DISQUS

Community Page on DISQUS

what is this?

John's Blog

Jump to original thread »
Author

Apple Software Update

Started by johnlilly · 3 months ago

What Apple is doing now with their Apple Software Update on Windows is wrong. It undermines the trust relationship great companies have with their customers, and that’s bad — not just for Apple, but for the security of the whole Web. What they did yesterday was to use the ... Continue reading »

408 comments

  • JB

    8 months ago

    I would be all for that Safari users would get updates, but if you don't have Safari installed, you shouldn't get an "update" to it now should you? The point of Updating is to update existing software currently used...not downloading new software from the company that isn't on your computer. I find this despicable, but in all I have nothing bad to say against Safari either.

    Those were my 2 cents...
    reply
  • Dan

    8 months ago

    I just ran Apple Software Update here and sure enough, it's giving me Safari by default, even though I have never installed it. Very poor practice indeed. Hopefully this story will hit some big news sites so that they can be publicly shamed.
    reply
  • Timothée Lecomte

    8 months ago

    For your information, this is not a new practice at all as far as the Apple Software Update is concerned.

    If you use Bootcamp to install Windows on a Mac, Apple Software Update will be installed. Even if you don't have iTunes nor QuickTime installed at that time, they will appear in the update program ! On the contrary, I have never seen an actual update for any of the components of Bootcamp...
    reply
  • Kelson

    8 months ago

    There's nothing new about this (except possibly Safari being out of beta on Windows). I don't have iTunes on my machine at work, but I do have Safari and QuickTime, and every single time there's an update for iTunes, it shows up in the updater. Yeah, it's easy enough to tell it to ignore that update... until the next time they bump iTunes.

    (And then there's the broken UI, but that's another issue.)
    reply
  • John

    8 months ago

    @Kelson & Timothee: I'm sure you're both right -- but I naturally follow the browser space more closely, and that's why I noticed this in particular this time.
    reply
  • Gen Kanai

    8 months ago

    John Gruber calls Apple's behavior with installing Safari on Windows, "Interesting." Gruber is smart enough to know that it's clearly much more than merely, "Interesting" and I will lose respect for him if he does not critique Apple vehemently for this.
    http://daringfireball.net/linked/2008/march#wed...

    Jesper has much stronger words for Apple: "This is disgraceful. It fails the user in favor of serving Apple. It is, in fact, malware-level tactics."
    http://waffle.wootest.net/2008/03/20/where-by-i...

    I'm with Jesper and John Lilly.

    If Microsoft did the identical action, install some non-user-selected software using their software update channel, there would be cacophony across the Internet.
    reply
  • Kurt

    8 months ago

    I also noticed this and glad that someone brought this up. This is just a sick way of tricking users to download their browser by making it seem as if an update if available for a piece of software already installed. I bet it even takes over as the default browser afterwards, which would look very bad on Apple.
    reply
  • Ian Hayward

    8 months ago

    wow, well I'm a little shocked honestly as a Mac user I'm feeling a little less good about Apple right now. Thank you for posting this John I hope this issue gets the publicity it deserves.

    It is fair to say that this is indeed malware distribution practices. Come on Apple are you 'that' desperate?!
    reply
  • John

    8 months ago

    If this was Microsoft, everyone would be all over this...
    reply
  • slb

    8 months ago

    Wow.
    You Windows users are not only paranoid, but so anti-Apple that your comments are hysterical.

    This is the biggest NON-ISSUE yet - and anyone using a computer that can't use that screen and make a good decision should go back to a typewriter.
    reply
  • James

    8 months ago

    Much to do about nothing! The problem here is clear: Mozilla's CEO is intimidated by the competition.
    reply
  • Bo

    8 months ago

    Right on, John Lily. "Update" means "update," not "Give me your other products."
    reply
  • Daniel

    8 months ago

    Hm, that's actually what Apple did with the Beta versions of Safaro for Windows as well. You could update to the latest Safari Beta and Quicktime as well as iTunes were checked to install as well, even though I didn't ever had them installed. So nothing new actually.

    Besides, I don't think this is going to help Safari in any way.
    reply
  • Ben Basson

    8 months ago

    Can Safari for Windows actually check for updates on its own? Does it? I can't see any options relating to this. Either way, installing something as an update to something else is pretty bad.

    On a related note, the Safari installer also asks you to install "Bonjour for Windows", another pre-ticked option that most people will completely ignore and install anyway. I'm not sure what a web browser needs to discover devices for, and I'm not sure I want it doing that. Isn't Windows plug and play enough, assuming it even has this need?

    Microsoft is guilty of this kind of thing as well. If you install Live Messenger, you're asked if you want to change your homepage (no, I just wanted to install Messenger...) and a whole bunch of other unrelated Live applications.
    reply
  • Ephilei

    8 months ago

    I agree this was wrong, but may I remind everyone that Google, Adobe, and Sun have been doing an equivalent venture. In the Java and Shockwave installs, Google Toolbar for IE is installed by default unless you uncheck the option. You know Google is paying Sun and Adobe who then makes the money back by search engine ads and name recognition - the same as Apple with Safari. Adobe includes some Photoshop Album crap in their default install for Acrobat Reader on Windows too. People that don't read their software updates also won't read installers, especially for basic software like Acrobat, Java, and Shockwave.

    Also, MS in its OS update for XP will include WGA which "updates" non-authentic licensed copies into crippled copies.
    reply
  • toby

    8 months ago

    @James: There's nothing to be intimidated about. Safari on Windows sucks. Its UI may be very intuitive for Mac OS X users but on Windows it's just out of place and difficult to use. None of the traditional shortcut keys or Windows conventions work.

    I have it installed on my PC to test the sites I develop but it would need a major UI redesign to feel at home for Windows users.
    reply
  • Ephilei

    8 months ago

    In OS X, Safari users can share their bookmarks on a local network using Bonjour, just like sharing iTunes libraries. I guess it's for that.
    reply
  • Orrin

    8 months ago

    I just have quicktime installed and thanks to Apple Software Update the only way I can update to the latest Quicktime is if I install iTunes as well.. and now I guess Safari too. I agree, this is pointless and overall gives the end-user a bad experience. I just want Quicktime, not everything!
    reply
  • Brush

    8 months ago

    I agree what Apple did was clearly misleading. When I got the update, I wondered if I had ever installed Safari in the past. I'll bet that most Windows Itunes users don't even know what safari is? I wouldn't have know if I didn't have an Iphone which uses Safari. Apple blatantly tried to trick millions of users into downloading Safari. Steve should apologize. I'm not holding my breath
    reply
  • Joe Bloe

    8 months ago

    I called Applecare about this, the guy on the phone told me to just click cancel, and he didn't see anything wrong with this. So I just sent Apple an email through their feedback website about this, here is most of what I said:

    -------------------
    I have an iPod and iTunes as well as Quicktime installed on my Windows PC, and I like them all. Apple Software Update automatically checks for updates to iTunes and Quicktime, and I'm fine with that. But today Software Update offered "Safari 3.1" as an "update" which is a LIE as I do not have any version of Safari installed. For you to use these kinds of underhanded tactics to push your browser is despicable. I have turned off Apple Software Update on my PC now as a result of this, I have lost all trust in Apple as a result of this disingenuous behavior.

    This comes after recently having turned off Software Update on my Mac because Quicktime 7.4 broke After Effects' ability to render. I could not roll back to an earlier version that actually worked, and Apple's advice was to not use After Effects (yeah right) or reinstall Tiger. I had to use Pacifist to get my machine back to a working state.

    Instead of Apple Software Updaters being welcome on my system, I now have to treat them as rogue programs that can corrupt my system and trojan horses that can try to sneak unwanted software that I never asked for onto my system. Oh and by the way, I will never use Safari as my main browser as it doesn't have middle-mouse auto scroll (like Firefox and IE). If Safari 3.1 added this feature I might have switched. But based on these underhanded tactics, even if you added this feature, I'm not interested, sticking with Firefox from Mozilla who has NEVER tried to install other software under the guise of an "update".
    -------------------------

    Oh and by the way Mozilla, I just tried Firefox 3 beta 4 on OS X Tiger, things like page scrolling are a lot faster than Firefox 2, good job.
    reply
  • Lee

    8 months ago

    ...maybe... they are using safari's webkit framework for itunes on windows. it was there all along ... maybe...
    reply
  • Chris

    8 months ago

    I'm not sure what the issue is here. If you're complaining that Apple is pushing it's own software through it's own software distribution platform, where should Apple distribute it? In regards to the whole 'auto click and install' thing, EULAs anyone? Most people these days are trusting the EULA and the lawyers behind those without thought. As for misleading, I can see that. There should be change in terminology there replacing updates with install or update (not that most people will notice).

