Apple Releases Safari 1.2 and Java 1.4.2 273
smithk writes "Apple has released Safari 1.2 and Java 1.4.2. Panther owners only. Some new features of Safari include full keyboard access for navigation, download resume, support for LiveConnect, and support for personal certificate authentication. Also, web site compatibility has been improved." Available, as usual, via Software Update.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Don't forget PithHelmet.. (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't forget PithHelmet.. (Score:5, Informative)
User stylesheets (Score:5, Informative)
Create a css file somewhere with a text editor, put following inside (Not made by me, just found it somewhere and made some additions):Add this file as your Stylesheet in safari: Preferences/Advanced/Style Sheet.... there you go...
Most tips for the Mozilla userContent.css file work also with Safari, so search on google for userContent.css for more examples.
Re:User stylesheets (Score:2)
Re:Don't forget PithHelmet.. (Score:5, Informative)
resumable downloads and liveconnect!!! (Score:5, Informative)
i wonder if/when the liveconnect code will trickle back up to konqueror (or is that where it came from in the first place? does konqueror have liveconnect now?)
Re:resumable downloads and liveconnect!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:resumable downloads and liveconnect!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:resumable downloads and liveconnect!!! (Score:5, Informative)
I have an applet I was looking at writing something along those lines for, but alot of my target users were on macs, where liveconnect support is somewhat lacking (mozilla and camino theoretically have it but it was broken on mac last time I checked, safari didn't have it 'til now, etc).
Now that safari supports liveconnect I may actually bother adding that cookie-prefs feature.
This is a nifty step forward.
Speed increase (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Speed increase (Score:3, Interesting)
maybe i'll try 10.3.2 again?
p.s. running an older Sawtooth G4 400 with an 800MHz upgrade
Re:Speed increase (Score:5, Informative)
Safari 1.2 improves image downloading a lot (Score:5, Informative)
Still to be fixed: The annoying jumping around that happens when reloading a previously scrolled page. It should stop trying to remember the old scroll position if it receives a new scroll event for that page in the meantime.
Re:Safari 1.2 improves image downloading a lot (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, nonsensical, but there was a way around that, and still is for those who don't upgrade.
Just open the image in a new window and use Save As.
The annoying jumping around that happens when reloading a previously scrolled page.
Agreed. But even more; some sites seem to put S into a tizzy (/. is one). No matter that you click to move on, S will continue to load (forever) and only precious minutes later recognise the new click.
If on the other hand you stop the current load and click again, S will do nothing. Check your location bar, and you'll see the next URL which you clicked for but where you never arrived. The trick here is to click Refresh instead.
Another beauty: if you muck with the location bar's contents and hit Refresh, S gets lost. There is no internal representation for your current location; it seems the only storage for this is your location bar, which is eminently editable.
And if you're waiting for a heavy image to load, does the user really think Safari is faster it if doesn't show a single pixel until it can WHAM! put it all there at once? If the dimensions are known, why not do it a bit at a time like Camino? For it's a lot easier to make up your mind whether you want to wait out the complete download or not.
Finally, the 'no man's land' in the lower right hand corner can easily get double scroll bar arrows. This will not happen that often on broadband, but on dialup from a hotel it's very annoying. The technique Cocoa normally does (as evidenced by their table view) is to put a dummy control in these unused areas, but the S team, albeit aware of this cosmetic bug from the get-go, have still not taken the time to fix it.
Still no navigation via contexual menu (Score:5, Interesting)
When it comes to application features, I'm often able to understand the reasoning behind a particular implementation even if I don't personally like it. But, for the life of me, I can't think of one good reason to leave this feature out.
Can anyone enlighten me on the advantages of always having to mouse to the upper left-hand corner to go to the previous page? Am I missing something? I know I can do it from the keyboard, but I often like to kick back and just use the mouse.
BTW, the update is nice. Faster. Renders some sites that previously were unreadable and/or unusable. I love the minimum font size feature and being able to tab through page items.
