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.
Nearly perfect timing, too. IE's gone, Safari's here... out with the old, in with the new.
Re:Good stuff
by
cloudless.net
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I bet Apple already knew IE would be gone on Mac OS, before starting to develop Safari.
Still a little buggy
by
kalidasa
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
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
by
somethinghollow
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
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)?
Cross-platform web design issue
by
cloudless.net
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
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?
Some stuff still needs fixin'
by
phillymjs
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
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
Gripes about Safari 1.0
by
joelhayhurst
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
First, I'm happy to say that Safari now works with my bank. Yay! But there's still some problems.
Why haven't they addressed the animated GIF problem yet? To see what I'm talking about, check out this example page 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:On-line banking?
by
PurpleRabbit
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
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?
--
I'm on a whisky diet. I've lost three days already.
Don't ditch Camino just yet...
by
Draconix
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
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.
-- By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
Re:Don't ditch Camino just yet...
by
mgaiman
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
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:Still not possible to stop animated gifs
by
glowurm
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
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.
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.
Has Apple given back yet?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
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.
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.
-- --Jim (me)
BBC News fixed
by
JonathanBoyd
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
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.
by
saitoh
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
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... ^_^
-- We don't need an "overrated" so much as we need a "you completely missed the parent's point, dumbass..."
Re:What was the default font before?
by
switcha
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
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.
-- You know what?... A little club soda *did* get that out!
Re:Safari is off to an excellent start
by
King+Babar
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
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.
Slashdot Mirror
Nearly perfect timing, too. IE's gone, Safari's here ... out with the old, in with the new.
I'm getting artifacts on the bottom of the frame when I have the text box too close to it. A rendering bug.
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?
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
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.
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?
I'm on a whisky diet. I've lost three days already.
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.
By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
Code 1: Images:
Code 2: Embeds:
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.
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.
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.
--Jim (me)
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.
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.
/.) Tabbed browsing I can do without (on either browser) but this is something I've grown way too attached to for my own good... ^_^
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
We don't need an "overrated" so much as we need a "you completely missed the parent's point, dumbass..."
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.
You know what?
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?
Babar