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This discussion has been archived.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 JustinRLynn (831164) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @10:03AM (#32495396)
    Yes, but will it block porn? I wouldn't want my Apple(TM) experience ruined.
    -- Begin program section
    Sarcasm++
  • by dsavi (1540343) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @10:06AM (#32495424) Homepage
    Just like Opera [opera.com]! I think that I'll stick with Firefox and Chrome.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Rockoon (1252108)
      The difference is that while the webkit boys are making their javascript engine faster.. the opera boys are also making the browser faster.

      webkit has a slight edge on javascript speed, I guess.. some benchmarks say so anyways..

      ..but opera (and chrome) are so much snappier than safari, at least on windows, and its not even a contest. We don't need benchmarks to see how poorly safari is running on windows compared to opera and chrome... the difference is visually apparent.
  • Same as Readable App (Score:2, Interesting)

    by magister159 (993682)
    The content extraction feature sounds a lot like the Readable Bookmarlet [appspot.com] that I've been running across browsers for the last year.
  • 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.
    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by dave420 (699308)
      I just tried Safari 5 on Windows, and it's sooo slow. It's slower than IE. Chrome on the same machine (however) runs like shit of a shovel.
      • by beelsebob (529313)

        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 ;).

        • by stokessd (89903)

          I would think it was some sort of sample bias, but not having tried Safari on Windows, I can still believe it based on my experience with iTunes on Windows.

          I use iTunes on my mac with lots of movies and tv shows and about 15000 music tracks, and it works smoothly and reasonably well (aside from movies being inside something called iTUNES). But iTunes on XP (maybe that's the problem) is a dog, slow, halting, problematic etc. And that's with comparable hardware.

          Given the number of iPods and iPhones Apple ha

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by makomk (752139)

          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.

    • I just ran some tests on my Mac using latest Chrome / Safari 5. Loading my Google homepage is noticeably faster in Safari 5 vs. Chrome. The average speed after 5 repetitions for loading in Chrome is just under 3 seconds, while in Safari it's about 2.5 seconds. Nonetheless, Chrome remains my browser of choice for many reasons; I prefer the tabs in Chrome to Safari, I think the address text box being included in the active tab makes more sense, I like the 4 nav buttons all together on the left as opposed t

    • Although Safari benchmarks well, it degrades severely over time. Memory usage climbs, even after closing tabs, and the beach ball becomes a constant companion. Firefox is a little better, but I've had the best luck with Chrome. I'll try Safari 5, but I'm not optimistic that it will be any better than previous versions.
      • I don't know if you're using a Mac, but I think it's really strange how my experience of the various browsers differs from what I see here on Slashdot. In my experience, Firefox probably takes the longest to render a page (but we're still talking milliseconds here), but beats the shit out of Chrome and Safari for general responsiveness and reliability. Damn thing never crashes. Runs Flash much faster and more reliably too.

        Chrome renders pages vary quickly, but can become unresponsive while chugging on graph

    • 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.

      • Also when you go back in firefox, it doesn't reload the page, it uses the cache. I hate that about safari.

  • The extensions will be very nice. This is the only reason I would not use safari in the past. Apple was not supporting the use of input managers so this change is welcome.
  • 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 Trufagus (1803250) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @10:13AM (#32495492)

    You can only view pages that have been pre-approved by Apple - and Apple gets 30% cut of anything revenue generated by the page.

    As an added bonus, any media gets re-routed to iTunes - where Apple will take their 30% cut and wrap it in a container that prevents you from mistakenly trying to use it on a non-Apple device.

    But this is all just to protect you and preserve the user experience (patent pending), of course.

  • Refuse to test it (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Enderandrew (866215) <enderandrew@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> 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.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by SassyDave (557868)
      Chrome does have adblocking now. Does it not work for you?
      • Re:Refuse to test it (Score:5, Informative)

        by Phroggy (441) <slashdot3@nosPAm.phroggy.com> on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @10:48AM (#32495884) Homepage

        Chrome does have adblocking now. Does it not work for you?

        Another poster explained that Chrome's ad-blocking still downloads the ad, but doesn't display it. This is a problem for anybody on a metered or low-bandwidth connection (e.g. tethering through a cell phone, as I'm doing now) who don't want to download the ads, regardless of whether or not they get displayed. Of course, most people have broadband connections and don't care what gets downloaded in the background, as long as they don't have to see it.

        In theory, web sites could try to detect whether an ad was downloaded or not, and refuse to display content unless you've also downloaded the ads. In practice, this isn't normally done, but if it were, with Chrome the web site would still work.

      • Way to be an idiot.
    • If Chrome supported a proper adblocking solution

      If it's important enough, you can get an adblocking proxy filter that will let you use Chrome without the background downloads.

  • Personally, I'm hopeful that the extension API is a unified API that appears in both Safari and Mobile Safari. My only complaint with my iPhone is the lack of an AdBlock extension. The web looks so ugly and loads so slowly without one!
    • 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 cowscows (103644)

        It must be a miserable existence you live, where you're entirely unable to mentally block out advertising and get on with whatever it is you're doing, seeing as ads are everywhere.

        I won't argue that some websites have ridiculously intrusive ads, but the simple solution there is to not visit those sites. For every website with flashy popup ads, there's another with similar content but tasteful ads.

        Without advertising, half the websites out there wouldn't even exist, so I'd argue that ads make the web more us

        • 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.

  • Reader mode detects multiple-page articles and displays them in their entirety at the click of a button

    That's an awesome feature, but can it reduce entire slashdot comment threads into a single comment? That would save a lot of time.

  • by holiggan (522846)

    You know how you can have the fastest browsing experience ever?

    Browse with pictures and javascript turned off. In Opera, it's really easy to do it, and I use that "barebones mode" when I'm searching for info or doing "work-related browsing".

  • by line-bundle (235965) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @10:39AM (#32495782) Homepage Journal

    I still want a volume control to shut the web up. But still want to be able to listen to my music.

    • by TheCycoONE (913189) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @10:57AM (#32496012)

      Per-application volume control is typically a sound system option; supported through Vista, Windows 7, Pulse Audio, OSS, and I assume OSX. Putting a volume control in the application itself would be redundant at this point.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Per-application volume control is typically a sound system option; supported through Vista, Windows 7, Pulse Audio, OSS, and I assume OSX.

        Wow, you're wrong on so many levels. You presume OS X has per app volume controls outside of apps, but didn't bother to check? Guess what, it does not. Each app is responsible for it's own sound controls and Safari has none. And even if it did have a control in the OS configurations, that's not very useful. Would you make the same argument that Songbird should not have a volume control, because you can just go turn it off in the OS config? That's more than a bit inconvenient don't you think?

        • by Shin-LaC (1333529)
          I think you can use Jack OS X [jackosx.com].
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by prockcore (543967)

        OSX doesn't.. but Linux and Windows both have per-application volume management... and using chrome, that becomes per-tab volume management.

  • I'd all but given up on going to articles from here because I hate those annoying multipage articles that have maybe one screenful of text and five screenfuls of ads. If Safari Reader works as advertised, I can go back to reading again.

    • by Myopic (18616)

      If you (or anybody who reads this) uses Firefox, please let me recommend FastestFox, which is an extension with several features. My favorite feature is that for many popular websites, FastestFox will pre-fetch the next-in-line page and append it to the current page as you scroll down. That means when I go to Google and do a search, I see the first page of results; as I then scroll toward the bottom of the page, the next page automagically appends to the bottom and I can scroll directly to that new page, no

      • I'll use Firefox when it quits being a half-assed OS X app.

        • by Myopic (18616)

          Huh, interesting. I have a fine experience using Firefox on my Mac, but everyone wants something different and each computer is a little different, so my experience doesn't necessarily apply to your situation.

          Anyway I hope my tip is useful to somebody.

  • Any word on when it will come to the iPad? Sooner than iOS 4 I hope.
    Current version on iPad is broken in a tiny but critical way (anyone know why it doesn't work with eCollege's discussion "post" button?)

  • I'm skeptical of a lot of promises Apple makes, but I download Safari 5 now and after playing with it, I'm pleasantly surprised. I'm on Snow Leopard and moved from Safari 4 to the Chrome betas and to the release version of Chrome when it came out. I prefer Safari's integration into the system, but Chrome's extensions and speed make it my primary browser (but when downloading PDFs, visiting Hulu, I'd have to go back to Safari). Safari 5 may make be switch back again, depending on the extension support.

    Rea

  • No mention of Ruby scripting, Websocket support, Geolocation or hardware accelleration in the Windows version. Nobody's reaaly looked past the extensions feature have they?

  • I'll take this moment to remind GOOGLE, that Chrome still has no color management or true ad blocking capability.

    Safari does have color management,
    Firefox has color management
    IE has color management

    Chrome... nothing.

    I actually like chrome in general... but I find Firefox to be much better still. Firefox performs better older hardware, and scrolls better. Firefox has better bookmark management. I do like google's synced bookmarks but I just simply use Xmarks on firefox. I wish both xmarks and google didnt sp

  • 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 disapp

  • by 200_success (623160) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @03:41PM (#32500944)

    Users should also be aware that Safari 5 fixes 48 security holes [apple.com] in Safari 4.0. Therefore, if you are using Safari 4.0, you should upgrade as soon as possible. For Mac OS 10.4, there is Safari 4.1 available instead of Safari 5.0.

Our informal mission is to improve the love life of operators worldwide. -- Peter Behrendt, president of Exabyte

Working...