Re:Still no navigation via contexual menu (Score:5, Informative)
Delete.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Delete.. (Score:2, Informative)
its not fucking rocket science
Re:Delete.. (Score:2)
Seems logical to me.
About as logical as dragging CDs to the Trash to eject, or clicking a Start button to end a session.
Direct from mouse is best (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Direct from mouse is best (Score:2, Insightful)
As long as they don't incorporate a browser pet peeve of mine - 'Help' as the topmost item in the context-menu. How annoying!
Re:Still no navigation via contexual menu (Score:5, Insightful)
It could be historical, because contextual menus are relatively new to Macs. Historically, Mac applications are optimized for two types of users, beginner and advanced. The beginner uses the menus to do everything, and once familiar with an application, makes note of the keyboard shortcuts listed next to the most common menu commands. As the user becomes advanced, he/she uses more and more keyboard shortcuts.
Contextual menus occupy a strange sort of middle ground, catering to perhaps a different sort of user: lazy-beginner, or inefficient-advanced. This type of user interface is on a par with the classic Windows way of handling keyboard shortcuts, which is to use the keys to pull down and navigate menus. I always thought that was weird too.
That said, I still miss the Finder contextual menu item which arranges files by name, which was first implemented in Mac OS 8.
Re:Still no navigation via contexual menu (Score:2)
But there is a
Re:Still no navigation via contexual menu (Score:2)
Re:Still no navigation via contexual menu (Score:3, Insightful)
Address Bar (Score:2)
Re:Address Bar (Score:2)
Re:Address Bar (Score:2)
Re:Still no navigation via contexual menu (Score:2)
I do, however, agree with you. Totally boneheaded on Apple's part.
keystrokes (Score:2)
cmd-up and down arrows will take you to the top and bottom of the page, respectively.
Re:Still no navigation via contexual menu (Score:2)
Re:Still no navigation via contexual menu (Score:2)
Minimum font size! (Score:5, Informative)
Safari Enhancer of course remains a must-have app for other tweaks. I also like Safari Bookmark Exporter [mac.com] so I can dump my bookmarks into Camino, Mozilla, and Firebird - speaking of which, where the hell is my 0.8?
Re:Minimum font size! (Score:2)
No concurrent http connection limit (Score:5, Informative)
Now that limit is gone. I just tried adding huge list of files for download and opened multiple tabs and everything worked beautifully. Also it's great to be able to resume failed downloads, no need for third party download managers anymore.
Re:No concurrent http connection limit (Score:2)
If please, one developer can tell? (Score:4, Interesting)
BTW, to people standing in line to shout "Don't be cheapo, buy Panther", yes I bought, the upgrade. It works on my G5... I still get mad/confused about this kind of policy.
I don't get it, why Apple does such thing hurts its image? Really curious as end user only, no kidding...
Re:If please, one developer can tell? (Score:2)
I don't get it, why Apple does such thing hurts its image? Really curious as end user only, no kidding...
Because they want to make more money I suppose. I've only had Jaguar since October 2002 and now I won't be able to get updates anymore? Microsoft is still putting out updates all the time for Windows 2000 and that came out in 19
Re:If please, one developer can tell? (Score:3, Insightful)
Security updates, fine! But software enhancements is a different matter. Microsoft hasn't updated IE6 functionality since Windows XP was released, whereas Apple has consistently improved upon its packaged web browser's functionality. Sure, Microsoft has improved Windows Media Player, but what else?
Re:If please, one developer can tell? (Score:2, Informative)
They are not just trying to make a buck. Panther has major text handling improvements.
Safari 1.2 not for Jaguar ! (Score:3, Insightful)
There are plenty of reasons not to update to Panther yet (do we need to mention FireWire problems, SCSI instability, backwards compatibility problems with lots of Software and Workflow tools, DB's, etc.).
For many corporate users it is not well advised to switch to a new release (Panther) before this kind of proble
Re:If please, one developer can tell? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.apple.com/safari/download/
Requirements for Safari 1.2:
Mac OS X 10.3 or later
Any Macintosh computer
changes to KHTML? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:changes to KHTML? (Score:5, Informative)
Damnit. When will we get ... (Score:5, Insightful)
What I'm talking about is that when you close Safari, it remembers all your current tabs, all your windows, all your sites, and then when you re-launch it, it restores the whole 'session' to the way it was
Guess I should just dl the source and whack it in there myself... trouble is, I'm not sure I haven't overlooked how to do this yet
Re:Damnit. When will we get ... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Damnit. When will we get ... [WORKAROUND] (Score:4, Informative)
In the meantime, you can use this simple AppleScript [macosxhints.com] to solve your woes.
DaNi++
OmniWeb 5.0 Public Beta (Score:5, Informative)
I don't mean to sound like an advertisement, and to be sure, OmniWeb has its quirks, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
Here is a link [omnigroup.com].
incremental output. (Score:2)
Re:incremental output. (Score:2)
Just for the record, the block size that safari uses is 16k. Mozilla and IE have an initial blocksize of around that much, but after the first 16k or so, mozilla and IE will render byte-by-byte. Safari requires another 16k
Both Mozilla and IE will render byte-by-byte after getting a close body tag as well.
This definately needs to be fixed, it makes safari seem very slow.
What am I doing wrong? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What am I doing wrong? (Score:2)
Or, in your case, just use the GUI: System Preferences->Software Update.
YHBT. YHL. HAND. (Score:2)
Re:What am I doing wrong? (Score:2)
Free? (Score:4, Insightful)
I see a lot of people, who have messages saying things like:
What you're really asking is, to let a company work for you and (thousand/million?) other for free?
Let me clarify some of my thoughts:
Assume you have a company with 100 developers who just released a new version of their OS. The developers worked a whole year on this new OS and are happy they're releasing it to the wild. Because this company has a vision, you want to upgrade them to the new OS ASAP, so everybody can use this new technology. Now there are a lot of clients who say they don't want to pay for the OS, because a step from 10.2.7 -> 10.3.0 is'nt a big step (what's in a number?). It's just a maintenance release they say.
Lets assume a very simplistic view on the costs of making this product:
Every developer makes 50.000 a year, you have 100 of them so the total is 5.000.000. So without any other costs like:
- You'll have to make manuals for the OS (write and print)
- You'll have to manufacture and design the box where the OS comes in
- You'll have to manufacture the CD's
- You'll have to ship all the CD's to distribution centre's and clients
- You'll have to update your website
....
You'll have to sell 5.000.000/129 = 38.759 CD's to get even.Jaguar isn't supported anymore?
Well as a lot of other companies or groups who are maintaining Operating Systems, older versions of the operating system mostly get bug- or security fixes and no new functionality, until the company stop supporting them.
Now assume the market asks for better support for Jaguar, now the company has to support Jaguar and Panther with these 100 developers. For every developer working on Jaguar and not Panther you have to pay, without any income, because Jaguar isn't for sale any more.
Printing UPS labels fixed? (Score:2)
Re:Printing UPS labels fixed? (Score:2)
Some nice CSS and Form enhancements (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:once again (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:once again (Score:5, Interesting)
They don't really have that much choice in this case. There were a lot of fixes to Core Graphics and other frameworks of Panther (little things like text not rendering properly). I don't think it's at all realistic for Apple to back-port those fixes to Jaguar. And without them, Safari 1.1 and 1.2 would look terrible.
Re:once again (Score:3, Insightful)
I should think that's obvious by now -- yes, you do. Luckily, you're unlikely to run into them in other applications. It has to do with the way Safari has to patch into Core Graphics to perform drawing. It's at a much lower level than most applications.
Personally, I just bought the Panther upgrade for iChat AV ($30 alone), FileVault, and Expose. Expose, the new application switcher and the type-select menus alone were worth the cost of the upgrade for me.
But you can wait as long as you want before upgra
Re:once again (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't gripe about older hardware support; it's just like the move from 16 bit to 32 bit; or from 68K macs to PPC. It's part of the companies views and goals. Change hurts, get over not being able to support MacOS X on NuBus, or early G3's.
Re:once again (Score:3, Funny)
Someone please mod this to 'Funny'. They can keep the 5.
Re:once again (Score:5, Informative)
Please remember this as you whine. I quit crying and started buying. It's a brave new 64 bit Mac world out there. Wait until after the next speed bump then buy yourself a Dual 1.8. By then they should be what a 1.6 Single costs today.
Re:once again (Score:3, Funny)
Well, don't forget the G3s were 2-3 times more than the equivalent PC at the time. It stands to reason they'd still cost 2-3 times as much.
Re:once again (Score:5, Informative)
Re:once again (Score:3, Informative)
That has nothing to do with Hardware requirements.
So yes your G3 B&W will run Safari 1.2 with the current Operating System, Panther--OS X 10.3.x.
Welcome to Reality. Safari utilizes more and more Cocoa which has been pushed into the forefront and Carbon into the recesses as it should be.
OS X 10.4 and beyond will be even more Cocoa only.
Run KDE 3.2 on anything less than an i686 compliant based version of Linux and guess what?
It won't run.
Update your Operating System.
I hate to disapp
Re:once again (Score:2)
Re:once again (Score:5, Interesting)
Balderdash. The delays were mostly due to Apple abandoning NuKernel/Copland in favor of Mach-O, and also due to introducing a sub-layer based on BSD. These have nothing to do with programming APIs. Also, you need to understand that much of Carbon is based on concepts that never existed under the classic Mac Toolbox, like Carbon Events.
But since 1997 the plan has and continues to be OS X Cocoa which will benefit everyone.
Then explain Apple's continued support for QuickTime... the QuickTime API's are heavily dependant upon conventions introduced during the Mac Toolbox era. OS X also exposes BSD/POSIX, Java and X-Windows APIs for application development, all of which are orthagonal to Cocoa. Even AppleScript Studio relegates Cocoa to the sidelines as "glue." Importantly, Carbon is the best way to get procedural-level programming support under native OS X APIs. Procedural conventions tend to be easier to work with than object-oriented designs when targeting for cross-platform development, especially when trying to write code that targets both Windows and Macs. (Though one can argue this is as much a fault of Microsoft's design than OOP's limitations.)
Based on past discussions I've had and read, the advocacy that Cocoa seems to get arises from a confusion between Carbon/Cocoa and CFM/MachO. A Carbon application linked using MachO is just as much a native OS X citizen as a Cocoa app would be. Under the hood, parts of Cocoa are implemented as wrappers to Carbon functionality, and vice versa.
Re:once again (Score:3, Interesting)
I won't debate Copland or Taligent. That was exhausted back in 1997 during the merger.
Apple has Politically maneuvered themselves to make sure as many popular APIs are available for OS X, to build a user base.
Does that mean these APIs won't get folded into ObjC equivalents?
The wrapping of ObjC to Carbon and vice versa is analogous to the Java Bridge between ObjC and Java NeXT developed during the WebObjects transition from ObjC to Java.
The decision to focus ObjC on the desktop and not on the Ap
Re:once again (Score:5, Informative)
The wrapping of ObjC to Carbon and vice versa is analogous to the Java Bridge between ObjC and Java NeXT developed during the WebObjects transition from ObjC to Java.
Cocoa and Carbon both sit on top of CoreFoundation and ApplicationServices. They are not wrapped to each other, they just use the same frameworks.
The decision to focus ObjC on the desktop and not on the AppServer has been one that bit Apple in the ass and they know it.
What?
The advantages were removed from their products.
Like... ??? At best it took Carbon a while to support services. Apple directly says not to use PDO; to use Apple Events or sockets instead.
