| 8:52 pm on Jun 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Hmmm, that's pretty ground breaking news!
Now I have a reason to force my graphics department to install and start using Safari. ;)
| 8:58 pm on Jun 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|IE for Mac is slow as a slug and filled with bugs and will probably be discontinued too (rumors). |
He he he! [webmasterworld.com] ;)
Thanks to Apple for Safari....
IE was installed by default, but still defective... for over 5 years now. RIP IE for Mac.
[edited by: Macguru at 9:15 pm (utc) on June 13, 2003]
| 9:14 pm on Jun 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
How utterly irrelevant: "Apple has better resources because they have Safari and the operating system." What does the OS have to do with writing a browser?
| 9:19 pm on Jun 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Just like that since 1984, drbrain.
It just works...
Did you try Safari?
| 9:27 pm on Jun 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Well, that quote does confirm the MS attitude towards the browser / operating system: in the MS view of the world, the two should be (or need to be?) fused together.
Then to top it off, they need to also include by way of that, security bugs proprietary to the fusion that they view as necessary & incompatibility with the only web standards organization that we have. :(
Seems to me not a very friendly way of doing things...would be nice if MS would actually consider trying to make things 'better' instead of simply 'more easily controlled'.
| 9:35 pm on Jun 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I see this as a not so good thing. although safari is cool and quick and all that great stuff its another product being pulled for the mac. :/ oh well, they never had the SDK development kits available for IE for the Mac as far as I could tell anyways.
| 10:31 pm on Jun 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I don't have a Mac (yet) but my buddy works for OmniGroup (makers of OmniWeb, if it wasn't obvious) and I go over there for dinner alot, and get to see the cool stuff they're doing to OmniWeb. Last Tues, I got to see a really cool bug in an FPS they are porting. (Sadly, I can't reveal any details about that kind of stuff.)
| 8:19 am on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Hmmm .... yah, Safari ... it's by far the fastest browser i've ever seen. It's absolutely amazing - Safari rocks, really! And as a mac user i'd say: what is better than using a original apple browser!?
I'd second Macguru's comment: RIP IE for Mac! >:)
OSX is getting more and more a hub for your digital life (iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iCal, Safari ...). Now even Quark is available for the OSX. Many people will finally move now! Way to go!
| 12:23 pm on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
| 1:32 pm on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
My reasons for a clear no:
- Opera is at least 25 to 50% slower than apple's safari - my current machine here at home is a ibook 900 Mhz, OSX 10.2.6, dsl over airport. I just compared loading and rendering WebmasterWorld index and this thread (didn't measure the difference exactly since its obvious enough). Both sites were not cached. Both browsers are not customized - just installed and launched. However, i'm in the progress of updating my emac to the same osx version and try to compare the both browsers there as well.
- I'll never pay for any browser (opera is at 39$). Allready payed for the ibook which is ready to run the super fast and quite smart safari browser. (BTW: where are the ads that should be shown with the free version of opera?)
I really don't know how the apple engineers tuned the safari browser but it's quite unbelievable, really! I know Brett, you're a old opera fan (if i remember right), but have you ever tried safari?
<added>... allthough opera is still at least 100% faster than the newest msie.</added>
| 2:23 pm on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I've d/led the trial a few times and couldn't get past the ads..I even went so far as to *try* to think.."okay how would this feel without ads"..and it kinda went like this;
"oh..never mind" > drag to trash.
I think they would do a lot better with a standard full version 30 day trial. I doubt they are making money on the ads, and it only gives the product a bad smell.
| 2:47 pm on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Don't want to sound pedantic but here are some impressive numbers - tested with the above mentioned iBook:
Widgets [catalogues.google.com] at Google Catalogues:
Safari 5 Seconds
Opera 15 Seconds
Flowers [catalogues.google.com] at Google Catalogues:
Safari 6 Seconds
Opera 26 Seconds
Jeans [catalogues.google.com] at Google Catalogues:
Safari 6 Seconds
Opera 13 Seconds
To me it looks like Opera is quite as fast as Safari with tiny page, pages with few graphics and clean hmtl code. The more graphics the longer it takes to finish loading and thus rendering. Also Safari slows down whit pages that have a lot of graphics but not as significant as Opera.
