Apple Safari browser for Windows already exists with million
Posted by malebolgia on 06 June 2004 - 04:00 · 100 comments & 4750 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgia
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgiaContact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(2 replies)
#1 Posted by IcEr5K on 06 Jun 2004 - 04:05
- That's a lie. iTunes uses Internet Explorer.
-
(1 reply)
#2 Posted by ripgut on 06 Jun 2004 - 04:14
- who gives a **** as long as it works and as long as there is Limewire
-
#2.1 Posted by helloalexb on 07 Jun 2004 - 12:43
- along with lots of spyware
-
(1 reply)
#3 Posted by dannymp3 on 06 Jun 2004 - 04:15
- So there is a Safari browser for Windows? I can't find it.
-
(1 reply)
#4 Posted by oik on 06 Jun 2004 - 04:16
- i too thought that itunes was modified during the port process to move from webkit (safari) to internet explorer (mshtml.dll?).
-
#4.1 Posted by tapo on 07 Jun 2004 - 03:50
- Nay, still webkit.
It's a lot easier to port the core components of the browser then to rewrite the entire site to ensure compatibility with Internet Explorer. Remember, outside sites cannot access the iTunes Music Store, so it was designed entirely with KHTML (Aka Webkit, aka Safari) in mind.
-
(11 replies)
#5 Posted by imtoomuch on 06 Jun 2004 - 04:23
- Nevermind that this is a stupid "new" article, but if a stand alone version of Safari makes its way to Windows and is nearly as bad as iTunes or QuickTime I'll pass!
-
#5.1 Posted by Rudy on 06 Jun 2004 - 05:03
- if they were to release one, i bet it would be
for some reasons Apple CANNOT make a good app for pc lol -
#5.2 Posted by Mav Phoenix on 06 Jun 2004 - 06:27
- iTunes is fine, it's just a little sluggish. I think it's the same way on OS X though.
-
#5.3 Posted by ultima on 06 Jun 2004 - 08:03
QUOTE (#5.1) for some reasons Apple CANNOT make a good app for pc lol
-
#5.4 Posted by imtoomuch on 06 Jun 2004 - 08:05
QUOTE (#5.2) just a little sluggish
and that's acceptable to you? It's definitely not acceptable to me-
#5.5 Posted by Mav Phoenix on 06 Jun 2004 - 08:37
- Only with the scrolling does it bother me, but its pros more than make up for its cons imo.
-
#5.6 Posted by oik on 06 Jun 2004 - 12:22
- on osx, itunes is smooth as butter (i have 1100 songs in my library). on pc it's pretty bad though. then again, microsoft office on osx is a joke. perhaps this says something, like "we know what we know, and we know it well".
-
#5.7 Posted by MuD on 06 Jun 2004 - 14:22
QUOTE (#5.1) for some reasons Apple CANNOT make a good app for pc lol
That's true.
-
#5.8 Posted by Autumnmist on 06 Jun 2004 - 17:32
- Hmm... weird. For me, iTunes is as smooth as butter. The only media playing app faster than iTunes is Winamp but I prefer iTunes organization/library scheme.
-
#5.9 Posted by CrimandEvil on 06 Jun 2004 - 22:27
- That weird because it is pretty smooth for me, I have only 1710 songs in my library as well. I also use Winamp but I've switch for the most part to using iTunes.
-
#5.10 Posted by Jstphish on 07 Jun 2004 - 01:06
- Interesting, iTunes is faster than any other player out there for me but that is probably because my library is in the 3000 range. Winamp even scrolls slower and takes ages to add all the music I have. Foobar is even more of a nightmare and takes nearly 10-20 minutes to complete the song importing. I have a PIII 1Ghz machine and find that iTunes just plain works best for large libraries.
-
#5.11 Posted by tapo on 07 Jun 2004 - 03:54
- On my Windows partition, iTunes works pretty well. I have noticed it being sluggish when scrolling sometimes, as well as initial load time. But aside from that, it's one of the greatest MP3 players out there (if you have a large library.)
