Slashdot Mirror
Safari Beta 2 Available
pldms writes "Safari Beta 2 is available via Software Update or from the Safari page. This is build 73, for those who've had 'exclusive' access to previous development versions since beta 1 ;-) The blurb: 'Safari Beta 2 introduces tabbed browsing to conveniently see and switch between multiple web pages in a single window, and AutoFill to instantly fill out web forms and password fields. This update also features increased standards compatibility and improved application stability.'" I had to set Lax Certificate Checks in the Debug menu to use it with Slashdot ... and its secure cookie check is still quite broken (either saves secure cookies without the secure flag, or sends out secure cookies to insecure sites, which would violate
RFC 2965
where it says "no less than the same level of security").
Safari is not the greatest thing since penicillin. It won't save the world. It's not even a full release version.
What it is: a relatively svelte, quick-feeling (and yes that's partly just render speed), nicely spare browser that feels fine to use. Look at a page in Safari next to, say, Opera. The leanness of Safari stands out in several senses: render speed, clean layout, just the speed with which the program loads.
It's like a tool that feels good in your hand. Apple has a way of producing stuff like that. That's what your friends mean.
(And when your friends start claiming iCal as one of Apple's triumphs, then you can suspect them. There's a program in serious need of practical work, and much more of a beta than Safari. Slow as molasses, too.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
I can't help but laugh at them on some of the stuff they applaud Apple for...They claim it is faster, but I just don't see how that is possible.
Mac users can be a bit silly with these things, it's true. But as a non-Mac user you probably take some things for granted - like having a fast web browser. One that is highly optimized for your OS. We've never really had that and it does make a difference, network bottlenecks notwithstanding.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
1) You can finally use a secure proxy: in past versions this was broken for some reason (anybody who has had it disabled for the past few months might want to re-enable it now).
2) Cookies are finally working on PHP nuke sites: previous versions would lose preferences right after signing in.
3) I can finally login to my university's registration system. It uses this software; I'm guessing other schools rely on it too.
Anything else?
Arabic language support is still not quire right (certain letters in words are being displayed too small). A Windows Media Player plugin might be nice, but that probably is on the shoulders of M$ more-so than Apple. Other than that everything is perfect; tabs were something I was expecting anyway, and the right-click Google search was a surprise bonus.
Another thread here touting Camino was mysteriously modded "flamebait" so here goes...
I have used and loved Chimera for many months for many reasons. As other have found, the renamed Camino is crash-prone, strange in the very last nightly build of Chimera before the trademark-conflict name change (which you can find easily by anonymous FTP to their server) is great. I downgraded to Build 2003030408 and am content.
Now comes Safari, also great, except the lack of tabbed browsing and that awful brushed metal stuff. OK, tabbed browsing is now checked off on the feature list. Safari shares a startling number of other features, and then some. Eventually Safari will be indistinguishable from Camino/Chimera. Congratulations Apple, what a coup.... (Hey guys, add keywords for bookmarks so I can continue to google with "g keyword keyword" and I'll switch.)
So what's the deal for independent software efforts? Bust yourself to develop and demonstrate new UI and core technologies to have them lifted by a large for-profit computer maker? Granted the open source Camino is intended to create new work without profit, but at some point it will also lose the "profit" of public attention, and wither away, and cease to produce new things.
At the least I'd like to see Safari give a nod to Chimera. At the best I'd like an answer from Apple how they're not doing the Internet Explorer thing in miniature, and how non-Apple developers will continue to inspire and be inspired when they face having their work negated in a mere twitch of the tail of the whale.
I'm a Mac person, and back to the years before the Mac (the Apple ][+ is in a box). I think Apple has often done the right thing and will continue to (often) do the right thing. But there is something disturbing in their generous production of free software, similar in effect if not (I hope) intent to what Redmond has done. Be careful, Apple.
which is nicer to see when you right click on the background of a webpage, this:
- Safari
- view source
- save page as
ormind you, i see all that crap EVERY time i rightclick on the background in konqueror. why do i see create data cd? why do i see open in new tab? i'm not even right clicking on a link!
If browser makers reduced half this clutter it wouldn't even be nearly as useful and powerful as safari.
- tristan
This is great. I don't have a Mac, and I have no intention of getting one, but I really like seeing good progress in Safari, since by the time KDE 3.2 comes out, I'll get most of those advances in my own lurvely Konqueror.
:)
Thanks Apple!
Yeah, threading is still something 'new' for Apple to grasp and implement. OSX does some nice things, but simple stuff that should have been threaded in 1.0 doesn't even seem to be on their radar.
Just like Safari, it does some nice things and has great speed compared to other Mac Browsers but it doesn't even have the basic threading abilities that IE had back in 1998. Apple should be more on the ball and this should have been a part of the original design specifications and not something they will add.
Just like the basic file manager operations in 1.0 of OSX, multi-threading was barely there, and what little has been added has been stuck in like it was an afterthought and instead of something that just should have been in the design. They should have at least paided attention to Microsoft as Windows(NT)'s file managmenet has beening this for a long time.
It also just kills me that Apple installation software will fill the screen, like the user wants to set and watch it install. In the Windows world, this is unheard of. Even if the installation screen is maximized, we can just hit minimize and go on with our work while it installs.
Every time I have to install QuickTime for a user, it makes me shake my head, since the QuickTime screen not only fills the screen with no option to minimize, but it even does this during the entire download process. Sure I can flick the Windows Key and go back to work, but what were they thinking? Every time I install QuickTime I think, Apple, you just are not getting the whole multi-application pre-emptive thing and what it means for your users.
Apple, "Keep thinking of what your new pre-emptive core allows your software and your users to do. They shouldn't have to wait for ANYTHING if they don't want to."
Unfortunately this thinking will take some catching up, Microsoft has had a pre-emptive OS since 1993, threading and other issues for simultaneous application usage for users is far more mature in all of the NT products especially XP.
(And please don't flame me with how Unix has been preemptive since such and such. I know the history of Unix and I also know that difference between the NT kernel and what kernels are available in the Unix world.
And we would just waste ten messages debating why I disagree with Apple's OSX mach kernel decision. Which is why OSX on a whole is subject to less responsiveness than Linux or WindowsXP(NT).)
I wonder if you're a troll or just someone who likes to sounds clever?
Most Windows installers maximize their window, whereas all common Mac installers just use a regular window.
How many Windows users do actually minimize the installer screen though? How many just sit watching its pretty blue bar?
Oh! Now in this paragraph we can all see you're not talking about installers on the Mac after all, you're talking about you're talking about the Quicktime for Windows installer. The fact you cannot minimize it sounds annoying, true. However, as you point out you can always press Windows-M to get rid of it. Or Alt-Tab one assumes...?
So infact the set of users who are effected by this issue comes down to those people who
In other words, its a tiny annoyance in Apple's Windows installer which, while it should be corrected, has almost no effect on anyone...
Have you actually any examples, beyond vague suggestions that the Mac "File Manager" wasn't multi-threaded enough in Mac OS X 10.0 ? I mean, I wouldn't claim its perfect even in 10.2, but then I've used Windows NT and its "File Manager" for over half a decade now, and you know, it has a few threading issues too. I don't want to be rude, but other than your poorly constructed installer rant, you don't actually seem to have any examples.
Of course, you have links you could share with us to actual profiling results showing comparisons between MacOS, Windows and Linux (et al.). These show conclusively where "responsiveness differences" occur, and then proceed to demonstrate how these are surely caused by the Mach micro kernel and not any other factor like, just for example: hardware or boneheaded programing in the File Manager or GUI?
Please do post such material. It would be very interesting.
Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
A little bigger on the inside than out