No more Safari for Windows based PCs

[VaporPunk]

Safari. Used it once for 5 minutes. Uninstalled immediately. Quite possibly the worst free program I've ever used. And that is saying a lot...

[DarkScribe]

Originally Posted by OakdaleMike

This is a very real concern for those of us maintaining websites. If you make a significant change, you need to test it on all browsers. The sad truth is that none of them are totally standards-compliant and the only way to know what your users will experience is to test your site using their browsers.

My point is that losing the ability to test with Safari puts me at more risk with my Mac users. That's a shame. Apple, I'm not buying a Mac just to test my website. Your Machiavellian nonsense hurts your customers in the long run. But then, you've never really cared about that, have you?

Do what a lot of people are doing, including me, and run your Apple OS on a dual boot PC. A few minor problems with some hardware, mostly to do with getting WiFi, running but once sorted you wouldn't know that it wasn't an Apple. You don't need to be too Geeky to get it happening - plenty of on-line support and advice to help set it up. I designated an old Dual Core laptop to it back when Apple stopped supporting G5 computers.

[OakdaleMike]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

Do what a lot of people are doing, including me, and run your Apple OS on a dual boot PC. A few minor problems with some hardware, mostly to do with getting WiFi, running but once sorted you wouldn't know that it wasn't an Apple. You don't need to be too Geeky to get it happening - plenty of on-line support and advice to help set it up. I designated an old Dual Core laptop to it back when Apple stopped supporting G5 computers.

Is there any quasi-legal way to do this? That is, can you get a copy of an Apple OS without owning an Apple PC?

[Critteranne]

Dang. I like Safari for Windows. It's often the only browser that works really well for me on certain sites -- for example, Emusic. (IE does't work well with it, and IIRC Firefox is just OK on that site.) Safari is also the only browser that worked for me when one of those fake "You have a virus" pop-ups started going nuts on my computer (the only one that allowed me to download a fix).

[charlesatan]

As a browser for Windows, it was decent (it's the "third" browser that I use). I found its Activity Monitor useful though.

But I think the bigger issue is testing websites, and how Safari users will view the websites you work on.

Maybe Apple wants website developers to buy a Mac.

[heySkippy]

IMO, Apple originally did Safari for Windows because they had already done most of the work during the development of iTunes. Both use Webkit for the rendering engine. Safari never got any traction in the Windows world, could be they decided it wasn't worth even a small effort to keep current.

[LovesMacs]

Originally Posted by OakdaleMike

Is there any quasi-legal way to do this? That is, can you get a copy of an Apple OS without owning an Apple PC?

I think the other poster (forget who, sorry) is referring to using a Macintosh computer and using emulation to run Windows. Older Macs could do that with software emulation, which made Windows run slower than on a regular PC.

Newer Macs with Intel CPUs (I think that would be any Mac built in the past five years or so) can be set up to run Windows with software emulation as described above, or natively due to the CPU. The second one is supposed to be faster. I have not tried either myself so the speed comparison is just what I have heard from people who have.

I don't think you can legally run an Apple OS on non-Apple hardware, with the exception of some Apple clones from pre-OS X days. I think someone has been able to do it but I don't know the details.

As for Safari, I rarely use it on my Mac and use Firefox instead. I don't see a compelling reason why a Windows user would choose Safari over the many options out there, unless if he or she needed to test website compatibility.

[cjr72]

Originally Posted by OakdaleMike

This is a very real concern for those of us maintaining websites. If you make a significant change, you need to test it on all browsers. The sad truth is that none of them are totally standards-compliant and the only way to know what your users will experience is to test your site using their browsers.

My point is that losing the ability to test with Safari puts me at more risk with my Mac users. That's a shame. Apple, I'm not buying a Mac just to test my website. Your Machiavellian nonsense hurts your customers in the long run. But then, you've never really cared about that, have you?

I have the same concern and I don't have access to a Mac right now either. The underlying rendering engine is WebKit which Chrome also uses so that gives me some comfort. At least so far in my testing Safari hasn't been the standards-compliant disaster that IE6 and older is.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by GlenBarrington

A couple of versions ago, it was OK. But to tell the truth, I didn't feel it offered me any reasons to switch. It was a 'me too' sort of browser IMO.

