Slashdot Mirror


Safari 4 Released, Claimed "30 Times Faster Than IE7"

CNETNate writes "Apple has released the beta version of Safari 4 for Mac and PC, with claims that its Nitro rendering engine is '30 times faster than IE7,' and three times faster than Firefox 3. Other new features include 'Top Sites,' which shows users the most frequently visited Web pages, 'Full History Search' for searching through not only the URLs and titles of visited pages, but also the complete text within the page itself — something Opera has been doing for a while."

465 comments

  1. Notes on New Features by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nitro JavaScript Engine

    Anyone know if this is a new engine or just Squirrelfish renamed?

    Acid 3 Compliance

    Looks like Safari might be the first Acid 3 browser to the market. Opera's version 10 is Acid 3 compliant, but it's still in Alpha testing.

    CSS 3 Web Fonts

    I noted this feature in Opera 10. The results shown in the demos were rather impressive. The web pages had more of a print-layout look to them without the classic trick of relying on images to cover all the content. This has the potential to completely change the look of the web for the better.

    CSS Canvas

    I'm still trying to figure out how being able to use Canvas as a style to apply to web elements is useful, but the idea definitely sounds cool. I suppose one could always set a fixed web page background as a canvas, then make it look like they're on an acid trip as they scroll. :-P

    I'm downloading the beta now. If it lives up to the hype that Apple is giving it, it will be an amazing piece of software.

    1. Re:Notes on New Features by tyrione · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nitro has more street cred.

      Squirrelfish sounds like a slimy little douchebag trying to get out from under a last call chick who has him pinned at the end of the bar.

    2. Re:Notes on New Features by MrHanky · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If it lives up to all the hype Apple is giving it, it will still be lacking Noscript and ABP.

      The CSS 3 Web Fonts seem rather neat, though.

    3. Re:Notes on New Features by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Informative

      I am a fanboi

      Right you are! I am a HUGE fan of web standards and the new features that HTML5 is bringing. And because I have experience with browser developers like Apple, Opera, and Mozilla, I trust that they'll do a good job in making the features a reality. Especially since they're the same people writing the standards.

      For those who actually care, I've managed to pull up some demos in Safari 4:

      http://webkit.org/blog/138/css-animation/
      http://webkit.org/blog/176/css-canvas-drawing/
      http://www.alistapart.com/articles/cssatten

      I must say, I'm impressed! We'll see how well they work in real-world usage going forward.

      The browser itself appears to be leaning more toward the UI design of Chrome. Which fits it well, IMHO. The new Coverflow feature is surprisingly slick and doesn't feel tacked on at all. The bonjour integration feels like a new management console for the network. I can surf all the devices and get important information on their location and status. I can even change the settings!

      Which makes me wonder if the next version of OS X is going to use Safari-based widgets for network and printer management. Hmm...

      At the very least, this is a nice way to surf the network on Windows. ;-)

    4. Re:Notes on New Features by Shining+Celebi · · Score: 1

      Looks like Safari might be the first Acid 3 browser to the market. Opera's version 10 is Acid 3 compliant, but it's still in Alpha testing.

      Actually, passing Acid3 at this point apparently means supporting the standard wrongly because of a recent change in the spec. I think that illustrates why we shouldn't rely on tests like the Acid Tests too much when determining standards compatibility.

    5. Re:Notes on New Features by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      CSS 3 Web Fonts

      I noted this feature in Opera 10. The results shown in the demos were rather impressive. The web pages had more of a print-layout look to them without the classic trick of relying on images to cover all the content. This has the potential to completely change the look of the web for the better.

      Am I the only one who _doesn't_ want this? The web is hard enough to read already with these 10px hard-coded fonts everywhere. Even Zoom in Firefox and Opera is not good enough to work around the problem because the images look terrible. For every site I need a different combination of zoom and text embiggenment (a very crumulent word, I know).

