What might they mean by too "mac-like" and not configurable enough?

Maybe it's the cookies and the pop-up controls, where you can't make exceptions for certain pages (I'm guessing Apple hasn't changed this in the beta), or a setting to prevent certain types of javascript (like moving or re-sizing windows) but allow others.

Maybe it's the way that you can't restrict your history to a set number of days, or your cache to a certain size.

Maybe it's the way the downloads window can't be set to close automatically after a successful download.

Maybe it's any number of other ways that you can't configure Safari that you can configure other browsers. There are third-party apps that add some of this functionality, but it's not a part of Safari itself.

All that said, I don't have so much sympathy for those who complain the windows of Safari don't act like windows in other Windows apps - keeping that "mac-like" stuff should be okay, though maybe a minor nuisance for Windows-heads.

The Safari app is not for Windows/PC users to "discover" and move over to, it's for Mac users who use Boot Camp or some other VM product and want a familiar browsing experience.

There is a very large Mac user contingent that HAVE to use regular PCs during the day. This will give them an opportunity to take back some of what they miss. This alone will increase the useage numbers.

Secondly, its for programmers wanting to know more about Apple's technologies for their iPhone Web 2.0 AJAX code cranking.

Thats it, thats all. But thats enough to change the effective install base and % of useage over the 'net.

Vista steals nearly all of OS X's look and feel as well as a bunch of features and Safari on Windows suddenly seems too mac-like?

Vista users on other forums report that pages do not display properly, crashes easily. I use Vista on a Macbook thanks to Bootcamp, everything works fine except Safari Beta. It works fine on Os X but really needs improvement for Vista.

hence the word beta.

hilarioius. apple did the photo copying for the pc. whoa.

If Windows had had a unified look, I could have agreed, but as far as I know, iTunes is also rather Mac-like on Windows. When it comes to options, perhaps those who complains are the ones who love features, more features and still more of them? Which in the end creates bloatware. Most of those features are only for geeks and those who know Apple, know that their intention is to make devices "for the rest of us". Geeks may disagree, but that is how it is and that is why a typical Apple-applications is "lacking" in options. It is a deliberate choice. I haven't tried out Safari for Windows and it might be worse than the beta for Mac, but the latter works fine and I don't miss any feature. I browse, I see. That's it. And now it even works with one of my banks which I had to go to FF to be able to log in earlier:) It seems to be faster, too.

... really wanted it to fly but the option to add proxy info was greyed out so I couldn't get past the firewall. Yup, it's a beta.

Z

Had a friend visit for a week. She uses IE on XP on her desktop at home, and IE on Vista with her laptop. While here she used my iMac and Macbook because she likes MacOSX much better than either XP or Vista. Only once did I see her using her laptop. When I told her about Safari on Windows her eyes lit up and she asked me to install it right away. First thing she did was do visit all her favorite websites (including her bank). All worked just fine. She's had zero problems with Safari so far. She went back to NM a happy camper, all because of Safari on Vista.

Just one example, but it's the only one I know.

(Wow! I like that resizable edit field!)

Does anyone know what this actually means ?

If Windows had had a unified look, I could have agreed, but as far as I know, iTunes is also rather Mac-like on Windows.

OK, so your argument is "Apple broke the look with iTunes, so its OK to break it with Safari!". Personally, I find that itunes looks like c*** on windows, too. Especially the asinine menu bar location.

But I love how, now that Apple has finally gotten around to standardizing its look across applications (wow, after 5 versions, they're finally reading to their own guidelines!), mac users now feel they can start knocking Windows non-unified looks. And this is all on the assumption Apple doesn't change things up before Leopard's release.

When it comes to options, perhaps those who complains are the ones who love features, more features and still more of them? Which in the end creates bloatware.

No, its mostly people who want to have some semblance of control, or at least an idea of what's going on. Shall we try an example? Apple's damnable pop-up blocker has two settings: On and Off. And when its on, there's not a single indication that a pop-up window was blocked. Which then drives users to say the browser doesn't work with some site of theirs, because nothing happens when they click this or that, and its because they don't realize a pop-up was blocked.

Another example: My mortgage company's site didn't work for the longest time, until I found it was because they required a third-party cookie to be written, and my browser had that turned off. Or just having a message when you enter or exit a secure site (gee, I don't know, I guess I'm the only one who likes to be actually told of this, rather then having to search for some small icon in a corner of the window).

Most of those features are only for geeks and those who know Apple, know that their intention is to make devices "for the rest of us". Geeks may disagree, but that is how it is and that is why a typical Apple-applications is "lacking" in options. It is a deliberate choice.

Of course its a deliberate choice. Just like why apple has so few computer choices. They think they need to treat their userbase as idiots who can't handle an option. "OMG, should I get a 15" MacBook or a 15" MacBook Pro? I can't decide! Oh, h***, that's it, I'm going to shoot myself!"

One last thing for you testudo - quit using a Mac. Do you like a lot of choices? If so then quit bitching, just use a PC instead and enjoy a million choices.

Here's one thing I hate about the new Safari:

When I quit, this new slow-witted version does a Windows imitation. It pops up a dialog: "Are You Sure You Want to Quit Safari?"

Of course I want to quit. That's why I said quit. I will live with the consequences... just quit.

I hate these condescendingly annoying Are You Sure?" questions enough to hold down option in the Finder when I shut down or restart. I shouldn't have to hold down option, but I do. Now this Windows thinking has seeped into Safari. I hope, in future, there will be a way to globally disable this Windows mentality.

Howzabout a checkbox that says "This user is not an idiot, and when s/he gives a command, s/he means it. Don't second guess every decision."

The problem with giving any idiot access to newspapers and computers is that they have no ability to evaluate what they read, but rather just repeat everything they hear or read. It's pretty much garbage in, garbage out; just like parrots. We really should consider requiring a license for both.

on 1 thing. the pop-up blocker on safari is worthless. without knowing you've blocked something, and having the chance to review if it's legit, one should never turn it on. pop-ups are legit components of many online apps, such as ecommerce apps, photo galleries, etc.

maybe this will ultimately change in 3.x release.

I think you're all missing the point of Safari, which is to be Mac-like. There are already plenty of Windows-like browsers on Windows. Safari is for people that want the Mac browsing experience.

I don't see what all this confusion is about.