On my Mac, it's a hell of a lot faster then the Windows version. Very, very noticable. Loads in one second, scrolls instantly, etc. It seemed Apple cared more about preserving the look of iTunes when they ported it to Windows then they did about performance.
-
#6 Posted by Sn1p3t on 06 Jun 2004 - 04:24
- Sounds familiar.
OMFG! iTunes installs a browser by default and doesn't allow you to uninstall! LAWSUIT!
I love being a jackass.
-
(1 reply)
#7 Posted by MipScript on 06 Jun 2004 - 05:01
- I wonder if someone will write a program to uterlise the Safari built into iTunes as a stand alone browser?
-
(2 replies)
#8 Posted by Bizkit on 06 Jun 2004 - 05:09
- I thought that it was saying that Apple was bringing Safari out to Windows. I feel led on.
-
#8.1 Posted by code_monkey™ on 06 Jun 2004 - 06:32
- There is a KHTML-win32 port in the works (pre-alpha) or you can run cgywin and use Konqueror (the original KHTML browser).
-
(2 replies)
#9 Posted by MipScript on 06 Jun 2004 - 05:17
- Question: Does anyone know if Safari in iTunes is just using the IE shell or is it using it's own?
-
#10 Posted by Mr Mialo on 06 Jun 2004 - 06:31
- I am excited about this project but although the developer did a lot of initial work in the port of the engine, development has slowed down a lot.
-
(2 replies)
#11 Posted by the evn show on 06 Jun 2004 - 06:50
- iTunes doesn't use Webkit/KHTML on OS X, never mind on Windows.
QUOTE Macintosh System Requirements
Mac OS X v10.1.5 or later
Niether the current version of Safari nor 1.0 can be installed on OS X 10.1.5 - the require at least 10.2 (safari 1.2 is Panther only). iTunes wouldn't work on mac os 10.1 if it required webkit because it (webkit) isn't available at all on that operating system.
furthermore, examing the itunes application bundle you'll see it's linked against the following libraries:
libz, libsystem, iokit, veclib, agl, opengl, coreaudio, audiounit, coreservices, and systemconfiguration. Nowhere in that list do you see /system/library/frameworks/webkit.
If itunes on OS X doesn't use webkit, what makes you think the windows version does? Why wouldn't it use the same render engine that the mac os version does. Finally, one of the apple developers posted a bit of a debunking of this rumor when I first read about it two weeks ago. He said that iTMS sends iTunes XML files and that iTunes parses them and uses it's own renderer to display them which is independent of webkit (which is why itunes works on mac os 10.1/2)
(EDIT: It said safari when i meant itunes: thx oik)
Last edited by 13631 on 06 Jun 2004 - 18:47 -
#11.1 Posted by el22 on 06 Jun 2004 - 07:13
QUOTE He said that iTMS sends iTunes XML files and that iTunes parses them and uses it's own renderer to display them which is independent of webkit (which is why itunes works on mac os 10.1/2)
HTML can't lay out pages in the way ITMS has the song preview pages anyway.
-
(2 replies)
#12 Posted by altermind on 06 Jun 2004 - 07:20
- *sigh*.. they have no clue
besides.. sydneysiders have no clue... specially the hereld..... I should know.. I did work experiance there a few years ago..... ideots -
#12.1 Posted by lil_psc on 06 Jun 2004 - 07:55
- LOL
which SMH edition was this? how come i didnt see it? -
#12.2 Posted by underscore on 06 Jun 2004 - 12:42
- I hope you did proofreading.
-
(1 reply)
#13 Posted by MSN6 on 06 Jun 2004 - 07:54
- Is there a windows version? If so where to find it? Someone post a link to windows version
-
(13 replies)
#14 Posted by wa22guy on 06 Jun 2004 - 08:03
QUOTE (#12.0) ideots
You spelt idiots wrong... now who looks like an idiot-
#14.1 Posted by plasticparadox on 06 Jun 2004 - 08:10
QUOTE (#1.0) You spelt idiots wrong... now who looks like an idiot
You spelled 'spelt' wrong... now who looks like a mouron?-
#14.2 Posted by tterb on 06 Jun 2004 - 08:18
- you spelled "mouron" wrong...... now who looks moronic?