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    6. Re:Notes on New Features by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Which is why Privoxy Rocks.

    7. Re:Notes on New Features by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      That's ACID2, not ACID3. As the article says, they'll probably update the ACID2 test to match the spec change.

    8. Re:Notes on New Features by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative

      The whole point of features like Web Fonts is to get away from using images. Thus when you zoom, the renderings look crisp and clean. Try these demos in Safari 4 to see what I mean. Zooming the reference image looks ugly. (What you're complaining about.) Zooming the actual rendering is helpful and actually looks better the closer the examples are zoomed.

    9. Re:Notes on New Features by macmaniac · · Score: 1

      For ABP, there is a (Mac-side) replacement: GlimmerBlocker. There's another one out there called Safari Adblock as well.

    10. Re:Notes on New Features by frankie · · Score: 1

      The web is hard enough to read already with these 10px hard-coded fonts everywhere. For every site I need a different combination of zoom and text embiggenment

      It's called "Minimum font size". Both Firefox and Safari have easily accessible preference settings for this. Sometimes a minimum size will break menu bars with hardcoded widths, but overall it's a big net plus.

    11. Re:Notes on New Features by mzs · · Score: 1

      If Nitro is just marketing speak for SFX (SquirrelFish Extreme) then Apple is guilty of the worst "up to" benchmark numbers crap possible:

      http://summerofjsc.blogspot.com/2008/09/squirrelfish-extreme-has-landed.html

      THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2008

      "In particular, the version of V8 used here is the bleeding-edge branch, which is a bit faster than the version that shipped with Chrome."
      "As you can see, SquirrelFish Extreme is 36% faster than V8"

    12. Re:Notes on New Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If we're going to be throwing custom fonts onto the intarwebs, then CSS3 sure as fuck better be getting a revision to allow widths of boxes to be set to "big enough to fit its contents at whatever font and zoom level the user decides to use" because you know 90% of the browsers are going to either not support it or the user will have overridden it because they are offended by anything less generic than Arial. And no, measuring in em is bullshit, especially when you don't know how proportional the font is going to be and some user decides to make their username |||||||||||| just to piss you off.

      While I'm whining about the fact that CSS can't cope with user-generated data, I'll continue with float, which needs an "all-the-way-left/right" setting so that when the block cannot fit on the current line, rather than moving it down juuuuust enough to make it fit (leading to a shitty stair-steps look whenever someone writes two lines worth of content where everyone else wrote one... or if I force everything to have a specific height, then shitty overlapping content), it clears all the current floats and starts at the left/right margin.

    13. Re:Notes on New Features by drsmithy · · Score: 0

      The browser itself appears to be leaning more toward the UI design of Chrome. Which fits it well, IMHO. The new Coverflow feature is surprisingly slick and doesn't feel tacked on at all. The bonjour integration feels like a new management console for the network. I can surf all the devices and get important information on their location and status. I can even change the settings!
      Which makes me wonder if the next version of OS X is going to use Safari-based widgets for network and printer management. Hmm...

      Heh. Safari+OSX 2009 == Internet Explorer+Windows 1997. Be fascinating to see how _that_ pans out.

      On a more serious note, does Safari have remotely decent session/state save and restore yet ? The SessionSaver extension is unquestionably FireFox's killer feature, IMHO (the again, I typically have 10+ FireFox windows and 150+ tabs open at once, so a FireFox crash without SessionSaver would be fairly traumatic).

    14. Re:Notes on New Features by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      I noted this feature in Opera 10. The results shown in the demos were rather impressive. The web pages had more of a print-layout look to them without the classic trick of relying on images to cover all the content. This has the potential to completely change the look of the web for the better.

      This wouldn't matter much if it wasn't for IE 8 also supporting it. Yeah, really! :) And Firefox 3.1 beta 3 too. So yes, this should be interesting.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    15. Re:Notes on New Features by onefriedrice · · Score: 2, Interesting

      http://www.apple.com/safari/features.html
      Scriptable plug-ins is listed as a feature.

      --
      This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
    16. Re:Notes on New Features by Mystra_x64 · · Score: 1

      I used "minimum font size" before. However it breaks way too much for me. So I ended up with UserCSS that apply font-size: medium on selected classes/elements.

      For sites I visit not as often I'm using self-made "Medium font size" style in the Opera's "style" menu that makes all font size medium. Of course it break some layouts too, but that's more convenient for me.

      --
      Quick way to get 30% Funny 70% Troll: defend Opera browser on /.
    17. Re:Notes on New Features by Shin-LaC · · Score: 1

      Privoxy never worked reliably for me. I used to use it, but it would "lock up" almost daily, leaving my browser waiting forever on every single request. When I realized it was not a connection problem, but Privoxy, I would restart it, but it was still pretty annoying. More annoying than the ads, in fact, which is why I don't use it any more.

      At least I have ClickToFlash now.

    18. Re:Notes on New Features by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      If Nitro is just marketing speak for SFX (SquirrelFish Extreme) then Apple is guilty of the worst "up to" benchmark numbers crap possible:

      Hey, at Apple, that's one of the great traditions !

    19. Re:Notes on New Features by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      "big enough to fit its contents at whatever font and zoom level the user decides to use"

      Nice rant, but you misunderstand how zooming works in modern browsers. All the browsers are moving away from the text-zoom scheme toward a full-page zoom. The full page zoom leaves the layout exactly the same while allowing you to inspect the page more closely.

      This was an idea that was pioneered by Opera. They supported a variety of small-screen devices where zooming was a bit of an issue. By supporting full-page zooming both in and out, they were able to present full webpages on small screens while still allowing the user to take a closer look at the layout.

      Safari picked up this feature sometime around the development of the iPhone. (For obvious reasons.) Thus if you zoom on the CSS Font examples in Safari 4, it will act less like a text size adjustment and more like an SVG or Flash image. No need for special CSS layout properties. (Though min/max hinting HAS been added to the CSS spec.)

    20. Re:Notes on New Features by nine-times · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, some of the new features could (possibly) reduce the use of Flash and Javascript in the first place, since you'll be able to create some nice effects without them.

    21. Re:Notes on New Features by PsychicX · · Score: 1

      That's great and all, but does it still insist on using the horrendously ugly Apple text rendering engine when running under Windows? No point in being super fast and super standards compliant if the stuff on my screen is a blurry mess...

    22. Re:Notes on New Features by wealthychef · · Score: 1
      Which makes me wonder if the next version of OS X is going to use Safari-based widgets for network and printer management. Hmm...

      You mean, will Apple begin to tightly integrate their browser into their operating system? Sounds familiar. Anyone know any lawyers? :-)

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    23. Re:Notes on New Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose one could always set a fixed web page background as a canvas, then make it look like they're on an acid trip as they scroll. :-P

      This is what the CSS background-attachment: fixed; is for. (demo)

    24. Re:Notes on New Features by gutter · · Score: 1

      It has supported "Reopen all windows from last session" as a menu item for quite some time, but I don't know of a way to have it do so automatically.

      --
      Check out DRM-free movies at http://www.bside.com
    25. Re:Notes on New Features by wealthychef · · Score: 1

      I don't know if it's BS or not, but my experience is that Safari 4 is much MUCH faster at rendering than Safari 3 was, FWIW.

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    26. Re:Notes on New Features by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      This is what the CSS background-attachment: fixed; is for

      Background-attachment: fixed does nothing to animate the background in response to user actions. Using a fixed canvas for the background however, means that you can turn the background into a kaleidescope of sorts and update the animation as the user scrolls. Absolutely useless, but a fun (trippy?) idea none the less. :-)

    27. Re:Notes on New Features by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Nope.

      http://webkit.org/blog/168/gdi-text-on-windows/

      The fonts look pretty good in Safari 4. If they're rendered through CoreGraphics rather than GDI, I sure as heck can't tell. (Unlike the heavily overweighted fonts in 3.1.)

    28. Re:Notes on New Features by memco · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Two words: user stylesheets. If you don't want fonts, it's easy to force all content to render in whatever font you want (from a user standpoint).

      --
      Get me a meat pie floater!
    29. Re:Notes on New Features by mrdoogee · · Score: 1

      I love the Bonjour integration too. I just turned it on and all my network printers just show up. So much easier than getting the IPs from every machine individually and then plugging it into a browser just to access the printer's EWS.

    30. Re:Notes on New Features by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      As pointed out by the makers of the browsers who couldn't support it. :-)

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    31. Re:Notes on New Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Web fonts provide nothing. I don't want to use someone else's fonts, I want to use my own.

      For logos and such, people should be using SVG if they want something that will scale.

    32. Re:Notes on New Features by mzs · · Score: 1

      I've been using webkit nightly for a while now, but SFX IS much faster than safari3 was the last time I used it. It's about 12 times faster on sunspider:

      http://webkit.org/blog/214/introducing-squirrelfish-extreme/

      If nitro is simply SFX, then a more honest factoid would be something like typically 33% faster than ff.

    33. Re:Notes on New Features by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      All of the features in Safari 4 are available to you, the developer, by linking in the WebKit framework.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    34. Re:Notes on New Features by benbean · · Score: 1

      Good God man... how is 150+ tabs in 10+ windows at once a practical workflow? I'm not being shitty here... I'm genuinely curious as to how you make that work for you? I can't stand to have more than about three tabs open at once before my OCD kicks in.

      --
      It's a Unix system - I know this.
    35. Re:Notes on New Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How delightfully naive. Don't ever change.

    36. Re:Notes on New Features by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "Looks like Safari might be the first Acid 3 browser to the market." Sorry, no. Midori passed the Acid 3 test, months ago. I did it myself, with default settings. (default settings are one of the requirements for a fair "win") I think that Aurora also passed, but I can't remember for certain. Somehow, I managed to delete the photobucket screeny that I made for Midori - but you should download it and test it yourself. No point in believing me, LOL

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    37. Re:Notes on New Features by SnapShot · · Score: 1

      I'm trying it out now. One of the first things I noticed (as a FireBug user on FireFox) is the Inspect Element option appears in the contextual menu and it looks like a major subset of FireBug functionality is available by default. I'm suddenly very happy...

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    38. Re:Notes on New Features by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "Looks like Safari might be the first Acid 3 browser to the market." New screeny, freshly uploaded. Midori wins! http://s217.photobucket.com/albums/cc226/Runaway1956/?action=view&current=Midori_Acid3.png

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    39. Re:Notes on New Features by mzs · · Score: 1

      Oh that will be fun scrolling left and right to read the text when the web dev decides to use 1280px across with a small font.

    40. Re:Notes on New Features by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Then don't visit his website. Is it really that hard?

      Alternatively, use the features of your browser to override the style sheet to produce a more comfortable look.

    41. Re:Notes on New Features by DiLLeMaN · · Score: 1

      Not natively, but SafariStand allows you to do this, amongst other things. And yes, it still works under Safari 4.

      --
      /var/run/twitter.sock is a twitter socket puppet.
    42. Re:Notes on New Features by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I don't understand. I can zoom my fonts with ctrl+mwheel in firefox 3 today. If I click View->Zoom->Zoom Text Only, it doesn't zoom any images.

      I don't have a mac to try safari, do you have screenshots? What's different about this behavior?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    43. Re:Notes on New Features by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      That's all fine and dandy, but why the shit does installing Safari require a restart of your computer? That's what OSX just told me when I tried to install it.

      No thank you. I'll keep using my browser that doesn't get its tentacles into the OS.

