Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Upgrades Apple

Safari 5 Released 308

Posted by samzenpus
from the new-and-improved dept.
pknoll writes "Apple has released the fifth version of the Safari web browser, which adds several new features. Reader mode detects multiple-page articles and displays them in their entirety at the click of a button, and most importantly, there is now an official extension API."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Safari 5 Released

Comments Filter:
  • by AdmiralXyz (1378985) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @10:06AM (#32495430)
    And Chrome 5 is a speed demon itself. The difference is only 3 percent, and those are Apple's numbers.

    Man I love this relentless focus on browser speed over the past few years. If it keeps up for a little longer, I might even be able to browse Slashdot.
  • by I'm Not There (1956) (1823304) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @10:13AM (#32495490)
    Such a shame for a browser in 2010 that it needs an update for adding a search engine to the available search options.
  • by Thinine (869482) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @10:13AM (#32495496)
    Gee, I wonder if Chrome had the site in cache, since you've used it before. Reset both browsers to a clean state and then you may have a valid comparison.
  • Refuse to test it (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Enderandrew (866215) <enderandrew.gmail@com> on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @10:19AM (#32495548) Homepage Journal

    Since Apple decided to push Safari out via an iTunes update without asking people, I've refused to ever install it on my box.

    If I really want a Webkit browser, I'll run Chrome and/or Rekonq. Chrome already has tons of extensions, is FOSS, and runs amazingly fast.

    If Chrome supported a proper adblocking solution, I'd never need another browser. And yes, I know they had an Adblock extension, but it still renders ads in the background. I want to stop the ads from being downloaded or rendered at all.

  • sendmail (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @10:25AM (#32495606)

    Have you ever seen a sendmail config file?

  • by Spad (470073) <slashdotNO@SPAMspad.co.uk> on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @10:26AM (#32495622) Homepage

    The extensions will be very nice

    But only if they get approved for publication in the App Store.

  • Re:Haha (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 0100010001010011 (652467) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @10:35AM (#32495716)

    Text files aren't 'complicated'. Writing the Javascript and CSS to make them work the way you want is.

    I've written a few GreaseMoney scripts, but I know how to program. To the lay user, I doubt they even know what 'GreaseMonkey' or Javascript is.

    I know people that would like to customize their 'browser experience' but would get lost at UserScripts.

    Knowing Apple, its most likely a pretty GUI around some basic text files. I know it may come as a shock to the Slashdot crowd, but Linux, GUI, config files, etc are pretty intimidating to a newbie.

    If it wasn't for OS X, I wouldn't have ever gotten into Linux, OpenSolaris, PHP, C, etc.

    Terminal was always there, just never opened. I opened it a few times to move files around. Used some hints from Mac OS X Hints [macosxhints.com]. Enabled SSH, learned PHP and C through copy and paste coding until I understood how to write it on my own. Years later I run a SheevaPlug (do you honestly think a complete newbie would figure out uBoot and such?), OpenSolaris server, XBMC. Installed Ubuntu on my Girlfriend's laptop all because of Terminal.app and some natural curiosity.

    If this "Simple GUI" gets some middle/high schooler or college student going "I wonder what this Plugin builder does" opening the auto-generated text and tinkering. Good for them.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @10:54AM (#32495956)

    Use a hosts file

  • Re:Haha (Score:2, Insightful)

    by somersault (912633) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @11:06AM (#32496134) Homepage Journal

    Thanks to HTML5 offline support, designers can build web applications that store themselves on your computer, where you have immediate access to them. Along with the application, web developers can also choose to store the application’s data on your system, so you always have the information you need. Applications and data can be stored in a traditional SQL-like database serving as an application cache or as a “super cookie,” which stores data in the familiar cookie format.

    Sounds like a malware author's wetdream..!

  • Re:Haha (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @11:56AM (#32496834)

    Auto-generated anything is *useless* to learn from. Might as well open the source code to the IDE driver in Linux and say "hmm, I wander how to program in C"

    If you want to learn how to program your first language, get your For Dummies. And if you cannot be bothered to read and understand that book, it is hopeless.

  • by Myopic (18616) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @12:10PM (#32497062)

    Agreed, adblockers are the killer app for the web. Without them, the web is almost -- not quite, but almost -- completely useless. And AdBlock Plus is the gold standard, even though it could stand improvement.

  • by Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @12:31PM (#32497462)

    Firefox still beats them all with Adblock.

    Chrome still lacks any real download filtering. Chrome's add block still downloads ads but it simply doesnt display them. I like chrome, but this kills it. Firefox actually performs much better because of this.

    Firefox scrolls much better than chrome or safari.

  • by 16K Ram Pack (690082) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (dnomla.mit)> on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @01:03PM (#32498124) Homepage

    Not sure why Apple is doing this, but publishers aren't going to like it. They'll find ways to scuttle it or to embed ads.

    Right now, ad-blocking is a fringe activity. Places like Ars Technica suffer quite badly, but most sites don't. But Apple are giving people a heads up that lots of Safari readers won't be looking at ads - they'll be just getting the content.

    I know a lot of people don't like ads, but it's what keeps a lot of sites running and "free". Without the revenue from ads, a lot of them will disappear.

  • by Myopic (18616) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @01:13PM (#32498318)

    Thank you for your sympathy. I probably wouldn't use the word "miserable" but it's close. I am indeed constantly annoyed at the pervasiveness of commercial messages. I do what I can to reduce the intrusion, such as enjoying radio and television programs as recordings (podcasts, DVDs, etc) so that I can skip ads; using adblockers online; discarding the extraneous packaging around many food products; declining to wear clothing with ads on them (such as the Nike swoosh and whatnot); and simply not participating in some activities which are ad-supported. It's limiting in some ways and a relief in other ways; I try to find the best balance for me.

    Indeed, the "simple" way to avoid website ads is to avoid websites with ads. But you might be interested to know that with a small amount of additional effort I can also enjoy the websites *and* avoid the ads, by using an ad blocker -- thus getting the best of both worlds as it were. (I'm surprised you don't realize that, since it's exactly the topic at hand.) So, that is obviously better for me than not visiting at all. For most of those sites, I'd gladly pay the fraction of a cent per page that the advertisers pay, but I don't know many sites which offer that level of subscription.

    As a last thought in regards your suggestion that websites wouldn't exist without advertising, I am reminded of the saying "...and if my aunt had a mustache, she'd be my uncle". That means, "and if everything were completely different, then everything would be completely different." I proffer that if 90% of web users used ad blockers, then almost all sites would have a micropayment option or some other kind of business model.

    Anyway, I appreciate your sincere words. Be well.

  • by makomk (752139) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @01:44PM (#32498926) Journal

    Amazing how the two can be so different, given that they're using the same engine... You would almost think it had something to do with the Placebo Effect, or the Confirmation Bias, wouldn't you ;).

    Except they're not. The platform-independent bits are the same, but the platform-dependent code that actually draws to the screen is completely different in Chrome to that in Safari for Windows, and that does have big effects on performance. In particular, the Windows version of Safari traditionally used a rather slow and buggy closed-source library that emulates the Mac OS X APIs for drawing etc. Chrome on the other hand is optimized to run well on Windows.

When all else fails, read the instructions.

Working...