Windows software updates often install without asking users. They've even been known to force a reboot.

I don't see this as a huge problem. I think it's much worse when an installer installs MSDN or Google Toolbar without making it clear (i.e. installer has it checked by default just like the Apple installer does.) What about that weatherbug thing that AIM installed on everyone's machine?

I've sat down at non-tech people's computers to find they have 2 or 3 search toolbars on their browser. When I ask them, they just say, "I don't know how to get rid of them but I don't want them." I see that as a bigger issue. At least this is a separate app that doesn't modify existing apps or settings unlike a toolbar or desktop search tool.

Most of the people I know who use Macs use Firefox as their main browser. I doubt Apple will win that much share of the market by forcing Safari on their iTunes users.

Though it is just another example of Apple giving out unwanted software in their updates. A few years ago, I was trying to install only Quicktime (no, I don't know why either) on a Windows PC. But for some reason, Apple was convinced I wanted iTunes as well... In the end, I went for Quicktime alternative!

I recently reinstalled iTunes om a xp machine I rebuilt. (I like iTunes and quickTime so get over it now). clicked on the update tool (Airport had been bugging me about an update for a week).

Now at this point its my first use of Update, I kinda like that it didnt send me to a web page but did list the updates.

Yep Safari was there, much to my surprise, I thought maybe cos of iTunes needing it, but no, just cos Steve Jobs wants me to use it.

I agree on this point that it is wrong for Apple (or anybody else) to push new software with the update app.

But, being British and thus or at least average inteligence I first red what I was updating made a choice, and decided I was more then happy using Opera (you know the browser that started things like tabbed browsing).

It would have been better had Safari been marked as new software or perhaps the word updater means "to keep you upto date with Apple releases"

I wouldnt go as far as teh security of the internet, but yeah it is a lil miss leading, I think Apple should make it more clear why Safari is on the list of updates.

For a brief moment I thought I had Safari installed. It was quite a brain tease considering it was Apple's UPDATER software. Kudos for someone with a little pull pointing this out to the general public.

I started reading your post, in my head, in an American accent (I'm English btw), but then halfway through it says "But, being British" and the voice in my head suddenly turned into a very posh British accent. Mental. Maybe I should get that checked out.

Back on planet Earth, yeah I was kind of really actually angry that Apple Updater tried to force Safari on me. But, I unchecked and updated iTunes and Quicktime or whatever. Then when it finishes it does a quick re-check for any further updates, and it popped up again with Safari and the box was ready-ticked for your pleasure! Not cool Snake-Hips Steve.

Even Dollar Bill lets me select "Don't show this update again" on IE7 (for my Eee no less) and then doesn't really bother me about it again. Legend, really.

I noticed that nice little Apple Software Update offering me iTunes with the latest update for QuickTime. I couldn't just choose the QuickTime update, I had to take iTunes as well. I have no use for iTunes, if I'd wanted it, I'd have downloaded it. There was only one thing for it, if QuickTime needed an update I couldn't get without getting iTunes - bye bye QuickTime. Now I won't be offered Safari, or any other software that Mr Jobs thinks I should put on my machine.

iHate - because I do.... 'kin Unix butcher!

I'm similar to Chris, but I was fooled. I got the window, which clearly identified itself as a software upgrade and thought "I didn't know I installed Safari on this computer, but if I did I guess I should update it." I figured if I had Safari on my computer, I should make sure it was up to date to keep it safe. I also figured that Apple was trustworthy, so I didn't question the apparent claim that I already had Safari and needed to update it. I won't make the mistake of trusting Apple over my own memory again and I will uninstall this when I get home.

I don't think the angle of FireFox complaining about this should be the issue and I think it is sad that a normally savvy and user/admin friendly site like Der Regg is framing it this way.

It is simply irresponsible and sleazy for any software company to do what Apple has been and is now doing. They know it as well. It does not matter that other companies do it. I would argue that other companies (Real comes to mind) that have done this have been punished by knowledgeable consumers with choices.

I have been very annoyed with Apple software over the years for its trying to get its hooks into settings and software where it doesn't belong. I will not use I-tunes for this reason (the store part is a decent app but I will not use it for other reason's). I thought Apple was getting better (it improved the Quicktime install a few years ago due to complaints).

It is easy to dismiss my behavior as "one-off" but when I talk to users I know I am in the strong majority. Now, I doubt I will ever use or try Safari.

I agree, my trust has taken a step backwards when updaters give me things I have not asked for. The next step will be updaters that remove things I already have on my PC but Apple/Microsoft/etc. don’t think I need (or deserve?).

The industry should get together to sort out a code of practice to reassure us that, at least some parts, of the industry have “morals”.

Firefox gets updated in the background without me knownig.

without asking.

It is much worse.

I agree with Lilly. Like all iTunes users, I'm used to seeing these frequent update windows. Nevertheless, this time I did read the fine print. When I saw the unsolicited Safari push, two words came to mind: "cheesey" and "sleazey". I clicked the cancel button.

The thing that I keep seeing is people talking about how "underhanded" it is for Apple to put this on their software updater. But it's not like you can keep Microsoft from putting Internet Explorer on your PC. It's always there, it's a "Critical Update" through the Windows Live Updates service. You're forced to install it.

Safari however, innocently shows up on the Updates Log for iTunes, but its not required to update. You can just simply click "Cancel", and the window goes away. You're not required to download Safari for Windows or anything. It's merely something Apple threw in as a suggestion.

People are acting like Steve Jobs personally sent emails to everyone threatening them if they didn't download Safari from the iTunes Updater. This is getting to be a bit silly.

I was going to read this article, but then another of those damned adverts appeared that covers up the article!

Rather than wait for the close gadget to 'finally' appear, I did what I usually do - went to another page.

These annoying adverts simply drive away customers.

Because some people don't take kindly to having their personal property invaded with jOBs spamware, they will choose not to install the update, thus leaving their computers open for zombie candidates. Already happened in the past with Microcrap when they stopped allowing updates on non-registered OS's thus propagating worms and trogans. They were forced to back down.

Question to Jobs - who was the genious to made the call to replace every occurence of the usage of \n with \r and making the Apple BSD OS incompatible with all other BSD and Linux OS's. Nuff said about ability to make judgements at that company.

"But, being British and thus or at least average inteligence I first red what I was updating made a choice, and decided I was more then happy using Opera (you know the browser that started things like tabbed browsing)."

What you wrote about and how you wrote it seem to be at odds, unless you were only trying to exemplify "average".

Anyway, it seems a little shady to activate the install checkbox and couch it as an update when the user has never had the application installed in the first place. Still, it is voluntary to run the updater and leave the option enabled, so I give this a meh, who cares?

Just watched a movie on WMP10. At the end it said there was WMP update and did I want to install it. I said OK. It's now installing WMP11. Grrrrr....

