Safari 1.0 Released

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.

Comments

This is not my beautiful (first?) post!

[AvantLegion]

This was talked about in comments many hours ago in other Apple-related stories.

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!

[dalassa]

But it is my beautiful webrowser. Water flowing underground even.

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!

[gerbache]

Yeah, the trouble with so many mac stories coming out so quickly during the keynote is that the discussions between all of them ended up sounding much the same. Oh well, I'd rather that than have the keynote turn out to be a flop.

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 would be nice if they'd all settle on one appearance...

Re:This is not my beautiful (first?) post!

[gerbache]

Oh yeah, nice Talking Heads reference! (I assume you meant to make a talking heads reference with that title, anyway...)

"How did I get here?"

Re:This is not my beautiful (first?) post!

[AvantLegion]

Jesus Christ. If you even refer to first post in the title, you get modded "Troll".

How am I trolling in saying I'm getting an iBook and Safari soon?

On-line banking?

[amichalo]

Even 1.0 STILL won't work correctly with my On-line banking!

AARRGGHH!!

Re:On-line banking?

[djupedal]

I can get into your account with it, no issue :) - Man, you have got to do a better job saving...

Re:On-line banking?

[PurpleRabbit]

Safari v85 also still doesn't work with ThinkGeek accounts (bug submitted through v74, just in case). Now, at least, ThinkGeek acknowledge it, which wasn't the case when I first happened upon the problem for myself.

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 inconvenience!"

Is it ironic only to me that OSDN are pointing people to using (among other things) M$IE?

Re:On-line banking?

[mashx]

Talk to your bank then!

When HSBC 'upgraded' their security (ie changed the login process to two screens), I couldn't get in at first, so I got on the phone, and talked to a tech, who explained that they had to get it working for the majority first (understandable). Half an hour later I got a phone call back from the head of the section, asking me lots of questions, and saying that he understood my position, and they were definitely working on it, etc etc.

The next day I tried, and it worked without even changing user agents...

Re:On-line banking?

[The Placid Casual]

The original beta release didn't work with my Bank or Credit Card accounts either (and a lot of other 'secure' sites for that matter...).

It was all fixed for me in the last release...

Re:On-line banking?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Is it ironic only to me that OSDN are pointing people to using (among other things) M$IE?

I suspect not everyone who buys from ThinkGeek is a linux zealot.

Re:On-line banking?

[FroMan]

To tell you the truth, I don't think I'd care to bank at a place that sounds like someone with a studder saying "bandit."

Re:On-line banking?

[Hawkins]

This might be slightly off-topic, but I have noticed one strange thing with Safari while working with cookies on my own site: it reads them backwards. I had the headers printed out in Safari and Camino, and when I had a cookie set in Camino it would come out as

"username=dave; bgcolor=white"

but in Safari it'd be

"bgcolor = white; username=dave"

I'll be damned if I know why this is happening, but I was able to fix it easily (the site is done in Ruby, which has some nice string manipulation and array methods) once I realized what was going on. Might be something to check out. If anyone ever reads this, that is. ;)

Re:On-line banking?

[Jellybob]

Does it really matter what order you get cookies?

My guess is they won't be used the moment the come down the pipe.

Re:On-line banking?

[Hawkins]

It matters if you're splitting them up into an array and indexing them based on what position you expect them to be in. i.e. if you get
"bgcolor=white; username=dave" and you're expecting them to be reversed, your code that goes something like:

cookie.breakIntoArray()
username = cookie[1]

is going to be broken. Of course, this isn't the best coding practice to begin with, but I found it odd that they came in a different order using Safari than they did with every other browser I've tried, including ones on different platforms.

Good stuff

[TwistedKestrel]

Nearly perfect timing, too. IE's gone, Safari's here ... out with the old, in with the new.

Re:Good stuff

[cloudless.net]

I bet Apple already knew IE would be gone on Mac OS, before starting to develop Safari.

Re:Good stuff

[Farley Mullet]

I bet Apple already knew IE would be gone on Mac OS, before starting to develop Safari.

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

[kalidasa]

I'm getting artifacts on the bottom of the frame when I have the text box too close to it. A rendering bug.

Re:Still a little buggy

[babbage]

Don't tell us -- file a bug! If you had it active before, the "bug" icon may have gone away with the 1.0 upgrade, but it can be restored, and "Repot bugs to Apple..." is still the second item under the Safari menu.

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

[babbage]

"Repot bugs", oy, insect gardening...

Ok, that's my sign to turn off the browser and go to bed... :-)

Re:Still a little buggy

[goon america]

Just as a joke, I went to www.whitehouse.gov and reported a rendering error that the person shown was not the right president.

Hope that gave someone a laugh somewhere....

Re:Still a little buggy

[somethinghollow]

The only bug I have found so far is that it doesn't run on 10.1.5. Maybe I should "debug" my OS by getting Jaguar. I'd really like to see what all the fuss is about.

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)?

Re:Still a little buggy

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing funny about that is your incredibly ignorance of American government.

Go read up on the elections of 1876 and 1888 before posting again.

Re:Still a little buggy

[Anonymous Coward]

i think he is right about the president :-)
as sad as it is

Re:Still a little buggy

[Anonymous Coward]

He isn't right, and the only thing that's sad about it is the fact that there are people out there who are stupid enough to believe it.

Re:Still a little buggy

[kalidasa]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

While I don't agree that it'd be the wrong rendering (constitutionally and morally), it is funny.

Re:Still a little buggy

[Anonymous Coward]

j-o-k-e

Re:Still a little buggy

[Anonymous Coward]

n-o-t-f-u-n-n-y

Re:Still a little buggy

[Anonymous Coward]

t-w-o w-o-r-d-s

Re:Still a little buggy

[Anonymous Coward]

The point isn't that George Bush is or is not the "right President," the point is that either way it wouldn't be because of a rendering error in the Safari web browser.

Twit.