-
#14.5 Posted by theLANDofSMEG on 06 Jun 2004 - 09:29
- You all suck, I'm a moron.
-
#14.6 Posted by fpd on 06 Jun 2004 - 10:17
QUOTE (#14.4) Your grammer sucks, so who's the moron?
You spelled grammar wrong! -
#14.7 Posted by theLANDofSMEG on 06 Jun 2004 - 10:20
QUOTE (#14.6) You spelled grammar wrong!
LMAO, that was the first thing that I learnt at high school. When people mis-spell grammar, I still get a laugh.-
#14.8 Posted by DsnBehind on 06 Jun 2004 - 10:23
QUOTE (#14.5) You all suck, I'm a moron.
One vote for that.-
#14.13 Posted by Spike101M69 on 06 Jun 2004 - 20:35
- i love men
-
(7 replies)
#15 Posted by Bryan000 on 06 Jun 2004 - 08:18
- I would love to have Safari for Windows if it were faster and more responsive than iTunes. iTunes is huge and bloated -- but you could argue that it is because it includes ALL of Safari in it. If they trimmed it down it might be nice. But they should use the standard Windows GUI tools to develop it, No more of this custom itunes/quicktime looking junk that performs poorly on Windows unless you have a 1ghz+ processor and, for web browsing, you shouldn't need that
-
#15.1 Posted by MipScript on 06 Jun 2004 - 08:24
- Yer but who really cares lol i couldn't give a **** how large it is (like 19MB the setup file) and well we is all on broadband now days (apart from a selective few) we all got fast enough computers to run it so who really cares *yawn* its just a music player.. they only made it for Windows iPod users so ya cant really complain its free for a start.
-
#15.2 Posted by Mr Mialo on 06 Jun 2004 - 08:40
- Bryan000:
Have a look at my post,
http://www.neowin.net/comments.php?category=main&id=20997#comment230193 -
#15.3 Posted by The Napster on 06 Jun 2004 - 11:23
QUOTE (#15.1) its just a music player.. they only made it for Windows iPod users so ya cant really complain its free for a start.
Why not just make it use no prog, like iRiver. I just got the taste of loading songs onto an iPod *cough* hate it *cough*-
#15.4 Posted by threedaysdwn on 06 Jun 2004 - 18:47
- Yeah when I moved from my 5GB iPod to my 20GB iRiver player my FAVORITE feature (besides the near 20 hour battery life) is that it doesn't rely on some stupid application and ID3 tags to transfer files to the player.
With the iRiver is plugged in it is detected as a USB hard drive. I just drag my (pruned to fit 20GB) music folder to the iRiver's drive and voila!
It uses my folder structure as the interface and the filenames as the track titles. Sure, it can use ID3 tags just like the iPod does, but many of my files are not properly labeled or labeled at all, and I already have everything set up the way I like it on my PC.
One big problem with the iPod was that if a track did not have all of its ID3 tags filled in, the iPod simply wouldn't list it! It would transfer it, so the file would take up space.. but you couldn't play it!
The other major factor in my decision is that I use WM9 for most of my audio rips, and had to re-rip or transcode for the iPod. My iRiver can play MP3, WMA, Ogg, and more.
I moved to an iRiver and never looked back. -
#15.5 Posted by jasondefaoite on 07 Jun 2004 - 03:27
QUOTE (#15.4) With the iRiver is plugged in it is detected as a USB hard drive. I just drag my (pruned to fit 20GB) music folder to the iRiver's drive and voila!
It uses my folder structure as the interface and the filenames as the track titles. Sure, it can use ID3 tags just like the iPod does, but many of my files are not properly labeled or labeled at all, and I already have everything set up the way I like it on my PC.