Apple software update tells you that this is new software and lets you choose not install it. I think it's pretty clear. The only thing they might have done differently is not have Safari ticked to install by default - but how many apps have Google toolbar set to install by default these days?

Jobs' little trick only accomplished one thing here, and that was that I've uninstalled the software updater! I was already tired of the "please change iTunes versions so that we can block things on the iPhone you don't own" stunts, and I'll take the responsibility of keeping up with the truly important updates myself.

And if you choose not to install Safari / iTunes the auto update nags you once per week - regular as clockwork with a middle-of-the-screen-interrupting-whatever-you-were-doing window. The only way to get rid of it (which I have taken) is to remove all traces of Apple software from my PC and I now run the free alternatives.

Shame to see Apple, who do so many things very well screw something like this up so very badly.

Why does Safari silently connect to something every hour without my permission and what is it connecting to?

I installed Safari 3.1 on Windows and the first time I tried a URL my firewall popped up a notice asking what permissions I wanted to give it. As with other browsers, I allowed it free access and forgot about it. However, I was connected to another network (my firewall gives applications separate permissions for each network) and opened Safari to load some local pages. After about 30 minutes I suddenly got the firewall popup asking what permissions I wanted to give this new program (it was new to this network, at least). Safari was trying to connect to a DNS server though I don't know what domain it was trying to resolve, but either way I have disabled all auto updates settings in Safari, Quicktime and the Apple updater program, so there was absolutely no reason for Safari to connect to the Internet.

I thought maybe it was a glitch but then about an hour later it tried again, and then an hour or so after that.

So does anyone who's more of a techie than me know what Safari's doing? Who's it connecting to and what is it sending/recieving?

Fair enough, Apple has the right to expand and develop.

What they dont have the right to do is mis-label. I hate grey areas and everything in them, unfortunately it seems as though Apple has fallen into one of these. I will be watching this issue (and Apple) very closely.

His god complex has gone too far now. Installing new software from an update that belongs to another application is just out of order. If I wanted safari, I would have installed it myself not slipstreaming alongside something else. Even if I was an ignorant user wanting to move away from IE, I could type in 'browser' into a search engine and find firefox,opera and safari very easily, I don't need 'the almighty jobs' to decide I 'need' his awful POS

I'm surprised it wasn't bundled with iTunes like the crap installed to support the iPhone I don't have. Eventually I couldn't stand iTunes and ditched it, still regret buying an IPod.

Whether or not this will improve Apple's share of the market or not is not the issue. If Microsoft had done something like this, say automatically suggest that you install MS Office or something they would be back in court (probably in Europe). Why are people defending Apple for this. They are trying to make people install Safari without realizing it. I know that if I hadn't disabled Apple Updater (personally I don't like none essential software trying to update itself) I probably would have installed it by accident under the assumption that an updater will only update the software I have already decided to install.

It is just as bad as those software programs that try to install toolbars by default. There's no difference in my book. Apple should not be allowed to do this. Update programs yes (that's in the users interest generally), install new software is a no.

I know that the user still has the option to unclick it but a company of Apple's size should not be assuming that they will want to install a new piece of software.

"Why does Safari silently connect to something every hour without my permission and what is it connecting to?"

RSS feeds, perchance?

Apple Update...

is secretly installed under your nose, boots up with windows, has been known to take up considerable system resources, and also ensures that all iTunes and Quicktime compatible media files are opened with iTunes and quicktime, and without the user's consent.

Like Spyware, it installs itself, runs itself on every startup, is tricky to configure and remove, and also writes to the system registry, automatically overwriting any other file association settings you already had set, every time you reboot.

iTunes...

is great, it organises your music, and simplifies searching and cetegorizing. But aside from that it's hoards RAM, changes anything that is not MP3 to ACC without you wanting it to, and will only work with external devices and drives called iPhone, and iPod/iPod Mini, and iPod Touch.

Now, Steve, why would anyone be remotely interested in installing your over-decorated, over simplified, minimalistic Safari web browser, when your downloads effectively install update software that is, effectively, Spyware, and have a media player that wants you to spend money on media players with screens that are nearly pointless for watching videos without squinting, having to hold it up with your hands (no kickstands on iPods)?

It may be an improvement in free services and applications for Apple customers, but not an improvement in people who have lost their trust in your software.

If Microsoft did this, everyone would end up buying more PS3s and Linux PCs/EePCs.

But It is good to have a laptop that looks like it can easily be delivered in a household UK post box or used as a table mat.

It's trying to dupe users in to installing a different browser. Imagine if Microsoft wrote say.. Windows Media Player for the Mac (or Linux) and assume it was required to use the incredibly popular zune (remember, just imagining here). So millions of computer illiterate people are buying these products and installing the software. Suddenly, and update window pops up and they click "Ok", like every other user - they don't read what it says. Boom, it installed IE4Mac on your machine, claiming it is 3x faster then every other browser, etc. For those people that are trying to defend this, put MS in these shoes and suddenly "ZOMG END OF THE WORLD" and what not.

It's a shady, underhanded way to get people installing crap.

I know I can turn off Apple Software Update so it never asks me, until I tell it to. Also, everyone should know what apps they have installed. If you don't, then maybe you should check after a late-night drunken web surf.

Finally, everyone should pay attention to the check boxes, and turn the damn things off if they don't want the software/update!

-h

Apple is about lock-in. During their little spate of Ads I started to get quite tempted to get one, but that temptation passed in all of about 35seconds.

I don't mind supporting Apple on a network nowadays, since crapple talk has gone.

And I would advise people who want to just have a computer that works buy one. It is a solid piece of kit.

But personally that lock-in style is too annoying for my own systems.

For the person who wants to know what is going on with Safari autoconnect - tcpdump or wireshark is probably what you want to run.

I think Mozilla may be making more out of this than it really is - OS vendors always try this trick, and so do program makers but they are more limited by the OS vendor who can stop them in their tracks.

Anti-competitive I would say - not less secure, installation is always going to be made simpler and simpler and sure that reduces security but hey, Mozilla does some automatic updating of its own on plugins.

And since the whole Bon Echo, Ice Weasel fiasco, I think Mozilla are just trying to justify their actions there. The business model of Firefox works on the google search bar and the SSL certs bundled. As long as they protect those, anything else just helps with branding.

"undermining internet security" ??? C'mon now...that's going a little too far. How many times do you sign up for something (like signing up to post comments to this website) where there are check boxes already checked to receive even more junk mail?? Let's all think about this a little bit. If you were running Apple, with a product you believe to be much better than anyone else's similar product but you have a very small market share of users, wouldn't you do something similar? It's how business gets done. I'm annoyed that when I bought a new HP Laptop there was all kinds of crap preinstalled on it. I never asked for that. It's how businesses get you to try their stuff. Annoying yes....however I just deleted it. At least they're asking before it's installed.