Seems faster

[Llywelyn]

While I don't have any benchmarks, it seems faster and more responsive overall. This wouldn't surprise me, since they've probably removed a good deal of the debug code.

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

[cloudless.net]

I think Safari will gain popularity quickly, I would like my web pages to look good in that browser. However I only have a Windows box, is there anyway I can see how my web pages look in Safari while I am running Windows?

Re:Cross-platform web design issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Design them for and look at them with a standards-compliant Windows browser, not that piece of shit MSIE.

Re:Cross-platform web design issue

[cloudless.net]

Being standards compliant doesn't ensure my design will look right in Safari. Every browser has its own bugs and quirks, CSS2 is an established standard, but even Mozilla can't completely handle it. That's why it is important to test the design in different browsers.

Re:Cross-platform web design issue

[thumperward]

Webcore renders in a similar way to Gecko. If you absolutely must know how it renders in Safari though, get a Knoppix CD and check with Konqueror.

- Chris

Re:Cross-platform web design issue

[Squashee]

The first thing you need to do is not use IE on windows. That one is NOT standards-compliant. Simple things work well, but when you start scratching the surface, it tends to crumble.

I allways start designs based on w3c standards and then end up making browser-detection hacks for IE. It's a real shame.

Re:Cross-platform web design issue

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that won't work. The Konqueror guys have been incredibly slow to roll up Apple's core rendering changes.

Re:Cross-platform web design issue

[ZigMonty]

I think you mean KHTML, the rendering engine used by both Konqueror and Safari.

Re:Cross-platform web design issue

[Viqsi]

This is insufficient, because WebCore fixes a lot of bugs still present in the latest KHTML. I found this out (to my unceasing joy :D ) when a friend of mine with MacOS X started testing a few sites for me.

(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.)

Re:Cross-platform web design issue

[yorkrj]

The best way to test on Safari while running windows is to buy a Mac, and run both computers at the same time.

Re:Cross-platform web design issue

[dadragon]

Safari uses "WebCore", which is essentially a Mac port of KHTML used on KDE. See here for a Windows port. I don't know if they're working on a browser or not yet. Alternativly, you could install KDE on Cygwin or install a free unix clone like Linux or FreeBSD.

Re:Cross-platform web design issue

[damiam]

No he meant Gecko. WebCore/KHTML does render similarly to Gecko, although not identically, which is why the parent advised Knoppix/Konqueror.

Re:Cross-platform web design issue

[ZigMonty]

Ah, sorry.

Windows Port

[redune45]

Now all we need is a Windows port.
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

[haut]

If you want something Safari-like for Windows try out Mozilla Firebird. Sure its a beta release, but its running solid on this Windows box and it "feels" a lot like Safari does on my iBook. The tabs are great, popup blocker works well, and its fast. The Options menu is very simple and mac-like as well. Good luck! --Ryan

Re:Windows Port

[mgs1000]

Once you get Firebird, install the Safari Theme from here. (A great Firebir theme site by the way)

And to get the more precise Safari look just turn off the status bar from the View menu. :)

Re:Windows Port

[JudgeFurious]

Funny that. It's exactly what I did the moment I fired up Firebird for the first time. Went looking for a theme that would complete the Safari look and I'm set. I still hate the "File...Edit...View" across the top but then it's a small thing really.

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'

[phillymjs]

The only problems I have with Safari are:

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'

[Anonymous Coward]

I had problem like #2 for a while but it was fixed a couple builds ago. Are you using the newest versions in these tests?

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. Compare the packets from another web browser and you'll see it.

Re:Some stuff still needs fixin'

[bedouin]

http sites load okay, but https sites do not work at all.

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'

[Bob Wehadababyitsabo]

Still no and support. This is my biggest peeve right now with 1.0. Other then that, I love it. Works beautifully in most cases.

Re:Some stuff still needs fixin'

[GreatDrok]

>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.

I'm using Outlook Web Access 2K as well and it works fine with both Mozilla and Konqueror under Linux so I doubt there is anything in there specifically coded for IE. Of course, I don't have a Mac (yet, gimme a G5!!!!) so I can't test Safari itself.

Re:Some stuff still needs fixin'

[phillymjs]

Just curious, have you tried it recently?

Yup, yesterday, within a minute of installing 1.0.

Re:Some stuff still needs fixin'

[clifyt]

I have the EXACT same problem.

Firstly, if you are using a clustered Exchange server, it seems to ask for the password half a dozen times before it loads all the icons. Occasionally hitting the Save Password thingie allows it to work.

Secondly, the messages never come out right if they are HTML encoded -- which means ANYTHING from my office (believe me, I would change this in a heartbeat if possible -- some things a sysadmin can't control).

Honestly, I think its a combination of the M$ ACs mixed with this just isn't a mature browser yet. I would LOVE to see a version of Entourage that could use my Exchange server in a meaningful way and NOT use the web version. M$ would rather not have a few important business elements on the Mac...Outlook and Access are the two biggies for me -- at least for interoperability within my working group.

clif

Re:Some stuff still needs fixin'

[Jucius Maximus]

"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."

HTTPS uses a different port than HTTP. Are you sure you have set up Safari's proxy settings to use the appropriate proxy for HTTPS?

Re:Some stuff still needs fixin'

[phillymjs]

I'm positive I set everything correctly. It all works correctly in MSIE on the same machine, http and https alike.

~Philly

CSS Support?

[Leroy_Brown242]

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 and especially this. 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?

[grondin]

CSS support is built into the preferences pane.

I've used it to run this anti-banner.css

I'm not sure if this is the original source.

Re:CSS Support?

[Michael.Forman]

The CSS support in Safari is excellent!

I have advanced CSS-generated menus and simulated CSS transparencies on my home page. 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.)

:wq
Michael.

Re:CSS Support?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many people use vi for political reasons. It's generally a good idea to avoid anything that's been touched by the FSF. You never know when they might tweak their license to include a provision that you have to forsake material possessions or something.

