orko Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 Well, well, well. Apple just updated my Quicktime to the latest version on my Vista laptop... and guess who came along for the ride? I was surprised because so far the Apple updater only has updated software that was already installed. This seems like a bold (but I like it) move by them to push their browser like this. Quote Link to comment
crelf Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 QUOTE (orko @ Apr 11 2008, 01:25 PM) I was surprised because so far the Apple updater only has updated software that was already installed. I don't like it at all - give me the option to install it, but don't push it on me. It's an updater - so it should stick to updating. Personally, I think an updater installing unauthorized software is a big security risk. Quote Link to comment
orko Posted April 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 QUOTE (crelf @ Apr 11 2008, 10:44 AM) I don't like it at all - give me the option to install it, but don't push it on me. It's an updater - so it should stick to updating. Personally, I think an updater installing unauthorized software is a big security risk. You mean like the Microsoft Updater just "updates" existing software? :laugh: Don't get me wrong, the updater may have very well offered a choice to "opt out". I just didn't see one since I'm so used to that updater offering updates to QT and itunes...and my ipod won't work correctly if all of my computers aren't synced to the same version of itunes. I see the screen and hit okay. They have me trained well. Of course, Safari definitely was checked by default in the list of updates, otherwise I wouldn't have gotten it. BTW...I'm really digging this safari browser... Quote Link to comment
Jim Kring Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 There was a bit of an uproar about this, but it seems to have died very quickly. Apple makes good products that are useful to people. So, it's not a big deal for them to make it easy for people to obtain, and those who do get it on accident get a pleasant surprise. Quote Link to comment
Phillip Brooks Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 QUOTE (orko @ Apr 11 2008, 01:25 PM) I was surprised because so far the Apple updater only has updated software that was already installed. This seems like a bold (but I like it) move by them to push their browser like this. If you were still at your http://forums.lavag.org/Unavailable-t8927.html' target="_blank">previous job, you wouldn't have had this "problem" Quote Link to comment
crelf Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 <cite>QUOTE (orko @ Apr 11 2008, 01:53 PM) </a></cite> You mean like the Microsoft Updater just "updates" existing software? :laugh: I'm not comparing it to anything else - just because <insert friend's name here> jumped of the harbour bridge, would you? <cite>QUOTE (orko @ Apr 11 2008, 01:53 PM) </cite> Don't get me wrong, the updater may have very well offered a choice to "opt out". Fair enough - that's what I was missing. That said, I'd prefer an opt-in rather than and opt-out. Take the java RTE installer for example: it gives you the option to install OpenOffice - I'm sure it's a great product, but I'm not interested in it right now - and the installer offers it to you, but with a opt-in option - I like that. (Jim Kring @ Apr 11 2008, 02:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=44085">Apple makes good products that are useful to people. So, it's not a big deal for them to make it easy for people to obtain, and those who do get it on accident get a pleasant surprise. Both of those statements depend on whether the user agrees and that supports my view: make unsolicited software opt-in, not opt-out. Quote Link to comment
PaulG. Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 I installed Safari after the 2nd or 3rd time iTunes wanted to update. It's not a bad browser, but nothing spectacular. I guess I expected more from Apple. I'll stick with Firefox. Quote Link to comment
orko Posted April 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 QUOTE (Phillip Brooks @ Apr 11 2008, 11:36 AM) If you were still at your http://forums.lavag.org/Unavailable-t8927.html' target="_blank">previous job, you wouldn't have had this "problem" LOL :laugh: Very true! Funny you should bring that up... it wasn't a coincidence that my signature changed recently. This time however, it has nothing to do with not enjoying my job. PM me for details... Quote Link to comment
Tomi Maila Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 QUOTE (PaulG. @ Apr 11 2008, 09:52 PM) I installed Safari after the 2nd or 3rd time iTunes wanted to update. It's not a bad browser, but nothing spectacular. I guess I expected more from Apple. I'll stick with Firefox. With my Windows XP safari seems to use anti-alialised fonts which are harder to read than fonts used by Firefox and IE :thumbdown: Quote Link to comment
orko Posted April 13, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 QUOTE (Tomi Maila @ Apr 12 2008, 01:01 AM) With my Windows XP safari seems to use anti-alialised fonts which are harder to read than fonts used by Firefox and IE :thumbdown: Tomi, I found that lightening up the font smoothing (in edit->preferences) helped this. Quote Link to comment
Yair Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 I would have to agree with Chris, but Windows Update also uses the "opt out" route, which isn't nice. By the way, I don't know about the Apple updater, but if you uncheck an item in Windows Update, it stops bugging you about it. QUOTE (Tomi Maila @ Apr 12 2008, 10:01 AM) With my Windows XP safari seems to use anti-alialised fonts which are harder to read than fonts used by Firefox and IE :thumbdown: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html' rel='nofollow' target="_blank">Not just for you. Quote Link to comment
Ton Plomp Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 QUOTE (Tomi Maila @ Apr 12 2008, 09:01 AM) With my Windows XP safari seems to use anti-alialised fonts which are harder to read than fonts used by Firefox and IE :thumbdown: QUOTE (orko @ Apr 12 2008, 11:01 AM) Tomi, I found that lightening up the font smoothing (in edit->preferences) helped this. As always, Joel is right. Ton (who enjoys Joel Spolsky more and more) Quote Link to comment
Chris Davis Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 QUOTE (Tomi Maila @ Apr 12 2008, 02:01 AM) With my Windows XP safari seems to use anti-alialised fonts which are harder to read than fonts used by Firefox and IE :thumbdown: This has been a topic of debate for people who prefer Apple's method of rendering fonts to Microsoft's. http://webkit.org/blog/168/gdi-text-on-windows/' rel='nofollow' target="_blank">This post from the Webkit blog might help you change Safari's rendering methods. Quote Link to comment
orko Posted April 14, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 QUOTE (Chris Davis @ Apr 12 2008, 07:54 PM) http://webkit.org/blog/168/gdi-text-on-windows/' rel='nofollow' target="_blank">This post from the Webkit blog might help you change Safari's rendering methods. Thanks! This setting is *much* better! Quote Link to comment
Chris Davis Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 QUOTE (orko @ Apr 13 2008, 02:02 PM) Thanks! This setting is *much* better! Glad it helped. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.