bit-tech.net

Safari moves to PC

Safari moves to PC

"Room for one more?" - Safari joins the PC Browser Wars.

Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera...it seems there's a plethora of ways to get to bit-tech nowadays, doesn't it? Well, it's time for everyone to move over a bit, because there will now be one more. Apple has announced that it is bringing Safari to the PC.

You will now be able to start your own safari in Apple style even from your Windows XP or Vista machine coming in the next month or two, or you can try out the public beta here. Be warned though, apparently there are a lot of bugs traipsing around in the jungle.

The Windows (and Mac) debut of Safari 3.0 happened yesterday at Apple's WWDC (World Wide Developer Conference, for those of you who are cleverly developing alternative meanings), which has been targeted at drawing the buzz away from the PC Industry's Computex.

Of course, the major draw for the show has been the final beta release of the new Leopard OS, which should likely already be floating around channels of ill-gotten goods everywhere for those who are curious. If all goes well, Apple will release Leopard in September or October.

In the meantime, though, you'll just have to play with Safari. That is, of course, assuming one truly needs another browser alternative. Early reports have shown it to be bug-ridden (it is a beta, after all, so let's cut some slack), but at the end of the day it doesn't seem to truly offer any more functionality than either of its well-entrenched rivals. I know that personally on my Mac it is a great pre-built alternative to going and downloading Firefox, but nothing to write home about...it just happens to be there and I need not download a replacement for something already acceptable.

All of this leaves us wondering, "Why?" Hopefully there will be an explanation as to Apple's insight in releasing this. But until then, feel free to take your own stab as to why we need Safaris through Windows in our forums.

29 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
ch424 13th June 2007, 15:55 Quote
Looking elsewhere, the general reaction seems to be "Wow, it's fast, but I miss my Firefox extensions and the text is screwed up." Safari irritates me on OS X, so there's no way I'm going to try it on windows...
Buzzons 13th June 2007, 16:09 Quote
Also the flourish of exploits on day one for it.. quite funny.
Risky 13th June 2007, 16:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzons
Also the flourish of exploits on day one for it.. quite funny.

Don't worry, Apple will just blame you for running windows (ref the virused iPods)
plagio 13th June 2007, 16:25 Quote
Do not install it on non-English xp. On my Italian XP it crashes after minutes. It is a known bug already.
Dr. Strangelove 13th June 2007, 16:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ch424
Safari irritates me on OS X, so there's no way I'm going to try it on windows...
I can only agree with that! Where I work, we all get Safari on our mac mini's :( (mines nicknamed "paperweight" and runs linux, just don't tell my IT department about it )
But basically the only people who use Safari around here are the few who are not computer literate enough to download firefox.
Bluephoenix 13th June 2007, 16:37 Quote
the only use I see it getting is as a check for web development, seeing as it passed the ACID test (whether 3 passes ACID2 remains to be seen)

otherwise I'll stick with firefox thanks.
Firehed 13th June 2007, 18:15 Quote
If Safari got extension support, it would be great. But, alas, it only has a couple odd plugins and certainly not the community backing that Firefox enjoys.
riggs 13th June 2007, 18:47 Quote
If I owned a Mac I'd probably use it, because it's pre-installed. Don't see the point in a PC version though tbh - as already stated, we've got IE, Firefox and Opera, why do we need another?

Thanks Apple, but no thanks - I'll stick with the 'fox.
FR34K 13th June 2007, 19:07 Quote
:( just my luck. I was hoping they were getting their OS X to PC. :(
jezmck 13th June 2007, 23:11 Quote
I'd use it for testing but:
http://hosted.jazzle.co.uk/safari_borked_20070613.jpg

I can't even type an address.
Bluephoenix 13th June 2007, 23:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzle
I'd use it for testing but:
http://hosted.jazzle.co.uk/safari_borked_20070613.jpg

I can't even type an address.

ROFL
DXR_13KE 13th June 2007, 23:52 Quote
i will wait until it is final... then i will get it and see if it is better than my firefox...... :D
"firefox will burn the jungle were you safari"
Jipa 13th June 2007, 23:56 Quote
Ok that sucked very bad. FF remains being the king of the hill in this house.
Risky 14th June 2007, 01:31 Quote
iTunes will be modified to drop a subliminal "download safari" into your music. You will have no choice.
bubsterboo 14th June 2007, 01:34 Quote
I wish safari and all the other apple software products for windows would just use the damn windows theme. I want my precious vista drop shadow! And i want all the maximize and minimize animations, and better resizing performance...
Krikkit 14th June 2007, 01:39 Quote
Well I'm currently browsing in Safari, and frankly, it's a FF clone, but with heavier text smoothing and a pile of bugs... :p
completemadness 14th June 2007, 03:27 Quote
why did apple release this, the plethora of bugs makes it seem like they've barley tested it at all
I mean cmon, you cant even install it on a non-English install
This sounds more like an alpha then a beta release to me
Gravemind123 14th June 2007, 04:07 Quote
Even on all the OSX computers I've used people have installed Firefox on because it just seems to be a better browser then Safari. I suppose I'll have to install Safari and give it more of an evaluation before I start to slam it.

