Safari Beta Leaked, With Tabs 275
ollie_ob writes "Seems a bit too good to be true: Apple listening to its community and implementing the features most requested? Apparently a build (v62) of Safari has been leaked into the wild, and has tabs -- though not fully implemented yet -- and primitive support for autocomplete in forms. The Think Secret rumor site has the scoop." It is not merely a rumor, I've confirmed it. It works nicely, too, in a brief test. Then I, uh, deleted the copy I looked at.
Hooray! (Score:5, Informative)
You need to activate the debug menu. While Safari is not running, write this in the terminal:
defaults write com.apple.Safari IncludeDebugMenu 1
Start Safari (Beta
Command-T will open a new tab as will right clicking on a link and choose "Open link in new tab". Command-W will close the tab you are currently using. Command-shift-right/leftarrow wil choose the prev/next tab.
One thing though, tabs slows down the gui, not page-load-time, but it takes longer to switch between tabs than to switch between windows. Also, if you have, say, 5 tabs in one window and are looking at the last (the one most to the right) command-shift-rightarrow will not cycle you back to the first tab. Another thing is that Safari sometimes closes the whole window instead of just the tab when you press command-W.
Ive got only small complaints, Im very impressed they got it working so well already. Cant wait for the final.
Tabbing is a nice feature, but Ive kinda got used to not using tabs after shifting to Safari. well, Ive just got to get used to tabbing again
Re:Hooray! (Score:5, Informative)
Cmd-Shift-click will open a link in a new tab in the background
Cmd-Option-click will open a link in a new window
Cmd-Option-Shift-click will open a link in a new window in the background
How did I find out? When you hover over a link, Safari shows you what it would do if you clicked that link in the status bar. Very convenient.
Re:Hooray! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hooray! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Hooray! (Score:4, Funny)
I almost wept a tear. It was the most beautiful thing I'd ever seen (apart from Oolong [fsinet.or.jp]. I was atheist. I now see the light.
In Steve I trust.
It also fixed my blog page's CSS troubles. Woo!
Re:Hooray! (Score:5, Informative)
"defaults write com.apple.safari TabbedBrowsing 1"
Oh? (Score:5, Funny)
Who's missing? oh! sorry, I remember, they don't care about usability anymore, they have 95% of the market.
"People don't use tabs, look, mommy, 95% of people live without."
Innovation: don't ever use bright ideas from others.
Re:Oh? (Score:2)
Re:Oh? (Score:2)
From the FAQ page:
Crazy Browser is not IE plug-in or add-on, it just uses IE rendering engine to render the Web pages. Programming is not so easy, I have been developing Crazy Browser for two years.
I tried CrazyBrowser in the lab at school and it was pretty sweet. I did find the multiple close buttons a little odd, non-intuitive, and put in a poor location.
Re:Oh? (Score:5, Funny)
Who's missing?
Well, I don't remember using tabbed browsing in Lynx (or Links).
Re:Oh? (Score:5, Funny)
Wasn't that called emacs or screen?
Re:Oh? (Score:3, Funny)
Folks, these are not the same browser. Lynx is sane, bloat-free, simple. Links has color and support for other bloatware like tables. This crap slows my computer to a grinding halt. Bloat I tell you!!! Next we'll be seeing popup ads, tabs, and other horrible things. Worst yet I hear they will be changing the name to (B)Links once they add support for everyone's favorite HTML tag....
Re:Oh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Please don't get me wrong, I love OSX with a passion, but this is just an area where the windows taskbar shines over the dock. It doesn't happen often.
Tabs are essential to the mac browsing experience in my mind.
Re:Oh? (Score:3, Informative)
- Mozilla run on windows, many people use it and it have tabs
and more important:
Apple didn't create tabs idea, it came from Mozilla, then from Linux And Windoz...
origin of tabbed browsing? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:origin of tabbed browsing? (Score:2)
Re:Oh? (Score:2, Informative)
I also despise the XP-way of putting all IE windows on the same taskbar 'button': 2 steps that could be made into 1 with a tab.
