Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 12th Jan 2007 19:03 UTC
A few days ago, Adam explained on his blog why it would make sense for Apple to port Safari to Windows: "Maybe it's making a leap of faith, and yes, the browser market is one where making a noticeable entrance will be challenging, but the less of a jump into the deep end buying a Mac is, the easier it is to make your Apple brand accessble, available, and not scary. The best way to start? Safari on Windows." Yesterday, Mary Jo Foley dug up from deep within Mozilla's Wiki the following prediction by the Mozilla Foundation: "Apple may have Safari on Windows with likely ties to iTunes and .Mac." This line has now been changed into a more general statement ("WebKit may be ported to Windows" - which already happened) but point remains: does it make sense for Apple to port Safari to Windows?
Thread beginning with comment 201164
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: existing apple ports don't measure up
by paul.michael.bauer on Fri 12th Jan 2007 23:05
in reply to "RE: existing apple ports don't measure up"
Member since:2005-07-06
1. The orig. QuickTime for windows was what? 15 years past. Modern QuickTime and ancient QuickTime are essentially two different beasts.
2. WebKit is an API (its an application framework). It includes WebCore, an HTML engine, and JavaScriptCore, a JavaScript engine. WebKit is definitely not an application.
3. Not making much sence of the carbon vs. cocoa stuff in this context...yes I know the difference.
Research before you burn somebody.
Edited 2007-01-12 23:09
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-04-01
iTunes and QuickTime are ports, and were orig. designed to take advantage of Mac APIs.
Nonsense. Much of the design of the Apple Carbon API FOR Mac came from the original Quicktime on Windows.
"Carbon [...] is also closer in style to the Win32 APIs of Windows, and therefore may be a better choice for cross-platform development. In fact, the Carbon project at Apple was developed from the Quicktime for Windows codebase which has included a substantial subset of the classic Mac OS APIs since the early 1990s."
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_(API)
Ports of those APIs to Windows (e.g. WebKit) don't seem to measure up.
Webkit is not an API, it's an application unto itself. The API is Cocoa, and it hasn't been ported to Windows (at least pubically). Most existing Apple Windows apps are Carbon. Carbon is actually faster than Cocoa.
Either way, Safari is a Cocoa app and Quicktime and iTunes are Carbon apps. So it could be more stable (or less, I guess we wouldn't know unless we had a chance to use it).