MVC Paradigm is at the very core of OS X. Linking to MachO was necessary because the OS was slow when all the Carbon/BlueBox/Classic layers were added.
Eh? Mach supports host OSes. BSD is one of them; Mac OS 9 is another. Carbon is just an API, not a layer. MVC is a development style, not something core to Cocoa.
Over time you will see OS X improve due to more Cocoa integration (new Finder being one example) and moreso. The latest Dev examples should show you how much the underpinnings of Cocoa are in Carbon now.
Now you're talking out of your ass. The new Finder is not new, it's just got a stupid textured window. It's still written in PowerPlant. It is not linked to Cocoa at all.
Carbon's an API from the original Mac OS that was first modernized to be re-entrant. Then Apple started adding features to an API that the old management team declared dead since Taligent began, and continued with OpenDoc/ODF.
POSIX Compliance is necessary if one wants to work within the Federal Markets. And that's smart since the Feds have deep pocketbooks.
No, POSIX is necessary because no one is going to use your non-Unix if it isn't compatible with POSIX (non-POSIX == not Unix). Even Linux implements POSIX. BSD 4.4 Lite and NeXT did not. NeXT didn't support it because they didn't have the money or the time. Hell, it had cthreads instead of pthreads, which every other OS implements. Do you expect anyone to write custom threading code for Mac OS X?
There are now two major OSes on the planent. Win32 and POSIX. It would be stupid for Apple to not implement POSIX.
The corporations who whined won back in 1998--Adobe, Microsoft, Quark, Macromedia and a few others demanded Carbon.
No, Carbon (a procedural API) wasn't part of Rhapsody because Gill Amelio was an idiot. Porting from one object oriented framework (say, MFC) to another (say, Java or Cocoa) is, as Steve Jobs described it, like climbing down one 10 story building and climbing up another for everything you need to implement. Porting from one OOP framework and implementing it on another platform requires implementing the backend of the framework on the other OS (sa
+1 Debunking skillz (Score:2)
Re:once again (Score:5, Interesting)
By the way, NeXT did support POSIX, but that required a specific support contract, so no it did not support POSIX, out-of-the-box but for Fed clients who demanded it we put it in.
I was there at Apple when the decisions were made.
Steve was asked by Fred Anderson what would it take to have you come back as CEO, because Gil is ignoring your advice and we are afraid with only 3 months of money left the company will fold?
Steve wanted an interim title and the opportunity to build a new board of directors.
He then made a decision to settle the Microsoft dispute and bury the hatchet, once and for all. That came down to private meetings.
Avie, Bertrand Serlet and others were holding high level meetings with third party developers as I've hinted at to convince them to use Cocoa and they informed them that would set them back years and there had to be a better way.
Back to Engineering and several weeks of brainstorming the teams decided to take the massive amounts of Procedural APIs and wittle it down to a reasonble number that they could then leverage the bulk of the legacy support and mesh them, over time with the future direction of Application Development grounded in Objective-C's Foundation and AppKit APIs.
CoreFoundation was born along with countless other APIs for cross pollination.
Gil Amelio saw the power of Cocoa and like anyone who hasn't developed much just thought it could Presto! change everything overnight. He was more than happy to dump the past and launch into the future with a new set of APIs that had nearly a decade of development already invested in them--Openstep.
No one at NeXT was thrilled with Java--they got it almost right is what the usual comments were up to "If only Sun would ever 'get' objects."
Java tries to be the best of both C++ and ObjC and misses on both but gee like any language if you don't get broad adoption it is perceived as being an inferior choice.
No one from the NeXT encampment has ever "wanted" to port Apps using Procedural APIs, unless you count the Quartz group which wrote Quartz and they wrote WindowServer.app in C. Just ask Andrew Barnes or Peter Graffanino how many lines of C are in Quartz or how many were in Openstep's WindowServer.app.
The languages used within OS X are chosen when it makes the most sense both technically and politically.
