Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

TETENAL · Jun 11, 2007, 01:45 AM

I seriously doubt they did. iTunes is not Cocoa, and I doubt that Safari on Windows is. To ease porting WebKit has been rewritten to use C++ instead of Cocoa some time ago already.

davecom · Jun 11, 2007, 03:33 PM

Did they bring it back? It used to be there... Where is Safari and iTunes development coming from? What's the deal? Will they open this up to other developers?

Eriamjh · Jun 12, 2007, 08:41 PM

The checked the "Windows" box in XCode when compiling.

goMac · Jun 13, 2007, 01:50 AM

Originally Posted by davecom

Did they bring it back? It used to be there... Where is Safari and iTunes development coming from? What's the deal? Will they open this up to other developers?

iTunes used some sort of miniature port of Carbon, the same thing QuickTime for Windows was written with. Safari looks a bit more complicated. I haven't heard what it was coded in, but I don't think it was Yellow Box. We'll get a better idea when the WebKit team talks about WebKit availability for Windows. I'm going to bet that Safari was recoded in Win32.

goMac · Jun 13, 2007, 02:01 AM

Ok, it looks like the Windows source for WebKit has been posted, so here is your answer:

• WebKit Windows is not Cocoa. It is C++/Win32.
• However, a lot of WebKit is based on CoreFoundation, which acts as the Foundation (hence the name) for Cocoa and Carbon on OS X. Apple has maintained a Windows/Linux version of CoreFoundation called CFLite for a while now, but I've never seen it explicitly used until now.

davecom · Jun 13, 2007, 06:32 AM

Interesting, thanks for information!

lpkmckenna · Jun 13, 2007, 05:32 PM

Apple did actually port Yellowbox to Windows years ago. Long since cancelled.

besson3c · Jun 13, 2007, 05:47 PM

Yellow is my favorite color box.

kman42 · Jun 13, 2007, 05:55 PM

I suppose the question is whether they are also maintaining secret branches of CoreImage, CoreData, etc that sit on top.

I'm a little perplexed by Safari on Windows and I'm guessing there are two possibilities. One, it's a test case for making cross-platform apps using Apple APIs that run on both OSX and Windows, enabling developers to simply compile for both platforms. This seems unlikely.

Second, and has been bandied about by many, it has something to do with the iPhone. Now, I don't quite get this either. Everything we've heard from Apple makes it sound like this third-party iPhone Web 2.0 development scheme is a recent decision/strategy, but it certainly took them a long time to port Safari to Windows so the timelines just don't seem to jibe. The notion seems to be that Safari/Web2.0 is the new application platform and Apple wants these to run on OSX/iPhone/Windows. But who wants to view an iPhone app on a desktop computer? Talk about a waste of real-estate.

goMac · Jun 13, 2007, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by kman42

I suppose the question is whether they are also maintaining secret branches of CoreImage, CoreData, etc that sit on top.

I don't think so. CoreImage isn't used in Safari, and CoreData is a Cocoa API.

Atomic Rooster · Jun 13, 2007, 07:02 PM

I like yellow, boxes, balls...yes I like yellow balls.

TETENAL · Jun 13, 2007, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by kman42

Now, I don't quite get this either. Everything we've heard from Apple makes it sound like this third-party iPhone Web 2.0 development scheme is a recent decision/strategy, but it certainly took them a long time to port Safari to Windows so the timelines just don't seem to jibe.

If the decision to port Safari to Windows wasn't a recent one, it certainly wouldn't be se buggy. But WebKit was working towards being as portable as possible since it was open sourced.

Safari on iPhone has the same problem that Safari on the Mac has. With 5% Safari has a respectable usage share, yet many sites don't care about being compatible with this browser. With the Windows version of Safari Apple is now capable to grow the usage share of Safari much faster than it ever would be able to do by just growing the market share of Macs. And the Windows version makes it effortless for webmasters to test against Safari. Now there is no excuse any more. I believe that the compatibility of the web with Macs and the iPhone is the reason for Safari on Windows. And why do I think I'm right? Look at Safari's font rendering. It comes with the exact same font rendering system as the Mac does. As far as I know this is a premiere for a cross platform web browser to not use the operating system's native font rendering. With this you get pixel for pixel identical results on Safari for Windows as you get on Safari for Mac (haven't actually tried this).

Another reason:
There is a trend towards Web applications and away from local applications. The Google office applications, the new Yahoo and .Mac mail, Dashbaord and Yahoo widgets, that new Adobe web-application-thing etc. A web browser is sort of the operating system for those applications. And Apple must not be locked out of this. That's why it is important they are all compatible with Safari.

vmarks · Jun 13, 2007, 07:26 PM

Reason four:
Switchers. The Mac interface a lot of people are first confronted with consists of Finder and Safari.

iTunes and Safari are now on Windows. In Leopard, the new Finder borrows heavily from iTunes. Now people on Windows can get a more complete notion of what software on Mac looks and behaves like, and when confronted with a Mac, will know how to use it better than they otherwise would.

Salty · Jun 13, 2007, 07:28 PM

I'm a bit perplexed with Safari on Windows, perhaps part of it was the fact that Firefox for the Mac really isn't that great of a browser, it's clunky and not very Mac like really. But I know a lot of swtichers end up staying with Firefox even after they get a Mac. I think this way Apple can get people onto Safari even before they switch. Not to mention it provides another app for people to feel how nice it is to be a Mac user before they buy.
As well I think part of it is the fact that this allows Safari to be more of a standard web browser and now that it's gotten to be as full featured and tested as it is, porting to Windows was the next step.
Also throw in the Google Card, Apple was probably irked by the lack of Google apps to which they were told Safari would get more play from them if it were more standard.

kman42 · Jun 14, 2007, 12:35 AM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

If the decision to port Safari to Windows wasn't a recent one, it certainly wouldn't be se buggy. But WebKit was working towards being as portable as possible since it was open sourced.

Safari on iPhone has the same problem that Safari on the Mac has. With 5% Safari has a respectable usage share, yet many sites don't care about being compatible with this browser. With the Windows version of Safari Apple is now capable to grow the usage share of Safari much faster than it ever would be able to do by just growing the market share of Macs. And the Windows version makes it effortless for webmasters to test against Safari. Now there is no excuse any more. I believe that the compatibility of the web with Macs and the iPhone is the reason for Safari on Windows. And why do I think I'm right? Look at Safari's font rendering. It comes with the exact same font rendering system as the Mac does. As far as I know this is a premiere for a cross platform web browser to not use the operating system's native font rendering. With this you get pixel for pixel identical results on Safari for Windows as you get on Safari for Mac (haven't actually tried this).

Another reason:
There is a trend towards Web applications and away from local applications. The Google office applications, the new Yahoo and .Mac mail, Dashbaord and Yahoo widgets, that new Adobe web-application-thing etc. A web browser is sort of the operating system for those applications. And Apple must not be locked out of this. That's why it is important they are all compatible with Safari.

Sound reasoning. I buy it.