Safari 3 Beta Updated, Security Problems Fixed

Llywelyn writes "Apple has released an update to the Windows Safari 3 Beta. According to Macworld the updates '...include correction for a command injection vulnerability, corrected with additional processing and validation of URLs that could otherwise lead to an unexpected termination of the browser; an out-of-bounds memory read issue; and a race condition that can allow cross-site scripting using a JavaSscript [sic] exploit.' It is available through either the Apple Safari download site or through Apple's Software Update."

Good sprint, but does Apple have stamina?

[UR30]

Developing a browser for Windows will be quite a test for Apple and the Safari developer community. Is Apple trying to get a larger user community (even tens of percents), or just making it possible for web developers easily test their servers for Safari? In any case, if Apple can survive in this market, they are in an interesting position - partner with Google, and offer their own services for Windows users perhaps?

Re:I dont care what you say

[Baricom]

I think the reason's pretty simple: companies like Google have been abusing the "beta" moniker lately. The betas I've seen from Apple (including Safari and earlier, Quicktime 7) have been more consistent with what I would consider a beta: they mostly work and are useful for testing, but still have significant problems.

Perhaps what they might have done is require an Apple Developer Connection account to download instead of making it available through general release.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I disagree

[WrongSizeGlass]

As someone mentioned a couple of days ago when Win Safari was first released, they're also going to have to work really hard for this software to compete with other browsers (which many think it can't).

I may be wearing my ass as a hat, but I honestly don't see Apple expecting Safari to compete in the Windows browser market. It is my (potentially asshattian) opinion that Safari is available on Windows solely for the purpose of providing a testing environment for iPhone development for Windows developers. It's never going to take over the Windows browser market (or even made a serious dent).

Having Safari available on Windows removes the 'Apple Only' hardware requirement for any company who wants to develop Web 2.0/AJAX applications that run on the iPhone which opens Safari development to a much much larger pool of developers.

Re:I dont care what you say

[MBCook]

OK. Here is what I think. I use Safari as my main browser on my Mac which I use for all personal computing. It's a nice browser. I started using it to try it, and I've stuck with it. I'm happy with it for the most part.

Now I've tried it on Windows. It's cute. Even if it was perfect, it wouldn't replace FireFox because at this point I'm addicted to FlashBlock on my work PC. Things I use often have annoying flash ads and the computer isn't that fast in the first place. I'm glad it's there, and if I was going to switch to the Mac (like I did 2 years ago) being able to download it and try it may have been nice.

As for bugs, the only one I've noticed is that it doesn't handle my multi-monitor setup well. I haven't used it for more than a few seconds though (due to that). The problem is that when I put it on my secondary monitor (the left one, just FYI) then maximize it, Safari disappears. It still exists, it is maximized to the left of the left monitor, where it would be if a third monitor to the left of the left one existed. It doesn't seem to handle mouse clicks right in this state either some times. But when non-maximized, it works perfectly on either monitor. Works fine maximized on the main monitor as well.

It would be useful for testing websites (something I often have to do) for, but I always have my Mac next to me so it's not that critical for that.

It's a decent browser. When it gets out of beta I expect it to get a few points of market share (maybe Opera sized, or a little smaller). I don't expect it to kill FireFox; and I'm amazed at all this "Safari is buggy!" stuff since it is a BETA. Google (and others) seem to have ruined that word in the mainstream, as many people don't seem to know that it should be translated as "This software probably has problems and will crash on you, possibly losing data". Google's betas are often quite stable (and that's not too surprising as GMail has been out for a few years now). This is a real beta.

Security is not the big problem

[MBoffin]

Fixing the security issues may help in keeping Apple from looking foolish, but security is not the real problem with Safari for Windows. The real problem with Safari for Windows that Apple should be putting focus on is the user experience.* It's horrendous. Slow window redraws, completely broken Windows conventions, a total lack of extensibility, and on and on.

As a web developer, I'm pleased as punch that they've released a Windows version of Safari that renders pixel-for-pixel the same as the OS X version (it really does, I checked). However, Safari on Windows is not even in the running as far as being a candidate as a full-time browser on Windows. The user experience is simply too painful.

* I didn't say they should not focus on security. They most definitely should.

Re:Patch Tuesday...

[644bd346996]

Patch Tuesday would be a very asinine idea for a beta product. If patching costs are a problem even for your limited beta deployment, that's just because you suck at updating software.

Safari being the partly-OSS product it is, it might be a good idea for Apple to release weekly or nightly builds. That could generate quite a bit of attention for Safari/Windows, because people would recognize "beta" as an ongoing process.

Why so negative on Safari???

[Wingsy]

I've used it on Windows XP Pro. A friend has been using it on Vista. Neither of us can find a single thing wrong with it in 2 days of browsing (even to my bank, the acid test of browsers). The LA Times reviewer recommends it. ComputerWorld praises it. But here on Slashdot about all I see are people giving it a thumbs down. Am I seeing a bit of bias here? Someone direct me to a web page that Safari 3 on Windows XP renders horribly. Please, I wanna see.

Re:Excellent! Just one more thing...

[aztracker1]

Given that Safari (Apple Web Kit) is based on KHTML (Konqueror), you can use Konqueror in Linux to get a decent grasp of where you stand with Safari... I know that AWK has deviated for KHTML, and back changes take a while to, if ever, get into the KHTML code base, it is still a decent reference point...

Personally, I would much rather have seen the Apple guys throw their support behind the Gecko engine, and Camino. It's not that KHTML/AWK is a bad browser base, I just think it would have been easier to use an engine that was already widely available cross platform.

Re:I wonder if...

[TheRaven64]

Really? I have the opposite experience. I occasionally try FireFox because people tell me how much better than Safari it is. It integrates horribly with the rest of OS X (e.g. doesn't use KeyChain for passwords, so I have to manually transfer info over, even though Safari, Opera and OmniWeb all manage to use the same store), but apart from that, the rendering of sites is just bad. As an example, Blogger entries often have text run together so it's unreadable. The only sites I've had any problems with in Safari are some Google web-apps; no sites (as opposed to web-apps) that I visit have given me any problems.

Re:Blurry Text

[Wingsy]

I've read elsewhere about that awful blurry text problem, compared to what FF & IE render in Windows. So I fired them both up side by side, to the same page, and I see exactly what you mean. It IS blurry! In fact, it is so blurry it no longer looks like it's been printed on a dot matrix printer. Really, viewing the two side by side, I cannot believe that anyone can read the pixelated FF page better than the font-smoothed Safari page. It ain't blurry, it's just got the jagged corners removed. Much more readable in my opinion.