Although I did find a way to tell MS not to continue to remind me about IE7 updates (I still use 6 for compatibility with Deltek) it often "enabled" itself again.

Not only that it was labelled as a critical upgrade and when I told it NO software update acted like I was jumping off a cliff without a bungee cord.

Apple's wasn't nearly as bad as this and the updater app did make it clear it was a new install whether people bothered to read it or not.

Should they have done it? NO

Was it as bad as Microsoft? NO or at least not worse

Was it as bad as Symantec on new Dell system that nearly blackmails you into buying their software after the 30 day trial has expired? NO it doesn't cost anything.

Was it as bad as google toolbar being bundled with unrelated software and the install checkbox checked by default? No because this doesn't modify other apps, unlike a toolbar.

Was this as bad as Windows Media Player 11 update that didn't tell you what was going to be updated prior to install? No, looked like a small update to WMP 10, until it started installing.

I'm not an Apple apologizer and am quick to point out their faults, but this just seems like it isn't even worth talking about.

Let's talk about the fact that Apple's Leopard webpage said it would sync notes and ToDos with your iPhone, but just prior to release they removed that from their web page, and the feature is no where in sight. Let's talk about their denying most devs iPhone developer status. Let's talk about XCode which can't compare to Visual Studio. Let's talk about lack of vision in the Web 2.0 arena. Let's talk about Java 6 availability for Leopard.

These are real issues people. Not the fact that Apple uses an install method similar to MS and others.

It's unscrupulous yes, but how else do you compete with a browser that's bundled with Windows?

I have just received the update as I am typing this and my opinion is that this can and will cause people to install safari by mistake but how many of those will actually use the application and how many will actually know its installed?

I have a mac and I run firefox as I prefer it to safari so I will not be installing it on windows.

I believe this practice is deceitful and could damage customers trust in apple, this is blatently an attempt to take advantage of users who do not inspect everything they download!

I could be wrong but if I recall correctly there are a number of programs for windows that bundle firefox with their installer and have it checked to install by default... I know it's the same for the google/yahoo/ms toolbar. I suppose since the toolbars don't interfere with Mozilla's market share there's no hissy fit required.

If you see Safari in your update prompts and uncheck the others, and select the option (under the options menu) to ignore selected updates, it'll be removed from your list. BUT... the next time there is an update for safari it will be a different update and so will prompt you again to install it.

I've got quicktime (for some websites that want it) and not itunes but can't banish it from the list forever. :(

But you know what the net result of it will be? A few pissed-off geeks (such as ourselves) but millions of "normal users" using Safari.

I disagree with it as a practice, but you've got to admit it will work a charm as far as the numbers are concerned!

Safari isn't up to much, even on a iMac, Firefox beats it hands down in all areas so far. So even Mac uses prefer FF.

As for the bundling issue, isn't what MS got fined over, a few years ago ?

Steve Jobs is starting to act a little like Steve Gates these days. Principle isn't clearly something these chaps hold dear.

Got more important issues to worry about. I still have a choice and Firefox is it.

The real problem with the Crapple "updater" is that if you run it again to check squicktime updates, right after unticking iTunes+squicktime and telling it to ignore iTunes+squicktime, it will immediately try to con you into installing iTunes, despite the fact that you just told it to ignore it. Apparently "ignore" has a different meaning in Cupertino.

If the Crapple "updater" separated it into updates and recommended software sections it and didn't preselect recommended software wouldn't be so damn annoying.

Maybe iTards like having their boxes ticked by Steve, but we Wintards and Freetards prefer to tick our own boxes.

I'ver removed the apple software update anyway, but is Safari supporting the thumb buttons on mice yet?

I was forced to install Quicktime in order to take some "distance learning" classes. As regular as clockwork, I'm told that I need to update to iTunes + Quicktime and, now, Safari. I DON"T WANT ITUNES OR SAFARI!!! Just Quicktime security updates, please.

I don't download music, movies or TV shows, don't own an MP3 player and really resent Apple's attempts to force me to install software I neither have use for nor want.

Never an Apple product here, Stevie boy!

So, lesse. A software update application asks you if you want to install a piece of software. It gives you a little ticky-box thingy so that you can say "no."

Clearly this is a novel new usage of the word "force" I am not acquainted with. You'd think that Steve & Co. Would be showing up at folks' houses, gun in hand, and saying things like "Install Safari or I splatter your brains all over the computer!"

"Force." Christ, people. Perspective.

This is just such a non-issue. Another opportunity for apple bashers to get their sticks out, apple fanboys to get their shields up, and idiots who trust anything that pops up on their PC and says "wanna download me?" to get another unexpected present on their hard disk.

Move along now, there's nothing to see...

I noticed a long time ago that every time I installed Quicktime or iTunes that Apple Software Updates ws installed, even when I unchecked the option box during installation.... but it's right there in the Add/Remove Programs Control Panel, and it uninstalls easily and quickly!

My PC remains safe and secure -- and it doesn't break a thing. In fact, it fixed an iTunes bug I ran into once!

...nobody on Windows has Quicktime installed any more?

Just one more thing you have to keep patched, nags you to install the abortion that is iTunes - and does absolutely nothing that VLC doesn't do orders of magnitude better?

Jobs "knows how to reach" Windows customers all right. Reach them, vex them and make them wish firey death on the Apple empire, mostly.

It was bad enough with the updates for the iphone (not available in Canada) and apple TV (a very limited selection of crap shows in Canada) but Safari was too much.

Apple update is GONE.

If I want Safari I know where to fined it, until then stuff it Apple.

For those getting annoyed by it, if you right click the program that it's trying to update you can tell it to not show that update again, meaning you can prevent Safari from ever appearing again.

If only I could be arsed to deal with podcasts outside of iTunes I'd ditch it. Although I don't get them very often anyway. Bye bye you resource hogging piece of junk. Winamp you now get to do it all.

> "Safari for Windows is the .....easiest-to-use web browser for the PC,"

What's difficult to use about a browser?

The only logical conclusion is that the spiel is aimed at morons...but surely most of them already have Macs?

Oh, shut up. You have total control over how Firefox updates.

In your menu bar, click on Tools >Go to Options > Advanced > Update tab. Uncheck: Automatically check for updates to Firefox. Firefox will stop updating itself in the background and you can stop griping about it.

Sheesh. Investigate your browser, a little, will ya, before you start complaining?

And I understand what Lilley is saying. I have had things download that I haven't wanted - even after I said NO - like both Google desktop and Yahoo toolbar. I had to install both, then go uninstall them. And Microsoft decided I wanted IE7 even after I said I didn't. And let's not forget M$'s "secret" updates, and the fact that some people got them even with Automatic Updates turned off.