    44. Re:Notes on New Features by davester666 · · Score: 1

      SafariStand also could block flash content. But the lack of a real plugin API makes all these things fairly fragile hacks, that need constant maintenance to work with new versions of Safari.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    45. Re:Notes on New Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Safari Adblock sucks donkey balls. So much so that I think the guys that do ABP should issue a C&D to the Safari Adblock team to stop using the name "Adblock".

      Besides randomly crashing Safari throughout the day, it would insist on not letting me click on things that it thought were ads. It would let certain ads through, and if you clicked on them, you would get a blank page with "adblock:" as the location. Really smart, guys.

      If you think it's an ad, don't show it. If you do show something and I click on it, you shouldn't stop me from getting to that link. Plus, no matter how many times I put in exceptions for my local grocery store, it always prevented me from downloading the weekly flyer as an "ad".

      Safari Adblock was the primary reason I finally made the jump from Safari to Firefox.

    46. Re:Notes on New Features by Goaway · · Score: 1

      The browser has been "tightly integrated into the operating system" for years and years. Welcome to THE YEAR 2000.

    47. Re:Notes on New Features by davester666 · · Score: 1

      This is true, but bizarrely, the iPhone's lack of Flash support probably is doing more for getting web sites off Flash than what capabilities are available on the latest version of a relatively minor desktop browser.

      This is because, when somebody is deciding how to implement a web site, unless they are only targeting the most up-to-date Mac users, most of the browsers accessing their web site won't be able to use these new features, but if the site uses Flash, they can do all the wacky wiz-bang craptacular things the boss wants. And it works both with the latest version of Safari, and most any other browser out there. Except for the one hot new device, the iPhone, where they can't do the cop-out.

      So, if they want iPhone users to access their site, they need to:
      -make a parallel web site for the iPhone, not using Flash (maybe also totally crippled for all the other mobile browsers, even though it doesn't have to be for the iPhone). Of course, this is a maintenance headache.
      -make most/all of the website Flash-free, using Internet standards, with workarounds for older browsers that don't support specific features.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    48. Re:Notes on New Features by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      Because it also updates WebKit, which is a core OS component?

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    49. Re:Notes on New Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck your blind ass, get a screen reader.

    50. Re:Notes on New Features by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      I can zoom my fonts

      Safari can zoom the entire screen, not just the fonts. Zooming the entire screen means that the fonts AND the background get scaled to match. If you've seen the iPhone, you've probably already seen this in action.

    51. Re:Notes on New Features by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      It's called "Minimum font size". Both Firefox and Safari have easily accessible preference settings for this.

      My point was that I don't trust web designers to use responsible font sizes, now I have to trust them to use responsible font faces? I _don't_ want artistic fonts, I want to be able to read the text.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    52. Re:Notes on New Features by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I will start doing just that. That's what I did back in my Opera days.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    53. Re:Notes on New Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://safariadblock.sourceforge.net/

    54. Re:Notes on New Features by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      I remember when people used to complain about Microsoft doing this.

    55. Re:Notes on New Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words ... In Beta Firefox, ACID2 test fails you!!!

    56. Re:Notes on New Features by tvon · · Score: 1

      I don't think that's anything new, it just means that you can write plugins that can interact with the page via javascript.... and honestly I'm not sure why/how that's a benefit (plugins are not an area I know much of anything about)

    57. Re:Notes on New Features by MrHanky · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Were you born an idiot or did it come with your ATT subscription plan? iPhone usage is less than 1% of all web users. It does absolutely nothing whatsoever to Flash usage except in your irrelevant little Cupertino-centric universe. iPhone usage is, at most, half the amount of Linux usage. It hardly even registers. Only web sites catering specifically to Apple fans care about that negligible user base. Being one of them, you probably observe empirically what you're saying. But in the real world, the iPhone's lack of Flash support doesn't mean anything.