    Another thing with regards to the whole trust issue. The consumer has already trusted Apple (or any company) by downloading one of their pieces of software already. There is already a placement of trust in Apple (or other company). If they trust Apple enough to install one of their apps, then extending that to another one of their programs seems to make sense to me.

    Also Steve Jobs had already announced that they were going to use iTunes on WIndows to push Safari a while ago. They're just now getting around to it now.

    Bonjour is a network services protocol that allows for services to self advertise across a local network. Not specifically devices, but also filesharing and a version of jabber chat (if enabled).

    Addressing the previous claim of only wanting Quicktime not iTunes or Safari: you can unclick them, or you can go to the apple site directly and just download quicktime from there direct without any of the extraneous addons you don't want.

    I hope this helps out the discussion.
    reply
  • Chuck

    8 months ago

    Some of the complaints here are over the top. Pushing Safari with a iTunes update is "Malware"? Please. Sure, it's marketing, but it is utterly benign, other than using a little disk space that is trivial by modern standards.

    I think the competition (Mozilla) doth protest too much.

    Compared to all the -real- malware issues faced by Windows users, this is not worth notice.

    And, most of all, compared to the execrable practices of Microsoft and other PC software vendors, this is a tempest in a teapot. Did no one notice today's story on Sony charging $50 for a program to remove the pre-loaded crapware that comes on their laptops? Priorities people, please....
    reply
  • Ant Bryan

    8 months ago

    Appupdater is great for keeping software up to date on Windows.

    http://www.nabber.org/projects/appupdater/
    reply
  • Rusticman

    8 months ago

    You guys are full of crap. IE is installed on every Windoze Machine. You can't even uninstall it. Just because Safari can be installed does not mean it is the browser people will use. If they chose to use it, it is because the prefer its functionality above another browser. If people don't read what they are updating on a windoze machine it would explain why their are so many viruses,trojans and malware on windoze machine. Amazing amount of hyper happening on this blog today. By the way I use Firefox a large percentage of the time.
    reply
  • Araneidae

    8 months ago

    There's another side to this too. Notice that Apple are pushing Safari 3 to the whole world ... unless you're running an older installation of OSX. On OSX 10.3 I'm stuck with Safari 1.3 which, I'm sorry to say, sucks: it sticks and crashes *all* the time.

    Frankly as a previously enthusiastic Apple user I'm insulted by this.

    I agree that automatically installing Safari without asking is stupidly offensive: I think Apple are following the Microsoft line of working out just how much they can get away with screwing the consumer ... and the answer is, disappointingly, quite a lot.
    reply
  • slb

    8 months ago

    OS 10.3?
    Come on, get with the program.
    reply
  • rt

    8 months ago

    Indeed.

    It's bad enough that they are making you take iTunes in order to get QuickTime. There doesn't appear to be a good technical reason for this bundling; if you look hard enough you can find an unbundled QuickTime installer buried deep in the Apple website.

    And now they're falsely bundling Safari. Why? And where does it end?
    reply
  • Charles S

    8 months ago

    Mountain out of a molehill... at least Safari is standards compliant.
    reply
  • Zemnel

    8 months ago

    Apple has always done this (at least on Windows). I don't have iTunes, and I don't want iTunes, but every time there is a new iTunes version, the QuickTime updater prompts me to download it. This in spite that I "ignore" the update with the software's "ignore update" feature every single time.

    It also litters the desktop and the quicklauch bar with unrequested icons at every update, and tries to get all media file associations for itself (fortunately it doesn't do the latter without asking).

    I wonder why people think that Microsoft is evil and Apple is good. At least Microsoft's updaters and installers do have some respect for the user.
    reply
  • Martijn

    8 months ago

    Yeah, I agree with you completely with you on this.
    I'm really fed up with that Apple software update thing. I don't want to install Itunes, which I think is full of crap.

    I think Apple is doing evil with this, making people unintentionally installing Itunes, when they don't ask for it.
    Sounds a lot like malware to me, imho.
    reply
  • Kelson

    8 months ago

    Bonjour (which is Apple's implementation of Zeroconf) can discover services on the network, not just devices. Those services can include web servers. Safari uses Bonjour to automatically discover websites on the local network (if the servers publish them through zeroconf) and display them as bookmarks.