BeOS died because its founder's arrogance was greater than the technologies the company could offer Apple. The man wanted > $100Million and a top spot back at Apple. He was concerned about himself, first and foremost. The cost of NeXT exactly paid off the debts NeXT owed to Canon and other investors. Steve made nothing out of the deal and was reluctant to even come onboard, hence his original role as a consultant. He was concerned that the 300 plus NeXT employees were still gainfully employed and that our stock options would be honored, which they were.
The best day I remember was when Steve cancelled Sabbaticals and all those that were hanging around for their 3 month Sabbaticals all quit and stated the only reason they were here was for the 3 free months of pay. As I stated earlier Apple only had 3 months of money and paying for 1/3 of the Corporate Staff to sit on their rears and have a long vacation just wasn't gonna cut it.
Smart Politics, Outstanding Vision, Compassion for the Company as a whole and other attributes is what makes Steven P. Jobs the best person and only person that could have and has save Apple Computer Inc, from oblivion.
Fred Anderson is right up there, in my book, as one of the most able and intelligent executives I as a peon got to talk with and work for.
Apple just keeps getting stronger and stronger and if I recall thats what we want from Her.Re:once again (Score:2)
3 months of money left? I wasn't aware that Apple was burning cash at over 12-16 billion dollars a year at the time, the rate they would have to be going to burn through the at least 3-4 billion dollars they had in cash and short term investments. (They may have had even more than that, but it was at least th
Re:once again (Score:2, Interesting)
Cocoa, Carbon, etc. aren't really orthogonal. Cocoa relies on BSD, Mach and Carbon. Carbon relies on Cocoa, BSD, and Mach. The reliance is decreasing, if you look at how menus work you'll see a good example.
Think of Carbon and Cocoa as just two ways to access the (mostly) same UI elements. The only difference is that it's a real pain in the ass to write anything in Carbon. I've written a few things in Carbon and a few in Cocoa. Programming in Cocoa is beautiful an
Re:once again (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you don't get the free web browser that Apple graciously supplies for users of their current operating system.
It's simple. If you don't want to pay for what they're offering, that's your call. But you can't complain that you don't get the perks.
Where does your sense of entitlement come from?
Re:once again (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the reasons I did not complain about the $130 bump to Panther is that it came with a few things that, to me, made it worth it. Expose, iChatAV, and the newer Mail.app are three things I would have gladly paid extra, so in my personal situation the jump to 10.3 was maybe $50 and the other $80 was on the extra apps.
I will gladly pay the yearly $130 if it means I don't have to put up with the hassle of keeping windows running. I just reinstalled Panther on my Titanium Powerbook 867 and I probably spent more time copying my back up files than what it took me to do the clean install (I had used the upgrade option first). I did not even have to reinstall most of my software.
Re:once again (Score:2)
Re:once again (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:once again (Score:2)
Then don't be suprised to see things act quirky under safari.
Safari still has stupid bugs.. like if this textarea I'm typing in had less than 4 rows, safari would never draw scrollbars on it, regardless of how much text I typed.
Stuff needs to be tested in as many browsers as possible. Because they don't all render identically.
Re:once again (Score:2)
But some of those developers paid the $3000 and went to WWDC and got Panther for free (along with iSight).
Re:X11 and Jaguar (Score:2, Informative)
Also, Apple never promised that the finished version would work on Jaguar.
Re:X11 and Jaguar (Score:2)
Also, Apple never promised that the finished version would work on Jaguar.
Well they certainly implied it. Why did they release it as a beta for an OS they had no intention of releasing it for? More importantly, what is in the final version that requires Panther? The beta was certainly full featured.. what feature of the release version requires Panther?
It reeks of bait and switch.
Re:once again (Score:2)
That's right.. don't question The Great Leader. Just give him your money.
Because after all, Apple can nickel and dime you to death, and it's OK simply because they're not named "Microsoft".
Re:I've had it with Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I've had it with Apple (Score:2)
Re:I've had it with Apple (Score:2)
Re:I've had it with Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
>the low cost of $129.