Re:CSS Support?

[mystran]

Actually, Mozilla seems to be the only browser, that has developers who actually understand the CSS box model (which shouldn't be that hard after all).

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.

Re:CSS Support?

[Anonymous Coward]

*Gasp* An MS-notepad "guru" lashes out in anger.

Maybe Microsoft will tweak their license to get your mama out of the zoo.

Re:CSS Support?

[tonydiesel]

Easy place to look:

http://www.macedition.com/cb/resources/macbrowserc sssupport.html

Either that or they got tired of waiting.

[Llywelyn]

It is also possible that they just got sick of waiting for a good, standards-complient web-browser or that they got sick of being so dependent on MS for a decent browser.

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.

Default Font

[coldcup]

The default font has also changed to Times. Pages rendered look much more like IE now.

Tables improved

[wazzzup]

I always found table rendering to be poor in previous versions of Safari. It initially appears that it has improved by looking at my phpinfo() page. Yay.

What was the default font before?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't remember, but I know I prefer it to Times. I was a tad miffed that that was changed unexpectedly.

Then again, better that than fucking MSIE changing my home page and sprinkling stupid-ass Microsoft URLs in my bookmarks.

Re:What was the default font before?

[PurpleRabbit]

The last Safari beta (v74) used Lucida Grande 14 as default font.

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? The good news is that it can be changed in preferences.

Re:What was the default font before?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. That's very cute, but completely wrong. Historical issues aside, serif typefaces are easier to read than sans serif typefaces. This isn't a matter of opinion; it's supported by a vast body of evidence. The "frilly bits" (which are called serifs, dumbass) make the shapes of the letters easier to recognize at a glance.

That said, computer typography has been notoriously bad at handling serif fonts. This is largely fixed on Mac OS X, thanks to floating-point screen coordinates and advanced font features like ligatures and pair-kerning. You should set your screen fonts to a well-designed serif face like Georgia, something with a nice big x-height and well-designed letterforms.

Re:What was the default font before?

[ProfKyne]

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?

[Herbmaster]

Maybe I'm just a san-serif hater (I like Times New Roman 14 (anti-aliased) for web pages), but how can anyone say that Arial is more readable than, uh, anything else? It scales horribly. At small sizes it's unreadable, and at large sizes it's just too plain.
Arial = Geneva with significantly worse spacing and uglier

Re:What was the default font before?

[switcha]

with all due respect, I don't think we are hanging onto serifs because of old rocks. It's all because of readability.

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 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?

[Anonymous Coward]

Europeans do certainly _not_ prefer san-serif fonts in longer texts... where the hell did that come from? I've personally _never_ seen a book that didn't have a commom serif type... yikes.

Re:What was the default font before?

[tgibbs]

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.

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 because they looked cool (because those stonecutters were artists who knew how to turn a handicap into a virtue). And we keep them today, even though modern stonecutting technology handles sans-serif fonts with ease, because they make text easier to read.

Re:What was the default font before?

[ProfKyne]

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.

still bugs

[bjarthur123]

this code works on every browser i've tested BUT safari:

<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>

Re:still bugs

[Anonymous Coward]

It's always worth trying with a DOCTYPE in place to see if it works properly in standards mode

You do know how to write standard XHTML, don't you? Investigate here

IHT

[babbage]

Earlier versions of Safari fell down very badly with article pages on the International Herald Tribune's site, but it looks like that's under control now. Good -- I didn't use IHT much, but they're doing some pretty tricky CSS layout stuff, and if Safari can handle their code, I'm satisfied that a lot of other sites will work pretty well too.

Re:IHT

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally! I love IHT and I reported the bugs on rendering this page to Apple. I'm glad they got this fixed.

Safari 1.0 scrolls and renders long pages much, much faster than the beta for me. I'm using my old G4/400 and scrolling now feels natural.

they do have to fix online banking, though. I'll keep IE on the dock because of that.

Gripes about Safari 1.0

[joelhayhurst]

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 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

[thumperward]

Minimum font size was removed because some sites use small fonts as spacers and having a minimum set for that broke said sites badly. Apparently. Anyway, you've got a font zoom haven't you?

- Chris

Re:Gripes about Safari 1.0

[snuffdiddy23]

my big gripe is not handling gzip enabled websites like mozilla and camino do, making for it to be the slowest of the three on websites that handle it.
safari enhancer, lordofthecows.com , has a workaround for the minimum font size last i used it. i have minimum fonts up for the download window and for browsing.

Re:Gripes about Safari 1.0

[nosferatu-man]

Only the last instance of an animated GIF is ever animated.

My god, this is a problem?

'jfb

Re:Gripes about Safari 1.0

[Erik K. Veland]

Why haven't they addressed the animated GIF problem yet? To see what I'm talking about, check out this example page of the flaw. Only the last instance of an animated GIF is ever animated.

That's not a bug, that's a feature!

Re:Gripes about Safari 1.0

[bonaldi]

Anyway, you've got a font zoom haven't you?

Yes, but that's not the point. Take google groups. the standard text shows up fine on that, but the smaller text used for controls (order by date and so on) now shows up as tinytinytinyTINY - like too many things do on the Mac. So you font zoom to make it legible and - hello! - the standard text is now HUGE. Grr. It used to work and now it's broke.

Re:Gripes about Safari 1.0

[Anonymous Coward]

Send feedback. :)

Re:Gripes about Safari 1.0

[WatertonMan]

The problem with minimum fonts being removed is that when they shifted to 72 dpi instead of 96 dpi it now makes small fonts illegible. There are a half dozen sites this happens on. They should have at least provided an option for minimum font size for those of us who don't visit the sites that minimum font screwed up.

Re:Gripes about Safari 1.0

[colanut]

RE: minimum font size:

And why'd they remove the minimum font size? On some sites I visit now I see incredibly tiny fonts that are completely illegible.