So I guess smart playlists are out then-
#15.7 Posted by threedaysdwn on 07 Jun 2004 - 18:02
QUOTE (#15.5) So I guess smart playlists are out then
On the iRiver? I don't know, I've never tried one.
The iRiver does support .M3U (winamp / WMP) playlists. It also supports on-the-go creation of playlists, unlike the iPod (newer iPods can only use one on-the-go playlist and can't save it).
I'm pretty sure the iPod doesn't support smart playlists either.
Basically, the iRiver has all the features of my original iPod in the same form factor (actually slightly thinner, and lighter), but with a boatload of other features thrown in at the same price as a new iPod.
Optical in/out, line in/out, WMA/Ogg/MP3 VBR, I've heard FLAC might be supported in the future, includes a very useful remote, more than double the battery life of my ipod when it was new and won't deteriorate over time like the iPod did (my 5GB ipod's battery lasts about 2.5-3 hours ma
. I get 16-20 hours out of the iRiver on every charge.
And it's also much faster at transferring tracks (partly thanks to USB 2.0) than my firewire iPod.
Most importantly, I know that they won't release upgrades and firmware that only work on certain versions of the product and not others (you know, like Apple).
-
(9 replies)
#16 Posted by Cephas on 06 Jun 2004 - 10:02
- That's right. It's just a music player. I don't think Bryan000 was complaining about the download size; rather about the program's actual size and how much memory it wastes (~35 MB). A media player, let alone one that only plays music, shouldn't waste this many resources.
As for the slide-show resizing and scrolling, it's not much better on Macs. I have a 733 MHz G4 tower and my friend has a 1.25 GHz PowerBook with 1 GB of ram and they both load and run iTunes slowly. Safari is a lot faster than the Mac version of IE though. Nevertheless it only matches IE running in Windows for speed and I don't think it has much value running on Windows itself. The good thing about Safari is that it can render like IE without being as slow, whereas Mozilla is both slow and bad at rendering anything that doesn't strictly adhere to W3 specs. -
#16.1 Posted by Mr Mialo on 06 Jun 2004 - 10:12
- No, my reply to bryan000 is about when he said
QUOTE But they should use the standard Windows GUI tools to develop it
I was trying to say that some is trying to do this. Of course I am also advertising that project because no one seems to want to help it out.
If someone could help, we would have a KHTML browser for windows. -
#16.2 Posted by kitchenutensils on 06 Jun 2004 - 11:41
QUOTE whereas Mozilla is both slow and bad at rendering anything that doesn't strictly adhere to W3 specs.
mozilla + firefox easily render stuff not directly within W3 specs - i wonder if you have actually used firefox?-
#16.3 Posted by oik on 06 Jun 2004 - 12:30
- "I have a 733 MHz G4 tower and my friend has a 1.25 GHz PowerBook with 1 GB of ram and they both load and run iTunes slowly."
interesting, because my 1.5ghz powerbook with 512mb ram runs it smoothly with 1100 songs, and an ibook 500mhz g3 with 256mb ram runs (at least the scrolling) as fast as the port windows. obviously, without a good gpu under the hood, the ibook only pumps out a few fps in the visualizer.
Last edited by 51938 on 06 Jun 2004 - 13:52 -
#16.4 Posted by ~~NeYo~~ on 06 Jun 2004 - 13:37
- I have no speed issues with iTunes on my Dual 2GHz system
-
#16.5 Posted by threedaysdwn on 06 Jun 2004 - 18:37
QUOTE (#16.2) mozilla + firefox easily render stuff not directly within W3 specs - i wonder if you have actually used firefox?
I tried FireFox. It was both slow and sloppy. It renders pages in the headache-inducing manner of displaying each chunk of text or image as its loaded and constantly changes the layout. On a page that takes 3 seconds to load, it's enough to cause seizures!
FireFox also cannot properly navigate my company's SharePoint site. That's a big problem for me.