My 0,02$
Re:Oh? (Score:3, Interesting)
i find tabs provide a better model of the data i'm perusing. i often have a window devoted to a subject area, with tabs for all the pages within that area under that window. so for example i'll have one window open holding references, one with test cases, and another with mindless crap like slashdot. keeps me organized and efficient, and i don't have to scan [taskbar|dock] to be in the right place.
it's the extra level of heirarchical organization that makes tabs killer for me. same reason i like the OS X columnar file browser. fast, transparent traversal.
Re:Oh? (Score:2)
The advantage tabs have over plain MDI (which is what you are describing) is there is a quick and easy easy to switch between documents, something MDI lacked.
but there _is_ an easy way (Score:4, Informative)
Re:but there _is_ an easy way (Score:3, Insightful)
One of my usability peeves with OS X: Cmd-tab switches between applications, not windows. That's fine. Cmd-backtick switches between windows in the current app. That's fine too, even though I have to say I was more used to alt-tab doing both for me in other OSes.
The problem arises when trying to keyboard-navigate to windows of an app that are minimized to the dock
Unfortunately, cmd-backtick doesn't "switch between all windows of the current application". It only switches between all non-minimized windows of the current application.
Now, given that I don't have multiple or virtual desktops, I'm forced to hide unused apps and minimize windows of apps that I'm using, just to keep my desktop reasonably organized. And it still doesn't work too well. Ah well.
Re:Oh? (Score:4, Interesting)
And in other cases, it doesn't. The Windows taskbar gets cluttered a lot more quickly than the Dock, because every window gets a "tab". I don't need a "tab" for the window I'm typing email in, because I don't type too many of them at the same time, so clicking the mail application icon is sufficient to switch back.
This is why tabbed browsing, implemented in the browser, is better. It's available where it's needed, but doesn't clutter up other applications that don't need it. Perhaps Apple will update Cocoa so that Document-based applications can get tabbed navigation for free.
Re:Oh? (Score:3, Informative)
HTH
Troc
Not the first time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Now, if they would only release Linux? (Score:2, Informative)
Then check BSD Configuration Files on.
That is all since lookupd is configured by default like so: Cache FF DNS NI DS
Notice that Flat Files show up before NetInfo.
By turning this on you also get
P.S. This only exists because people like yourself complained during 10.1 and Apple added it for 10.1 so people whenever you feel something is subpar or could be better, http://www.apple.com/macosx/feedback/. Let Apple know.
Re:Not the first time (Score:3, Insightful)
Argument for tabs (Score:5, Informative)
On my Mac I opened Chimera and filled up the window with as many tabs as it would allow (16 in a single window). All windows displayed the Slashdot mainpage. My Slashdot prefs are set to show all stories from all sections.
I checked the system usage in the Process Viewer app:
I then closed all the windows and did the same thing, this time opening 16 SEPARATE windows. Again with Slashdot's mainpage loaded in each.
Process Viewer showed:
So, according to this unscientific off-the-cuff test, you cut your RAM requirements in half by using tabs. YMMV.
I noticed this the other day when I opened over 50 different images in different windows. My Mac almost ground to a halt. I then opened the same images in tabs (in only a few windows
So, to all those who think tabbed browsing is purely a matter of personal preference, I suggest that there is at least a reasonable performance based argument for it.
Re:Argument for tabs (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Argument for tabs (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Argument for tabs (Score:3, Informative)
My solution is too cram as much RAM into OS X machines as they can take :-)
Re:Argument for tabs (Score:2)
I'm not saying that that is the only source for the difference, I just wanted to point out that without quitting the results are even less accurate than you think. I will admit your other test does support your argument, I just think the 50% you saw at first could have been inflated.
Re:Argument for tabs (Score:2)
Re:Argument for tabs (Score:2)
Tabs and MDI (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft's implementation of MDI could easily be called confusing, with multiple sets of window control decorations so close together, however, I don't think that points as much to a fatal flaw in the idea of MDI, as it does to a flawed implementation. MDI has real life analogies too.
Imagine your computer is a large shop, each application is a machine that does a certain function. It is perfectly natural to think in terms of "I need to lathe this piece of metal, so I'll to take it to the lathe. I can set other pieces I am going to lathe on the lathe table."
Document centric is like, "OK I have metal, I need to run it through the lathe, so I will feed it into this huge machine that will try to guess what I want to do with it, and hopefully it will wind up on the lathe." It's very unnatural.
