Apple pushes Safari browser for Windows

andrewgpaul · Post by **andrewgpaul** » 2008-03-28 08:05pm

FYI, that also works when you click and release the scroll wheel, then move the mouse. It works horizontally too.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2008-03-28 08:11pm

I've noticed that for me when using Safari for Windows the board looks best with the Subsilver theme. I haven't noticed any of the fonts seeming fuzzy with it.

On a different note I've run into problems using Safari on the ESPN web page. It has a tendancy to hang on that website and I think it's mostly because of streaming audio or video. For some reason Safari doesn't recognize that I already have Windows Media Player installed so any time I try to stream a podcast it sends me to the Microsoft page to install the lastest version of Media Player.

Could the problem be that there's a Microsoft Media Player for Mac and the Windows version and Safari just aren't gelling right because of that.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2008-03-28 09:58pm

Tsyroc wrote:Could the problem be that there's a Microsoft Media Player for Mac and the Windows version and Safari just aren't gelling right because of that.

Try using the WMP plugin for Firefox; Safari should automatically pick it up.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2008-03-28 11:47pm

phongn wrote:
Tsyroc wrote:Could the problem be that there's a Microsoft Media Player for Mac and the Windows version and Safari just aren't gelling right because of that.
Try using the WMP plugin for Firefox; Safari should automatically pick it up.

That worked.

Thanks.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2008-03-29 08:46am

From what I've seen the interface looks rather dull. From a security standpoint, is Safari less or more safe than FF and IE7?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-03-29 10:30am

I've noticed hangs as well, also on multimedia. The Apple software developers should get on that, since the average no-effort user (ie- the sort of person that Apple primarily markets to) is not going to go looking for a WMP plugin to fix the problem. He's just going to say "this browser is crap" and go back to IE.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2008-03-29 03:32pm

Yeah, I noticed this last time the Quicktime updater popped up. I just told it to fuck off, like I do when it tries to get me to install iTunes. *Shrug* Firefox is fine by me, and I don't need anyone, Apple included, trying to push shit on me like that.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2008-03-29 04:43pm

Darth Wong wrote:I've noticed hangs as well, also on multimedia. The Apple software developers should get on that, since the average no-effort user (ie- the sort of person that Apple primarily markets to) is not going to go looking for a WMP plugin to fix the problem. He's just going to say "this browser is crap" and go back to IE.

On Windows (IIRC), Firefox will inform the user that they'll need the plugin and offer to go get it. I'm not sure if Apple can package said plugin, though.

Jaevric · Post by **Jaevric** » 2008-03-29 05:57pm

Slightly off-topic, but for some weird reason I can't keep Firefox as my default browser in Vista. I'm not sure what it thinks the default browser *is*, but Yahoo Messenger keeps opening up Internet Explorer and Firefox always prompts me to make Firefox the default browser. Anyone run into this before? I checked the "Default Programs" option for Vista and Firefox isn't even listed as an option for the default web browser, even though Thunderbird is listed for the default email client.

Jon · Post by **Jon** » 2008-03-29 06:30pm

In Vista it just looks... odd. I know Apple have a 'look', and it seems to work fine for iTunes on Windows but with Safari... nah, think I'll stick to firefox.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2008-03-30 12:47pm

Mange wrote:From what I've seen the interface looks rather dull. From a security standpoint, is Safari less or more safe than FF and IE7?

Definitely safer than IE- I don't have a count of vulnerabilities available, but the fact is that there are zero spyware or toolbars that target Safari (especially for Windows) and it doesn't support ActiveX- those two things right there ought to make it vastly safer.

I have no idea how it compares to FireFox. I've seen a few publicized Safari vulnerabilities- but then a few for FireFox too. I'd suspect FireFox is safer just going by my gut but I have absolutely no evidence either way.

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » 2008-03-30 01:43pm

actually, IE7 on vista is sandboxed, which makes it probably the safe browser on windows (barring Lynx).
even if script were taking control of IE they could not mess with a lot of thing.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2008-03-30 03:17pm

Praxis wrote:
Mange wrote:From what I've seen the interface looks rather dull. From a security standpoint, is Safari less or more safe than FF and IE7?
Definitely safer than IE- I don't have a count of vulnerabilities available, but the fact is that there are zero spyware or toolbars that target Safari (especially for Windows) and it doesn't support ActiveX- those two things right there ought to make it vastly safer.

It depends on what you mean by "safe". Microsoft put IE in a pretty Draconian sandbox in Vista. Even if it gets exploited, there damage that can be done is pretty minimal.

I have no idea how it compares to FireFox. I've seen a few publicized Safari vulnerabilities- but then a few for FireFox too. I'd suspect FireFox is safer just going by my gut but I have absolutely no evidence either way.

