a resolution for web - most web pages are designed for bigger screens. With a PS3 on an HDTV, then you can actually see the entire page width without downscaling or navigation issues with horizontal panning.
In all fairness, I'm surprised to see game systems to be used for web at all. I see hits from PSP machines on occasion too.
The Wii's installed base is so large, I don't understand how - even with a minority of users downloading the browser - its browser share isn't larger.
I paid for the Opera browser to use on a normal older SD television. To read anything you have to zoom in, to navigate you then have to zoom out. The resolution on a SD is truly awful which necessitates the zooming in and out. You have to be a world class couch potatoe to put up with it and not run screaming to any proper computer. It's so bad even using a PC is better.
I paid for the Opera browser to use on a normal older SD television. To read anything you have to zoom in, to navigate you then have to zoom out. The resolution on a SD is truly awful which necessitates the zooming in and out. You have to be a world class couch potatoe to put up with it and not run screaming to any proper computer. It's so bad even using a PC is better.
Being a Wii owner myself, I've used Opera sparingly and while I agree it's not great, it has improved quite a bit since the launch build, which bordered on unusable. Unfortunately, I don't have a PS3 (yet) to compare it with. \
I paid for the Opera browser to use on a normal older SD television. To read anything you have to zoom in, to navigate you then have to zoom out. The resolution on a SD is truly awful which necessitates the zooming in and out. You have to be a world class couch potatoe to put up with it and not run screaming to any proper computer. It's so bad even using a PC is better.
Luckily, I got the Opera browser for the Wii before they started charging for it. Frankly, it wasn't worth it. Not only does it suck in SD, it is also pathetic in HD. Truly horrible. Worse than Chrome, even!
Tried Chrome... really wanted to love it... has great features and great look for a small footprint but got tired of it freezing up all the time when closing tabs....annoying... love Safari a lot but alas not always compatible with sites so I stick with FF3 but the best part I love about FF are all the extensions for adblocking, Flashblocking and so much more.
I was trying to say that SD just isn't much of a resolution for web - most web pages are designed for bigger screens. With a PS3 on an HDTV, then you can actually see the entire page width without downscaling or navigation issues with horizontal panning.
In all fairness, I'm surprised to see game systems to be used for web at all. I see hits from PSP machines on occasion too.
I've tried the PS3 for at least a few days here and there in the past six months... And maybe I'm a retard but I can't play console games. I need a keyboard and mouse, especially in any shooter games.
Gawd knows how the hell am I supposed to surf the web on a PS3.
(It's not a hand-eye thing, I need mah keyboard and teh mousey. That dual-axis thingymajiggy... I just don't get it!)
There is no Safari for Linux, there is no iTunes for Linux, MobilMe does not work with Linux, you can't go to the iTunes store with Linux and you can't access the iPhone like a camera in Linux.
It's ironic that I had to install Microsoft XP and Microsoft Outlook and have to dual boot to sync my iPhone.
Microsoft made a fair bit of money from my iPhone purchase.
Comments
How exactly is Safari for XP awful? Doesn't seem any better or worse than it is on OS X. Actually, it crashes less on XP when playing some QuickTime videos compared to my aging PowerBook G4 running Tiger.
I'm really crossing my fingers for a Safari speed bump at Macworld, but I don't care much about new features as I use NetNewsWire for RSS with Safari set to open pages in the background.
Safari on XP does a terrible job integrating into the look and feel and normal usage patterns of an XP workstation. It feels like a Mac app on Windows. That feels as wrong to me as a Windows app sitting on my Mac desktop. The font rendering is well-known to be different than all the other Windows apps (and ignore Windows font rendering preferences), and the menus in the title bar is truly weird. Basically, Safari feels very natural on my Mac but very alien on Windows.
Firefox does a much better job of blending to both platforms, but ends up with too much of a "lowest common denominator" solution.
does Tiger get Safari 3 now? havent used Tiger in forever... when i used to use Safari 2 it was so unstable i dumped it.. but since Safari 3... after a few bug fixes, its been great.... though most of the time I'm still on Firefox since its just what I've been using for years.