This is explained (sort of) on Surfin' Safari:

Previous betas of Safari also instituted a minimum font size pref, never allowing fonts to shrink below 9 pixels in size. It turns out that this caused sites to misrender, since sites commonly use small font size spans as spacers. These sites would misrender (quite badly) in Safari, and so the minimum font size restriction was lifted. You can still set this as a hidden preference however.

I neither defend or advocate either position. Just what I read. Good Safari info on the site though.

Beware if you use PithHelmet

[Doodads]

A warning to those of you using PithHelmet to block images. Remove it! It stopped the new version from launching and I couldn't even use my old version after I upgraded.

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

[snuffdiddy23]

if you open directory access and enable bsd configuration files you can block most off-site images (i.e. advertisement, avatars and outside links that eat bandwidth) with a standard hosts file.
pith helmet is very nice, but i prefer to use a standard hosts file, plus it is really nerdy and unixy so the slashdot mods all have to set up hosts files all the time in order to tell there friends the built the box from scratch. :)

Re:Beware if you use PithHelmet

[Erik K. Veland]

PithHelmet is updated for Safari 1.0, you just need to replace ~/Library/InputManagers/SIMBL/Plugins/PithHelmet.b undle with this file. Bye bye ads!

Safari is off to an excellent start

[King Babar]

It really is very impressive, but Jobs is being...cheeky when he claims it is the best browser on any platform. Camino and Mozilla are still competitive, and that's a great thing. Where Safari can do better is in filling in support for features where it is already strong.

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.

Re:Safari is off to an excellent start

[Anonymous Coward]

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}.

Spoken like a true... well, fucking idiot, actually.

Nobody cares about whether Safari implements all of the fiddly little bits and pieces that make up CSS11 or whatever. What people care about is the user experience.

1. Is Safari fast? Yes. Safari is incredibly fast.

2. Does Safari render virtually everything virtually perfectly? Yes, it does.

3. Is Safari easy to use? Yes, it's very easy to use.

4. Is Safari powerful? Between Snap Back and the Bookmark Manager, no to mention bookmark synching, Safari is the most powerful web browser out there.

That's it. These are the things that matter, and Safari has them. Therefore yes, Safari is the best web browser on any platform.

Re:Safari is off to an excellent start

[King Babar]

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}.

Spoken like a true... well, fucking idiot, actually.

Nobody cares about whether Safari implements all of the fiddly little bits and pieces that make up CSS11 or whatever. What people care about is the user experience.

Uh...frankly *I* don't care about whether Safari implements all of the fiddly little bits of CSS2. Armenian style list items are a nice egalitarian thought, but I don't care if they ever get implemented.

But, believe me, if you had a bunch of undergraduates trying to print out your lecture notes (or a fresh copy of the syllabus, or...) then you would consider page-break-before and size: landscape to be jolly well a part of the user experience. Mozilla gets one of these right but not the other, as does IE. If I could rely on *both* of these working reliably, then life would be much nicer for me (just add a one-liner to my style section to get excellent print out) and for my students.

And, again, one *great* thing about Safari is that it *does* support @media rules really well. So I can make warning text bright red (say) on the screen but switch to bold italic on the print out...stuff that's useful and trivial to do if it's well supported. Doing page-breaks right would add on to a useful feature. Implementing XSLT style sheets in the browser...I'm not so sure.

The one big mega-feature I'd like to see supported, by the way, is SVG. Why? Because a lot of vector graphics look better as...vector graphics. And Illustrator will export stuff that way. But I didn't bring it up at first because SVG alone would be a feature that would justify a whole new major version-number. Page-breaks are a Software Update bug fix.

OK?

Re:Safari is off to an excellent start

[Uart]

In previous versions, I found Safari to have some serious stability issues. I haven't been using this version for long enought to really decide if those are fixed or not, but so far, so good.

Anyway, Safari IS the best browser on any platform, its fast, not just at rendering webpages, but also the interface, which, unlike Mozilla/Firebird/Netscape, is designed for the Mac platform exclusively.

Camino doesn't have the right feel to it, although it is definitely my #2 choice. But I guess that is just a matter of personal preference.

Re:Safari is off to an excellent start

[Anonymous Coward]

But, believe me, if you had a bunch of undergraduates trying to print out your lecture notes (or a fresh copy of the syllabus, or...) then you would consider page-break-before and size: landscape to be jolly well a part of the user experience.

Use PDF for documents that should be readable both on screen and on paper. If you are not using the proper document format, you can hardly blame your browser.

But I didn't bring it up at first because SVG alone would be a feature that would justify a whole new major version-number.

NPSVG3Carbon

Re:Safari is off to an excellent start

[King Babar]

Use PDF for documents that should be readable both on screen and on paper. If you are not using the proper document format, you can hardly blame your browser.

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 W3C committe had a clue when they introduced @media rules and the page-break-before/after properties? A lot of silly uses of PDF would go awy if people understood style sheets and if browsers could take a hint about where to break pages from time to time. Really. So we have a lot of nice parks and pools in town, but the only way to find their hours of operation on the web is to download a bloated PDF of the schedule. By your logic, this is reasonable, but I think it's just nuts.

Now, I'm not prejudiced against PDF; I think it is the best and most appropriate way to put out material with very heavy formatting or archival permanence, (like a journal article reprint). For my stuff, PDF is definitely a premature optimization. :-)

Re:Safari is off to an excellent start

[Anonymous Coward]

HTML has some beautiful properties that PDF doesn't have

Pff. Name one. In fact, since you can render any HTML document AS a PDF document, I'd say PDF is a perfect superset of HTML.

don't you suppose the W3C committe had a clue when they introduced @media rules and the page-break-before/after properties?

Are you kidding me? The W3C are a bunch of masturbators who introduce things with NO concept of whether they're what the world wants or needs or not. Have you READ the standard? It's a joke.

So we have a lot of nice parks and pools in town, but the only way to find their hours of operation on the web is to download a bloated PDF of the schedule.