Re:Tabs and MDI (Score:2)
It's funny how excel uses MDI. Then again, all technologies aren't bad. Just using them everywhere isn't always great.
-s
Remember, tabbed browsing is not MDI. (Score:2)
Re:Remember, tabbed browsing is not MDI. (Score:5, Funny)
I see. He's a low-level guy without any real browser interface experience. Except for that Chimera [mozdev.org] stint.
He is a very smart guy, but he doesn't know shit about user interfaces.
Lessee, credibility with regard to browser interface design - the guy who started Chimera, or some random AC? Hmmm, thoughie.
Re:Remember, tabbed browsing is not MDI. (Score:2)
What, exactly, does the fact, that he is not a professional UI programmer, have to do with the comment he wrote [mozillazine.org]? I find that comment perfectly reasonable and it's indeed (almost) exactly how I feel using Mozilla's tabbed browsing vs. Opera's MDI windowing. The key difference between Mozilla's tabs and MDI is that there's no window management in Mozilla's tabs. MDI app has always, more or less, it's own window manager.
If you want to see a really, really bad example of MDI, just view the Metalworks demo in Java 1.4.1_01. Just try to open some windows, minimize some of them and resize the main window after that. Looks pretty stupid, eh? Compare this to Mozilla's tabs where a tab is always the same size with all the other tabs inside the same main window and the resizing is done by resizing the main window. Seems like a pretty intuitive way to work for me. Another important usability feature is that you can have multiple main windows open in paraller. Most apps have either all windows detached from each other (e.g. Gimp) or all windows inside the main window (e.g. older versions of Opera).
Re:Remember, tabbed browsing is not MDI. (Score:2)
Doesn't work in Mozilla. Works in Phoenix (I know, MacOS cannot run that) once you download Tabbed Browsing Extensions (one mouse click on a web site and two OK buttons). I guess the feature will be ported to Mozilla (it's only a piece of JavaScript and XUL). Currently the developers have more important stuff to do... Mozilla's implementation could be better, but it's already much better than anything the window management that come with MacOS or Windows can do.
There's nothing intuitive about it. A window is a document.
Think about it the other way around: the internet isn't a collection of documents. It's a one big document and browser windows are only views to it. It's intuitive to have multiple paraller views to such a huge document. In fact, it's that huge that you have to make groups from those views (tabs in different windows) to be able to handle as many views as you would want to use and still you can view only really tiny part of the whole document.
Yeah, you can also think pages as stand alone documents but it's only one way to think it. Note that nobody forces you to use tabs and Mozilla and Safari work fine without those.
Contrary to common belief, a change isn't always a bad thing.
Not to nitpick but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not to nitpick but... (Score:4, Informative)
Im sure there will be bookmark-groups when it is publicly released.
Re:Not to nitpick but... (Score:2)
Re:Not to nitpick but... (Score:2)
If you're talking about Mac OS X, can you tell me how you got middle-clicking working?
Thanks.
to activate the Safari debug menu, do this: (Score:4, Informative)
2. Open a terminal and type:
defaults write com.apple.Safari IncludeDebugMenu 1
3. Relaunch Safari.
Re:to activate the Safari debug menu, do this: (Score:2)
...or use Safari Enhancer (Score:2)
Everyone? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm reminded of when some ZDNet columnist wrote a column on OS X DR3 based on Apple's press releases. He got an avalanche of emails saying, "Are you an IDIOT? Have you even SEEN DR3?" which, of course, he hadn't, being that it was a developer-only release. DR3 was warezed so widely, though, that just about every Rhapsody-starved Mac user was running it (myself included).
I guess I'd better reinstall Hotline and start clicking porn banners to get a nick/pass...
Re:Everyone? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Everyone? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Everyone? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Everyone? (Score:2, Interesting)
The location of the beta is indeed as almost specified above.
I now have tabs in Safari -- thanks.
I was using Chimera, but it would crash after running for about a week (OK, so pretty reliable compared to some browsers...); although Chimera has tabs, it doesn't have many other features one expects from a browser (being all minimalist and stuff...). The Chimera team haven't released in a while due to legal issue with the Chimera name, but they say that version 0.7 is just around the corner, and I guess we can expect some significant changes. I'll certainly keep a copy of Chimera on my iBook (taking the total to
* Safari v62
* Chimera
* Opera
* IE (yeugh!)