    58. Re:Notes on New Features by Hatta · · Score: 1

      If I uncheck the View->Zoom->Zoom Text Only then firefox zooms the entire page, background included. What's different about this? I haven't seen an iPhone, so that's no help.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    59. Re:Notes on New Features by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      In Firefox, the page is re-rendered to fit the screen after a zoom. Fonts start wrapping as they hit the page boundaries. In Safari, the layout does not change. You may need to scroll to see the complete content.

    60. Re:Notes on New Features by davester666 · · Score: 1

      While I am an Apple fanatic, I certain know that, of all the web clients out there, iPhone/iPod Touch users are a small fraction of a percentage of web interactions vs the top 3 or 4 browsers.

      The point I was trying to make, is that from the POV of press coverage, and perception thereof, the iPhone probably drives more people to decide to use Internet standards instead of Flash, right now and in the immediate future, more than any advances that desktop web browsers make, simply because the iPhone doesn't have the fallback position of "Hell, let's just keep doing this stuff in Flash".

      IMHO, the set of companies that are interested in redesigning their web site for iPhone users is larger than the set of companies that are interested in redesigning their web site for desktop Safari users. Even though the percentage of actual web requests from desktop Safari users is much larger.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    61. Re:Notes on New Features by beav007 · · Score: 1

      Yes, this irritates me as well. Also, which genius decided that, if I want inline divs, that I don't need to be able to set an arbitrary width?

    62. Re:Notes on New Features by Hatta · · Score: 1

      How is that a good thing? Text reflow to fit any device is one of the best features of HTML.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    63. Re:Notes on New Features by Keeper+Of+Keys · · Score: 1

      It was new behaviour added to FF3.0; with the Zoom Text Only option enabled, it reverts to the old behaviour.

      While the full zoom feature is a boon to users, I fear it will result in a lot of harder-to-use sites: we now have the widest range of screen resolutions in the history of the web, which means more variation in browser base font size. But how many web devs will no longer bother to check that their layouts work at widely differing font sizes, figuring users can "just zoom" if the text looks too small?

    64. Re:Notes on New Features by Keeper+Of+Keys · · Score: 1

      Hmm, define "easy".

    65. Re:Notes on New Features by Keeper+Of+Keys · · Score: 1

      Run in it Windows, then.

      <ducks>

      It does seem quite good, though; a massive advance on Safari 3. They've even removed the pointless inch-high slab of brushed steel from the top.

    66. Re:Notes on New Features by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      Funny is both Netscape 4 and IE 3 (or 4?) had font embedding feature and somehow nobody cared for it.

      IE still supports the IE method of font embedding. Of course it was totally MS with .CAB files wondering around. Netscape`s own one (which wasn't standard too) didn't make to Mozilla (Firefox).

      Here is IE method:
      http://www.microsoft.com/typography/web/embedding/default.aspx

      I don't think average webmaster who still can't get rid of damn Arial while both MS and Apple gives them some great fonts for usage will rush and learn HTML font embedding. There could also be licensing issues with pro fonts?

    67. Re:Notes on New Features by lmnfrs · · Score: 1

      How is that a good thing?

      It's shiny.

      Sorry.. had to. But it's sorta true:
      It's nice from a design standpoint. If a page is always rendered as the designer intends, they know the exact environment into which their page will be displayed. All variances and plan b's can be ignored and the layout and render will be exactly as the designer intended.

    68. Re:Notes on New Features by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Informative

      Text reflow fails miserably once you get past a certain size. If your intent is to inspect the page close up, then text reflow is a problem. Why don't you just download Safari and try it out? I think you'll answer your own question fast enough.

      Alternatively, go watch this video. You can see how zooming allows you to focus on the areas of interest rather than dealing with a terrible layout. (Given the size of the screen, three column would work out to barely a word or two per line. I don't think there's anyone who finds vertically stacked words pleasant.)

    69. Re:Notes on New Features by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      The *engine* is integrated into the OS, but the *browser* is a simple application that can be deleted with no further effects.

