Safari Web Browser coming to PC - colormanged?

Just read a news story and had a look at apple's site...

Safari is now available for PC users.

Does theis mean we will have a color-managed browser on the PC platform?

Couldn't find any details about that on the apple website.

davidcrebelxt wrote in post #3359661
Just read a news story and had a look at apple's site...

Safari is now available for PC users.

Does theis mean we will have a color-managed browser on the PC platform?

Couldn't find any details about that on the apple website.

Does it really matter? Most of the world won't be using color managed browsing so we can't upload pics outside the sRGB color space anyway. Maybe one day though.

But apparently, yes, it is ICC aware.

only photographers will use it..haha.

i'm not sure i'll ever leave firefox. the extensions are just too nice.

In2Photos wrote in post #3359739
Does it really matter? Most of the world won't be using color managed browsing so we can't upload pics outside the sRGB color space anyway. Maybe one day though.

Ahh... but now we COULD just upload as adobeRGB and tell people to view it with Safari if they want to see it right. (just kidding)

But it could push IE, Firefox, and Opera to implement color-management as well, which would be a big step forward.

If you don't mind my asking, why is color management in a browser really important? I was always under the impression that it was important to be seeing accurate color when working with an image so that it prints as expected, but is anyone viewing it on the web really going to be that discerning?

bieber wrote in post #3360647
If you don't mind my asking, why is color management in a browser really important? I was always under the impression that it was important to be seeing accurate color when working with an image so that it prints as expected, but is anyone viewing it on the web really going to be that discerning?

If you wanted to print a photo you see on a site it would come in handy?

bieber wrote in post #3360647
If you don't mind my asking, why is color management in a browser really important? I was always under the impression that it was important to be seeing accurate color when working with an image so that it prints as expected, but is anyone viewing it on the web really going to be that discerning?

Not a HUGE deal, really. It just helps alleviate confusion sometimes... Many people are told to shoot in AdobeRGB because of larger colorspace... but are then befuddled when they post their images and they look all washed out on the web. If people start using Color-managed web browsers it shouldn't matter as much what colorspace images are in when they are posted to the web. (That's my impression, at least.)

Avoid this program. Apple apparently doesn't really have a clue how to write a secure program:

http://apple.slashdot.​org/apple/07/06/12/012​0230.shtml

cosworth wrote in post #3364408
Avoid this program. Apple apparently doesn't really have a clue how to write a secure program:

http://apple.slashdot.​org/apple/07/06/12/012​0230.shtml

Oh, I'm sure Apple understands about security. Afterall, OS X is inherently more secure than Windows. Fixing bugs and security issues in a beta version is to be expected. Perhaps you should withold judgement until the non-beta is released. Is that asking too much, or can you just not resist taking a jab at every opportunity? Oh, and your link refers to the same "security group" that lied about cracking OS X a few months ago. It was only after they were busted by several security gurus that they fessed up to cheating to compromise OS X's security by using a third-party wireless device's driver.

I think Apple's releasing Safari for Windows so that it will make iPhone integration easier. After all, the browser on the iPhone is Safari as well. I think you'll also see the Mac Address Book, iSync and iCal ported to windows as well, since these (along with iTunes) are what Macs use to manage mobile phones already.

iPhone has no SDK release. So I'm not sure how this will happen.

Really?

Hmmm...

Notice, that link is a Mac source as well...

Not trying to start any brand war here, but to blindly assume that a Windows platform can't be secure is a very illogical approach. All software has vulnerability issues. If 100% bug-free software was even possible, it would be impossible to afford. Windows tends to garner the reaction you mentioned because it's targeted more frequently than other platforms. This is due to the vast amount of damge a vulnerability can gain, because of the large amount of systems in place.

As a sidenote, I wouldn't use a "beta" browser on a production system regardless of who made it.

Misbehavin wrote in post #3370411
=Misbehavin';3370411]

As a sidenote, I wouldn't use a "beta" browser on a production system regardless of who made it.

It seems that ALL software nowadays is basically a "beta" release... MS constantly is coming out with security updates for products that have been established for years. As do other browsers. Most games and other software have patches available, if not for security, for performance issues.

I've personally never had a problem using a beta browser, I've used ones from mozilla, microsoft, and others... If it crashes a few times I don't use it until a new release comes out... simple as that.

To an extent, that lends itself to my argument of bug-free software being unrealistic. However, the beta process should weed out the most troubling issues. By the time a product goes "gold", you should have to deal with fewer bugs, incompatibilities, and vulnerabilities.

Even after a products release they are still things that creep up that didn't present themselves during the beta cycle. Think of the lines of code in most software, as it numbers in the hundreds of thousands if not the millions. Then add in the fact that they are an infinite amount of configurations in the real world that can cause an issue, and it's easy to see why there are patches after the fact for any software product.

However, after the beta cycle, the worst bugs should be crushed. Beta releases are released with the major intention of finding bugs. Which is why someone in IT, such as myself, wouldn't use beta products in a production enviroment.

In regards to Safari however, I do like the aspect of a color managed browser. Not that I think Safari will ever become a dominant browser because of it, but rather the fact that it may stir up some changes with browser industry as a whole. Showing your album or portfolio online may truely represent the final product more closely in a few years.

cosworth wrote in post #3370326
iPhone has no SDK release. So I'm not sure how this will happen.

Why would an SDK be needed to port iCal, iSync and Safari to the iPhone when they're made by Apple? Also, 3rd part apps are already showing up for the iPhone so a dedicated SDK isn't really necessary.