Edit: Just downloaded the Beta, already given up on it. It does not let you scroll but clicking in the middle mouse button and moving up and down. It doesn't let you close tabs by clicking the middle mouse button on them. The text started to irritate my eyes too. I'll keep my Firefox.
Atomic 14th June 2007, 09:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravemind123
It doesn't let you close tabs by clicking the middle mouse button on them.
Maybe because that is a Firefox feature :p
SNIPERMikeUK 14th June 2007, 14:18 Quote
This would be good if apple were commited to pc's, how about a version of iTunes that actually installs properly on x64 vista first though eh.....lets start small, (yes i can run iTunes on x64 but the installer never works I have use the apple update for windows or the program fails to boot when installed with apple .exe version even in 7.2)
Atomic 14th June 2007, 14:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNIPERMikeUK
how about a version of iTunes that actually installs properly on x64 vista first though eh
Why should they bother when there is such a small amount of people who actually use the 64bit version.

I'd bet on there being above 99% of vista installs not being 64bit.
completemadness 14th June 2007, 14:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomic
Why should they bother when there is such a small amount of people who actually use the 64bit version.

I'd bet on there being above 99% of vista installs not being 64bit.
and with that attitude there will never be good 64bit support

i don't get it, why didn't Microsoft just release vista as 64bit only, most people who are going to upgrade are going to need new hardware, and all new hardware is 64bit so why not just make 1 version so there is only 1 set to support (and the people who don't need new hardware probably already have 64bit, and then there's probably like 1% of people who can run vista well on their 32bit hardware)
Bluephoenix 14th June 2007, 16:06 Quote
not true, older comps can run vista well, even 32bit machines.

My mom's old dell dimension 4300 (used to be mine) with a 1GB RAM, 7600GS AGP 512MB, an old Creative SB Live!, 200GB HDD and a willamette 1.6GHZ P4 runs vista ultimate like a champ, even though its only running at the stock 400mhz FSB with no hyperthreading.

It will even manage supcom on low settings and quite a few other games, including BF2
Risky 14th June 2007, 16:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluephoenix
not true, older comps can run vista well, even 32bit machines.

My mom's old dell dimension 4300 (used to be mine) with a 1GB RAM, 7600GS AGP 512MB, an old Creative SB Live!, 200GB HDD and a willamette 1.6GHZ P4 runs vista ultimate like a champ, even though its only running at the stock 400mhz FSB with no hyperthreading.

It will even manage supcom on low settings and quite a few other games, including BF2

I have two Vista machines. one has a P4 2.8 and the other is my Cheapo Laptop on a Celeron-M 1.5Mhz, though that has the effects turned down. Memory helps a lot.
Tomm 14th June 2007, 17:59 Quote
I run Safari on my mac since it works very well, it's fast, it does everything I need it to. Since I don't usually have a mouse with my laptop, I don't miss the mouse gesture extensions in Firefox anyway.

Yes, the Beta is pretty rubbish and useless at the moment, but I'd wager that the final version will end up better than IE. Ok, so the computer-literate people will probably still use Firefox, but for everyone else it'll be a good alternative to IE.
Amon 14th June 2007, 18:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomic
Why should they bother when there is such a small amount of people who actually use the 64bit version.

I'd bet on there being above 99% of vista installs not being 64bit.
iTunes seems to install (sort of) properly on my machine using XP64. Also, I think the real statistic to consider is how many iTunes installations are done in 64-bit environments, rather than the number of Vista installations.
completemadness 14th June 2007, 21:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluephoenix
not true, older comps can run vista well, even 32bit machines.
yes but what % of them

Why even upgrade to vista, the only real reason to upgrade is DX10 in which case your will need to upgrade, and the few other new "features" in vista all require some pretty beefy hardware
Other then that, there is practically no reason to upgrade to vista, your better off with XP
Amon 14th June 2007, 21:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by completemadness
i don't get it, why didn't Microsoft just release vista as 64bit only
Programming in 64-bit language is more sophisticated. As a company, creating 64-bit applications means increased development costs and development time, and no business wants increased costs when there is no demand for domestic 64-bit processing. This may not relate directly with Microsoft as it does with component manufacturers, who would have to reprogram the drivers for all of their hardware if Vista was offered in only 64-bit.
TheEclypse 19th June 2007, 12:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluephoenix
the only use I see it getting is as a check for web development
My thoughts exactly!
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums