There is a reason Safari on OSX performs much better then on Windows. Safari and Chrome are differnet browsers. Safari on Mac is different from Windows, even at the basic level. Web Kit is a foundation, not the end result.
Run over to the IE9 testing site, and run the animated stuff on Chrome and on Safari, and you'll see abysmal results when run on a Windows machine. Then, run the same test with Safari on Mac, and it will be like night and day.
Now, if IE9XP can't support the same features of IE9Win7 like SafWin can't support the same features as SafOSX, then there is arguably more harm in supporting XP from a developer stand point, and therefore, a user standpoint. As a developer, it's like having 2 more browsers to check for IE9XP/IE9Win7.
That's not even getting into the security concerns with XP.
I'll hazard a guess that this might have to do with the success they've had in getting users to update off of old versions. While you might be able to find a Tiger box out in the wild, I bet you'd never find someone running Cheetah. Doesn't over 60% of HTTP traffic come from XP boxes, in contrast?
http://www.quirksmode.org/webkit.html
There is a reason Safari on OSX performs much better then on Windows. Safari and Chrome are differnet browsers. Safari on Mac is different from Windows, even at the basic level. Web Kit is a foundation, not the end result.
Run over to the IE9 testing site, and run the animated stuff on Chrome and on Safari, and you'll see abysmal results when run on a Windows machine. Then, run the same test with Safari on Mac, and it will be like night and day.
Now, if IE9XP can't support the same features of IE9Win7 like SafWin can't support the same features as SafOSX, then there is arguably more harm in supporting XP from a developer stand point, and therefore, a user standpoint. As a developer, it's like having 2 more browsers to check for IE9XP/IE9Win7.
That's not even getting into the security concerns with XP.
Even Apple doesn't support Safari on Cheetah!