Yeah...I'm using Safari 3.2.1 in Tiger 10.4.11 right now. Notice the Safari for Tiger option on this page?
So far, Safari market share has been shielded from the new browser.
On the Mac, yes. But don't you think Chrome would have already eaten into Safari's market share on Windows since Internet Explorer is a terrible browser and Windows has a far larger global market share compared to Macs? If Chrome for Mac is anything like Chrome for Windows, I don't see it eating into Safari's market share at all.
Safari on XP does a terrible job integrating into the look and feel and normal usage patterns of an XP workstation. It feels like a Mac app on Windows.
Thank god!
That feels as wrong to me as a Windows app sitting on my Mac desktop. The font rendering is well-known to be different than all the other Windows apps (and ignore Windows font rendering preferences), and the menus in the title bar is truly weird. Basically, Safari feels very natural on my Mac but very alien on Windows.
So should Apple make iTunes look like Windows XP's Fisher Price junk too?
Apple makes Safari on Windows look as close to Safari on Mac as possible for simplified customer support and to entice people to the Mac, as well as making the transition seamless if they do switch. Obviously, it's also for Windows-based companies who want to develop iPhone/iPod touch web apps and custom iPhone-friendly websites.
Firefox does a much better job of blending to both platforms, but ends up with too much of a "lowest common denominator" solution.
I thought FF2 looked alright on XP, but FF3 is ugly imo. And on the Mac it just looks like a Safari knockoff. At the end of the day, I care about text/page rendering and speed, which Safari excels in.
Apple's future as a computer company is very bright. The facts that Vista is widely considered a failure, early reports of Windows 7 being lukewarm at best, and the latest Zune debacle are clobbering Microsoft's ill-deserved reputation for being the only game in town.
Another part of what is helping Apple's computers are the non-computer devices that caused Apple to drop the word Computer from the company name. (I still argue that Apple is subversively causing people to become Mac users when the buy iPhones or iPod Touches.) Once people see how well iPhones and iPods work, it helps them believe that the computers may also be as good. To Mac fans like me, this has been apparent for many years, but if this is the way some people need to be convinced, so be it.
Looking at the other results, I can't believe how pathetic the Wii's web share is. The PS3, which has a far smaller install base, is beating it 4 to 1! And Sony doesn't even advertise or talk about their console's web browser, while I'm pretty sure I remember Nintendo talking about their system's Opera browser. Maybe it says something about the average Wii user: not very technologically informed. But then, I have a Wii, most of my friends do, and none of us browse the web on it much, probably because it's slow and kind of clunky. If Apple TV gains the ability to browse the web, I question how much it would be used.
I can think of a couple other possible factors. Is the Wii browser still a separate cost? If it costs more money to use the web, then maybe that's a big deterrent? How about the TV? Even if it's only $5 worth of points, to me, it makes more sense to spend that on games, though I don't know, I'm not a Wii user and not really interested in the machine as it is, maybe the next iteration. Also, using the web in standard definition may not be as desirable to use as it would be on an HDTV in HD resolutions.
Chrome sucks. I tried it on my PC at work, and it sucks. If it ever shows up on Mac OS X, it won't make a ripple in what people use. That's probably why Google has been so slow to release it.
If it lets them take the time to fix it, that's fine. If it's going to help them drive their web platform, then they are going to have to keep improving it.
If Chrome for Mac is anything like Chrome for Windows, I don't see it eating into Safari's market share at all.
Regardless of whether it sucks or not, Chrome will grow some market share. It is, as others have stated, a new and perhaps somewhat immature browser. That doesn't mean Google is not going to stick with it and continue to improve it. I never said it would completely erode away Safari market share. Just that millions of mac users have not even had the chance yet to try it. When they do have that chance, some will stick with it. People have their own opinions and agendas.
I can think of a couple other possible factors. Is the Wii browser still a separate cost? If it costs more money to use the web, then maybe that's a big deterrent? How about the TV? Using the web in standard definition may not be as desirable to use as it would be on an HDTV in HD resolutions.
The Wii's Opera browser was a free download for the first six months, I believe, then it became something like a $2 to $5 charge. I wasn't intending to list all the factors affecting the Wii's browser share, just a few major ones.