I like my Mac, and I like my iPods, but I also happen to like my XP box. I really prefer to keep them separate (well, until I can run Leopard on top of Windows without having to do handstands and cartwheels to do it...)

What FireFox installs is an updated version of itself just like you are updating your other softwares for bugs for whatever... The issue here is forcing users to install software in case the user is not aware of what things are being installed. As we know, most users just click the next button while installing and as such, it undermines the user's trust of installing an update because it is installing something not really needed in the guise of an update.

by bundling your browser with MacOS.... BTW, I feel really limited by not being able to select Devil Bill and Devil Steve simultaneously

I wonder if the browser is as compact and well coded as quicktime and itunes.

Mozilla has helped provide insecurity in the past. They discovered a flaw that affected both Firefox and Opera. The day after they informed Opera, they released an advisory. That didn’t give Opera enough time to provide a fix.

Shouldn't Firefox be called Firefix?

The problem's being analyzed backwards when the arguments go like "MS forces IE install/updates too!". THAT IS THE PROBLEM! If that logic were to apply to other things, then I would be free to do bank robberies and kill people, because "those guys over there do it too".

Having updaters installing software you do not have is wrong. This is the main reason most of us ditched Quicktime, as it was stuck in with iTunes, much like Windows/IE back in the Win95 OSR2 and Win98 days. New software is supposed to be opt-in, otherwise you're no better than those installers checking toolbars by default.

I must thank Jobs, as everytime I think about switching back to Mac, he gives me a new reason why I shouldn't do it.

It may not be a great thing for Apple to do, but setting a poor policy precedent (possibly) hardly threatens "the security of the internet". If it allowed execution of arbitrary 3rd-party code with admin privileges, there would be actual cause for concern.

I seem to remember having to untick an optional free Google Browser Toolbar with nearly every peice of software I downloaded. What's the difference?

As i see it this whole thing is more about the competition more than the "security" because everyone does this and its an "Apple" software update not an iTunes update so Apple has the right to offer software to its users and so what if its checked by default because many things are checked by default when you install almost anything. And here is the user's responsibility to read and be aware what he/she is doing to his/her computer and not just click install. Also i quote "that clever little tool that alerts you to new Apple software with a nothing-less-than-conspicuous pop-up window" well this says something about a faulty attitude.

"I didn't know I installed Safari on this computer, but if I did I guess I should update it."

this is the real issue here

how do you know that what looks like the Apple updater (or even the Firefox updater) isn't some new piece of malware that's slipped past your virus checker?

and even though it occurs to you that you don't remember installing Safari, you click the update button anyway

if it had been malware, you've just given it permission to install anything

i think the Mozilla dude brings up a very good point

we are TOO trusting of our updaters and really, thanks should be given to Apple for showing us this.

blindly clicking update is as bad as blindly clicking a link in an email

I dig my macs (all three of them) - they do all I want quickly, quietly and efficiently. But they're by no means perfect.

Safari suck piles in the worst possible way. I can not use it at work because it won't play ball with an ISA proxy. It half loads pages then crashes.

The same happens with Safari for 'doze.

So - like all things, I keep the bits I like (pretty much most of the Mac OS) and ditch the rest.

Also, I dunno how the software updater runs on 'doze, but in OS X you look what's being offered, choose what you want and de-select everything else. How hard is that?

Good lord somebody needs to call the whaaaaambulance.

Are you forced to install the software? No.

Is there something preventing you from reading the text and unchecking the box? No.

Fuck me the irrational Apple hate on here is absurd.

I also see a lot of people making comments about Firefox's supposed superiority to Safari. The only thing that's better about it is that it has Firebug. Firefox's font rendering is for shit, its form elements are fugly, and it sounds like Safari is being judged based on version 1 or 2, not the much-improved version 3.

I think it's great that Windoze users are being given an option besides Exploder.

You are indeed wrong.

<quote>

I could be wrong but if I recall correctly there are a number of programs for windows that bundle firefox with their installer and have it checked to install by default..

</quote>

I strongly recommend the use of msconfig (startup tab) to easily track and disable any of those updater running in the background. This will keep you safe from the likes of Steve and will significantly speed up your boot up time.

It is very arguably malware behaviour, since the box is titled "update" and not "install". That is clearly fooling the human.

I don't think many other software makers would get away with this.

Whatever definition we have for malware, and trojan downloaders, it should be consistent. This is the basic principle of common law: one law for everyone.

So, if this behaviour is okay for Apple, then it is okay for 180 Solutions, Bonzi Buddy, Comet Cursor, Hotbar and Gator.

He thinks I trust anyone? I fail to see or feel this trust he talks about. he speaks about it as though they have forums about it. No he's just sore because someone else made it easier than they did...

On concession I give to him is the update issue regarding the safari being check "ON" by default when there is no prior install of the browser. If I have it installed I would like to to be checked "ON" by default. Would save me the time to check it.

Everything else he says is green bloody jealousy.

he gives Apple way too much credit in terms of wrecking the whole internet. Jeez...

Anyone point out that he's neglected to mention that Windows installer does stuff to my XP without my asking for it...

Apple are using a dominance in one field- digital music- to push an unrelated piece of software on its users. And using borderline underhand tactics to do it.

So shouldn't the monopolies people be looking into this? I'd have it down as an anti-competitive move anyday!

The differences are that a) the Google toolbar installer is usually accompanied by the Google logo, which sticks out like a sore thumb and b) it's normally done as a software install, not as part of an update. You're right that such programs shouldn't tick it by default, though. That's bad.

I, like many others, I'm sure, just hit the Apple update continue button. It was only while it was half-way through that my brain switched into gear and I remembered that Safari was some obscure browser used on Macs.

I never really trust cancelling installs half-way through (God only knows what mess is left in the registry), so I let the Apple updater run to completion and then promptly uninstalled Safari.

Shame on Apple.

It is now perfectly ok, to add an apple-deinstaller as a bundle to your software, and make sure the bundled version is a second or two newer than the version without it, and then automatically upgrade the version without apple-remover to the one with. Afterall, this is what Apple does to poor sods installing quicktime (not bundled with iTrash or safari): They "upgrade" the customer to a version that replaces their applications with apple-trash (read: Changes file associations to a piece of crap software that is known to mess up your filesystem, AND automatically "convert" all sound/video-files that are incompatible with iPuke to a format incompatible with all other players on the market).

I disliked Apple after having had the misfortune of needing their lack-of-service system ("good old" dc-board plug. The hybrid between RCA and mini-jack. I wore out the plug in the machine end. Since the machine was out of warranty anyways, I didn't feel like paying the service-shop about as much as the machine costed to have them replace a board that costed less than 1/10th of that, so I tried buying the board to replace it myself. "No, sir, you can't replace that as it would void your warranty" "That warranty is no more, anyways" "You need to send it in for servicing, and since the machine is out of warranty that will cost..." "Didn't you just say that replacing it myself would void the warranty? This implicitly states that the machine still is under warranty. Quit using loopback statements", etc. In the end I replaced the Apple-thingy with a thinkpad, transferred my data, and set the apple-toy on fire. Literally.), back to the thing at hand: I disliked Apple after this run-in with their service dept. On my replacement for the Apple toy, I had the second misfortune of being disturbed while installing quicktime (I had to leave the house). When I got home, the quicktime had upgraded itself to quicktime+itunes (which I did not want), and the iTunes crapware had "sorted my media files". I spent an hour on the phone with Apple giving them the option between cleaning up their mess, or getting in touch with the police (unlawful computer trespass.) They threathened me with lawsuits if I didn't just let them continue. The police was a lot more empathic, and smilingly accepted my report. This is still under investigation. And this run-in was when I stopped disliking apple, and started loathing them on principle.

After that I've had a few run-ins with Apple iBrainwashed users, who for all intents and purposes should be compared to fanatic, religious, nutcases. Each and every run-in with Apples semi-militant drone-army has left me with the impression that Apple must add something to their equipment, that chemically removes any shred of logic from people being exposed to it. And each and every one of these run-ins has left me comparing Apple's Militia with the Spanish Inquisition, and considering the Inquisition pure amateurs.

So, over the years, my dislike for Apple has been replaced with the impression that anyone using _ANY_ of their products has shown sufficient lack of judgement to be eligible for storage in a facility to house the criminally insane. _ANY_ of their products.

I also consider that anybody trying to recruit MORE Apple-slaves should be shot. On sight.

Church of Jobs makes other religions seem like wannabes when it comes to excusing every wrong their church has ever done. Isn't there some laws regarding theology, requiring atleast a license? Has any of the Apple-crowd got such a license? If not, CAN WE PLEASE SHUT THEM DOWN?

//Svein

This isn't suprising as markets are becoming increasingly cut-throat, Stevey boy and Billy boy are going to use whatever edge they can to get ahead, the simplest option is to simply not use any of their software.

Of course, you could always uncheck the update! Sadly being a web developer I have it already installed for testing.

Users are from Venus.

A simple thing like a tickbox on by default serves two purposes.

1. It gives you choice (if you're a Geek)

2. It forces the choice (if you're a User)

The vast majority of people will end up with Safari on their PC's.

Interestingly as a Windows Geek when I go to use Safari on a customers Apple (in order to look like I am familiar with Apple) they say 'no no, don't use that one, use Firefox it's much better'. This is not just one customer but four different ones.

It's just spyware and an attempt to get the great unwashed to use their crappy browsers that's still in beta. (Or it was a couple of months ago - could be RC or final now)

The difference between Microsoft and Adobe and others is that the updates are security updates for products you have installed. Apple are using the patching mechanism to install new software - that is (I think) beta.

This is a very low and typically Apple-like distribution method.

Another reason not to use a Mac.

This program (Firefox auto-update) just looks after updates for ONE product. IIRC It's the same with Thunderbird which just pops up to say "we've updated it". Maybe this starts a debate which says should each application take care of it's own updates, but this might be deemed inefficient. Anyhow, I rate that - if you're happy with a browser (easy to reinstall if something breaks - just make sure you use foxmarks to backup your bookmarks), surely relatively inobtrusive security updates taking place whilst you get on with your business are a good thing. Remember you don't HAVE to restart the browser until you're ready (to apply the update) too.

I'll also agree that Safari is utter b0ll0x. Whilst I'm looking at getting a 20" iMac later this year (I'll furnish it with some kind of VM tool for running windows networking experiements), it'll be like my iBook - Firefox as default. I've found the rendering by safari to be so unreliable on some sites that it's not true.

I have to agree with MARCO, Firefox's "update in the background without permission" is much worse! On my laptop, when I'm not at home, I pay a premium for data transfer. I don't want to download large updates when I'm on a premium rate service, I'd much rather wait till I get home to my "all you can eat" (within our

FUP... but that's another rant) wired service. What with the ridiculous international roaming costs on 3g (yet another rant!), how much would an unasked for firefox upgrade cost an unsuspecting traveller (oh my network connections a bit slow... the internet must be slower in this country ;-) ).?

I've been using personal computers of various types for 3 decades now, and in that time I've discovered that there's one form of behaviour guaranteed to put my back up like no other - software that tries to do *anything* that I haven't expressly agreed to. Psychologically, I'd have to admit that my computers are extensions of my personal space, in the same way that (to varyig degrees) my home, my car, my office and so on are. Behaviour that doesn't recognise that is a direct assault on m privacy (and a guarantee of a fast trip to the trash bin). So, I've trashed or rejected otherwise perfectly good software in the past for (amongst other things) "helpfully" hijacking file extensions, tweaking my browser settings, and installing code I didn't ask for. And I reached a decision when I bought a machine loaded with WinXP, and had to ask MS's "permission" to activate *my* copy of the operating system before I could use it, that, if at all possible, it would be the last copy of an MS operating system I'd buy unless that requirement was removed.

I haven't used Safari. For all I know, it may be a fine piece of software. But it could be a while now before I even consider finding out, because the idea that installing it covertly is somehow acceptable or ethical business behaviour is abhorant, and no more than an email attempting to infect me with a virus or a trojan.

Apple have just gone way down in my book, to join the loathed MS and the not-much-better Sony, and I shall think very carefully before going near anythin originating from them in the future (and treat it as I do any other software from a suspect source - like an unexploded bomb).

"But, being British and thus or at least average inteligence I first red what I was updating made a choice, and decided I was more then happy using Opera (you know the browser that started things like tabbed browsing)."

Red, reed, read, reap.....

Worrying thing is Apple are always slow to patch their systems, and they've potentially added millions of new "winDoze" customers (not usually the sharpest tools in the box, if we're being fair....). The two together is a scary though.

Btw, how many people will switch to Opera just because "apple iz well cool at da moment innit" (because they make portable audio devices).

The mind boggles.

Paris says hello.

My in-laws recently updated Real player (for some reason best known to themselves) and despite unticking all the extra download options, it still forced Firefox on to them without any warning at all. I was very surprised, but have no reason to disbelieve them. Pots and kettles spring to mind. Now they've got Firefox, it's just a matter of persuading them to use it.

The EU should take a very close look at Apple. They use deceptive practicies that make Microsoft look angelic. They lock down their OS so it can only be sold on hardware they provide (no competition - I've already filed a complaint with the EU over this) and now they try to force their browser onto people who use their inferior software.

Microsoft has its issues, there is no denying this, but if MS were to do such a deceptive practice, you can bet your bottom Canadian dollar (not US dollar, they worthless these days) that they would be hauled before the DoJ and the EU fined billions of Euros and vilified by the Mac crowd.