I've been growing somewhat dissatisfied with Firefox of late. It seems slow and, at times, unstable. So I've been playing around with IE and Chrome. I had totally forgotten about Safari. I've got to say IE and Chrome seem VERY good. I think I'll probably switch away from FF, not sure which I'll use though.

I personally lean towards Chrome, as I am starting to do a lot with my Droid phone, and all the Google integration seems smoother with Chrome, but some banking sites just don't seem to like anything but Internet Explorer.

I may wind up Bi-Browseral.

I've also been fed up with Firefox. I've used it since it was Phoenix and Firebird. Anymore, it seems too bloated and sluggish.

I also dislike the rushed release schedule. Every release doesn't have to be a major release. They're up to what, 14, when a year ago they were at what, 4? Major releases are supposed to have major changes, and I've really not seen anything in the past year worthy of that.

They have done too many "me too" type things, and they need to just get back and work on performance. Phoenix/Firebird was started because Mozilla was too bloated, because it had everything (including the kitchen sink) attached. They decided to take the core, slim it down, and just be a good fast browser. They've lost their way, and I hope they find their way back. Till then, I'll use Chrome.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by OakdaleMike

Is there any quasi-legal way to do this? That is, can you get a copy of an Apple OS without owning an Apple PC?

Yeah. You can buy OSX without owning a Mac. I'm running OSX right now on my HP Probook.

Originally Posted by OakdaleMike

This is a very real concern for those of us maintaining websites. If you make a significant change, you need to test it on all browsers. The sad truth is that none of them are totally standards-compliant and the only way to know what your users will experience is to test your site using their browsers.

My point is that losing the ability to test with Safari puts me at more risk with my Mac users. That's a shame. Apple, I'm not buying a Mac just to test my website. Your Machiavellian nonsense hurts your customers in the long run. But then, you've never really cared about that, have you?

Safari is Webkit based. You don't have to test your site on Safari, if another webkit browser renders it fine. For instance, Chrome is also webkit based, so will render webpages the same as Safari.

[tereza18gr]

Not a fan of it, either

[DarkScribe]

Originally Posted by LovesMacs

I think the other poster (forget who, sorry) is referring to using a Macintosh computer and using emulation to run Windows. Older Macs could do that with software emulation, which made Windows run slower than on a regular PC.

Newer Macs with Intel CPUs (I think that would be any Mac built in the past five years or so) can be set up to run Windows with software emulation as described above, or natively due to the CPU. The second one is supposed to be faster. I have not tried either myself so the speed comparison is just what I have heard from people who have.

I don't think you can legally run an Apple OS on non-Apple hardware, with the exception of some Apple clones from pre-OS X days. I think someone has been able to do it but I don't know the details.

As for Safari, I rarely use it on my Mac and use Firefox instead. I don't see a compelling reason why a Windows user would choose Safari over the many options out there, unless if he or she needed to test website compatibility.

No, the other poster is not talking about running Windows on a Mac - or anything similar. You can run Apple OS on quite a large number of Windows computers, as long as they are dual core Intels. It is done often.

As for the legality, if it wasn't legal, Apple would have stopped it by now. They love suing people and running Apple OS on Windows has been happening for several years. If you own the software licence you can install the software on whatever system you choose.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

No, the other poster is not talking about running Windows on a Mac - or anything similar. You can run Apple OS on quite a large number of Windows computers, as long as they are dual core Intels. It is done often.

As for the legality, if it wasn't legal, Apple would have stopped it by now. They love suing people and running Apple OS on Windows has been happening for several years. If you own the software licence you can install the software on whatever system you choose.

Just to clarify, it isn't running OSX on Windows, but rather running OSX on non-Apple hardware.

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

As for the legality, if it wasn't legal, Apple would have stopped it by now. (...) If you own the software licence you can install the software on whatever system you choose.

Here is an excerpt from the Mac OS X license:

This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.

There are any number of reasons why they may not be suing people.

1. The cost of tracking down and suing an individual probably exceeds the rewards for damages.
2. In many cases they would be suing people who buy Apple other products, which is bad PR.
3. That particular clause may or may not be legally binding. Apple won't know until they test it in court.