I'd say that IE on Vista is safer than both of them simply because it's sandboxed. Comparing Safari and Firefox directly is extremely difficult because neither one has a worse design than the other, in terms of security. And vulnerability counts (unless there's an order of magnitude-scale difference) don't really tell you much of anything.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2008-03-30 03:23pm

phongn wrote: On Windows (IIRC), Firefox will inform the user that they'll need the plugin and offer to go get it. I'm not sure if Apple can package said plugin, though.

In my case Safari kept sending me to the MS site to download the latest Windows Media player. Unfortunately that didn't fix the problem.

Getting the Firefox plug in did for some reason.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2008-03-30 03:26pm

Jon wrote:In Vista it just looks... odd. I know Apple have a 'look', and it seems to work fine for iTunes on Windows but with Safari... nah, think I'll stick to firefox.

I'm using it in XP and its appearance reminds me of how Quicktime looks. ITunes probably avoids that a bit because it has that menu on the side with colors in it.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2008-03-30 09:07pm

I'm posting from it running it under a virtual machine- what an eyesore; it looks inconsistent from other windows desktop apps, plus the smeared fonts that everyone else is complaining about. Then again, inconsistency seems to be normal for Windows...

Max · Post by **Max** » 2008-03-31 03:04pm

I downloaded Safari when it popped up as a download, and I really like it. Unfortunately, I use SoftEx Omnipass for all my passwords, and for some reason it doesn't work in Safari. I have to open IE for it to operate correctly.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2008-03-31 03:26pm

Drooling Iguana wrote: However, getting alternative browsers on more systems will go a long way to making a standards-compliant web, so this might do more good than harm.

I seriously doubt it.
If we didn't like this bullshit when Microsoft pulls it, why the hell would Apple get a free pass?

Resinence · Post by **Resinence** » 2008-03-31 03:43pm

Well, they shouldn't get a free pass.

But Safari is standards compliant and webkit is open source, so it's definitely "not as bad as" what MS tried with IE.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-03-31 05:41pm

Durandal wrote:And Microsoft didn't pull a move like that with IE. (They sort of did with Samba.) What they did with IE was just bury the other guy's proprietary standards with theirs.

Which incident are you referring to? I know Netscape corrupted the standard with their own extensions before IE did, but I don't think you could call them "proprietary", since their behaviour was well-documented and not subject to trademark or copyright. The biggest problem with both Netscape and early IE was that they were just plain buggy as hell when implementing any of the more advanced codes, particularly CSS. Then there was the ActiveX vs Java thing, but isn't Java much more "open" than ActiveX?

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2008-03-31 06:36pm

Darth Wong wrote:Then there was the ActiveX vs Java thing, but isn't Java much more "open" than ActiveX?

I don't recall that ActiveX was designed to fight off Java, but instead to compete with the Netscape plugin model. Microsoft's tricks with Java were of the "embrace and extend" variety.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2008-03-31 11:47pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Durandal wrote:And Microsoft didn't pull a move like that with IE. (They sort of did with Samba.) What they did with IE was just bury the other guy's proprietary standards with theirs.
Which incident are you referring to? I know Netscape corrupted the standard with their own extensions before IE did, but I don't think you could call them "proprietary", since their behaviour was well-documented and not subject to trademark or copyright.

You're probably right. I should have said "custom" or something. It's kind of difficult to make a "proprietary" HTML tag, since you have to document its behavior for people to use it properly.

The biggest problem with both Netscape and early IE was that they were just plain buggy as hell when implementing any of the more advanced codes, particularly CSS.

I don't know if they were buggy so much as eroded with extra garbage that made web site authors code to one browser instead of the standard. CSS support before this century was a joke. I think the first browser to actually implement the full CSS1 spec was Internet Explorer 5 for the Mac.

Then there was the ActiveX vs Java thing, but isn't Java much more "open" than ActiveX?

ActiveX was more of a competitor to the Netscape plug-in API, I think. Microsoft had other projects that were designed to push Java out of the picture, which I think eventually grew into .Net.

Neither ActiveX nor Java actually caught on with general web pages, though. ActiveX became extremely popular for corporate intranet applications, which is why they all suck so much ass. In any case, ActiveX was poorly designed and poorly implemented, and now Microsoft is paying the price for it.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2008-04-01 01:44am

Molyneux wrote:
Drooling Iguana wrote: However, getting alternative browsers on more systems will go a long way to making a standards-compliant web, so this might do more good than harm.
I seriously doubt it.
If we didn't like this bullshit when Microsoft pulls it, why the hell would Apple get a free pass?

They shouldn't. Ethically (and perhaps legally) they're in the wrong. However, in practical terms we might benefit from this, at least in the short-term. Plus, bundling a web browser with a music management program that you have to download yourself isn't quite the same as bundling it with the operating system that's going to be pre-installed on your computer whether you want it or not.