To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Safari is usually on the list of things to support right after firefox. I think it actually has a higher percentage than Opera... It gets supported as it is by most quality web software.
But I agree, a Windows version of Safari might bring apple some extra media and could make users more comfortable with switching later.
However, I'd argue that for Apple their application suites are enough to get people to switch and they shouldn't be ported (iTunes was ported to sell iPods). If they port iLife it might adversely affect them, besides a lot of Windows machines probably lack the balls to run the graphics.
I don't think Safari is a real attraction to OS X at this point.
Plain marketing. Safari isn't one of the best browsers around, yet being better than IE at standard compliance.
I'll stick to FF on every OS that runs it...
My guess: doesen't make technologically sense, but this is advertising, a whole different business where Apple excels 






Member since:
2005-07-24
"""First of all, it doesn't make any sense to port Safari to Windows...it doesn't make Apple any money so why bother?"""
You are counseling the tried and true American business strategy of short-sightedness. (Hey, I live in Oklahoma; I should know!)
You sound like the folks who think that OSS developers should restrict use of their apps from Windows users in a mean-spirited attempt to force them to use Open-Source OSes. In my opinion that is most distasteful.
Actually, there are good reasons for a port. Safari, like all non-IE browsers suffer from a lack of net-presence.
Web developers cannot be bothered to support it because not enough people run it.
Yes, yes, I know. We're all supposed to be able to simply write to standards and have everything work. That is the holy grail. But it's not yet in our reach, is it?
A (quality) Windows port of Safari would be of benefit not only to Apple, but to us all.
Edited 2007-01-12 20:03