    And no, they don't make you take iTunes to get QuickTime. There are two options right on the QT download page: one with iTunes, one solo. It's not buried deeply at all. And you can update QuickTime on its own by unchecking and/or ignoring the bundled update. (Annoyingly, the ignore option only applies to a particular update, not to an update channel, so every time they release a new version of iTunes you have to tell it to ignore it again.)

    The problem isn't about forcing people to install additional software, but misleading them into it.
    reply
  • OldFart

    8 months ago

    Why must every piece of software come with a back ground install task running 100% of the time? Even if you use iTunes or Acrobat Reader - as two of at least a dozen culprits - just a fraction of the time? Can't they just check when we run the program? Why must each update reset our preferences - like putting short cuts on the desktop or stealing file associations - every time? Just because we need to run some piece of software for 5 minutes a week, it may not make it important enough to us to change the way we've set our preferences. My next phone will play music and won't be an iPhone - at that point iTunes goes! And I'm pushed to trying Foxit reader. And looking for alternatives to each POS stealing a part of my machine resources!
    reply
  • trevorblanco

    8 months ago

    Do whatever it takes to take down IE. Even if this brings more attention to the fact that there are optional web browsers out there for people to use, it's a plus. I bet Firefox gets mentioned as much as Safari in articles concerning this issue and that's good for FF and Safari.
    Only bloggers will be mad about this but for all those other users this is a smart move. Get exposure.
    reply
  • Daniel

    8 months ago

    I provide technical support for VersionTracker, so I need to work on Mac OS X and PC. I don't even use Safari on my Mac Pro, I use Firefox on both OS X and Windows.

    Apple and Microsoft are both guilty of seedy practices, I'm sure dirt could even be found on Mozilla and Google. It's just business.

    Apple is a hardware company, a company that for whatever reason loves Mac OS X; however, they made an entire switch to x86 architecture, in my opinion, to get users that are more comfortable with Windows to "make the switch".

    This seems to be more of the same tactic, get Windows users to try out Apple products, even if the user is unaware.

    Apple is a renegade, they love the publicity of all the lawsuits on patent infringement, it's just that annoying kind of behavior that seems like it would doom the stability and growth of Apple; however, it seems to do the opposite. People don't care about patent infringement, they just want the new super cool gadget that sexy slim and full of bells and whistles.

    If I could ever afford an iPhone, I would run Firefox on it, Safari is simply inferior.

    -Daniel
    reply
  • Paul Eccles

    8 months ago

    What's the big deal. This is an optional item in an OPTIONAL Software Update for users which have installed Apple iTunes (which requires Quicktime). If you have installed this software, you will know Apple Software Update updates ALL Apple software for Windows. (iTunes + Quicktime)

    Safari for Windows is just another piece of Apple software for Windows. You don't have to choose it, but it's actually quite good.
    reply
  • Thomas Zieba

    8 months ago

    Is it that you really are NOT looking out for people and there isnt anything wrong with this update but you feel threatened that Apple decided to use a legitimate medium to distribute their browser on?. I think you as a CEO of Mozilla have to keep Firefox in the #1 spot and this blog is just a clear indication that you're not being "responsible" to anyone and you're showing your true interests. You aren't really out there looking out for people and by claiming that Apple packaging their browser in the updates is "wrong" you're admitting that you're afraid of a little competition and therefor sparking innovation.

    Yes I use Firefox day in and day out for 2 years.. but after today I may as well use Safari again.
    reply
  • Dale

    8 months ago

    There is nothing wrong with this and in no way has there been a breach of "trust." First, why would anyone trust any vendor to push software onto their machine unattended? No matter the source, it must be first reviewed. Second, many users may appreciate the opportunity to be informed that software is available. I realize that some vendors could misuse this channel and continually pepper users with software offers. Such vendors would quickly be marginalized as users removed their update service from their machine. The occasional use of such a channel by a reputable vendor such as Apple or Microsoft should not be a threat to anyone other than another vendor with a similar product.
    reply
  • david

    8 months ago

    I haven't read such a load of crap since I stopped reading John Dvorak's rag. Maybe some of you Windows people aren't familiar with the concept of the checkbox. I'll explain. It is a little box. Click once and a checkmark appears (or disappears). Click again and it toggles. A checkmark in the box means, "I want."

