someguy03 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Excellent example of how many posts on Neowin are mostly ignorance. Roflcopter. People are going to see "World's Best Browser" and expect something, regardless of the fact that it says beta. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giga Veteran Posted June 12, 2007 Veteran Share Posted June 12, 2007 People are going to see "World's Best Browser" and expect something, regardless of the fact that it says beta. Period. It was (and still is for me) the best browser on the mac. They just ported it to Windows so of course they'll run into trouble with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigapixels Veteran Posted June 12, 2007 Veteran Share Posted June 12, 2007 People are going to see "World's Best Browser" and expect something, regardless of the fact that it says beta. Period. Once again, that's ignorance. Beta is beta, period. If people believe whatever a company says about their own product, that's pure ignorance. I would hope that by now most people knew that every company hypes up their products and in many cases says they're the best at whatever they do. That's completely normal, and I hope that people no longer believe such things right off the bat and instead try the products first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wanderermy Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 uh how you play flash on Safari for Windows? (ie Youtube) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someguy03 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 It was (and still is for me) the best browser on the mac. They just ported it to Windows so of course they'll run into trouble with that. Well yes it has proven itself on the mac, but it has yet to prove itself on the windows platform. Until then, it shouldn't be given that label. And to gigapixels, there are so many degrees of "beta", as I believe I said before. Some are ready to be shown off to the world, some are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreadBoat89 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 I'm assuming you didn't start using Firefox betas until after 1.0, or even 2.0, right? If that's the case, you have no clue what you're talking about. If that isn't the case, then you have a really bad memory. buddy... i've been using firefox since it first came out 0.x builds, and i had no problems with it. Many of the betas i've used have been really stable with a few glitches now and then. no you cannot say a beta is a beta. betas should have some degree of stability. read what has happened. people cannot display pages, cannot install, cant get safari to work. this is not a beta (quality wise). this public beta is like an alpha stage. heck even firefox 3.0a1 was more stable than this bloated thing. "beta is a beta" - you are in denial my friend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Express Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Thank god they released this. Its going to be easier to test for Safari compatibility at work. We don't to buy an Apple computer anymore just for testing webpages. I find that "1.6x faster than Ffx, twice as fast as IE" funny though. Apple has got the ratios wrong. This is much slower than IE and Firefox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigapixels Veteran Posted June 12, 2007 Veteran Share Posted June 12, 2007 buddy... i've been using firefox since it first came out 0.x builds, and i had no problems with it. Many of the betas i've used have been really stable with a few glitches now and then.no you cannot say a beta is a beta. betas should have some degree of stability. read what has happened. people cannot display pages, cannot install, cant get safari to work. this is not a beta (quality wise). this public beta is like an alpha stage. heck even firefox 3.0a1 was more stable than this bloated thing. I never had too many problems either, but just because you and I didn't, doesn't mean they weren't there. There were random problems, just like for this Safari beta. And seriously, stop bringing up the current Firefox alphas/betas. They have a stable codebase, whereas this is the first public Safari for Windows build. The codebase is still being stabilized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoubleThink Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Wow. Really, Wow. Safari is very nice. It's far faster at loading and rendering web pages to Microsoft's Internet Explorer 7 under Vista. Far far faster. I still love my Firefox but Safari is now my #2 browser, followed by Opera and IE is #4, it's a shocker. Good work Apple! Thanks Mr Jobs. (Y) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Express Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 ^^I am so confused. Is he using the same Safari that I downloaded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someguy03 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 I never had too many problems either, but just because you and I didn't, doesn't mean they weren't there. There were random problems, just like for this Safari beta.And seriously, stop bringing up the current Firefox alphas/betas. They have a stable codebase, whereas this is the first public Safari for Windows build. The codebase is still being stabilized. If you go on the Firefox website, you do not see any sign of the Firefox 3.0 beta's at all on the homepage. Why? Because Mozilla doesn't want millions of people downloading a product that isn't ready for wide release. If 3.0 was all over the Firefox homepage, stupid people who don't understand beta's and testing are going to download Firefox 3.0 and get screwed over when they can't figure out why nothing works. It is common knowledge that if you are going to slap your beta on the front of your website, it must be pretty far done. Ask any geek. You said yourself that Firefox is more stable than Safari, and if Mozilla 3.0 isn't ready to be given out to the whole world, then Safari certainly is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giga Veteran Posted June 12, 2007 Veteran Share Posted June 12, 2007 Well yes it has proven itself on the mac, but it has yet to prove itself on the windows platform. Until then, it shouldn't be given that label. Come on, you know yourself that the majority of Apple users are Safari users as well--it's mine and many others' best option on that platform so of course they would label it as that. The Windows beta seems more like a tryout than anything else. Quote from Steve himself(http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/11/steve-jobs-live-from-wwdc-2007/): "It's a free beta, apple.com/safari and who knows, maybe we can grow our Safari share in the future, we can sure try." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tech Star Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 I dislike it. Its slow, text looks funky and bold in it, no spell check, and it looks way better on Mac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigapixels Veteran Posted June 12, 2007 Veteran Share Posted June 12, 2007 If you go on the Firefox website, you do not see any sign of the Firefox 3.0 beta's at all on the homepage. Why? Because Mozilla doesn't want millions of people downloading a product that isn't ready for wide release. If 3.0 was all over the Firefox homepage, stupid people who don't understand beta's and testing are going to download Firefox 3.0 and get screwed over when they can't figure out why nothing works. It is common knowledge that if you are going to slap your beta on the front of your website, it must be pretty far done. Ask any geek. You said yourself that Firefox is more stable than Safari, and if Mozilla 3.0 isn't ready to be given out to the whole world, then Safari certainly is not. Because Firefox currently has a mainstream release out! Before 1.0, when all they had were 0.x betas, they WERE on the home page, just like what Apple is doing with Safari now. Once again, don't compare the current Firefox alphas/betas to what is happening with Safari right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattisking Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 I'm very underwhelmed... On XP at the office it doesn't work at all. No fonts are displayed... you can't type in it. It's totally broken. At home on Vista it looks pretty I suppose but crashed immediately upon going to a Flash site and lots of times I would have to forcibly refresh things to get anything to show at all. This is remarkably poor quality for a Beta. If they called it an Alpha I'd feel much better about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someguy03 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Because Firefox currently has a mainstream release out! Before 1.0, when all they had were 0.x betas, they WERE on the home page, just like what Apple is doing with Safari now. Once again, don't compare the current Firefox alphas/betas to what is happening with Safari right now. There is a difference between the builds that you find in the "nightly builds" folder on a server and the builds you find published on the front of a website. When firefox alpha's/betas were out, the entire world didn't know about it. I bet almost no one knew what it was. But everyone knows about Apple, and everyone is going to hear about Safari on Windows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harlem39s Finest Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 itunes = bloatware Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreadBoat89 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 This is remarkably poor quality for a Beta. If they called it an Alpha I'd feel much better about it. Thank you for saying that! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giga Veteran Posted June 12, 2007 Veteran Share Posted June 12, 2007 itunes = bloatware On Windows probably but it's quite smooth in OS X. Apple should just leave their native apps out of windows honestly--just doesn't seem to work as well as they do in OS X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southside Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Posting this from Safari. For now no problems at all. Everything is working fine. Vista Ultimate 32bits. Only problem that it is very very VERY slow loading up pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berserk87 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 im open to try it out, if its faster ill probly use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semifamous Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Because Firefox currently has a mainstream release out! Before 1.0, when all they had were 0.x betas, they WERE on the home page, just like what Apple is doing with Safari now. Once again, don't compare the current Firefox alphas/betas to what is happening with Safari right now. What if we compare this to Phoenix 0.1? Or Mozilla M1? You know, if someone's making a browser, the least it should do is render a frikkin webpage! If it can't render a webpage, what good is it? That's all I'm saying! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigapixels Veteran Posted June 12, 2007 Veteran Share Posted June 12, 2007 There is a difference between the builds that you find in the "nightly builds" folder on a server and the builds you find published on the front of a website. When firefox alpha's/betas were out, the entire world didn't know about it. I bet almost no one knew what it was. But everyone knows about Apple, and everyone is going to hear about Safari on Windows. And how exactly is everyone going to hear about this? Word of mouth, right? And perhaps the random person that decided to vista Apple's website (which is even more random on Windows). That's is exactly how people heard about Phoenix when it was first being developed. By the way, where are you getting nightly builds from? I never brought that up, and I was referring to the builds linked to on Mozilla.org's homepage when Phoenix was being developed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someguy03 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 (edited) Why don't you try going to Yahoo! News and going to the technology section. Because you know..no one reads that. and I am betting this will be published in local newspapers. I'm going to with GP02X and say that this should be called an Alpha, not a beta. And I am saying that the quality of Apple's product is somethign that deserves to be on a nightly builds section and not on the front of a website (or they can stick it on the front of their website, but they shoudl call it an alpha). Edited June 12, 2007 by someguy03 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigapixels Veteran Posted June 12, 2007 Veteran Share Posted June 12, 2007 What if we compare this to Phoenix 0.1?Or Mozilla M1? You know, if someone's making a browser, the least it should do is render a frikkin webpage! If it can't render a webpage, what good is it? That's all I'm saying! I'm sure there were plenty of people with the same issue on the first public Mozilla or Phoenix builds. But there were plenty of people that didn't have that issue, and don't with Safari, such as myself. BETA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts