optikz writes
"Apple has just released Safari 1.0 and it is availlable via Software Update. This release is now out of the 'beta' stage. It is version 1.0 (v85)." Not much appears to have changed since the last beta. I just need to decide if it should replace Camino for me.
This is not my beautiful (first?) post! (Score:2, Troll)
Oh well. Anyway, I'm getting an iBook soon and look forward to playing around with Safari.
Re:This is not my beautiful (first?) post! (Score:3)
Just updated and I'v already noticed differences in the way sites load. Some sites that didn't load without being rendered unreadable are rendering nicely now.
Re:This is not my beautiful (first?) post! (Score:3, Informative)
As for Safari, I've been impressed with it as a whole. I can't say it's a huge difference for me over Camino, but it's really nice to have a choice of several native Aqua web browsers to choose from. I actually kinda like the metal look to the new Apple programs, although it wou
Re:This is not my beautiful (first?) post! (Score:2)
How am I trolling in saying I'm getting an iBook and Safari soon?
On-line banking? (Score:4, Funny)
AARRGGHH!!
Re:On-line banking? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:On-line banking? (Score:3, Interesting)
They say:
"Attention Safari Users: Due to a problem with Safari reading cookies on our site, Safari users are unable to log into the site. The problem should be resolved soon, but in the meantime, please use a different browser such as Mozilla, Netscape, or Internet Explorer. Sorry for the i
Re:On-line banking? (Score:2)
My guess is they won't be used the moment the come down the pipe.
possible fixes.... Re:On-line banking? (Score:3, Informative)
1) does your bank require pop-ups? seems simple, but i totally forgot one site i use an account to order from has a customer pop-up window. i assumed the site was bunk (mozilla blocking my pop-ups too) till safari told me the reason for the error.
2) you can tell Safari to identify itself as M$IE or whatever in the prefs. I know some sites work fine once you do this (like my university's student login thing)
3) there is a cache issue. you can try downloading
Good stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
Either that or they got tired of waiting. (Score:5, Insightful)
Camino and Mozilla weren't quite up to snuf and have serious flaws, as things are; IE was years behind everything else, was too slow, poorly threaded, and had a host of other issues... OmniWeb and Standard Compliance didn't belong in the same sentence--particularly when it came to CSS, and Opera just plain Sucked on the Mac.
The rational choice, particularly for such an important app as a web browser, is in-house development.
IE 5 and standards compliance. (Score:2)
Back in 2000, Microsoft's IE 5 for the Mac was THE standard-compliant browser, on any platform. Believe me, it's true because Zeldman [zeldman.com] tells me so.
The thing which frosts me, now that I'm a prospective home buyer, is why-o-why do all of the real estate databases refuse to work with Safari? I'm assuming they're filled with heinous IE-only HTML, because, ta-da, they do work at work.
Re:IE 5 and standards compliance. (Score:2)
Re:Good stuff (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but I bet developing the iTunes Music store, with its need for embedded HTML rendering, had more to do with do with developing Safari and the WebCore stuff.
Still a little buggy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Still a little buggy (Score:5, Informative)
The Safari group has been responsive to bug fixes so far, and hopefully will continue to be now that the first milestone release is out of the way.
I still wish that yo ucould tab to all active page elements, not just text fields. Must go submit that one myself...
Re:Still a little buggy (Score:1)
Ok, that's my sign to turn off the browser and go to bed... :-)
Bug button still there (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Still a little buggy (Score:3, Funny)
Hope that gave someone a laugh somewhere....
Re:Still a little buggy (Score:2)
Don't tell us -- file a bug!
What makes you think I HAVEN'T filed a bug already?
Well, actually I haven't yet, but I was going to ...
Good point, even if I already knew it.
Re:Still a little buggy (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone read anything that says why there isn't a release for 10.1.5? What was added in 10.2 that makes 10.1 unusable? After all, the i* applications work on both (don't they)?
Don't get 10.2! (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems faster (Score:5, Informative)
It still has a bad habit of trying to deeplink itself into CNN every time I go there and a few rendering fragments when a text box crosses the address/status bar, but other than that it seems very solid as a release.
There are no real improvements in the prefs panel since last time either, which is unfortunate.
Cross-platform web design issue (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Cross-platform web design issue (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Cross-platform web design issue (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Cross-platform web design issue (Score:4, Informative)
- Chris
Re:Cross-platform web design issue (Score:2)
Re:Cross-platform web design issue (Score:3, Informative)
(For the record, the two that I've noticed so far are:
1) Safari knows how to draw a "dotted" border properly, and
2) Safari appears to support the max-width: property.)
Windows Port (Score:1)
I'm lusting like mad looking at those screenshots.
Then again, the new G5 looks awful nice as well.
Ah, what the heck, (Honey I'm buying a Mac)
Re:Windows Port (Score:2)
And to get the more precise Safari look just turn off the status bar from the View menu. :)
Re:Windows Port (Score:2)
Close enough. Finally I can browse at work without constantly changing direction as I try to head for the Safari back button and then change course midway through to go to the IE location of same.
Some stuff still needs fixin' (Score:5, Interesting)
1) It does not render the Outlook Web Access from Exchange 2000 properly. This may just be because those Microsoft ass-clowns have coded it specifically for IE, it may not be Safari's fault.
2) One of my larger corporate clients uses some crap web proxy that Safari doesn't like-- http sites load okay, but https sites do not work at all. They don't even try to load. I dunno if there's some authentication issue or what, but I know all my settings are set properly, and everything authenticates fine for http. One of these days perhaps I'll steel myself to talk with one of the corporate help desk script monkeys and see if I can't find out what proxy it is so I can submit a bug report.
~Philly
Re:Some stuff still needs fixin' (Score:1, Informative)
The problem was that Safari didn't issue a CONNECT command to the proxy, to tunnel to the secure host. Most proxies doesn't speak SSL but Safari was trying to talk SSL directly to the proxy, when it should've first asked the proxy to tunnel to the remote SSL host.
The iTunes music store had the same annoying problem, which was fixed in 4.0.1.
You can debug it with tcpdump or something. C
Re:Some stuff still needs fixin' (Score:5, Informative)
Just curious, have you tried it recently? There was a bug in early builds of Safari where secure proxies simply didn't work; it's since been fixed.
Re:Some stuff still needs fixin' (Score:2)
Yup, yesterday, within a minute of installing 1.0.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Some stuff still needs fixin' (Score:2)
~Philly
CSS Support? (Score:1)
Can anyone vouch for the CSS support in Safari?
I know IE on pc is pretty poor, Opera and Mozilla a bit better. Opera being the better out of that pair. Sites like this [maniacallaughter.com] and especially this [maniacallaughter.com]. Come up looking pretty winky some times. I will have my powerbook back running soon, I hope there is a browser will take care of my needs.
Re:CSS Support? (Score:1)
I've used it to run this anti-banner.css [aagh.net]
I'm not sure if this is the original source.
Re:CSS Support? (Score:3, Informative)
I have advanced CSS-generated menus and simulated CSS transparencies on my home page [michael-forman.com]. This complex CSS didn't render in the first Safari releases but quickly improved as new releases came out. Currently it renders my home page as well as Mozilla does. As a matter of fact all the development of my website has moved from my Linux box to my Powerbook. (I used to use Linux, vi, and Mozilla. Now I use MacOS, vi, and Safari.)
Michael.
Re:Your site doesn't validate. (Score:2)
Most of it is because I don't use units or use inheritence on my background colors! I'll fix it up.
I'm curious to see if this will fix the rotten rendering I've been getting from Internet Explorer [michael-forman.com]. All other browsers render it perfectly.
Michael. [michael-forman.com]
Re:Your site doesn't validate. (Score:2)
It only took 20 minutes of typing "px".
Michael.
P.S.- Internet Explorer still can't render it right.
Re:CSS Support? (Score:2)
Paddings don't work right in IE or in Opera. Other than that, if you sum the support of IE and Opera, you pretty much get Mozilla.
Default Font (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What was the default font before? (Score:2, Informative)
I find it strange that a switch has been made to a serif font - Times - as default. The "frilly bits" added to the letters in a serif font were designed so that text could still be read even if printed onto cheap paper that let the ink spread. On screen, a sans-serif (no "frilly bits") font is far more readable and so makes much more sense. e.g. Lucida, Arial.
Who cares if pages render like they do through M$IE if it looks like crap? T
What IS the default font NOW? (Score:2, Informative)
Not sure how you ended up with Times...
Re:What IS the default font NOW? (Score:2)
Re:What was the default font before? (Score:2)
Arial = Geneva with significantly worse spacing and uglier
Re:What was the default font before? (Score:5, Informative)
You guys are still all wrong about that. The serifs were used in print in an attempt to replicate the carved stone lettering that adorned buildings and stone-cut signs. And the reason why those serifs appeared (on stone-cut signs) was because the stone was often very brittle and would crumble at the corners of the letters. So the stonecutters adopted a style that would still look good while accounting for this inadvertent crumbling.
My dad told me this when I was a kid. He got a master's degree in print technology from RIT -- I believe him.
Re:What was the default font before? (Score:4, Interesting)
Other factors such as leading and acender/decender height have a huge impact, but none as great as serif/san-serif.
I too, have a degree in printing, and have had textbook after texbook after teacher beat me over the head with case studies in readability.
Especially that slab-serifs (where the serifs and bars have a minimal difference) are kings of readability.
This piece [lunareclipse.net] brings up anther interesting factor. Not only are serifs supposedly physically easier to follow in long text, but according to the piece, there is a cultural component as well.
I'm not sure how completely I buy that, as I have read texts citing all sorts of optical testing of jabber text and controls to ensure unfamiliarity. And serif comes out more readable. You can debate whether bylines, captions, or headlines should be serif or san, but try reading Moby Dick in Futura and then after your eyes stop cramping, we'll talk.
Re:What was the default font before? (Score:2)
It's all because of readability.
Oh, I agree completely, I just thought the original speculation was about where it all stemmed from.
try reading Moby Dick in Futura
Touche.
Re:What was the default font before? (Score:2)
This is all true, but it is really a historical footnote. Yes, the serifs were added to stone because it was hard to cut clean 90 degree corners. And they were added to printed text
Tables improved (Score:2)
still bugs (Score:1)
<HTML>
<HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY>
<SCRIPT>
var foo = new Image();
foo.onload = function() { alert("load"); };
foo.onerror = function() { alert("error"); };
foo.src = "foo.jpg";
</SCRIPT>
</BODY>
</HTML>
IHT (Score:2)
Gripes about Safari 1.0 (Score:3, Interesting)
First, I'm happy to say that Safari now works with my bank. Yay! But there's still some problems.
Why haven't they addressed the animated GIF problem yet? To see what I'm talking about, check out this example page [purdue.edu] of the flaw. Only the last instance of an animated GIF is ever animated.
And why'd they remove the minimum font size? On some sites I visit now I see incredibly tiny fonts that are completely illegible. Sure, it might just be a poorly designed site, but it was never a problem in earlier Safari and looks fine in IE and Mozilla.
Re:Gripes about Safari 1.0 (Score:2, Informative)
- Chris
Re:Gripes about Safari 1.0 (Score:2)
Re:Gripes about Safari 1.0 (Score:4, Funny)
My god, this is a problem?
'jfb
Re:Gripes about Safari 1.0 (Score:4, Funny)
That's not a bug, that's a feature!
Beware if you use PithHelmet (Score:2, Informative)
If you have PithHelmet installed go to : <harddrive>:Library:InputManagers:SIMBL and get rid of it. Or don't upgrade.
Too bad I don't have image blocking anymore.
Re:Beware if you use PithHelmet (Score:3, Informative)
Updated. Re:Beware if you use PithHelmet (Score:2)
Safari is off to an excellent start (Score:5, Insightful)
So, for example, Safari provides very good support for @media style rules, but (oddly) doesn't support things like the "page-break-before" property or @page {size: landscape}. This is a bit surprising, and I'd like to see Safari reduce the number of surprises in general.
Mozilla can learn from Safari, as well. Safari's bookmark system is better. It's tabbed browsing implementation is nicer. I suspect these features will be adapted into other browsers, and as the competition heats up again (now that the IE giant is sleeping), everybody wins.
Bookmarking in Safari blows! (Score:2)
Re:Safari is off to an excellent start (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh...frankly *I* don't care about whether Safari implements all of the fiddly little bits of CSS2. Armenian s
Re:Safari is off to an excellent start (Score:2)
I think you're missing something here. HTML has some beautiful properties that PDF doesn't have, and I don't think that just because you sometimes want page breaks *not* to occur right after an H1 header when you print something is *not* sufficient reason to ditch perfectly reasonable web standards and go to pdf. I mean, don't you suppose the W
Re:Safari is off to an excellent start (Score:2)
I perform much of my work on the road, with a 1024x768 display; carrying hardcopy is not an option, therefore I am forced to view many PDF documents with a viewer, and it is galling that I cannot display the document in a fashi
Re:Safari is off to an excellent start (Score:2)
Why stop at just one?
Still not possible to stop animated gifs (Score:2)
I would love to switch to Safari (I really want to use the .Mac bookmarks sync feature) but I still can't stop animated gifs with Safari, and I'm not going to torture myself by trying to read web pages with moving pictures in my field of vision. So I'll stick with Mozilla.
BTW, I surely can't be the only one who can't stand animations on web pages? I almost never see complaints about this missing feature of Safari. Strange. Even IE has a preference to 'never' animate animated gifs.
JP
Re:Still not possible to stop animated gifs (Score:2, Interesting)
Code 1: Images:
Re:Still not possible to stop animated gifs (Score:2)
Code 1: Images:
I tried this one (at the Versiontracker site) and while it does make the images dissapear at first, some (not all) of them immediately reappear, animating and all, on top of the text.
So thanks for the tip, but I guess I'll wait until there is a preference setting for animation (either from Apple itself, or a third party).
JP
Re:Still not possible to stop animated gifs (Score:2)
Stuff like ad blocking and image filtering does NOT belong in the browser. It belongs in the proxy!
Maybe, but I was not talking about ad blocking or image filtering. I was talking about loading an animated gif image in the browser and then not animating it, which is something that does belong in the browser.
JP
Buttons are better (Score:2)
Re:Buttons are better (Score:3, Informative)
button {display: inline; margin-right: 5px}
Maybe it would display all buttons on a single line, with some margin between them.
Aah, well...I can't test this anyway. The burden's of being poor...
Re:Buttons are better (Score:2)
RAM Disk in OS X and how to move Safari's cache (Score:5, Informative)
The first part is a AppleScript. It does a few things. First it creates the RAM disk. Then it renames the RAM disk. Then it automatically starts Safari. The reason why I have it start Safari is to ensure the RAM disk is up and running at login before Safari is launched.
Where you see the line "set diskSize to 40" sets the RAM disk's size. 40 is 40 Megs. Simply change that to whatever size you want.
Copy and paste the script into the script editor, Save it as "application" and be sure to uncheck the box "Never show startup screen".
tell application "Finder"
activate
set diskSize to 40
set diskSize to diskSize * 2048
do shell script "hdid -nomount ram://" & diskSize
set dskImg to the result
set prevTextDelims to AppleScript's text item delimiters
set AppleScript's text item delimiters to {"/"}
set myDevDisk to the last text item of dskImg
set myShellCmd to "/sbin/newfs_hfs
do shell script myShellCmd
do shell script "hdiutil mount
set AppleScript's text item delimiters to prevTextDelims
end tell
delay (1)
tell application "Finder"
set name of item "untitled" to "RAM Disk"
end tell
tell application "Safari"
launch
end tell
Here is how you move Safari's cache to the RAM Disk.
Close Safari.
Open terminal.
Run this command -
ditto -rsrc ~/Library/Caches/Safari "/Volumes/RAM Disk/"
Then delete the folder "your home/library/caches/safari"
Run this command -
ln -s "/Volumes/RAM Disk" ~/Library/Caches/Safari
That will create the link between the RAM disk and your safari cache folder.
That's it. Works perfectly and much much faster.
You will have to run the applescript at login.
You only have to run the terminal commands once.
Re:RAM Disk in OS X and how to move Safari's cache (Score:2)
I tried using a RAM disk with Win XP to speed up caching in IE. However, when a download would exceed the (fixed) size of the RAM disk the download would hang.