    Use the damn thing and quit bitching!
    reply
  • Oh my god, how lame

    8 months ago

    "There is new Software avaiable from Apple". Today: Safari.
    reply
  • Brant Sears

    8 months ago

    I have Safari installed on all my Windows PCs at work. I DO want updates to Safari, but I don't want iTunes installed. Well, Software Update tries to push iTunes on me every time. So, it works both ways and although I am a big fan of both iTunes and Safari, I think that this sucks for the reasons you state.
    reply
  • Kevin

    8 months ago

    I think the problem here is that Safari out performs both IE and FireFox. This is just sour grapes. I would like to hear more about the performance differences.
    reply
  • Hans

    8 months ago

    "If this was Microsoft, everyone would be all over this…"

    Many people *were* unhappy when Microsoft started bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. However, it certainly paid off for them, didn't it.

    Internet Explorer is still included in Windows Update, which doesn't feel any different to me than what Apple is doing.
    reply
  • Matthew

    8 months ago

    Some of you defenders are ridiculous. Including a new piece of software in an updater program is wrong, period. A new piece of software is not an update. Including it at all is deceptive but acceptable; including it by default is wrong.

    By the way, install any linux operating system and you can stop worrying about companies sneaking in software while you're not looking. All software on linux is stored in central repositories. When you update, you can update ALL of your software on your computer, you don't need to load up the individual programs and update them that way. And they don't install stuff that you don't already have installed.
    reply
  • Hans

    8 months ago

    Before anyone tries to claim IE is fundamental to Windows...

    There's no more reason this had/has to be the case than if Apple started using Safari to render the iTunes store and *forced* users to install both.

    At least today, unlike Microsoft, they are giving users the option.
    reply
  • Kelson

    8 months ago

    "I think the problem here is that Safari out performs both IE and FireFox."

    @Kevin, judging by some of the performance benchmarks I've seen, the latest Firefox 3 beta outperforms Safari 3.0 (and Firefox 2, and IE). Unless Safari 3.1 is twice as fast as 3.0, it's not likely to outperform the upcoming release. So I doubt it's performance anxiety on Mozilla's part.
    reply
  • BryanSD

    8 months ago

    Keven...this really isn't sour grapes. Apple is wrong in what they are doing. In my organization, security is a very high priority and we are choosy on what we install. We do allow Quicktime to be installed but iTunes is out of the question. While I have no issues with Safari, resources for support and security really only allows us to support Internet Explorer 7 and Firefox.

    Apple's auto-updater is very unfriendly when you look at it from an IT enterprise perspective. The number of time Quicktime has been flagged for security vulnerabilities this past year is bad enough, but when the Apple updater wants to do by default a new install of iTunes and Safari it's one big headache. If this was any other company but Apple, I would call this malware. This isn't whining...this is just observing Apple breaking the "do no evil" motto we hope Apple would follow.
    reply
  • David K.

    8 months ago

    I'm sorry John, but Mozilla of all people has no buisness complaining about this practice. When you go to install Firefox on Windows you have to pay attention enough to UNCHECK a box that tells it to install GoogleToolbar. This is no different. I find both behaviors annoying, no doubt, but its not nearly as big a deal as its being made out to be.

    And for those who are complaining about Apple FORCING this on you, you can
    A) not use auto update
    B) not tell it to install when it tells you there IS an update you don't want

    Much ado about not too much, but seriously, Mozilla has no buisness compalining until they stop having Google Toolbar install by default.

    P.S. having said that I think your work on the actual Firefox browser is very good, 3 is especially nice, the use of the larger back button is an excellent UI design choice.
    reply
  • Stuart Parmenter

    8 months ago

    David K.: Mozilla doesn't ship the Google Toolbar with Firefox. Are you downloading the Google Toolbar version of from Google?
    reply
  • andy

    8 months ago

    the point is that updaters should update, period. if they become marketing, then people will be turned off, and then not get security updates, which harms everyone.

    The fact that Safari happens to be the piece of software being pimped here is completely irrelevant.
    reply
  • Tom

    8 months ago

    Erm... so some people are claiming that "Microsoft does this too!"

    You know what? I think you're right. So... you Apple fanboys really want to go down the path of claiming moral equivalence between Apple and Microsoft?