      Any developer can build their own broswer on top of the WebKit engine, and Apple will do nothing at all to hinder them.

      If Apple do, then you can start looking at the lawyer thing, providing you can make an anti-trust case or something. That'll be hard with Apple at 5% of the market.

    70. Re:Notes on New Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When someone speaks to you like you are an annoying little bug that should just be squished, your best bet is to kick him in the nuts..

    71. Re:Notes on New Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there are at least three things to consider when deciding to engineer for not rebooting in this sort of situation:

      1) files held open (typical UNIX behaviour). Shared libraries already being used by e.g. Dashboard, or any number of other programs using /System/Library/.../Web{kit,core}* are hard to track down at all, let alone with any confidence that an application now running will not dynamically load in and cause a race condition. There are expensive ways around this (use space and keep all previous versions of libraries in memory and on disk until the next boot, and use stronger than typical dynamic link/load logic and a fully abstracted abi that allows for *every* application to upgrade to a new framework when it becomes available. Legacy apps lose.)

      2) shared resources (caches, state) with different ideas about what data structures should look like, how they should be accessed/mutated, and so forth could be an issue when two major versions of the same framework (set of libraries) are operating simultaneously (see (1)). There are expensive ways around this (COW *everything* when changing library versions).

      3) speed and reliability of recovery. if reboots are fast and "reopen ... from last session" in apps are fast and reliable it is probably better just to bite the bullet and reboot. otherwise, you need fast and reliable logic for dealing with changes to major frameworks.

      Nothing really does (3) well. However, rebooting at least makes all runtime dependencies consistent, whereas piecemeal replacement can lead to difficult-to-debug inconsistencies. There's a time-tradeoff that is repeated for every device doing a given upgrade: is it more efficient to recover all the state that is lost when restarting (times a large number of users), or is it more efficient to debug consistency problems affecting runtime state (times a smaller number of users)?

      If you've ever played around in package systems on a POSIXy box and ended up in dependency hell, you probably already appreciate the idea of staging a build/upgrade into a shadow directory tree that is cut over just before rebooting (i.e., after exiting/terminating all possible running applications, daemons, etc.).

      And that's basically what this Safari 4 (which updates Webkit/Webcore frameworks and libxml2 and so forth) did.

      If you really object, "man pkgutil", check "extract" out (it's a flat package), and check the property lists in the extracted pkg and edit the reboot requirement off. Inadvisable, but certainly possible. It's better just to defer the upgrade until a future time when a reboot is more acceptable. Especially since this isn't a critical security update, bugfix update, or even a formal feature upgrade. (It's a public beta, after all... and Apple is not yet Google).

    72. Re:Notes on New Features by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 1

      For Safari try Pithhelmet.

    73. Re:Notes on New Features by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 1

      Just FYI, I run a California campground website and the order of OS is Windows, Mac, iPhone, Linux for us (including the last 3 months)

    74. Re:Notes on New Features by Trillan · · Score: 1

      I believe Nitro is SquirrelFish Extreme, rather than SquirrelFish.

      What's the difference? Three months and a factor of two from SquirrelFish at the time to SquirrelFish Extreme. Probably some more gains since.

    75. Re:Notes on New Features by zonker · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Aside from Apple posting a website and saying the usual "it's wonderful" market-speech there, it is the tech media that is giving it all the hype. The media does more to hype Apple products (for the better or worse) than Apple has ever done. Let me know when they start posting ads on TV, magazines and websites for Safari 4.

      Sorry, I hate to sound like an Apple fanboy but it just struck me as a nit that needed picking.

    76. Re:Notes on New Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were you born an idiot or did it come with your ATT subscription plan?

      Wow, you must be fun at parties. I'm sure your conversational skills have gotten you far up the mailroom ladder.

    77. Re:Notes on New Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://safariadblock.sourceforge.net

      One down...

    78. Re:Notes on New Features by thexile · · Score: 1

      Safari 4 is still not the first Acid 3 compliant browser. It's still beta.