-
#16.7 Posted by jasondefaoite on 07 Jun 2004 - 03:30
QUOTE (#16.5) FireFox also cannot properly navigate my company's SharePoint site. That's a big problem for me.
What's the problem. Is this Sharepoint 2001 or 2003? It works great with the 2003 version. Its been a while since I used it on 2001, had some security problems, needed to set the server to accept non encypted passwords (cleartext)... nah-
#16.8 Posted by threedaysdwn on 07 Jun 2004 - 18:04
- It's a WSS 2003 site. FireFox can render the home page but doesn't interact well with certain Web Parts. It cannot navigate form libraries at all.
-
#16.9 Posted by threedaysdwn on 07 Jun 2004 - 18:07
QUOTE (#16.6) are you on aol 28k?
I first tried FireFox when I was on a gigabit connection to Sprint in Rochester. I also tried it at home on my 3mbps cable modem most recently.
So, no.
If I were, the paint-one-object-at-a-time method of rendering in FireFox might be more bearable. But on broadband rendering like that is absolutely pointless, since most pages load in 2-3 seconds anyway. When the screen is repainted 100 times as FireFox sorts out the page's layout during those 2 seconds, it's a real eyesore.
-
#17 Posted by DsnBehind on 06 Jun 2004 - 10:24
QUOTE So arguably the quickest, most standards compliant browser around...
Quit congratulating yourselves: you're not that sexy.
-
(2 replies)
#18 Posted by Tom Servo on 06 Jun 2004 - 10:50
- Maybe it's just me, but the browser in iTunes was dogslow compared to IE and Mozilla.
-
#18.1 Posted by tapo on 07 Jun 2004 - 04:03
- Yeah, because it's encrypted, and it's not HTML, though I wish it was. It would make everything a hell of a lot faster...
-
(1 reply)
#19 Posted by mko on 06 Jun 2004 - 10:53
- Screw Apple. I'll stick to Firefox, Winamp and Quicktime Alternative.
Long live freeware alternatives!
-
(1 reply)
#20 Posted by MOGua on 06 Jun 2004 - 11:22
QUOTE the quickest, most standards compliant browser around
Hells no.
Check here for the REAL quickest browsers...
http://www.24fun.com/downloadcenter/benchjs/benchjs.html
Safari is slow...-
#20.1 Posted by tapo on 07 Jun 2004 - 04:11
- Ahh, well thank you for informing me that some other browser can do Javascript faster then Safari. We all know how gigantically important Javascript speed is, I want those popup ads as soon as possible!
(I'm a Firefox user on Mac, Linux and Windows though. Safari has a few bugs.)
-
(2 replies)
#21 Posted by oik on 06 Jun 2004 - 12:41
- you're kidding me, right?
"test the JavaScript Speed of your PC"
i ran the test, and it has nothing to do with rendering or webpages at all, ONLY javascript.
that's helpful, if say, i want to benchmark how fast my computer can open a pop-up window.
go look at sites that have actually tested rendering because that test is worthless. -
#21.1 Posted by 123_kid on 06 Jun 2004 - 20:01
- JavaScript is a part of web pages the last time I checked. Therefore, one could say that if browser A, let's call it Opera has much better javascript performance than browser B, let's call that one FireFox, one could reasonably infer that browser A is faster than browser B. As it pertains to a site that measures page rendering, I just tried a rendering test and Opera 7.51 finished in 1048ms while FireFox .8 got 2063ms. The rendering test was here, http://xkr.us/bench/tables.html .
-
#22 Posted by Inspire on 06 Jun 2004 - 13:51
- I'll stick with IE...
-
#23 Posted by kioria on 06 Jun 2004 - 14:55
- World against Microsoft.
-
#24 Posted by ThunderRiver on 06 Jun 2004 - 15:06
- That's a lie.. how can safari is lite when we have to use it in slow and memory hoggy iTune? They either make it standalone or stop bs about their stuff
-
#25 Posted by Xenobane on 06 Jun 2004 - 16:20
- Million using Safari! Isnt that amazing?