It'll be nice when Apple have completed Safari (it certainly won't be complete without tabs!), as 4 browsers is ridiculous!
So, here's wishing luck to the Chimera and Safari projects!
force Open New Window to Open New Tab (Score:5, Interesting)
I've seen many new users of tabbed browsing become baffled by new windows popping up all over the place. If tabbed browsing is to be integrated, it needs to be done right. This seems like the sort of humane interface element that Apple used to have a real knack for, but since OS X you never can quite be sure.
Re:force Open New Window to Open New Tab (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right. Tabbed browsing should be integrated properly and what you've suggested is not what I would consider "done right"; in fact, it would baffle new users even more.
clarificiation (Score:3, Informative)
When a user is using tabbed browsing, they are aggregating all of their windows into a single window. Clicking on "_new" links in tabbed browsing mode should open documents into new tabs, not new windows.*
"Right-clicking" and selecting "open in a new tab" is not an acceptable solution because it is unintuitive, not all users even have right-buttons (don't tell me to explain keyboard shortcuts to my grandma), and if a user in unsure of which links open into new windows and which ones are normal links, they need to adjust to a habit of right-click/open-new-tabbing EVERY link they encounter. I think you can agree that's pretty absurd behavior.
*an exception might be made for links that trigger new windows with specified sizes (like those small comments windows many blogs use)
Re:clarificiation (Score:2)
Apple should make up their mind.... (Score:5, Funny)
Originally, all us zealots had to violently attack everyone who said tabs were a good idea, saying they were crude and unintuitive. Now, we have to do a complete reversal and furiously attack anyone who is against tabs. It just never ends.
The life of a spin doctor is a tough one, but immensely satisfying.
Re:Apple should make up their mind.... (Score:4, Funny)
What about Keychain integration? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What about Keychain integration? (Score:3, Informative)
v62 is the first i've started using safari, and am liking it about the same as chimera for now. once there are prefs to open tabs in teh background, and a way to open up multiple sites in different tabs at the same time, i'll switch for good.
another benefit of the debug menu is being able to specify which browser you are represented as - so going to wellsfargo.com i can say i am MSIE and they let me use the site.
Safari 4 All (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.domestikalien.com/imagenes/safari_v6
Re:Safari 4 All (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Safari 4 All (Score:2)
http://www.domestikalien.com/imagenes/safari_v6
Tabs ... next Bookmarks? (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder if they'll do one of my other requests. Sync'ing the bookmarks across
Re:Tabs ... next Bookmarks? (Score:2)
I fully understand the differences you nit-wit. The original point of topic still stands...
Dumb ass.
Couldn't they think of anything better? (Score:3, Insightful)
When you think about tabs, the history list, SnapBack, and bookmarks, you can see they are all a bit similar. They all take you to different pages. Tabs are treated specially. Maybe they shouldn't be?
Different ways to think about tabs:
* Per-window, per-session Bookmarks that retain form entries and other state.
* "SnapForward"
* nonlinear per-window history list
I guess what I'm saying is, I wish Apple or someone would think about the "essence" of tabbed browsing, and come up with something *better*.
And the "tabbed browsing is MDI is evil" folks might even like it. Hint: think about each browser window representing a *browsing session* rather than a *web page*, and it will go down easier. (As if web browsers are poster children for GUI design in the first place).
Maybe Apple thought about it, and decided that tabs were best because they were familiar to people. But that's not Apple's style.
Now I'm not complaining about Safari specifically, in fact when the official Safari with tabs comes out, I will have little reason to use any other web browser, but I can't help thinking the tabbed browsing interface can be made even better.
Clairvoyant web browser? (Score:3, Funny)
The day my web browser knows what page I want to go to in the future is the day I quit web browsing.
I know, I know, it's a pyrrhic victory at best, since my web browser will know what day that will be before I do.
My feature (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:My feature (Score:2)
Ever heard of meta refresh? Look up the "meta" tag and how to use its "refresh" attribute--works wonderfully in every browser I've ever used.