Can anyone tell me if this holds true for Safari as well?
Re:RAM Disk in OS X and how to move Safari's cache (Score:2)
You don't want to DL to a RAM Disk.
Re:RAM Disk in OS X and how to move Safari's cache (Score:2)
I wasn't downloading my files to RAM. However, although I'd choose a destination for the download on my harddrive the download would be cached before finally saved, regardless of where I had told IE to cache files, which happened to be in RAM.
Re:RAM Disk in OS X and how to move Safari's cache (Score:2)
Hmm. I've downloaded quite a few files without any problems.
I'll find a file larger than 40 megs, download it, and give a reply.
cheers.
Re:RAM Disk in OS X and how to move Safari's cache (Score:2)
I just downloaded the Office X test which is 110 Megs and everything worked perfectly.
cheers.
Re:RAM Disk in OS X and how to move Safari's cache (Score:2)
Re:RAM Disk in OS X and how to move Safari's cache (Score:2)
You a fucking idiot?
Why did you bring up disk images? What do they have to do with anything?
If you really think Safari caches in memory, LOOK at ~/library/caches/safari
I see lots of little files and nested folders. Looks like Safari is caching to disk.
And if you don't like my script then write your own.
Re:RAM Disk in OS X and how to move Safari's cache (Score:2)
So show me how to make a RAM Disk without a script? and I mean any script. No code anywhere.
Look, just go fuck off.
You feel perfectly content to disagree without backing anything up. I'm wrong just because you say I am.
So go vacuum your 1 bedroom apartment, clean off all the cans from the coffee table, and get rid off all of those pizza boxes.
And quietly fuck off and die somewhere.
Usually I'm not this rude but because of your behavior I feel just fine with it
Re:RAM Disk in OS X and how to move Safari's cache (Score:2)
You think? what a genius.
I'm still waiting for you to show me your example.
Yeah, and my other car is a fucking Porsche, bitch.
Well, MY car is 99 'vette convertible.
go away asswipe.
go back to your boring life and to the only person who will ever love you. Yourself.
Re:RAM Disk in OS X and how to move Safari's cache (Score:2)
Still just saying shit without proving anything.
I put up (and posted) how to build a RAM disk under OS X (Jaguar).
I'm still waiting for you to do the same.
Anyway, if you ever decide to actual prove something you can make a ton of money off your code. Some other genius is charging $25 for a ram disk under OS X.
So until you actually prove anything then shut the fuck up.
Re:RAM Disk in OS X and how to move Safari's cache (Score:2)
then you said "hditutil create -fs hfs+ -size (something) ram://(something)
Sure looks like a line for a scipt to me. And dont say "It isn't a script. It's a command". Same thing moron. And since no one wants to type it in everytime then they use a script.
Idiot.
Now go fuck off and die.
Re:RAM Disk in OS X and how to move Safari's cache (Score:2)
I told you I washed the fruit. It's been washed. But wash it again if you want.
hehe
Don't ditch Camino just yet... (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, I'm not too anxious to ditch the Mozilla project yet; I've enjoyed their work for years, and wish Apple had worked with them instead of the makers of Konqueror. Mozilla browsers are the best (or negilibly close) for any platform, from my experience.
Re:Don't ditch Camino just yet... (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally I've been using safari since tabs were added. Every couple of weeks I download the latest Camino nightly, to see how things are shaping up. I think both are great, safari just seems a little more tuned.
It's good (Score:2, Interesting)
BBC News fixed (Score:2, Interesting)
My impressions, and why I wont switch. (Score:2, Interesting)
I guess what really prevents me from ditching Camino is that it has many more features that I use. Namely the one critical one being when I open a window, I can open it so it opens under my current window. (very handy for reading
Sharing bookmarks (Score:2)
No Keychain, No Safari (Score:3, Informative)
Tab support is kind of cobbeled (Score:2, Insightful)
You can drag links between windows, why not between tabs? At least make the tabs 'spring loaded' or something.
Anyway, otherwise it is a great little browser.
Re:Copy to Clipboard still upside down and backwar (Score:2)