... hmmm ...
As i said, i'll to the same test with another machine to backup the numbers.
| 2:50 pm on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Now I can be 100% MS free!
| 3:02 pm on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>I see this as a not so good thing. although safari is cool and quick and all that great stuff its another product being pulled for the mac
I'm with EliteWeb on this. I see it as a very cagey, long-term move made to further undermine mac marketshare among those deciding which OS road they want to take.
| 3:02 pm on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Sounds like good news. Maybe people are now forced to think about web standards a bit more, not just "Will my site work in all IE versions".
| 3:10 pm on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I see this as a related move (though MS has now said this isn't a done deal):
|Microsoft is phasing out stand-alone versions of its Internet Explorer Web browser, according to statements attributed to IE programme manager Brian Countryman in an interview posted on Microsoft's Web site. |
| 3:28 pm on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Microsoft is phasing out stand-alone versions of its Internet Explorer Web browser
So MSIE will be built into the winos as part of it, right!? Wouldn't this reactivate the old legal complains?
| 3:36 pm on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>So MSIE will be built into the winos as part of it, right!? Wouldn't this reactivate the old legal complains?
Its an MS sidestep..explorer can't be "bundled", so discontinue explorer.
MS has already made it clear that an OS is crippled by not integrating a browser, so I'm sure the next OS will include a browser (it just won't be IE).
| 3:41 pm on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>it just won't be IE
Still don't have it ... does this mean the legal actions are bound only to the Internet Explorer product name? So if the name changes or the product as is disappears, the legal actions will no longer be relevant?
| 3:46 pm on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>Wouldn't this reactivate the old legal complains?
I guess it won't.
They reverse the strategy. They used Windows market share dominance to push IE, now they use the browser market share dominance to force people to upgrade Windows. Not the same. ;)
As we all know, M$ treathened Apple to stop developpement of Office for Mac, back in Feb 1999 if they didn't make IE the Macintosh default browser. They succeeded. Done deal, they dont care anymore. I believe that pulling IE for Mac is not related to any strategic move.
As john316 sayd, it's just a side app.
[edited by: Macguru at 3:48 pm (utc) on June 14, 2003]
| 3:47 pm on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>the legal actions will no longer be relevant?
That would be a pretty good motivation to "discontinue" IE and bring it back in some judgement compliant reincarnation.
| 3:52 pm on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Being an Windows Opera fan, I tried Opera 6 for Mac went it first came out. Frankly, Opera 6 for Mac felt worse than the old Opera 5 for Windows - a real step back. It would hardly display or let me post in most forums.
After 2 weeks I scrapped it and went to Moz. Then Safari came out and I use it mostly now.
I hear Opera 7 is being developed for Mac so I'll try it when it comes out.
As for IE, as a program it is no great loss. And for hard core Mac users they won't miss it. But I have to agree with EliteWeb and RCJ, withdrawal of MS browser will effect _switchers_ contemplating a change from Windows to Mac. It decreases the comfort zone buyers need for that kind of purchase decision.
| 4:07 pm on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>They reverse the strategy. They used Windows market share dominance
>to push IE, now they use the browser market share dominance to
>force people to upgrade Windows.
>a pretty good motivation to "discontinue" IE and bring
>it back in some judgement compliant reincarnation.
I fear that's in fact the strategy. Damn, alltough i understand the reaction of ms (remember the move campaign, now safari ...) the above strategy really would suck!
[edited by: Yidaki at 4:08 pm (utc) on June 14, 2003]
| 4:08 pm on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
You have macs, you have knowledge of the OS and the browser options. But consider a small business or individual just now deciding on some hardware. Today, CNN Headline news (seriously, just saw this) is telling millions of them that MS isn't going to bother with a Mac browser and -switch to Gateway ad- that you can get a complete PC for $499 or laptop for $799 w/ free shipping.