    How about this: it's despicable for EITHER company to use a "software update" application to SNEAK in a new application in a blatant attempt to steal market share. It was wrong for Microsoft to do it, and IT'S WRONG FOR APPLE TO DO IT. "He did it too!" hasn't been a valid defense since, oh, fourth grade.

    As to the people who say "well, you could just unclick the checkbox!" Of course you could. In fact, smart sysadmins don't even use the autoupdaters because they know that they have even odds of breaking things. Instead, they keep tight reins on sys configs and roll patches downstream when they're appropriate.

    But smart sysadmins are not the bulk of users. The bulk of users are "mom & pop" users and the similarly computer-illiterate. The bulk of users are too eneducated, or too pressed for time, to read every single check box and bullet point -- they assume, and trust, that their "software updater" application is going to (wait for it........) UPDATE their software; not sneak entirely new applications on in hopes that you'll be foolish enough to fall for it.

    This article hinges upon the fact that this is a sneaky, underhanded tactic. Apple tries to pride itself on its simplicity and moral superiority over Microsoft, but when it adopts the "Evil Empire's" own sneaky, deceptive tactics in order to further its own ends, it loses this moral high ground. It becomes just another greedy company going after your dollars by any means necessary. That may be the norm in the business world, but it's certainly not morally superior and it's certainly not "thinking different." You just can't have it both ways.

    As to those claiming that Mozilla is pissed because this could cost them market share -- of course, that's part of it. I would be surprised if it weren't. So? Just because it's MY car that you stole, doesn't make stealing cars OK.

    Come on, Apple. Quit this sneaky stuff. Ever since you tried (REALLY HARD) to force me to install iTunes when I just wanted a Quicktime update, I've been forced to treat you as a potential malware source -- and that makes me sad. You guys should be above that. You really should.
    reply
  • Tom

    8 months ago

    i noticed this for a sometime as i only wish to use quicktime and it will try to install itunes using the similar update method
    reply
  • Powerbook g4 battery

    8 months ago

    Good Article!
    thanks
    reply
  • Peter

    8 months ago

    I am viewing this on Safari right now -- which was included in the update. You can uncheck the box if you want. I had heard of Safari but did not know what it was. Now I know, thanks to Apple. I really don't mind. I will probably go back to Firefox after trying it out.
    reply
  • Jon

    8 months ago

    "This is wrong, and borders on malware distribution practices."

    Damn straight.

    When I first heard about Apple sneaking Safari onto Windows PC's, the first thing that came into my mind was 'spyware.'
    reply
  • David Naylor

    8 months ago

    What people here don't seem to be getting is...

    1. This is not about Apple stealing market share in a sneaky way.

    2. This is not about Mozilla being scared because "Safari is X times faster than Firefox 3".

    This is about Apple destroying computer-insecure users trust for software updates. When the user finds a new icon on their desktop and realizes that "some new program" must have installed without them wanting it... that may lead to the same user ignoring very legit and necessary updates in other software, including but not limited to Firefox.
    reply
  • Tom

    8 months ago

    [completely off topic: I have to point out one of the typos in my own post; there's something rather darkly funny about spelling "uneducated" as "eneducated." There were a few typos in my post, since I can't see an edit function. Mea culpa.]
    reply
  • Todd Ditchendorf

    8 months ago

    I disagree. I don't see anything wrong with what Apple has done here.
    reply
  • Joe

    8 months ago

    Its amazing how y'all get so easily upset when a competitor does something innovative. Sure, its a slight bit of marketing to give people a safari option when they are updating...

    But this sounds like a lot of sour grapes from an organization that has failed, for a decade, to take over the browser market despite competing against mostly incompetence (IE).

    Now safaris competing technically and marketingwise, and you are reduced to calling it malware?

    Shame on you.
    reply
  • Steve J

    8 months ago

    Well I guess we can spot the Apple owners in the above comments! (Clue: they're the ones who see nothing wrong...)

    Rolling out unrelated software in an update package and making it selected by default is wrong.

    Having Quicktime+iTunes forced down my throat constantly is bad enough - all I want is the Quicktime updates! - but trying to get me to install another browser is unforgivable, particularly when it's as poor as Safari for Windows is.

    Can't say I'm surprised by this though - we're just lucky they didn't make it auto install....
    reply