Yes it has security implications, people who unknowingly install it as an update now have another piece of software from Apple, the company that will quite happily ignore a Critical Security for months on end, do you really want a company like this to put a browser on your computer?

The sooner the EU stop Apple's uncompetetive and deceptive practices the better, and the sooner people stop using their rubbish formats and switch to open standards, the better.

Safari is cr*p! It does a bad job displaying websites, its annoying, it crashes and above all I wouldnt have itunes on my pc in the first place.

If people are thick enough to buy an ipod or worse an iphone and have installed inoise then you deserve everything you get!

You should have bought a zune!

I find this rather curious, are you

a) too lazy

or

b)too stupid

to click Edit->Preferences->Update

and select the 'Ask Me What To Do' option?

You're either an idiot or a troll. Perhaps a little research would benefit you next time? Firefox will not automatically install updates UNLESS YOU LET IT.

Mine's the one with RTFM written on the back.

I set FF to automatically check for updates but ask for permission to download and install them. In the YEARS since then that's exactly what its done and no more, no foreign installs tagging along for the ride, no surreptitious downloads and I could disabled even the version checks if I wanted to do the whole thing manually.

The Safari install will need unticking EVERY TIME you run the Qtime updater, until you make a mistake and install it, Apple remove the option to untick or you stop using the updater. There is no excuse for this at all, its just a cynical attempt to wear down resistance instead of obeying the users choices.

I just uninstall Apple software update anyway. It is as bad as some of these other pop up's. One of the reasons I like the Apple platform was that they did not try to pull crap like this, or have their software break other people's software. Unfortunately, Apple has lost sight of this when they became just a manufacturer of iPod's and latest gadgets.

Stop whining... xSc0de - if that really is your name ;-) has explained this... you musn't have understood, so...

Firefox Update:

Menu -> Tools -> Options -> Advanced -> Updates

You've three items (Firefox, Installed Add Ons, Search Engines) that can be updated automatically, with an "ask me what to do" prompt or, guess what? Unselect all three and (drum roll) Not at all.

Sheesh!

Someone who defaults your search engine to Google (the search engine that defaults to CliquiPedia) complains about someone else undermining security and trust on the web?

Har-de-har-har - slapstick season is with us again - Ballmer, Jobs and Lilly in the same old slapping each other with wet fish routine - plus ca change.

Apple aren't the only ones. Adobe updates installed some picture viewing software on our corporate desktops and to turn off automatic updates we had to edit the registry because there was no option via the menu structure any more.

Big companies think that they have the right to install whatever they want on our mahcines; THAT is the attitude that needs takcling ... and fast ... otherwise you can foget about hackers outsting each others bot software, we're going to have a war of software manufacturers on our hands. Googles update knocks off Yahoo's search bar, Yahoo's knocks off Googles and so on. Safari de-installs Forefox, Firefox deinstalls Opera and ... oh ... what a shame that no one can deinsall the one browser that I'd like to get rid of permanently ... IE.

Anything that lets the average user know that there is an alternative to Internet Exploder is a good thing.

Anything that gets the average user to think about what they are clicking on is a good thing.

Safari itself is NOT, as some people have implied, Malware, so there really isn't an issue if it is installed and then never used.

Whether or nor this is really a positive move for Apple's credibility is something that we will need to wait and see - the readership of El Reg may have a small say in that, but we are not the majority.

Oh no - you had to do it didn't you.

Do you hear that rumbling noise in the distance - it's the sound of the legions of ubuntu users (yes - all four of them) rattling their keyboards to tell you exactly how to permanently deinstall IE

Yeah, itunes was the reason quicktime vanished permanently from my windows machine, therefore it is the reason I'm using alternative movie players to play quicktime (I don't even own a stupid IPOD, and have no need for itunes).

Actually I did that with windows media player too, as when I upgradede it to the lastest media player, with all that wonderful DRM junk in it, half the movies I had downloaded (free clips, and trailers from the net), stopped working, so I downloaded alternative players and now they all play properly again.

Half the upgrades you receive atm, are infact downgrades, breaking compatibility and so forth, and installs lots of unecessary update programs, and other junk.

BTW use rythmbox on Linux, it will install your MP3's happily onto your IPOD, without filling your machine with spyware, DRM managers etc, and it has a nice simple interface :-). I found this out because I had a visitor who had bought a CD from a shop, and wanted it onto her IPOD (quite legal here), but didn't have her computer with her, quick and easy to do on Linux, (I wasn't going to let itunes come within a mile of my system)

Personally I hate the way most problems sneak some kind of stay resident junk onto your machine when you install it, I keep using msconfig to disable all those autostart, autoupdate junk programs, so far I think I have 30 odd barred from starting - makes your machine a real lot faster, when you disable all that junk.

As said before you have geeks and users. Users are generally the sheep of the world, they get a windows PC and use whatever they ar egiven (IE) Don't get me wrong some geeks use IE too and that is fine, it's their choice too. Generally speaking Geeks will use Firefox or Opera, Very few users will go to the trouble of downloading a different browser when they are surfing the net just fine with IE.

So Firefox won't be too concerned over their market share because if one of their users will inadvertantly download Safari then they will simply Fire up their trusty firefox and tick the use Firefox as default browser tickbox. Problem resolved.

They are right to be concerned over security with users downloading SW they don't want but it's been happening for years. I have been to many a friends "slow" computer to find a boatload of toolbars, popup blockers and not to mention good old fashioned pr0n! (Ok that last one probably found it way onto that computer intentionally).

Working on a Helpdesk I have seen a rise of customers leaving a message saying I've got a Virus HEEEEELLLLP! Only for me to call back and find that it was a popup telling them they have a virus and that they need to download this SW to protect themselves. End of the Day users are at a greater risk of breaking their computers because they don't fully understand how to use them and what is good to install and what is bad to install.

If you liken the Geek/User relationship to the Mechanic/Motorist.

The mechanics car will run better/be more reliable because he knows how to look after it service it regularly and not drive it like an idiot.

Similarly a mechanic will tinker with the car to make it faster/better. Same as a geek with a computer.

1. Remove Apple software from PC.

2. Destroy iPod.

3. Get on with life*.

* Assumes prior possession of same.

What serious mental problem keeps you people defending Apple with your life whenever they screw up? It's always the same thing

MS,Sony etc (insert large corporation of choice) make crappy product - boo hiss evil megabucks corporation shitting on the customer

Apple make crappy product - it's a first release/it will be fixed in an update/run out and buy the next product because Apple have promised the problems have been removed

(large corporation of choice) use underhanded tactics to get software on your machine/installs something without permission/breaks something that worked fine before the update/will not release the code for independent checking - boo hiss evil megabucks corporation I hate them Ihate them I hate them

Apple do the same - It's all good, anything Stevie does is perfect and for our own good so we accept it while flaming anybody who dares disagree with us

You are constant victims of your own double standards and are happy to keep forking money out to Apple for the privilege. It's about time Apple got dragged through the courts for anti-competitve, anti-consumer behaviour like all other corporations instead of being treated like they can do no wrong.

