[Macworld]

Post your comments for Chrome versus the world here

[lwdesign]

I can always tell a Windows-centric writer by the adjectives he uses when referring to anything Apple-related. He says Safari for Windows is "quirky". Sounds like he's never even opened the program and surfed the net with it, or he'd have chosen any of various other adjectives, including elegant, fast, aesthetic, solid and stable. I LOVE Safari for Windows! IE used to be the only game in town, but its closed system and quirks were too flaky for me. IE 6 doesn't display PNG-24 images correctly with transparency. MS finally fixed that with IE 7, but many people haven't bothered to upgrade yet, in my experience. Heck, many of the Windows users I know don't have a clue HOW to upgrade to IE 7, even with on-screen prompts. Sad to say, but many people still think of the computer as some sort of fancy typewriter, and only use the most basic functions of one or two programs.

[Schneb]

I use Firefox for one very important reason-- Extensions. I hate blinky, dancing baloney ads, and Firefox seems to be the best choice for stopping them before they start.

[natmusak]

lwdesign said:

I can always tell a Windows-centric writer by the adjectives he uses when referring to anything Apple-related. He says Safari for Windows is "quirky".

My thoughts exactly. Hmm, yeah Safari certainly is different. As in, it's faster than Opera, IE, or Firefox on Windows? No, it's just...er...well Steve Jobs is so charismatic! Huh? That's what it generally boils down to. The fact that Safari on iPhone and iPod touch makes up like 70% of all mobile web traffic also managed to escaped his memory.

Let's just make this Browser War 2008 using a bunch of stupid sports logic. I'll pass.

[Filburt]

Safari for Windows is quirky. It just does not look nor behave as a well behaved Windows apps would. For the time being, Safari for Windows exist primarily to help developers test web apps for iPhone and Mac OS X without having to purchase a Mac or iPhone. Since Chrome uses the WebKit, it can only help web site compatibility for Safari users.

[natmusak]

Filburt said:

Safari for Windows is quirky. It just does not look nor behave as a well behaved Windows apps would.

Ah, so it doesn't look like sh*t and feature terrible standards-compliance? Good point.

[vfx2k4]

Have to say with Google's deep deep pockets it just seems like bush league to release a Windows-only browser in 2008. Couldn't they hire a couple more programmers or do Gulfstream jet fuel and free sushi really cost too much?

[sheilanolan]

I've been trying out Chrome since it came out and, at first, I thought it would go the way of Flock which is gathering dust on my desktop. I am gradually getting it to look like Safari with all my folders nicely grouped at the top. At the moment, it doesn't support some of the extras that I use regularly in Safari (which has replaced IE as my default browser) and I feel as if it will be like a new toy, for me, that gets played with a lot in the first few weeks but then gets forgotten in favour of the old favourites.

[cbloch]

"the WebKit." LOL.

[cbloch]

Sure, it's just a matter of throwing heads at it and it can be done in no time.

[alansky]

The sheer mediocrity of the most popular browser suggests that no one will unseat Microsoft until consumers are smarter and better educated—which probably means not until our kids grow up. The iPod generation already knows better than to imitate their parents' slavish support of Microsoft's woefully-outdated crapware. In the meantime, Microsoft will appear to prosper despite a string of spectacular failures. But the die has been cast. Down with Microsoft! Down with all those who see the world as no more than a balance sheet. Long live Apple, Google and all technology companies whose eyes are fixed on the future of humankind, not on the paltry bottom line.

[Steve_S]

>"Ultimately, though, Microsoft is surely less concerned about Chrome?s potential impact on IE, a product it gives away for free, than on Windows, the one that?s responsible for billions of dollars of Redmondian profit each year."

That's true. Of course, Microsoft has created a situation where they put out a buggy / quirky browser that doesn't conform well to web standards. Web developers have little choice but to dumb down their web sites or even worse, code specifically for Explorer. Given IE's marketshare, this strategy has worked well. However, as IE 8 moves closer to better supporting web standards, along with the rise in popularity of alternative browsers, the "Microsoft advantage" begins to disappear. Once people get used to using non-Microsoft browsers for rich internet content, Windows itself is threatened.

>"If Firefox had never existed, it?s entirely possible that Google never would have thought developing a browser was worth the effort."

Yeah, just like Google's interest in Android and various other projects are somehow related... Google is paying out good money to Firefox and others just for the usage of the search bar contents. There is an economic incentive for Google to create it's own browser. Further, rather than being strong armed by Microsoft in terms of blocking Google's ads, etc. Google is taking matters into their own hands. Good for them.

>"Opera: The venerable Norwegian browser remains a worthy product, and an influential one"

Quality browser? Yes. Influential? Let's be honest... no. Look, I'm not knocking Opera, it's a fine browser, but the last time I checked, it had less than 1% marketshare. It's certainly worthy of mention on this list, but it's mention should probably come last, well after Safari.

>Yahoo, Ask, etc.: On the Web, imitation is the sincerest form of competition. And if Google successfully uses Chrome to make its bonds with millions of Web users even stronger, Google rivals such as Yahoo might suddenly develop the urge to release browsers of their own.

Nice, McCracken even mentions non-existing browsers on the list before acknowledging Safari. Yikes...

>In fact, Chrome has some Cupertino in its DNA, since it uses the Webkit rendering engine, which is the open-source version of the one Apple developed for its Safari browser.

It's wouldn't be far fetched to see Webkit browsers outnumber Gecko based browsers when you consider Chrome, iPhone, Android, Nokia, etc.

>Apple released a Windows version of Safari in June 2007, but it seems to be a quirky side project rather than a key part of the company?s overarching Internet strategy.

Well, it is visually quirky in that the application doesn't look like another Windows based application in terms of color and conventions. While I prefer the Apple conventions, there is something to say for having a native application look and feel native to the respective platform. From a functional perspective, I wouldn't call Safari on Windows "quirky". I use it on a regular basis and now actually prefer it to Firefox.

Overall, this was a pretty PC biased piece. Though, I'd expect nothing less from McCracken.

[Rhywun]

Filburt said:

Safari for Windows is quirky. It just does not look nor behave as a well behaved Windows apps would.

True - and neither do many of Microsoft's own offerings. No one really knows what a Windows application is "supposed" to look like.

[alansky]

The big problem with Google's intention to encourage cloud computing is that internet connections are not fast enough to provide performance on par with desktop apps. So the transition to cloud computing—if this is indeed a trend—is a case of two steps forward and one step back (otherwise known as a mixed blessing).