[Reggie Fowler]

I'm sure all of you have used Google Earth to map various things. It's a great program.
Well, our friends over at Microsoft have there own Live Earth mapping website. I think it's better than google earth. It works great on my work PC. So i just tried to load that site on my Mac.

Live Local Search

It works in Firefox, but not Safari. Why is this? Are they specifically blocking the Safari browser? What in the website code would not allow this site to load? Come on already!

[JellyBeen]

The page loads for me, using the latest Safari Beta.

[zro]

Hmm. Didn't seem to recognize "Your ass" when I searched for "My foot."


Works in the latest OmniWeb. Are you running any input managers?

[Reggie Fowler]

OK, wiseguy. let me clarify.

USING SAFARI
Go to the link above. It transfers to a different website, i.e., intl.local.live.com/. This is not the site. Safari can't open the correct site, so it sends you to this alternate link. You will notice that it says BETA at the top left of the screen. This is not the site.

Now, using Firefox, go to Live Local Search and it will correctly open up. You will see a big picture of the United States.

[Cold Warrior]

n/m

[besson3c]

Reggie: there are a lot of sites that don't work with Safari 2, and several of them due to Safari shortcomings.

[zro]

Originally Posted by Reggie Fowler 

OK, wiseguy. let me clarify.

USING SAFARI
Go to the link above. It transfers to a different website, i.e., intl.local.live.com/. This is not the site. Safari can't open the correct site, so it sends you to this alternate link. You will notice that it says BETA at the top left of the screen. This is not the site.

Now, using Firefox, go to Live Local Search and it will correctly open up. You will see a big picture of the United States.

USING SAFARI Version 3.0.3 (522.12.1) it works.

[Kenneth]

I agree with Reggie Fowler, it doesn't work.

Yes, I have the latest beta version of Safari.

[goMac]

Works here. Latest Safari.

[Art Vandelay]

I'm curious why it works for some and not for others. It does not work for me with Safari 3 for Tiger or Leopard.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Kenneth 

I agree with Reggie Fowler, it doesn't work.

Yes, I have the latest beta version of Safari.

Yup. Does not work. Get redirected to the Live Local Search beta site. Safari 3.0.3 (5523.6), Leopard.

[CharlesS]

Doesn't work for me either.

[besson3c]

I wonder if Microsoft offers different versions of the page depending your locale? GoMac: are you in Amerika?

[zro]

Haha, I never noticed the redirect... I should pay better attention next time.

My apologies.


If it makes any difference, the real page never loads using browser spoofing.

[Reggie Fowler]

The imaging using Virtual Earth is incredible. The satellite images are so crystal clear. But you'll never be able to see them using Safari. I have to believe that Safari is capable of displaying these images. It must be a block on Microsoft's side. They must have programmed it so that when it see's Safari, it blocks. Hmmm, why would they do that?

Being that Safari 3.0.3 is most likely the version that will be in OS 10.5, i can only assume that when the new operating system is released, we still won't be able to access this site.

This is another clear example of how Microsoft is taking shots at Apple.

[- - e r i k - -]

Well, if it won't work with a User Agent spoof, then I don't know what kind of tricks they are pulling...

[mdc]

Originally Posted by Reggie Fowler 

. . . you'll never be able to see them using Safari. I have to believe that Safari is capable of displaying these images. It must be a block on Microsoft's side. They must have programmed it so that when it see's Safari, it blocks. Hmmm, why would they do that?

Being that Safari 3.0.3 is most likely the version that will be in OS 10.5, i can only assume that when the new operating system is released, we still won't be able to access this site.

This is another clear example of how Microsoft is taking shots at Apple.

That's not neccessarily true. GMail's webmail interface doesn't have chat if you use Safari 3, but it's there for Safari 2 and Firefox. I am sure there is something that needs to be worked out and then Google will put it in. Somehow I don't think Google is taking shots at people who use the new Safari beta.
Maybe Microsoft has a valid reason as to why Safari is not supported on Virtual Earth.