As for browsing on SD vs HD sets, its not a wonderful experience in either case, but it would likely be better in SD, contrary to logic, because the Wii outputs in 480p. The higher the resolution of the TV, the more glaring the Wii's standard definition graphics are, especially using the stock composite cables all Wiis ship with.
Even with all those shortcomings though, it's still a fairly enjoyable experience to browse around and YouTube videos, for instance. The Wii's installed base is so large, I don't understand how - even with a minority of users downloading the browser - its browser share isn't larger. The PS3's 0.04% share isn't much to write home about either, but when compared to the far more popular Wii, you've gotta admit it's notable.
Regardless of whether it sucks or not, Chrome will grow some market share. It is, as others have stated, a new and perhaps somewhat immature browser. That doesn't mean Google is not going to stick with it and continue to improve it. I never said it would completely erode away Safari market share. Just that millions of mac users have not even had the chance yet to try it. When they do have that chance, some will stick with it. People have their own opinions and agendas.
Sure. I just don't see Chrome eating into Safari's share. I see both Safari's and Chrome's (and Firefox's) total cross-platform browser shares increasing at the expensive of Internet Explorer. Chrome can't easily eat into Safari's marketshare because it's a moving target riding the Mac's coattails.
In all fairness, I'm surprised to see game systems to be used for web at all. I see hits from PSP machines on occasion too.
The Wii's installed base is so large, I don't understand how - even with a minority of users downloading the browser - its browser share isn't larger.
I paid for the Opera browser to use on a normal older SD television. To read anything you have to zoom in, to navigate you then have to zoom out. The resolution on a SD is truly awful which necessitates the zooming in and out. You have to be a world class couch potatoe to put up with it and not run screaming to any proper computer. It's so bad even using a PC is better.
I paid for the Opera browser to use on a normal older SD television. To read anything you have to zoom in, to navigate you then have to zoom out. The resolution on a SD is truly awful which necessitates the zooming in and out. You have to be a world class couch potatoe to put up with it and not run screaming to any proper computer. It's so bad even using a PC is better.
Being a Wii owner myself, I've used Opera sparingly and while I agree it's not great, it has improved quite a bit since the launch build, which bordered on unusable. Unfortunately, I don't have a PS3 (yet) to compare it with.
I paid for the Opera browser to use on a normal older SD television. To read anything you have to zoom in, to navigate you then have to zoom out. The resolution on a SD is truly awful which necessitates the zooming in and out. You have to be a world class couch potatoe to put up with it and not run screaming to any proper computer. It's so bad even using a PC is better.
Luckily, I got the Opera browser for the Wii before they started charging for it. Frankly, it wasn't worth it. Not only does it suck in SD, it is also pathetic in HD. Truly horrible. Worse than Chrome, even!
Well, looks like great sales for Apple's Q1! Wonder how much lower that will push the stock...
If it wasn't true it would be funny
I was trying to say that SD just isn't much of a resolution for web - most web pages are designed for bigger screens. With a PS3 on an HDTV, then you can actually see the entire page width without downscaling or navigation issues with horizontal panning.
In all fairness, I'm surprised to see game systems to be used for web at all. I see hits from PSP machines on occasion too.
I've tried the PS3 for at least a few days here and there in the past six months... And maybe I'm a retard but I can't play console games. I need a keyboard and mouse, especially in any shooter games.
Gawd knows how the hell am I supposed to surf the web on a PS3.
(It's not a hand-eye thing, I need mah keyboard and teh mousey. That dual-axis thingymajiggy... I just don't get it!)
Macs already have a 66% share of the +$1000 computer market....
Can you provide a citation?
Gawd knows how the hell am I supposed to surf the web on a PS3.
With a keyboard and mouse if them new-fangled controllers are too much for you.
It's ironic that I had to install Microsoft XP and Microsoft Outlook and have to dual boot to sync my iPhone.
Microsoft made a fair bit of money from my iPhone purchase.
Can you provide a citation [that proves Macs hold a 66% share of the +$1000 premium computer market]?
Yes I can:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ales_fall.html