Er, the point is, you have control over this in Firefox. READ what people post maybe?

I got this little message. Actually my computer thought it was so urgent it kicked me out of the full-screen game I was playing to display aforesaid message. As usual I said I didn't want bloody iTunes, and only wanted Quicktime because a) some programs/websites won't work without it and b) I need updates because the original Quicktime was riddled with security holes (which is why I give a hollow laugh every time a Mac fanboi tells me how much more secure his OS is).

But I only want security updates. Even Microsoft, shy retiring types that they are not, generally distinguishes between essential security patches and crapware that they want to foist on your machine. Mr Jobs has no such inhibitions apparently. Yup, microsoft can silently add patches - IF you select that option - but they don't offer totally extraneous bits of software that you have not asked for, may not want - and don'tkeep offering it at random intervals every couple of weeks ad infinitum.

Anyone remember Real Player? Anyone still use it for anything except when a site doesn't offer any other stream? Yes I thought so. I bet you never launch it and use it to manage your music, because you hate it - because since I can remember, from about 1998 onwards it was bundeled with crapware and features no one wanted.

"all delivered in an efficient and elegant user interface."

Why anyone at apple ever thought that Windows users, who are surprisingly used the Windows user interface and conventions, would be happy using software that has a Mac UI is a bit of a puzzle to me. The only thing it's going to do is annoy people.

I have this funny feeling that somebody at Apple came up with the idea that the interface was so good, anyone using it would instantly throw away their windows pc and rush out to buy a Mac :)

"But, being British and thus or at least average inteligence I first red what I was updating"

Thus what? It's "read" not "red", and intelligence has two l's, the same as "pillock".

You also say you like itunes and quick time? And, an apple fan? I never got the drift of the fanboy war thing until now, but I'm catching on fast...

Please don't broadcast the fact that you're British in future, it's embarrassing for us who are actually proud to be such to admit we have people like you, i.e. possessing an IQ hovering around room temperature in Celsius.

Now, where was I?

Ah, yes... and nine hundredthly, with the brown stuff hitting the air circulation device regarding the ISP/Phorm thingy, what was big jobs thinking?? How's that for timing?

I have a few boxes around me with quicklime on at the moment, but in a minute they won't have, so this is counter-productive as far as apple is concerned.. up until now I've been ambivalent toward apple, but not any more.

I think he's just made some fresh enemies.

what I am missing by not using Firefox?

I am a mac user, I have been for years, however, I only switched to Safari when version 3 came along with 10.5. So far, after 4 months, I cannot find anything to complain about.

It is quick, extremely neat and does the job I ask of it without complaint. Those who complain about rendering - please furnish some sites because I'm not having a problem.

Why do I not use Firefox? Because it's ugly. I doesn't appear to be any quicker. Websites don't look any better.

Now I'm going to hazard a guess, I can't back it with fact because I never thought to check it out so I will over the next few days. I'm visiting mac users on a daily basis, and it's true, a fair number (but NOT a majority by any means) use FF as the default browser. I think it's because the earlier versions of Safari were not so good - particularly when it came to commerce and banking sites - and so they switched to FF as the only alternative to IE, having got sick of the never-ending "your browser is not compatible..) messages. And also, they have probably not yet switched to 10.5.

As I say, I have yet to find a site that I cannot interact with using Safari 3.0.4. I'm not spoofing so it's identified as Safari by those browser checkers. So what am I missing?

Seems like a non-event to me.

Then I use Opera & Konqueror, both of which work flawlessly, are fast, and according to Secunia among others, are very secure. Isn't that what I, as an end-user, am looking for?

...you know, I like to use Firefox(Mac), but the trouble is a lot of the ads on the Register cause it to just vanish. So maybe if the Mozilla CEO and his mates could just fix that for me then I wouldn't be using Safari right now. Better be quick before I grow to like it...

I agree that offering an update of a product you don't have 'sucks', as you yanks would say.

However I've managed to get Apple Update under my control. I don't let it automatically check for updates, but have changed the preferences so that it only checks for updates manually (to change the preferences launch Apple Update, then press 'cancel' to stop it checking for updates, then select the preferences from the menu bar).

Meanwhile I do allow iTunes to check for updates - thus when it launches it will inform me if there is a new version available. I am thus informed of iTunes updates but not about "updates" to products I don't have such as Safari.

I can of course occasionally check Apple Update at my leisure to see if there's a security patch for QuickTime for example. But I don't really ever use QuickTime as a standalone app, so I don't really see this a big issue.

Surely, people should read what is on the screen. If they don't then it is their fault. If users don't have the nouse to search in the menus of their application (eg FF) and find the check boxes for tuning on/off automatic updates, then they need to take computer lessons. You are not allowed to take a car out on your own until you pass a test. You have to be taught how to use it. Should be the same for computers. That's why there are so many computers out there with viruses and trojans on them, plus all those that are in botnets. If the users had enough intelligence they would make sure their computers were clean.

You just don't click on popups any more. Or ads. Unless you really trust where they came from... No telling where they came from or whether they are cosher or not. So when these updaters pop up on screen people should read what they say. If it has an option for updating software (safari) you haven't installed, either you deselect it, or maybe it did sneak onto your computer without you knowing. Or maybe, just maybe, it is something else pretending to be that software (safari). And yes, it's bad timing, with that phorm thing going on right now.

Apple should change the updater so any software you don't have that is available in the updater is shown as available as new software and is unticked by default.

Paris, because she will probably click on install anyway.

As someone's already pointed out (I've scrolled down now and forgotten who...) you can actually control that, but I wanted to add that the crucial thing is that's an update, not a whole new application.

I don't think much of this behaviour from Apple but then Sun did the same with OpenOffice glued to a Java update (or something very similar, anyway) - and if it switches a few MSIE users to something more standards compliant it will have some positive effects.

Also, maybe eventually Windows users will tire of having various companies ramming crap they didn't ask for onto their machines and start using Linux. :)

... if Apple Software Update actually worked on my XP box. Fortunately, though it often cajoles me about updates theoretically available for my iTunes, the update has never actually worked.

Note the Highly Critical portion of the advisory below, note the complete lack of patches.

How you can justify a browser being included with media players is hard enough to understand, but when it has a highly critical security hole in it, then it's just plain stupid/evil/greedy.