Uh? Nobody said we should replace HTML with PDF, dipshit. I said you should use PDF for things that need to end up on the printed page, not HTML.

Re:Safari is off to an excellent start

[swdunlop]

Since you seem to be enjoying berating another individual, I thought I would chime in with my own derisive two bits. I dislike the fact that PDF documents are very tightly constrained in their formatting, having a fixed width and height to each page, and requiring a particular font.

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 fashion that is most agreeable to my display. This is where simple HTML and even intelligently formatted ASCII text is head and shoulders above PDF.

PDF is a nice format for publishers who wish to share an electronic copy of a published, typset work, but it is terrible as a digital format in almost every other way. All of its much trumpeted advantages are also wasted on the visually impaired, since the effort needed to get PDF to work with screen readers or other text-to-speech solutions is ludicrous.

Re:Safari is off to an excellent start

[King Babar]

HTML has some beautiful properties that PDF doesn't have

Pff. Name one.

Why stop at just one?

1. HTML can be rendered on text browsers.
2. HTML can be rendered more appropriately on any device with an @media rule, not just as a printed page.
3. You can hide (or re-arrange, with XSLT) content with html, even dynamically.
4. In general, HTML styled with CSS provides a way to adjust presentation to meet the present need.
5. Well-written HTML provides at least some notion of semantic mark-up, and I'll stop there for now.

In fact, since you can render any HTML document AS a PDF document, I'd say PDF is a perfect superset of HTML.

Pff. Only if you just *look* at the *rendered* output. You might have noticed that a lot of content in an HTML document is not visible in the rendering. If I'm scraping a screen or spidering the web or doing any number of other things, I'll come up with situations where *most* PDF renderings of a document you'd see in practice are not going to be as useful. Really.

don't you suppose the W3C committe had a clue when they introduced @media rules and the page-break-before/after properties?

Are you kidding me? The W3C are a bunch of masturbators who introduce things with NO concept of whether they're what the world wants or needs or not. Have you READ the standard? It's a joke.

Wait, so you're claiming that page-break properties *aren't* the kind of thing that real world users want? Uhh...I've got news for you. :-) Moreover, yeah, I have read some of the standards (there are way more than one, as I know you know). No, they ain't page turners, but neither are most standards.

So we have a lot of nice parks and pools in town, but the only way to find their hours of operation on the web is to download a bloated PDF of the schedule.

Uh? Nobody said we should replace HTML with PDF, dipshit. I said you should use PDF for things that need to end up on the printed page, not HTML.

Uh...in most cases PDF is an ouput format that you end up with, not what you "use" to create content. (I say most cases because there are lots of things you can do with fillable forms in PDF, but that's a different story.) The great thing about HTML is that you don't need to care (and might not even need to know) where things are going to "end up". If I've got CSS support that includes even just a little control over page-breaks, and @media rules to render for the printed page or the screen, I've just handled probably 90% of most people's casual printing from the web needs without having to mess around with PDF at all.

In any case, I'm done responding to foul-mouthed Anonymous Cowards who really don't know as much as they think they do. It's way more boring than even the W3C specs.

Still not possible to stop animated gifs

[jpkunst]

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

[penginkun]

No, you are not alone. Motion on web pages is intolerable. Whatever else I'm there for loses to the motion. It pulls my attention away from whatever else I'm doing. That's why the only browser on my system is Mozilla. Phoenix and Camino are nice, but I don't have the fine level of control with them that Mozilla gives me. I can block cookies, ads, popups all without even having to go into the prefs. Until Safari gives me a few more basic controls (controls which surely must be in Konqueror) I won't touch it.

Re:Still not possible to stop animated gifs

[glowurm]

Use these two following Javascripts to get rid of the problem for the most part. Paste the code into a bookmark, and put the bookmark on the bookmark bar. I've got mine set to be first and second on the bar so I can hit command+1 and command+2 to activate them. It deals with most problems with flickering crap for me.

Code 1: Images:

javascript:(function()%7Bfunction%20toArray%20(c)% 7Bvar%20a,%20k;a=new%20Array;for%20(k=0;%20k%3Cc.l ength;%20++k)a%5Bk%5D=c%5Bk%5D;return%20a;%7Dvar%2 0images,%20img,%20altText;images=toArray(document. images);for%20(var%20i=0;%20i%3Cimages.length;%20+ +i)%7Bimg=images%5Bi%5D;if(img.alt==null)img.alt=% 22%20%22;altText=document.createTextNode(img.alt); img.parentNode.replaceChild(altText,%20img)%7D%7D) ();

Code 2: Embeds:

javascript:(function()%7Bvar%20d=document;%20funct ion%20K(N,t)%20%7B%20var%20b%20=%20d.createElement (%22div%22);%20b.style.width=N.width;%20b.style.he ight=N.height;%20b.innerHTML=%22%3Cdel%3E%22%20+%2 0t%20+%20%22%3C/del%3E%22;%20N.parentNode.replaceC hild(b,N);%20%7D%20function%20Z(t)%20%7B%20var%20T %20=%20d.getElementsByTagName(t),%20i;%20for%20(i= T.length-1;i+1;--i)%20K(T%5Bi%5D,t);%20%7D%20Z(%22 object%22);%20Z(%22embed%22);%20Z(%22applet%22);%2 0Z(%22iframe%22);%7D)();

Good Luck! PS: give the bookmark some short name like [em] and it doesn't take up much space either. Check http://www.macosxhints.com for more tips like this. I got most of this info there.

Re:Still not possible to stop animated gifs

[glowurm]

Sorry about the space-breaks in the code - don't know what happened there. You can fix it though, right? I mean this is Slashdot...

Re:Still not possible to stop animated gifs

[jpkunst]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, god, what a fucking idiot you are. Install Privoxy and shut the fuck up!

Stuff like ad blocking and image filtering does NOT belong in the browser. It belongs in the proxy!