Apple: THANK YOU for listening, and PLEASE, (Score:3, Insightful)
Tabbed bookmarks are live-and-die for me.
PLEASE remember to allow us to bookmark groups of tabs!
I'm writing on Safari now, but if I wanted to get serious work done I would have to open Chimera (where all my bookmarks are, almost all of them tab-groups).
Thanks a million for listening to us!
Color me cynical (Score:2)
From January 9 [google.com]:
For a second there... (Score:2)
I was curious, so I opened the story in a new tab... then I got it.
Comparison of Chimera, Safari, tabs, windows (Score:3, Interesting)
Have a looksie. [tripod.com]
command ~ (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Tabs? of course (Score:2, Insightful)
Did you use absolute statements? (Bush will definitely go to war vs most likely)
Unless you didn't do those two things, your opinion would be unpopular because you had no authority (proof) or no logical argument. Not that what you said waranted to be modded down, as if mod points were money, but if people don't find reason to agree, they won't agree or just not care
dopey me...thanks for the house rules (Score:3, Funny)
You'd have more luck gettin popular agreement here by stapling your opinion to your ass.
Funny thing about my opinion...I never care whether anyone takes it or not. But when the back-chatter comes around as others talking out their little brown holes, it's kind of fun to be able to see them squirm.
Or was i absent the day they handed out
Ok, as for proof...NDAs tend to get in the way, you know? Makes being able to read between the lines more than just a dating skill.
Mirrors, md5sums, and some notes... (Score:5, Informative)
Tabs are off by default, but can be enabled in the Debug menu. Once enabled, cmd-T makes a new tab, as does cmd-clicking on a link. I'm a big fan of chimera's cmd-[ and cmd-] for moving between tabs; mozilla's lack of support for those shortcuts has always bugged me. Safari v62 doesn't use those keys, but it does let you move between tabs with cmd-left or cmd-right (arrow keys). Yay safari! I wonder when we'll see the real release of this beta...
Re:Tabs? of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, because making absolute statements can be very harmful or just wrong. Like saying
Microsoft has done nothing good... or..
Bush will go to war... or..
This company will go bankrupt.
Do you have some fore-knowledge? Also by making absolute statements, you weaken your argument. Or can we now say,
All mp3 users are pirates...
All pregnant teens were irresponsible...
All linux users are zealots...
All geeks are fat and ugly with no social skills
Re:Tabs? of course (Score:2)
I don't think anyone is going to try and refute this one though!
Re:Tabs? of course (Score:2)
Next stop keychain support.
Re:Tabs? of course (Score:2, Insightful)
How you think this is in any ways like Windows is beyond me. Tabs are not in IE, neither on the Mac nor on windows. Tabs are a Mozilla/Opera invention, much better on Mozilla's side. They were improved in practice in Chimera with quick key shortcuts to navigate from tab to tab and Safar has inherited these. Try Command-Shift-Left, Command-Shift-Right, they will cycle right and left through your open tabs.
However, if you prefer a company that doesn't listen to its customers, and would rather do what they want then waht users obviously want, then I don't see how you could like Apple, the company, not its computers.
Re:Tabs? of course (Score:2)
Re:Tabs? of course (Score:2, Insightful)
the MacOS was good because it was designed by people who CARED. they cared about efficiency, user feedback and aesthetics. MacOS is such a creaky UI because it's in the business of capturing users from Windows, so it aims to emrace UI conventions that they're familiar with - Apple seems to think that this is the way forward, I think it's a step back.
To paraphrase Akio Morita "why would we ask consumers what to make? They don't know what's possible."
Re:Tabs? of course (Score:2, Insightful)
Efficiency? 10.2 is super optimized, and as to UI efficiency I have seen nothing that would suggest that X is less efficient in this regard. Hell most of the time its faster with things like global window switch keys( Cmd-~ ), and applicatino switching ( Cmd-Tab ), add to that the familiar Mac OS way of doing things.
As to familiarity with windows. Almost all the things you could argue are windowsesque are from NeXT and thier implementation of them predate Window's.
Apple has always thought that the user is more important since they will be using it all the damn time. I don't have a qoute unfortunately.