Sorry MG, shall we agree to disagree? I do see this as a strategic move. I think potential mac clients depended on a certain degree of symbiosis with the world's most popular browser. Noboby wants to buy into a nuisance, and I think MS just declared mac to be just that.
Now, from the site developer's side this is just another nail in the coffin. It'll be up to safari and (on Apple's dime) to emulate the IE browser 'experience' for the masses.
| 4:27 pm on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Better yet, I wish Jobs would quit holding onto the hardware margin and just port OSX to intel (Darwin already runs on intel) and let the OS war begin in earnest.
I don't think anyone in their right mind would go with XP if they could have X.
[edited by: john316 at 4:31 pm (utc) on June 14, 2003]
| 4:29 pm on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|It'll be up to safari and (on Apple's dime) to emulate the IE browser 'experience' for the masses. |
I think rc brings up an excellent point.
My personal feelings are that Mac will eventually lose market share as PC continues to improve compatibility issues that have long plagued Mac users.
I know of a very large International company with headquarters here in California who have replaced all of their Macs with PCs. Oh, they do have one Mac left, but now there are thousands of PCs in place of the Macs.
This company brought in a new IT guru who told all the designers that the Macs must go, imagine that! Well, they went and in came the PCs. There was a small learning curve involved but after about 3 months, all the Mac users were converts.
I've been working on both Mac and PC since the early 90s. My feeling is Mac was never designed for Internet browsing. It is a graphics workstation/workhorse. Of course that has changed over the years, but there has always been problems with the users browsing experience on a Mac, always!
I hate to say it, but I am now less dependant on the Mac then I was a year ago. I'm in the process of purchasing a new home computer system and that will now replace my daily trips to the office so that I can design on the Macs. Most, if not all of the compatibility issues have been addressed. I look at the large company mentioned above and see how they've successfully made the transition from Mac and PC. It's time for me to do the same.
Most of us live in a MS world. I hate to admit that, but it is true. And, since most of my projects revolve around MS functionality, it is only logical for me to continue to work in that environment. I will of course visit my Graphics Department and test client sites using whatever browsers they have installed. I still want to cater to my old cronies on the Mac! ;)
| 4:32 pm on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
rcjordan, I see your point.
If you could upgrade your X86 box with Mac OS X, Safari and the other jazzy apps in the bundle, for 100 $. Would you do give it try?
Lets not forget NeXt was X86 based before it's components where put into Mac OS X... in less than a year.
Even if Apple sells more boxes, market share is still in decline. If I was Steve Jobs, I would see the X86 installed based as an inviting pool.
I have a dream... ;-)
<added>john316 beat me again! what a slow typer I am! :)</added>
| 6:54 pm on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It's bound that Apple will do either of two moves. Port Mac OS X to x86 or there will be clones coming out again with differnt standards.
Apple could do some damage to MS by making their OS work on x86, i mean darwin, the core of OS X has already been ported to x86 and is available in the stores and such without the aqua interfacing features.
It could hurt Apple hardware sales but then again more people would be running OS X on their x86's getting more software such as all the video editing and such. Who knows, but this most recent move is MS just having fun with Apple. ;)
| 3:38 am on Jun 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Two reasons why a move to x86 won't happen anytime soon: Apple makes most of their money from hardware, and most of their users are still on OS 9 and prior (or dependant on the Classic emulation environment). There's no way Apple could do a decent Classic-type environment on x86 without a huge performance hit.
Regarding the news, Apple must have seen the writing on the wall for a while with their recent efforts to be more autonomous: Safari, their Keynote presentation app, and the rumored revamp of AppleWorks. I just hope office isn't next.
I use Camino mostly now, but I'll miss IE. IE 4/5 on the Mac was the first ever standards compliant browser (even the Windows version wasn't), and was hands down the best browser on the Mac for quite a while there. The Mac Business Unit at Microsoft really deserves a lot of credit.
| This 39 message thread spans 2 pages: 39 (  2 ) > > |