Re:Still not possible to stop animated gifs

[jpkunst]

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

Re:Still not possible to stop animated gifs

[Anonymous Coward]

And you are a rude arrogant twat.

Re:Still not possible to stop animated gifs

[Anonymous Coward]

I find a lot of animations annoying too...but it should be my choice as a user to see them or not to see them. It seems to me that a one point, clicking the STOP button after a page was loaded would freeze all GIFs on the page. I'd like to see that behavior in all browsers (and I'd like it to extend to the even more annoying SOUNDS that play at some web sites, but that's another rant for another day....)

In any event, the current behavior makes no sense at all and is obviously not intended--hence it is a bug. (It appears the one copy that gets animated is the last one drawn...if you scroll a window containing multiple copies of the same animation, then every time an animated GIF scrolls into view, it animates and any other copies of it freeze.)

What IS the default font NOW?

[PurpleRabbit]

Now I've updated Safari, the default font for me is Helvetica 14. (Sans-serif: makes sense, looks good.)

Not sure how you ended up with Times...

Re:What IS the default font NOW?

[Dephex Twin]

Mine was Times also, and so were two other computers I just had contact with. So you're the oddball :)

Buttons are better

[Sebby]

the tags finally stopped being ridiculously large, though they still insist on appearing alone on a line (still can't have more than 1 side by side).

Re:Buttons are better

[aftk2]

I wonder if Safari's displaying button as a block level element. If you put this into a CSS file...

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

[Sebby]

Thanks! That works perfectly, and makes it bahave like IE and Mozilla.

RAM Disk in OS X and how to move Safari's cache

[SensitiveMale]

70% of this code isn't mine, but found I bits everywhere.

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 /dev/r" & myDevDisk as text
do shell script myShellCmd
do shell script "hdiutil mount /dev/" & myDevDisk
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

[Anonymous Coward]

That's very cute, dude, but it doesn't do what you think it does. First, disk images are not cached in RAM in any particular way. Second, Safari's cache is cached in RAM automatically by the OS. It will use whatever free RAM you have to cache those pages as inactive memory.

Finally, you REALLY need to read the fucking hdiutil man page. I don't know what kind of idiot you have to be to put "newfs" in a script, but it'd have to be a big one. Read up on the "-fs" option to hdiutil.

Re:RAM Disk in OS X and how to move Safari's cache

[ascii]

Okay I might be asking a dumb question, so please forgive me if so.

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

[SensitiveMale]

Since you replied as AC, I'll answer that way.

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

[SensitiveMale]

Download to your hard drive.

You don't want to DL to a RAM Disk.

Re:RAM Disk in OS X and how to move Safari's cache

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did you bring up disk images? What do they have to do with anything?

This part:
set myShellCmd to "/sbin/newfs_hfs /dev/r" & myDevDisk as text

That's just asking for a fuckin disaster.

If you really think Safari caches in memory, LOOK at ~/library/caches/safari

Yup. Now go read about what "lazy flushing" means. Now go read about what "kernel filesystem cache" means.

And if you don't like my script then write your own.

I'm telling you that NO SCRIPT IS NECESSARY YOU FUCKING SHITHEAD.

Re:RAM Disk in OS X and how to move Safari's cache

[ascii]

Yeah, but that's not the point really.

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

[SensitiveMale]

Ohhhhhh. OK, I see.

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

[SensitiveMale]

Got that social behavior down don't you?

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

[Anonymous Coward]

So show me how to make a RAM Disk without a script? and I mean any script. No code anywhere. :rollseyes: Code != script, little boy. There are other kinds of code than AppleScript.

Look, just go fuck off.

Suck me.

You feel perfectly content to disagree without backing anything up.

READ MY FUCKING POSTS, DICKHEAD! If you put newfs in a fucking SCRIPT you are going to FUCKING WIPE YOUR HARD DRIVE. It's in-fucking-evitable. Only a fucking SHITHEAD would do such a thing. And when you come crying back saying that you NEWFS'D YOUR DISK I will FUCKING LAUGH AT YOU.

Usually I'm not this rude but because of your behavior I feel just fine with it.

If you felt fine with it, you wouldn't feel compelled to disclaim yourself. "Oh, usually I'm better than this." Yeah, and my other car is a fucking Porsche, bitch.

Re:RAM Disk in OS X and how to move Safari's cache

[SensitiveMale]

Code != script

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

[SensitiveMale]

Ok, large downloads work great.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still waiting for you to show me your example.

Example of what? How to create a ramdisk? How about this:

long long numberOfBytes;
NSMutableData* data = [[NSData alloc] initWithCapacity:numberOfBytes];
NSFileHandle* fileHandle = [[NSFileHandle alloc] initWithArena:data];
int fileDescriptor = [fileHandle fileDescriptor];
return fileDescriptor;

Shithead.

(That'll only compile under Panther, by the way. It's a 64-bit thing.)

Re:RAM Disk in OS X and how to move Safari's cache

[SensitiveMale]

Yeah whatever.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

hditutil create -fs hfs+ -size (something) ram://(something)

now YOU shut the fuck up, fucker

Re:RAM Disk in OS X and how to move Safari's cache

[SensitiveMale]

you said "I'm telling you that NO SCRIPT IS NECESSARY YOU FUCKING SHITHEAD.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

So wait just ONE GODDAMNED MINUTE.

First you said, SHOW ME CODE. And I showed you Objective-C code that could build you a ramdisk of any size. (Panther; change the long long to a long for Jaguar.)

Then you said SHOW ME A COMMAND. And I showed you a command.

Then you said THAT'S A COMMAND YOU SUCK BYE.

I think we all know who here is the fucking cunt.

Re:RAM Disk in OS X and how to move Safari's cache

[SensitiveMale]

Uh huh. Painted yourself inito a corner didn't you?

I never said "SHOW ME CODE".

I said "And if you don't like my script then write your own."

You replied "I'm telling you that NO SCRIPT IS NECESSARY YOU FUCKING SHITHEAD."