If you try create a new Presentation in Google Docs, using Safari, you will get a message saying "Presentation features are not fully supported on your browser. Please consider upgrading to the latest version of your browser or switching to a supported browser", again, I don't think Google is taking shots at people who use Safari.
If I remember correctly some of Google's web apps had 'issues' with Safari that were fixed soon after being released.

[Shades of Gray]

Doesn't work for me either, Safari 3; nor does it work with Camino.

[besson3c]

Safari 2 has a weak Javascript engine, which is why a number of web apps do not work well with it. I believe many of these problems are fixed with Safari 3, but nobody wants to support a beta browser yet.

[CheesePuff]

Originally Posted by zro 

USING SAFARI Version 3.0.3 (522.12.1) it works.

so uhh, it works huh? would you like to post a screen shot?

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by CheesePuff 

so uhh, it works huh? would you like to post a screen shot?

He responded later that it doesn't work. He wasn't paying attention to what was really happening.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Reggie Fowler 

It must be a block on Microsoft's side. They must have programmed it so that when it see's Safari, it blocks. Hmmm, why would they do that?
...
This is another clear example of how Microsoft is taking shots at Apple.

I think if Microsoft was going to be blocking any browsers, it would be Firefox and thus am fairly certain that the failing is in the programming of Safari, especially since some Safari's seem to work while others don't (a Safari block would block all Safari's that aren't emulating another browser, while different versions of Safari may have different degrees of success accessing a Microsoft page). Additionally, the user's operating system can be logged as easily as their browser. So, if MS really wanted to block Mac users, they'd likely block all Mac users (including those on Firefox and Opera) instead of just Safari users.

So, calm down a bit, and consider using Firefox.

[ghporter]

Microsoft is the king of "nonstandard is our standard", isn't it? I mean, they un-standardized Java until the courts made 'em play nice... Anyway, I'll bet that it's a combination of "not really standard" code on the site and Safari not being flexible enough to handle the deviation. Look at the page you get (or at least the one I get); it's really screwed up. Wouldn't an impolite "we don't like Safari" page actually be built to load in Safari and then blow a raspberry or something? This one just doesn't really load for me.

[Kenneth]

So I went to my Vista box and checked..
FireFox 2.0.0.7 and IE 7 (duh) worked...however Safari 3.0.3 and Opera 9.2.3 failed.

The Mac side, FireFox 2.0.0.7 worked, but not Safari 3.0.3 and Camino 1.5.1. I kind of remember that Camino used to work with Windows Live! Map.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

\
So, calm down a bit, and consider using Firefox.

I had it installed because ONE site I went to didn't work in Safari. Not that I haven't had to quit FireFox because a site didn't work in it too..

If Firefox would stop crashing on me, and being over-all dodgy I'd give it a go.

Works great on my ole ladies XP machine though.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Anyway, I'll bet that it's a combination of "not really standard" code on the site and Safari not being flexible enough to handle the deviation.

That is my guess as well. AS most sites that don't work always have some non-standard MS crap messing it up. Don't even get me going about Frontpage.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

That is my guess as well. AS most sites that don't work always have some non-standard MS crap messing it up. Don't even get me going about Frontpage.

Yup, there's no doubt that website incompatibility is usually the result of some junk MS code, but it's hardly a targeted attack on Apple users as the OP stated. More like an untargeted attack on anyone not using IE.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Yup, there's no doubt that website incompatibility is usually the result of some junk MS code, but it's hardly a targeted attack on Apple users as the OP stated. More like an untargeted attack on anyone not using IE.

Agreed. But it's still MS being MS.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Agreed. But it's still MS being MS.

Of course. Apple does the same thing to protect the markets where it dominates as well.

[besson3c]

There is no attack...

Microsoft did the right thing and supported Firefox in addition to their own IE, so they are conforming to web standards. There is little point to supporting Safari right now since the userbase is too small, Safari 2 sucks, and Safari 3 is still in beta. Hold your bitching for some time after Safari 3 is out of beta.

I can't believe I'm defending Microsoft...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Of course. Apple does the same thing to protect the markets where it dominates as well.

I am not sure it does so to already open standards..

I don't see any part of their site not working with IE for example. Esp now they have Safari for Windows.

If they ever do pull that crap, I will be equally pissy with them about it.

MS applications are known to make products only other MS applications can "read" even when said standard is supposed to be open.

So if any MS technology is used on a webpage, more then likely IE will be the only one usable. At least at first. Then other browser adapt the extra bloat. Firefox seems to be updated more than Safari and therefore has the advantage of being compatible with MSs changes quicker.

This isn't MS just staying with strict web standards and Safari not supporting it.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I am not sure it does so to already open standards..

I don't see any part of their site not working with IE for example. Esp now they have Safari for Windows.

If they ever do pull that crap, I will be equally pissy with them about it.

MS applications are known to make products only other MS applications can "read" even when said standard is supposed to be open.

So if any MS technology is used on a webpage, more then likely IE will be the only one usable. At least at first. Then other browser adapt the extra bloat. Firefox seems to be updated more than Safari and therefore has the advantage of being compatible with MSs changes quicker.

This isn't MS just staying with strict web standards and Safari not supporting it.

I said in markets which Apple is dominant. How many competitor mp3 players are ITMS songs compatible with?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I said in markets which Apple is dominant. How many competitor mp3 players are ITMS songs compatible with?

Thats like saying "Apple is doing it too by allowing OS X to only run on Macs"

I don't really think what I am saying, and what you are saying are exactly the same. Besides that, Apple really sorta blossomed that technology themselves. They are the ones setting the standards. MS didn't even't "the web" even though they act like it. And frankly I am not so sure they'd have gotten their own "format" had the DRM bullies not made them. Remember, at first iTunes used just mp3s and regular m4as with with DRM scheme. They also at first made it so ANYONE could share their playlist with ANYONE on the net (not copy, just play) but got smacked down on this too..

Which was sad, I love letting someone listen to a "snippet" of a song I really liked.

And I have never really heard anyone that didn't own an iPod, wish they could connect their mp3 player to iTunes music store.. .

Esp not when there are alternatives for them to use that are just as good, or free.

[Reggie Fowler]

Many of you have pointed out that Safari 3 is a beta. Well, in another 20 days or so it won't be a Beta. So what will change in the Safari code that will allow the GM version to work?

My guess is nothing. It will be 99% the same and therefore won't work.

and the argument that Safari java is crap doesn't hold water with me. Safari is the most popular web browser for the Apple platform. Java is java....it should work. maybe not as fast as others...but still should work.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Reggie Fowler 

Many of you have pointed out that Safari 3 is a beta. Well, in another 20 days or so it won't be a Beta. So what will change in the Safari code that will allow the GM version to work?

My guess is nothing. It will be 99% the same and therefore won't work.

and the argument that Safari java is crap doesn't hold water with me. Safari is the most popular web browser for the Apple platform. Java is java....it should work. maybe not as fast as others...but still should work.

Reggie, I said Javascript, not Java. There is a difference.

What were you thinking I was implying would happen in 20 days?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Thats like saying "Apple is doing it too by allowing OS X to only run on Macs"

I don't really think what I am saying, and what you are saying are exactly the same. Besides that, Apple really sorta blossomed that technology themselves. They are the ones setting the standards. MS didn't even't "the web" even though they act like it. And frankly I am not so sure they'd have gotten their own "format" had the DRM bullies not made them. Remember, at first iTunes used just mp3s and regular m4as with with DRM scheme. They also at first made it so ANYONE could share their playlist with ANYONE on the net (not copy, just play) but got smacked down on this too..

Which was sad, I love letting someone listen to a "snippet" of a song I really liked.

And I have never really heard anyone that didn't own an iPod, wish they could connect their mp3 player to iTunes music store.. .

Esp not when there are alternatives for them to use that are just as good, or free.

Of course it's the same. It's using a monopoly to ensure continued monopoly.