But then, there are prolly billian using IE.
-
#26 Posted by Ciderx on 06 Jun 2004 - 16:43
- So there's a web browser in iTunes? That goes a long way to explain why it take so much memory!
-
(4 replies)
#27 Posted by TruckWEB on 06 Jun 2004 - 16:57
- What's wrong with iTune for Windows? I'm using it with my iPod with over 2300 songs in MP3 and in Apple AAC format and it works great! It has tons of nice features. My PC run with Intel P4 2.6 Mhz with 512Mb RAM....
Sluggish? Try Windows Media Player, just opening the thing takes time.... WMP 10 is a tad faster but not by much. -
#27.1 Posted by bogd on 06 Jun 2004 - 17:59
- it's probably because the kids here are running iTunes on their mom's computer that she bought back in 1998. It runs fine on my AMD 1GHz system and it runs great on my p4 3.0E GHz HT system
-
#27.2 Posted by threedaysdwn on 06 Jun 2004 - 18:30
- Problems:
-iTunes for Windows runs 2 processes on start-up, it also uses a very large chunk of memory.
-The interface is both boring and cumbersome. Sadly, the exact opposite of the iPod's slick and versatile interface.
-The AAC format (especially using Apple's encoder) is rubbish. Even lowly 128kbps MP3 surpasses AAC in terms of quality. And Apple's DRM system is a big problem for those like me who run multiple computers, OSes, and format often.
-"Smart Playlists" are not nearly as nice as WMP's "autoplaylists"
-WMP starts up significantly faster on my system. In fact, I've yet to see a reasonably spec'd computer not start-up WMP instantaneously. I am assuming, of course, that you don't have it default to the media guide (which is both slow and useless). -
#27.3 Posted by Himosan on 06 Jun 2004 - 19:20
QUOTE The AAC format (especially using Apple's encoder) is rubbish. Even lowly 128kbps MP3 surpasses AAC in terms of quality. And Apple's DRM system is a big problem for those like me who run multiple computers, OSes, and format often.
Put down the crack pipe. AAC ~ OGG ~ WMA for quality. And Itunes can burn your precious mp3 format anyhow, FOR FREE. DRM: yeah, MS DRM works great with multiple OS's. -
#27.4 Posted by Jstphish on 07 Jun 2004 - 01:19
QUOTE (#27.2) -The AAC format (especially using Apple's encoder) is rubbish. Even lowly 128kbps MP3 surpasses AAC in terms of quality.
Are you crazy!? Everyone knows that AAC (mpeg4) sounds loads better at 128kbps than mp3 at 128kbps; even the listening tests confirm that. I think you need to get your hearing checked.
"Apple, along with KHTML, Opera and Mozilla, may have two or three years to innovate on the browser front, without any competition from Microsoft," Allsopp writes. "And Apple might just have found the killer app to drive people to adopt a new, lightweight, fast, open source based, standards-compliant multi-platform browser - mainstream commercial online music."
UltraISO supports more than 27 data CD image formats, including BlinkWrite (*.BWI/*.BWT), CDSpace (*.LCD), CDRWin (*.BIN/*.CUE), CloneCD (*.IMG/*.CCD), DiscJuggler (*.CDI), Duplicator (*.TAO/*.DAO), Easy CD Creator(*.CIF), Fantom CD (*.MDF/*.MDS), Farstone Virtual Drive (*.VCD), Gear (*.p01/*.md1/*.xa), Instant Copy (*.pdi), Nero - Burning ROM (*.NRG), Noum Vapor CDROM (*.VaporCD), NTI CD-Maker (*.NCD), Prassi (*.GCD/*.GI), VCDROM Extension (*.FCD), Virtual CD (*.VC4/ *.000), Virtuo CD Manager (*.VDI), WinOnCD (*.C2D).
It can handle DVD image up to 10GB, and open Audio CD image(.NRG), Video CD image, or disk image(.IMA) as well.