Apple Releases Safari 3.1

I used to think the same thing, but Safari is actually a very useful browser, especially if you use OS X since it integrates nicely with other standard OS X apps such as mail. For the average OS X user Safari does just fine I think. It come with the OS and it works well (I don't know how fast it is as compared to Firefox or IE 7). http://www.chipnit.com

I personally prefer Safari in OSX to firefox. I prefer the native fit-and-finish in the UI and it's superior speed and resource utilization and the .mac bookmark syncing. I have virtually no issues with site compatibility that firefox can help (since the sites most likely to be broken are IE-only anyway). But then, I don't use or see much need for extensions. Safari on windows has a pretty simple objective: allow windows-based web developers to access the same rendering engine as the iPhone. It secondarily allows those people that on windows that really like Apple's design approach to extend their use of Apple software to web browsing, but that's a niche after-thought. I think Apple could be putting together a suite of applications for Windows users that gives them a taste of the mac experience as a carrot towards the switch to mac. And itunes and Safari seem to be showing they're at least competent at Windows software development (zdnet does confirm Apple's claim that Safari is the fastest browser on windows). I think you need to add up iTunes, Safari, QuickTime, Airport Utility with the key hub: Apple software update. iTunes is a trojan horse to Apple Software Update, which is a very simple mechanism for Apple to role out new Windows software on a large scale. I could imagine a time when Apple rolls out an API layer that enables some mac software to be cross-platform while retaining the Mac look-and-feel as safari seems to do. Ultimately, this suite of software is an on-ramp to Apple hardware sales.

Paul: I think Apple just raised the bar for future IE and Firefox releases with HTML 5 and CSS 3 support (Web fonts, CSS animations). While the IE team is focusing on CSS 2.1 (which they should have implemented years ago) and Firefox is fighting memory holes Safari is quietly innovating. Lets face it: web fonts are a designer dream. So far special fonts needed flash, png, silverlight or other tricks to appear on web pages. You can buy a font for $10-$35 and get rid of hours, maybe days of work in third party tools.

Paul, can you really say apple's speed claims are hyperbole without any effort to show they are not true?

Sacred, you said it for sure. IE 7 slowed my laptop so much that I reinstalled XP and then had to block IE7 so that Microsoft wouldn't sneak it in in one of the automatic updates. When they first rolled out IE7 thru auto-update, many of us found out that it was not compatible with using the browser to view images [xray, MRI, CT, PET, etc...] from the hospital, which is how we take call. They were screwed and took hours to remove it or reinstall. They just updated the IE plug-in so that it is now compatible, but it is dog slow on older computers. Of course, I prefer FF on my Mac.

John... its amusing (in a sad, embarrassed for you sort of way) to watch you post. When you're not handing out glasses of Kool Aid, you're leveling personal attacks ("pathetic", "hack") and resorting to hyperbole ("NOT ONE" ...link please?) to try and make your case. Of all the people here to call others out on their "blind following" or hatred of ANYTHING, you're certainly one of the least qualified.