Then I said "So show me how to make a RAM Disk without a script? and I mean any script. No code anywhere."

And you replied with code that I can't test. Smart. Still you were showing no proof.

Then I said "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."

And you replied "hditutil create -fs hfs+ -size (something) ram://(something)"

then I replied with you screaming at me "I'm telling you that NO SCRIPT IS NECESSARY YOU FUCKING SHITHEAD."

Bottom line is that you since you are obviously more knowledgable about linux and coding in C than I am, you tried to prove how smart you are rather than simply answer the question.

In the beginning, since you know more about C and linux than I do, you choose to act like an asshole rather than friend and try to explain things to me and show me any problems with the script.

I can create the RAM Disk in a script but most people don't want to do that. they would rather use an AppleScript so I pieced one together.

Next time try not to be such a condescending & arrogant asshole.

and yes, I think we both know who the "the fucking cunt" is.

Re:RAM Disk in OS X and how to move Safari's cache

[ascii]

Okay - thanks a bunch for your trouble.

Re:RAM Disk in OS X and how to move Safari's cache

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow that was an impressive example of two dorks going at it.

Are you two married by any chance?

Re:RAM Disk in OS X and how to move Safari's cache

[SensitiveMale]

hehe. kinda looks that way. :)

I told you I washed the fruit. It's been washed. But wash it again if you want.

hehe

Re:RAM Disk in OS X and how to move Safari's cache

[zo219]

HEY! I see the word "cunt" used one more time by one of you dickheads, and I'm comin' to your house.

Zo.

Don't ditch Camino just yet...

[Draconix]

I tried Safari 1.0 out. Though I admit it has come a long way, it still strikes me as more trouble than it's worth. I ran some tests of it vs. Camino, and Safari actually screwed-up and image render pretty bad. Also, I commonly frequent a couple of CGI chatrooms, and Safari seems to think hitting the enter key should log me out instead of posting a message. I won't be switching any time soon myself.

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...

[mgaiman]

But honestly, isn't it nice to have a choice? I mean, if Apple had gone with gecko, then we'd pretty much only have gecko-based browsers on the mac (neglecting IE--something everyone should do). But this way, two different open source browser efforts are available on OSX.

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.

Re:Don't ditch Camino just yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

please send feedback to help fix this stuff :)

Bug button still there

[Llywelyn]

Another poster was kind enough to point out to me that you can enable the bug button from inside of the "View" menu.

shockwave

[Anonymous Coward]

finally sites like candystand and nabiscoworld are able to run correctly. there is a lot of improvements from the beta, though losing pilthelemet is a great loss.

Has Apple given back yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Has Konqueror (or more specifically KHTML) benifited from Apples improvements / changes yet? I am just curious, I love Konqueror, and am looking forward to having it be even better.

Updated. Re:Beware if you use PithHelmet

[EricHsu]

PithHelmet rocks. Note on web site that there is a new version for Safari 1.0. To install the bundle, look where you installed the SIMBL folder (for me, ~/Library/InputManagers) before and replace the PithHelmet bundle by hand with the new updated one. Works fine so far.

Don't get 10.2!

[littleghoti]

I'd wait for 10.3 if I were you. Get the panther goodness later in the year with all the new stuff, and pay only once.

Re:Don't get 10.2!

[nervouscat]

Betcha Safari will be bundled into 10.3 (panther) too!

It's good

[Balthisar]

Safari works on a couple of sites that wouldn't render correctly or missed content entirely. It seems like a lot of debug code is gone, because it runs faster. I'm looking forward to playing with the accompanying web-kit for Cocoa programming. One thing that bothers the heck out of me is FTP browsing. I'd rather have the choice to mount the server in Finder -- I'd choose NO most of the time and look at FTP in Safari.

IE 5 and standards compliance.

[Big Sean O]

Isn't it funny what a difference of 3 years make?

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 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.

[jellomizer]

Well I am in the process of looking for a house and all the real estate databases seem to work for me. I dont think I really switched to IE for any of my searches.

Fixed bug

[shawn99452]

At least they fixed the bug that caused mouseover javascript to change the color of table cells to not work. Hotmail now properly highlights messages that I check, instead of highlighting weird chunks of them when my mouse moves over.

BBC News fixed

[JonathanBoyd]

They seemed to have fixed the problem with the BBC News site. Used to be that it would take 5-10 seconds for the newsticker at the top to load, occassioanlly it would corrupt the rest of the page and RAM usage would jump to over 100MB. Now it loads instantly, looks better and only grabs another meg or two.

My impressions, and why I wont switch.

[saitoh]

Well, Safari is moving along, although i dont notice much difference between the last beta and this (which in theory meens there shouldn't be too much wrong wtih it), and I also agree that it is a snappy piece of code.

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 /.) Tabbed browsing I can do without (on either browser) but this is something I've grown way too attached to for my own good... ^_^

Re:My impressions, and why I wont switch.

[leahwrenn]

In Safari, if you want to open a link in a new window behind your current window, hold down command + option when you click. Is this what you were missing? (Another nice thing is that as you mouse over a link while holding down various buttons, e.g., command+shift, the status bar at the bottom shows what action will happen, which is cute.)

Re:My impressions, and why I wont switch.

[DChristensen]

If you are using tabbed browsing, check the preferences. You can set a "tabs open in back" option so when you cmd-click on a link, it opens behind. Add an option key to make it work for opening new windows as well. This behavior has been present since v74, FWIW.

Sticking with Camino

[diamondc]

Anyone else find it funny that a Mozilla related app looks more like an Apple app than Apple's own browser? I guess if you dig brushed metal then it's alright, but boy do the iApps clash with the regular Aqua apps.

Sharing bookmarks

[smartin]

Does anyone have a recomendation on sharing bookmarks between Mozilla and Safari? I know you can import them, that's not what i want.

No Keychain, No Safari

[Clock Nova]

I can never switch from Camino to Safari until Safari is able to access the nearly 100 user and password entries that Camino has saved in my OSX Keychain. This is ridiculous.