If you have alot of ITMS songs in your music collection and you are considering purchasing an mp3 player that isn't an iPod, the value of repurchasing those songs is going to be a factor in your purchasing decision. Sure, the iPod may be the mp3 player of choice right now, but should somebody produce a player more desirable than it, Apple's got some pretty decent insurance monopolized in people's ITMS/iPod only music collections.

If the ITMS DRM were a standard, then other mp3 player manufacturers would be able to apply that standard to their mp3 players, allowing ITMS songs to be played on them.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Of course it's the same. It's using a monopoly to ensure continued monopoly.

If you have alot of ITMS songs in your music collection and you are considering purchasing an mp3 player that isn't an iPod, the value of repurchasing those songs is going to be a factor in your purchasing decision. Sure, the iPod may be the mp3 player of choice right now, but should somebody produce a player more desirable than it, Apple's got some pretty decent insurance monopolized in people's ITMS/iPod only music collections.

If the ITMS DRM were a standard, then other mp3 player manufacturers would be able to apply that standard to their mp3 players, allowing ITMS songs to be played on them.

Exactly right.

It's all about who controls your data, that is the name of the game these days in technology. It surely has Libertarian thinkers frothing at the mouth

[zro]

But due to it's overwhelming success and market share, FairPlay is the standard. That's the way it works, right?

The assumption that Safari isn't supporting a standard (when it's not known what exactly isn't being supported) while asserting microsoft is supporting standards merely by supporting the market share "standard" is silly.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by zro 

But due to it's overwhelming success and market share, FairPlay is the standard. That's the way it works, right?

The assumption that Safari isn't supporting a standard (when it's not known what exactly isn't being supported) while asserting microsoft is supporting standards merely by supporting the market share "standard" is silly.

Are you referring to Firefox?

It supports the w3c standard, or at least tries to. Safari tries to as well. The fact that one standards compliant browser works with this service indicates that Microsoft was at least attempting to make this service standards complaint.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Of course it's the same. It's using a monopoly to ensure continued monopoly.

Again, who made Apple shut down the file sharing? Who made them come up with a DRM scheme? It wasn't Apple.

If you have alot of ITMS songs in your music collection and you are considering purchasing an mp3 player that isn't an iPod, the value of repurchasing those songs is going to be a factor in your purchasing decision. Sure, the iPod may be the mp3 player of choice right now, but should somebody produce a player more desirable than it, Apple's got some pretty decent insurance monopolized in people's ITMS/iPod only music collections.

There are programs out there that can.. get this, change the format of the song. I've seen them! I swear it.
(Yes even DRM'd Apple itunes songs) What can I do to get MSs web page to work in Safari?

BTW good article

Macworld: Editors' Notes: Why Apple isn't the new Microsoft

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Exactly right.

It's all about who controls your data, that is the name of the game these days in technology.

But MS doesn't control the Web. Even though they try so desperately to.

[Kevin]

Or that that standards compliant browser added things to it's browser to make such MS coding work properly regardless if it's standard or not.

Safari is just a bit picky right now as to what it can view. If MS has some MS<>IE code thing going on, and other browsers add the ability to view these pages, that doesn't suddenly make it Safari's fault.

The ONLY problems I have with Safari and web pages, are pages that have something to do with MS, or are made using MS products.

I don't find that a coincidence. I am not saying MS is doing anything to BLOCK safari. I am saying MS is making applications that write code that only really work correctly in IE at first. Then the others slowly comply just to get it to work.

MS is breaking the standards by doing this. I wont even go into the mess that Frontpage and it's extensions are.

[Reggie Fowler]

OS 10.5 comes out in 20 days.

Let me just point out another embarrassing point. I have many friends who are thinking of switching to a Mac. And they always ask me, "does anything not work" or will it be the same after the switch. If i was to tell them (oh, by the way) the most utilized web browser from Apple doesn't open sites like Virtual Earth as well as many others.....they would laugh.

it's shameful. if i then had to get into a discussion of how there are "other" browsers that can open it, it would be bad news. Most of the population uses IE. The basic computer novice just launches IE and everything works. That's all they know.