VERIFY ADVISORY:

http://secunia.com/advisories/29483/

CRITICAL:

Highly critical

IMPACT:

Spoofing, System access

WHERE:

From remote

SOFTWARE:

Safari for Windows 3.x

http://secunia.com/product/17978/

At a minimum it should be withdrawn until it's fully patched, all the n00bs need is more security holes.

What are you missing in Firefox? Everything that was in Opera 2 years ago...

I hove both Safari and FireFox installed on my Windows system. I'm leaning towards uninstalling FireFox and going Safari 100%.

BUT so many people say FireFox is better.

Could you explain why? If it is because of plug-ins please list the one you actually use, because the three I tried didn't work, and I keep getting alerts about "do you want to update your plugin because it might not work" and after saying "yes" it says "there are no updates for your plug in"

How is that better?

I want to understand if FireFox is (or can be) better before I uninstall it.

Thanks!

Yeah, you're worth reading......

If you are who I think you are, you got fired (from your masters in america) for passing on emails and addresses while "working" for a top line shopping channel.

You know all about security, don't you?

Unless of course, you're not him.

Care to refute?

You're correct. Safari 3 is a huge improvement over Safari 2.

A lot of the ignoramuses who post here, who complain about sites that don't look correct in Safari, are obviously ignorant of the fact that lazy web developers often don't test their sites in a wide range of browsers. I've encountered a lot of sites that plain don't work in either Safari OR Firefox because they were developed for IE6's broken rendering engine and/or proprietary Micro$oft JScript.

... when you can have VLC? Plays virtually anything, no fucking about with the internals of your OS (which can be WinDoze, Mac or just about any flavour of Unix and Linux) and best of all it's free. It never annoys you to update (it leaves this to you to worry about, like a grown-up person) and best if all its very skinable, so you can make it look like anything ya fancy.

The Safari thing happened to me the other night in Vista. I don't even USE Safari so why was it foisting itself upon me?

True, I like iTunes and I even use it but why does it assume I want Safari?

It's kind of sleazy and intrusive, and I say this as a user of both PC and Mac hardware so it isn't as if I have anything against Apple.

I just found it slightly off and jarring.

No icon 'cos I am neither an iFan or an iHater.

When I found I could no longer install Quicktime without iTunes, I stopped using Quicktime.

I located a site (no, I won't name it, do your own research) that lets me install all the Windows XP updates since SP2, up to August 2007 (when Microsoft forced them offline) from a CD, and the PC never needs to "phone home" for WGA.

Funny how I never have installations forced on me as fake "updates" on my Ubuntu laptop.

It's arrogance like that displayed by Microsoft and Apple that encourages young people to use pirated software; at least the pirates let you *choose* what you want to install.

Firefox, like many other software products, can be instructed to check (or not)automatically for updates. Updates are only are offered to already installed features .

The update is optional and you can tranparently choose features to update. You don't need to update if that's how you feel. Not very wise to refuse security updates tho'.

Post under reply is just ignorant.

Well I tried it. Not too impressed. Faster than any other browser? It's lagging like a seventies teletype as I write. I feel like I'm writing the Grandstand pools results.

And the boast about 1.7s against 1.9s to render a page (or whatever the Apple site says) - who ever times a page loading? It's invariably not a slow browser that makes the net appear slow.

And I'm a happy Windows (Vista!) user and I'm no MS apologist - but why must Apply force its UI on Windows users. I'd like my computer to look like it's the same, thanks. I guess Steve HATES apps that break the OSX UI. Amusingly I note its Safari site only features XP as the Windows desktop of choice.

BUT WORST OF ALL - THE FONTS. I assume it's using its own rendering engine, cuz it looks sh1t. And I meant to type "shit" there - maybe I did, I can't tell. A 1 looks just like an I. It's like my laptop is running at the wrong resolution. Jesus, the arrogance of Apple is what does me in. A corporate "can do" attitude I can accept. A corporate "f*ck you" attitude I can't. (That WAS an asterisk.)

You've got 10% of the desktop market. Live with it. While you make your own machines and sell them at a premium with an attitude to go with it, you'll never get beyond that. 90% of the people vote with their wallets before their brains.

You've gone Intel, you've released a Windows browser, why not just take the next step and release the OS to the "native Windows" x86 market fullstop? Don't even worry about legacy hardware - just support Vista-only kit. THEN I might respect your balls, Jobs. If you do that, you'll have achieved something, and might break out beyond decimating the opposition...

PS The scrollbar doesn't work in WinSafari, just noticed as I read what I wrote. No visual feedback, you UI snob.

Try installing Nero 7 without getting some lightscribe junk forced onto you. I wouldn't mind... if I had a freaking lightscribe drive! There was no option to not install it and it took the deletion of over 40 registry keys and a reboot into safemode to eradicate it from the system.

So a big FUCK YOU to nero!!!

So we have a site that is full of know-it-all geeks who love Firefox and hate Apple because, well, it makes them feel better I guess.

But the thing I find most funny is that they are too stupid/ignorant to figure out how to deselect the things they don't want to update/install.

Yeah, I'm a Mac user. I love it. I moved over from Windows around the turn of the Century and have never looked back. I love Safari now, although it's been a bit hit and miss in the past but is constantly getting better. I love my iPod shuffle. I love iTunes.

If 'deviously' installing Safari on a gazillion Windows boxes out there means moms and pops won't have to suffer the slow and butt-ugly MS Internet Explorer (any version) then all the better. If it means they're exposed to a better way of doing things, then fabulous!

Personally I don't see anything devious - Software Update updates you as to the availability of new software. Seems pretty straight forward to me. And certainly much more straight forward than Windows Update.

Firefox is okay as an alternative, but personally I prefer Camino as a backup browser when a site has a spasm and decides it doesn't like Safari anymore/today/this particular minute.

So suck on that Windows geeks - I couldn't give a toss. And neither could a rapidly growing number of people all around who have also made the switch to Mac.

Really, what a bunch of cry-babies!

Ahh, I see, so clicking off a tickbox (on by default) is a hassle to say I don't want Safari, but unticking the tickbox (again, on by default), under preferences, in the advanced section, under the update tab, in the locker with Beware of the Leopard written on it isn't...

I see..... Can't you see the issue here.... pot kettle black... Putting software out there that assumes high bandwith with cheap data rates as default is somewhat broken thinking. The default should always be to prompt.

Sigh...

mozilla are bang on - apple really need to stop dicking around trying to underhandedly steal competition through cheapskate dodgy crap like this.

piss off [cr]apple im not interested in your tat.

Pretty lame Steve... in the computer world there are few things that irritate me more than software which sneakily attempts to get it's claws into my system by attempting to steal associations, inserting very quietly mentioned or unmentioned and entirely unnecessary crap to run in the background and hog my memory (I'm looking at you jusched.exe) or, like in this case, installing whole extra apps which were neither needed nor wanted.

You make Tux cry.