Wow, Steve Jobs comes down to your house and makes you pay for the update at gunpoint? Why haven't I seen *that* on the news?
Face it, Apple doesn't force you, you can either pay the upgrade fee, or you can go without and your OS will still keep chugging along. No self destruct sequence, no crazed hoard of killer rabbits coming after you, it will just continue to work.
Re:I've had it with Apple (Score:2)
I'll grant that Apple may have released it for Panther first and will follow through w
Re:I've had it with Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
i don't like being tied into an upgrade cycle by apple so i changed to Firebird, its a better browser anyway IMO
Re:I've had it with Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing requiring you to upgrade MacOS every year. If what you've got works for you there's little reason to upgrade simply because a new version came out. Major commercial apps have pretty wide support bases and typically run on 10.1 and up. Smaller shareware apps move a little quicker and some of them require at least 10.2 in order to run. It is in a developer's best interest to support a wide range of systems so it will be a long time before 10.3 or newer is an absolute minimum requirement for a majority of software.
If you want to troll you could at least be creative about it.
Re:I've had it with Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I don't understand why you would buy Panther (you did *buy* it, right?) if you knew that it wouldn't install on a usb-less G3. You knew because you check these things out before you plop down $129 for a forced upgrade (you do read system requirements before spending $129, right?).
Now, if you *really* want to install panther, you can go here [macsales.com]. You're going to have to have the required hardware (you will RTFA, right?) before you can do it, which will mean a new PCI video card, as the 4 meg ATi Rage ain't going to cut it.
As far as Apple forcing you to upgrade, did Steve come to your house and hold a slightly rounded plastic gun to your head and make you click on the 'Safari' link? When Panther came out, did all of your software stop working? I don't know where the 'forcing' comes into play - by your logic, linux, windows, and BeOS force you to upgrade every time a new version comes out.
As far as running linux on your G3 - go to town! I happily run 10.2.8 on my beige g3, and its quite usable and easy to configure. If you want to give up OS X, that's your issue. Say goodbye to Photoshop, Safari 1.1 (which works fine), and the rest of the consistent GUI software, 'cause it ain't there for linux.
Switching your iPod. You're switching to activation coded, exploit-filled Windows. Quite a trade up, I'm sure. Although, I'm sure Bill won't come by the house to force you to upgrade. He's too busy leveraging his monopoly to bring more substandard software to market.
As far as the 12" Powerbook, there you're really shorting yourself. I have a 15", and as I've said before, it's the best computer I've ever had. It came with 10.2.8, and I got Panther for 20 bucks.
Steve didn't make me, I *wanted* to.
I think that you will find something to whine about no matter what, so do what you will do. Put up or shut up as Dad was apt to say.
You want to run Panther like the kids in Cupertino intended, get the Powerbook and enjoy it, because you will. It's nice. Retire the G3 (throw 10.2.8 on the bitch and put it out to pasture as an FTP server). It's had a long, hard life.
Most of all, stop complaining. You could be spending that $129 a year on antivirus software, spyware detection and removal, software firewalls, Norton Ghost and your time trying to figure out what services to disable this week, and how to get IE and WMP from stealing file associations.
If all that isn't worth $129 a year, maybe you should give up on computers and get a job pushing a rock to the top of a hill.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go run software update on my powerbook (and not worry about my exploit-free, Beige G3 FTP server) and check out the new Safari.
Re:I've had it with Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I've had it with Apple (Score:2)
Perhaps I should expand the thought:
The guy was complaining that he was forced to pay $129 to upgrade every year. I think this is a facetious argument. Had the guy said he thought Apple was wrong to charge that much for the OS, I might agree. But he didn't. He said:
which is not true on several levels:
1) Apple does not force anyone to
Re:Tabbing through form elements (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Tabbing through form elements (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Middle Button doesn't open Tabs (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Middle Button doesn't open Tabs (Score:2)