That's the way Safari should be. Just launch it.
I know you want to argue this point with me, but think about it this way. Picture your parents (granted i don't know your age). But if i told my dad that he has to have 2-3 web browsers on his desktop to view various pages, it wouldn't go over well. They just want 1 and they just want to click.

You might not mind, but the majority of the poplulation does!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Reggie Fowler 

If i was to tell them (oh, by the way) the most utilized web browser from Apple doesn't open sites like Virtual Earth as well as many others.....they would laugh.

How do you know Safari is the most utilized browser on a Mac? Safari accounts for about 1.5% of total browser usage when up against IE and Firefox. If Macs represent about 5% of computer users, that would mean less than half of Mac users are surfing the web using Safari.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Reggie Fowler 

O
That's the way Safari should be. Just launch it.

It does. Sometimes people write code that isn't specifically accepted as standard. Code that works on one browser, but not another. Small little changes.

I am not saying this is ALWAYS the case. But in my experience, all of the sites that were "b0rked" in Safari, had something to do with MS, or used MS software or technology to make said page.

I've seen very few truly web standard page not work in Safari. And that was when it first came out.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

How do you know Safari is the most utilized browser on a Mac? Safari accounts for about 1.5% of total browser usage when up against IE and Firefox. If Macs represent about 5% of computer users, that would mean less than half of Mac users are surfing the web using Safari.

Come on Wisk.. I am sure you don't believe that most Mac users use something other than Safari.

Most of the ones I know use Safari. There are FireFox users but they certainly don't outnumber the Safari users.

And the last I saw, Safari users made up 4% or so

This says Safari has 4.77% and FireFox with 14%.. not showing the mac Firefox numbers separately.

Market share for browsers, operating systems and search engines

I think it's safe to say Safari makes up for most of Mac users browsing.

Almost 5% of computer users don't sound like a lot of people. But it is. And that is a lot of people MS is turning off.

You'd think they would go out of their way to make their web pages work with all browsers correctly. Not just the ones they want it to work with, or who modify their browser to get it to work with.

Why have standards when the very company that should be following them doesn't?

I've never had a web page coded by hand (not using MS specific code), or made in Dreamweaver, or made on a Linux box go wonky on me. Not once.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Come on Wisk.. I am sure you don't believe that most Mac users use something other than Safari.

Most of the ones I know use Safari. There are FireFox users but they certainly don't outnumber the Safari users.

And the last I saw, Safari users made up 4% or so

I tend to use w3's stats. Their survey shows Safari at 1.5-1.7%. The same survey shows MacOS at 3.8-4.0%. Less than half of the Mac operating systems in their survey are using Safari. So, yes, I do believe that most Mac users are using something other than Safari.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Market share for browsers, operating systems and search engines

For the last 10 months, Market Share shows Safari user numbers consistently higher than Mac user numbers. I think there's a problem with their data.

Market share for browsers, operating systems and search engines
Market share for browsers, operating systems and search engines

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I tend to use w3's stats. Their survey shows Safari at 1.5-1.7%. The same survey shows MacOS at 3.8-4.0%. Less than half of the Mac operating systems in their survey are using Safari.

TheCounter.com: The Full-Featured Web Counter with Graphic Reports and Detailed Information
They show 3%.

It seems your w3s stats don't match up over all with everyone else's

So, yes, I do believe that most Mac users are using something other than Safari.

Well you are wrong.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

For the last 10 months, Market Share shows Safari user numbers consistently higher than Mac user numbers. I think there's a problem with their data.

Last time I heard Apple had a 6.6% market share. I'd check your numbers

MacNN | Global Mac market share up to 6.6% - report

[besson3c]

Who knows what the numbers really are. Like polling data, there is a margin of error of at least 3-5% either way. Still, we can use this data to illustrate general trends, specifically that there are *significantly* more Firefox users than Safari users.

It is for this reason and others that despite the technical upside of having chosen Webkit/KHTML, having a better code base to work with, etc. that Apple should have adopted Gecko as their rendering engine. As Reggie rightly pointed out, people don't care about the details, they just want to launch the default browser and have things work. There are a great number of sites that do not work with Safari, but do with Firefox.