Re:No Keychain, No Safari

[Anonymous Coward]

sweet! you mean I can crack just one password and get access to them all? cool. what was your ip again?

possible fixes.... Re:On-line banking?

[johnpaul191]

there are a few possible fixes to get it to work.

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 Safari Enhancer . It lets you do fun things like access the debug menu and disable cache, and easily import Mozilla bookmarks. Safari is a fast browser, so with DSL i barely notice the cache being turned off and it seemed to be the only way for some sites to work properly (like some phpNuke sites i log in for).

Finally be sure you submit the bug to Apple again so they know 1.0 still fails. It's possible it's the bank's fault, but maybe not. Even if it is the bank, somebody should tell them. If AOL really dumps IE and Mac stop shipping with it, webmasters will hopefully return to following standards.

Re:possible fixes.... Re:On-line banking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Another possible fix: Change your security setting to accept all cookies. I had mine set to reject third-party cookies (to prevent marketing spyware), and that was keeping me from accessing online bill-pay at my bank.

Yahoo Games Support Wanted!

[alternapop]

can't play some games on yahoo. safari crashes. camino works.

Re:Yahoo Games Support Wanted!

[reiggin]

This is a java problem, not a Safari issue. Go to macosxhints.com and search for Java 1.3. It will tell you how to get Safari to use Java 1.3 instead of Java 1.4. Ya know, it's not really a Java problem either now that I think about it. It's a Yahoo problem. Go figure, right? Yahoo doesn't do well with Java 1.4 on Mac or Windows. Camino works for you b/c it is using Java 1.3 already.

Now... back to Yahoo! Spades....

Please use proper pathnames

[Anonymous Coward]

OSX does away with the antiquated path1:path2:path3 thing. Please use "/path1/path2/path3" syntax instead. Let the old horse die, please.

Re:Please use proper pathnames

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, the OS did, but the filesystem sure didn't!!

Safari is available now...

[littleghoti]

I'm posting from it. It was released as a beta before, but the 1.0 version was resleased yesterdsay.

Multi Language support

[sjoos]

Not important for English speaking people, but the default install gives menus in my native language (Dutch). Now I can upgrade my dad's iMac to Mac OS X :)

Still no easy way to deal with image loading?

[nystagman]

I can't make Safari my main browser until there is a way to manually load images (my preferred default is to load nothing) either individually or with a menu command.

Burrowing through levels of preferences to switch states, and then reloading the page just will not cut it.

Why is this important? Because it takes bloody forever at 56K to load a page that is chock full of lotsa pretty (but usually unnecessary) images. It seems that those of us with dialup access are rapidly becoming third-class citizens...

Re:Still no easy way to deal with image loading?

[ZackSchil]

And for good reason. Because it is easy to ignore you because you connections are too slow to fire off enough complaints! Slashdot needs to make their logo an uncompressed 50MB movie file that forces reload on every page and a script that denies the information of the page to be sent out without completing the movie. That'll keep the riff-raff out. The only dialup I want to hear about is the phone number of the yacht club.

Darling, the OC3 is acting a bit slow, I think I'll run out and grab another tomorrow.

Re:Has Apple given back yet? - YES

[Krioni]

YES. Google gave me this:

KDE discussion of Safari

Still crap for javascript support

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok so ie still wins here. This is actually one of the few things that has kept me on a pc. Both this and mozilla have shit for javascript support. I swear neither have read the standard at all.

Anyone else get this display bug?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've submitted bug reports for this particular error since the early betas of Safari, but it still hasn't been resolved. Curious if it's just me.

Every so often I'll go to a page and it loads wacky.

Scrollbars indicate a REALLY tall and REALLY wide page. Usually only the top part of the page is rendered (if at all).

Seems to happen after I visit a really complex page (like Slashdot's home page).

Your site doesn't validate.

[Anonymous Coward]

So who cares wtf you say about CSS?

Re:Your site doesn't validate.

[Michael.Forman]

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. All other browsers render it perfectly.

Michael.

Re:Your site doesn't validate.

[Michael.Forman]

OK. It validates now.

It only took 20 minutes of typing "px". :P

Michael.

P.S.- Internet Explorer still can't render it right.

Common misconception.

[Anonymous Coward]

...that the 'serifs appeared (on stone-cut signs) was because the stone was often very brittle and would crumble at the corners of the letters.' The serifs are because before the cutting of the letters they have been pre-drawn with a brush (keeping it 45 degrees). I wonder what RIT can be where they teach such common bullshit.

Tab support is kind of cobbeled

[Bakafish]

The problem is that unlike Mozilla based browsers the tabs don't support drag and drop URL's so you aren't able to reuse them. I like to drag links to existing tabs to update them with new information, or drag a URL to the empty tab area to create a new tab.

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.

Copy to Clipboard still upside down and backwards

[YuleLogger]

I was hoping the jump to 1.0 would get rid of this problem. On my QuickSilver G4, when in Safari,whenever I copy an image to the clipboard, it is upside down and backwards. Doesn't happen inIE. Doesn't happen in Safari on my eMac or my iBook. Anyone know how to fix this?

Bookmarking in Safari blows!

[Night Goat]

I'm probably missing something, but I HATE Safari's bookmarking. It always defaults to put stuff on the Bookmark Bar as opposed to the Bookmark Menu. Is there a way to change that? Because then, maybe, it's better than Mozilla's.

Re:Copy to Clipboard still upside down and backwar

[Decimal Dave]

This is a known bug, but there is a workaround.

No Friggin Javascript Debugger

[Anonymous Coward]

I love Safari, Mac and all that crap... but it's a joke they don't have a javascript debugger. It makes it a real pain in d'arss to develop for it.

Re:Copy to Clipboard still upside down and backwar

[YuleLogger]

Thannk you! That works! I've combed the net looking for this fix! I don't know why I couldn't find it on Apples site!