Re:Tabs? of course (Score:4, Insightful)
QuickDraw meets its older and wiser brethren Quartz and Quartz Extreme.
The organization is the same if not better.
System Folder =
Applications Folder =
Apple Extras in
Users =
Yes the
And Copland could not have possibly been great besides OpenDoc which was a nice idea, there is nothing much that it would have bought us since we would still be basically using 9. And if you think Apple has trouble starting from a base like NeXTStep 4.4 what if they did try fro mscratch I think there would be a lot more bitching all around. I just don't think Apple could afford that misstep.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Tabs? of course (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tabs? of course (Score:3, Interesting)
No, and no?
Well, then your hunch hasn't been proven correct yet. There is still time for the release version of Safari to have the tabs functionality removed from it or replaced with something more worthwhile. Features found in betas have been removed for finals before, you know.
Re:Windows Ho! (Score:2, Interesting)
Probably could generate a good revenue stream, get PC users "used" to Apple's interface, making them more apt to switch (plus, the fact the iLife apps are "free" with new Macs, and, except iDVD, free to existing Mac users doesn't hurt either).
- Tony
Re:Windows Ho! (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the overall progress on the iApps, not to mention Safari and OS X in general, I personally think they are managing their development projects pretty well. They are riding out the recession better than most companies, and the more distinct software solutions they develop will make their products look even better when the recession ending combines with Windows DRM backlash. OK, that last was an unprovoked slam, but it is something to be aware of when looking at the big picture. Apple has said and acted in varying degrees that they want to give customers tools, not restrictions, and I think they just keep subtly positioning themselves to jump when the axe falls.
Of course, that's just my hop^H^H^Hopinion. I could be wrong.
Re:Windows Ho! (Score:2)
You'll remember that Cocoa is the updated OpenStep and that it used to run on Intel chips as either part of the NextStep operating system OR on top of Windows - Remember Gil Amelio's "Rhapsody for Intel" and "Rhapsody for Windows" strategy? I know Apple's Marklar project is keeping MacOS X up to date on intel chips (essentially Rhapsody for Intel) I wonder if they have continued to develop Cocoa in such a way that Cocoa for windows is still possible, or even being maintained in some secret lab somewhere. I suppose Quartz could throw a wrench in the works but it is an intrigueing possiblity. Apple is developing all this new software to drive hardware sales but having all of that software built on what is still (internally) a cross-platform environment will give them a lot of options on when, where and how to jump should the "axe fall".
Re:Windows Ho! (Score:2)
Anyway, I would argue that moving to intel may be relatively easy for the entire, properly written, OS X environment, but Classic would definately be out, and there would still be numerous programs that took short cuts that wouldn't work.
But I'm all over the place there. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think the market on Windows would support another photo manager, and those for people that want to use iMovie or iDVD Apple would much rather entice onto a new Mac with other software to make the transition easier, rather than make a hundred bucks after porting them to Windows. And while they may be planning everything to be able to switch the motherboard, that has to be a Worst Case Scenario. Look at how much slack they're taking between supporting OS X and OS 9 and people are still using OS 8.6. They aren't throwing a whole nother conversion in unless it's sink or swim.
Re:Windows Ho! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Windows Ho! (Score:2)
And the workarounds don't actually work either, as various people have commented in the thread.
Re:Windows Ho! (Score:2)
I go to (for instance) my email program, open 5 or 6 links from my mailed news, and then find that I don't have 6 new windows, but that I've lost one (or more) of my open windows.
That's not at all useful to me.
Re:Not yet, mate... (Score:3, Insightful)
The comment was in case Apple should care that he was using the leaked beta, which they don't. Well, not much anyways. The "uh" was to hint at that he wasn't really telling the truth.
Re:This is Great News (Score:5, Informative)
Here are some numbers from my machine (768MB RAM/128MB VRAM):
New Safari opened: ~9MB.
Slashdot loaded: ~13MB.
New window opened: ~16MB.
Apple page opened: ~18MB.
New window opened: ~21MB.
So what do we see? A new window takes up around 3MB. Is this "uneconomical", like you say? No, I rarely have more than 4-5 windows open so this is merely a drop in the water. Memory is cheap these days you know...
Re:Thinksecret down? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Thinksecret down? (Score:2)