Befusion, You're right that I shouldn't have lost my cool with the "pathetic hack" slam. Sorry W. But "Waethorn"s inability to confront information or concede points is just incredibly frustrating. I'm not here spewing hate though. I'm simply defending my platform in posts that relate to it. I'm critical of Microsoft's monopoly abuses, but I'm also willing to acknowledge their successes and strengths, unlike mr. Apple-basher. Again, Paul's dig about "ceaseless hyperbole" sets the stage here, as Apple's claims regarding Safari's speed are legit. It's the fastest browser on the market. It's not necessarily "the best" for all users. But it is the fastest and in my opinion has the most elegant UI. I understand Waethorn's criticism of Apple's strategy with iTunes+Quicktime+Apple Software Update bundle. It's a legitimate thing to grumble about I guess... though the apps are free and don't spew ads like so much of the trialware garbage out there on shelves of every computer retail store. it doesn't bother me, but I get it. Still, Waethorn is an unreasonable Apple-basher. He comes into these discussions, drums up every criticism and divorces it from the wider context or the truth. He's a cherry picker and poor arguer. He'd earn my respect far more if he could stay with one point and have a discussion as I've had with other users, instead of descend into the rathole of cherry-picked line-by-line snark like "pot meet kettle" or "tell that to EU antitrust regulators" who, by the way, have not fined Apple a single nickel (to my knowledge) yet or found them guilty of anything (though they may, given that their a bunch of anti-american socialists). I stand with Paul in defense of Microsoft against the EU's vague and vindictive bloodletting. Above is a great example of Waethorn's dishonesty. He lifted the critical part of Paul's iTunes 7.4 review conclusion as a refutation of my statement that Paul thinks iTunes is the best media jukebox. But if you look at the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH, it goes like this... "That all said, as deals with the devil go, iTunes offers some appetizing fruit. Performance issues notwithstanding, I still find it to be the nicest jukebox out there for organizing my music collection, and I've never seen anything like it for podcasts. (Microsoft? Anyone out there?) And of course, I'm firmly in the iPod camp for good reason: Apple's devices are simply the best there is, and if using iTunes is the price one has to pay, then that's hardly a punishment. I use iTunes because I want to. My issue with it is that so many people use it because they have to." Now... if Waethorn had any shred of intellectual honesty, he would weigh these discussions on both sides, conceding the positive while pressing his criticisms. He has a right to hate Apple. That's fine. But his style of argument is limp, lame and dishonest. Paul's conclusion here supports both our points in different ways. He uses iTunes because he wants to, while at the same time bemoaning the lock-in. But no. Waethorn can't acknowledge my simple statement of fact. Paul thinks itunes is the best jukebox and uses it because he wants to. IT'S RIGHT THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE. He totally dodged my criticism of his "iPod = Kleenex" nonsense and misdirected my iPod marketshare remark by talking about how iPod sales growth is slowing. Well, W, if iPod sales slow, but they're still selling faster then the rest of the industry (which they are) and taking a larger share of the overall pie (which I believe they are) you've actually made no point, have you? I hate DRM lock-in as much as the next guy. My only defense of Apple in that arena is that they have solid history of making every effort to defend the consumer on price and seek DRM-free music from the labels and generally advocate the use of standards. But there's legit criticism to be had here against Apple. Of course, it applies to Microsoft equally, given the Zune's DRM lock-in and the fact that iTunes is the only cross-platform DRM'd media store. So, yeah, another stupid long post from yours truly. I'm sure Waethorn won't address my points, because I'm pretty sure he'd have to admit I'm right on some of them and he'd rather just redirect. To me, that makes him a hack. But I will try to keep that kind of thing softer.

The point is for it to innovate, the way Apple does. And for Microsoft to then copy. Same with the iPod, iPhone, Mac.

Drylight. In all fairness, Microsoft does innovate sometimes, and they also are sometimes the ones that enter the market and demonstrate early mistakes. It's risk taking they deserve some credit for, like with Media Center. They got there way ahead of Apple and have made it better and better. But... again... what Microsoft gets so very wrong is fundamental user issues. They don't seem to "get" what people want (or will want) the way Apple does. Who was asking for song "squirting"? Nobody. And yet out comes Zune with wireless sharing as it's marquee feature. Xbox 360 delivers a very solid home theater experience... except that their terrible engineering means that it's WAY too loud to watch movies on, and the anti-consumer, carnival-life "Microsoft Points" system alienates anyone with a brain. And Apple doesn't always "innovate" in the sense that they create a new concept. Apple ultimately is a company built on quality execution of products that answer a real consumer need. Microsoft still remains a platform company built on selling OEM's on solutions to problems that often don't (yet) exist. Tablet PC anyone?

Dipsht, I'm not saying that tablet is a bad idea, or doesn't have a few tiny niches, but if you compare Bill Gate's "vision" for tablet PC as the mainstream laptop for the masses and it's reality in the market, you have to admit that the tablet in it's current form doesn't solve enough problems for people to care. I'm not sure why that is, other than the fact that most people don't stand all day with their computers and are faster and better at typing than writing.

"few tiny niches" Education is a tiny niche? It makes such perfect sense, to be taking notes on your Tablet PC, and there are an awful lot of students out there, so that is still a very ripe market for such a change. "solutions to problems that often don't (yet) exist." Isn't that what a visionary company is supposed to do? Note that I'm not going to make the assertion that MS is the supreme innovator, but the Tablet PC is quite a good product, and solves a lot of problems that exist. And with a high quality OEM like Fujitsu, they have a wide variety of models for every purpose.