Mac OS X - Safari

[fairy!]

Why does Mac OS X have Safari rather than Internet Explorer??

A few things, like Yahoo Mail Beta are not compatible :-(

[tomd]

Because Internet Explorer is a Microsoft product. You can get it for Mac but it doesn't come installed.

If you're pining over Microsoft products already you might have been best considering it a little deeper before buying a less compatible 'computer'.

[fairy!]

I am not "pining" over Microsoft products... I am 100% happy with my Mac having used them for years.
OS9 had Internet Explorer, so it was just a query as to why OS X doesn't.

[fo3nix]

Macs are not less compatible. If they are, it's not Apple's fault, but the fault of the person creating something for only one device.

Yahoo Mail Beta has been written by the guys at Yahoo to be only compatible with internet explorer. I didn't know this previously (I use my own email system), but it's entirely Yahoo's fault. In fact, I can't believe that a product being recently developed is made only for IE!! That is shockingly bad.

I'd strongly recommend not installing IE for macs though. It's old and support for it has been discontinued. Have you tried installing firefox for the mac and seeing if it works on that?

Finally, you could move over to some system where the developers have some brains and have developed it for multiple browsers, i.e., gmail?

[fo3nix]

Essentially, when IE5/mac came out, it had better support for the W3C standards than IE/win did. This is because some of its developers are renowned experts in the web development field, such as Tantek Celik, who developed bits of the CSS rendering engine side of the product.

Then Microsoft lost interest in it, Apple weren't very happy (at that time Mac OS X was shipped with IE as its primary browser), since the out of the box web support was dropping. So they developed their own, using a free software (open source) rendering engine. This became Safari.

As I said above, Microsoft has now totally dropped support for IE/mac, and has stated it will not be developing another version. I guess they're putting all their efforts into beating Firefox on windows. Good luck to them.

[tomd]

They are less compatible with most released software, don't get touchy about it.

[fairy!]

Thanks fo3nix... you're always helping me out with my technical queries arn't you??

I think I'll just stick with Safari for now... with regards to Yahoo Mail Beta... having never used it I don't know what I'm missing out on, & my regular Yahoo does what i need it to! I figure they'll fix it sooner or later to work with Safari..??

Just one of my little queries really!

[fairy!]

tomd... Macs are very compatible with Adobe Photoshop, InDesign, Quark etc... programmes that i use on a daily basis.
I haven't noticed any other compatability issues other than a couple of things on the internet.

[fo3nix]

tomd: I'm not, it just annoys me when people call Macs less compatible. They aren't. They have less support, e.g., less games etc. on the system, but that's only because the majority of game developers design for Intel processors with Windows. Mac OS X has great OpenGL support, and now that they're changing over to Intel processors too, there should be more games developed. (It's expensive to convert from Intel to PowerPC, hence why the developers didn't convert over previously).

fairy: hopefully they will, yes. I assume they will do.

[tomd]

Macs have their place with professional application for audio / graphics / video editing, but that's about all. The fabled 'never crashing' is a complete myth, and the software is clunky and doesn't use instinctive shortcuts.

I use Macs just about every day of the week, I have to, as the software I use for work isn't realeased on PC. They are overpriced and no more reliable than PCs.
When trying to share network drives between Macs and PCs Macs have file system problems, and trying to use external hardware with them is a drag.

It irritates me when people recommend them for use as home computers, for word processing, internet browsing etc. In this situation the individual would be paying well over the odds for something that would be less appropriate for the application than a sub-�400 Dell Windows-based PC.

[tomd]

I resent having to pay �1500 for a laptop rather than �500, simply because the industry and public keep supporting this incompatibility. The sooner one or the other is gone the better.

[Pat Flanel]

If you resent paying �1500 for a laptop then the answer is simple - don't. As for clunky software and not using instinctive shortcuts, can I just ask are you using OS X?

OS9 (Classic) is regarded now as clunky but Micro$soft stole (allegedly) many ideas from it.

You either like or dislike OSX. Many people prefer Linux in many versions.
Compatability problems occur when developers want to use a proprietry system and want everyone to buy into thier system. Developers also want to sell to the biggest revenue stream which due to marketing, is windows.
Macs like PCs have their place - use what you prefer.
Me, I will stick to my Mac with no viruses and what I find a very intuitive interface.
Rant over...... :-)

[tomd]

If you read my posts fully, you'd realised I need to, as the software I am obliged to use is required for my work.

[tomd]

And 'regarded now' as clunky? The software didn't change when it became older.

[Pat Flanel]

Well the whole interface changed ie the 'look and feel' of the system but as technology changes older systems are seen to be less polished than the new stuff. Look at the difference in window$ 3.1 and XP big difference in all aspects. Same with OS 6, 7, 8 and 9 to OS X.

I know from your posts you are obliged to use macs at work. Is it OS9 or OS X ?
You may not prefer them but many do. Each to their own. We don't all drive Rolls Royces.......

[cascarelli]

Goodness tomd, and there was you telling someone else not to get touchy!!

They're only computer systems....don't get so worked up about it!!

Why on earth does it 'irritate' you that people use Macs at home???