    79. Re:Notes on New Features by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Thus the "might be". Being in Beta is farther along than Opera 10. So Safari is likely to beat Opera to the market.

    80. Re:Notes on New Features by wkcole · · Score: 1

      The browser has been "tightly integrated into the operating system" for years and years. Welcome to THE YEAR 2000.

      One vendor's browser has been tightly integrated into their operating systems for years and years. That vendor is not Apple.

      Safari 1.0 wasn't released until mid-2003, and first shipped with MacOS X 10.3 (Panther) in October 2003, along with an aging and buggy MSIE (which was what Apple had shipped as the default browser since MacOS 8.1.) The relationship of Safari with MacOS X has never been like MSIE and Windows.

    81. Re:Notes on New Features by bonch · · Score: 1

      It looked blurry to you because Apple's text rendering tries to match what it would look like when printed, while Windows text rendering tries to be more pixel accurate for screen viewing.

    82. Re:Notes on New Features by bonch · · Score: 1

      Goddamn, you're being difficult. Text reflow doesn't work properly in all situations, and a true zoom that preserves the layout is needed for those cases.

    83. Re:Notes on New Features by Jswalden86 · · Score: 1

      Actually, passing Acid3 at this point apparently means supporting the standard wrongly

      Not really; if you support CSS level 2, 2.1, or don't support the CSS3 backgrounds and borders spec, the reference rendering of Acid2 is fully correct. The problem is Acid2 made an assumption that a standard CSS2.1 property would never be extended in a particular way by future CSS levels/specifications, but it was. If you support CSS3's current definition of background-color, then Firefox's rendering is correct. If you don't, then the reference rendering is correct. So really, latest Firefox and Safari are both correct.

      The problem isn't that anyone is or isn't failing, it's that Acid2's pass condition is not correct independent of implementation of future CSS specifications. It's not like this could really have been predicted, so it's more an odd quirk of the standards process than anything else.

      Incidentally, the spec might still change on this, partly because Acid2 would be broken and partly because the fallback color in CSS3 that causes the problem here is a bit of an oddball feature, both conceptually and syntactically. If it stays the fallback color might move to, say, background-image or require a disambiguating slash or something else to avoid this edge case (and not "regress" Acid2 to show red in compliant implementations).

      I think that illustrates why we shouldn't rely on tests like the Acid Tests too much when determining standards compatibility.

      I'll agree with this. The Acid tests demonstrate support for precisely what they contain; they imply support for much more than that, since nobody really thinks a full stack of Acid-specific hacks wouldn't go unnoticed if it were attempted, but unless you wrote or reviewed the patch it's going to be hard to find the unaddressed edge cases that the changes might not address in the relevant functionality.

      Nothing really demonstrates standards compatibility. However, a lot of tests of simple uses and complex uses in which multiple features interact in complex ways go a long way to showing that the particular features probably work correctly in practice.

      (Oh, I wrote the post you linked, if my username didn't make that clear. Good ol' referrer tracking for the win...)

    84. Re:Notes on New Features by Jswalden86 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how that's relevant, misunderstandings of your post's parent aside.

      On the subject of unsupported browser tests, a question: how much value do you actually derive in real-world browsing from SMIL, the remaining area of Acid3 not supported in Firefox? (Aside from being able to run Acid3 and see it pass, that is.) How much do you expect you would derive if SMIL support were widespread in browsers? I think the answer is very little, and I think my opinion deserves at least some consideration given that Ian has repeatedly stated that adding the SVG-related tests to Acid3 was a mistake. (I don't know that my questions touch upon the reasons Ian has for thinking that a mistake, but I do suspect unusefulness in general, even in an ideal world of SMIL-supporting browsers, played a factor.)

      Acid2 was good in my book, but Acid3 was much more of a grab bag. It mostly consisted of browser bugs found by searching through bug databases and through suggestions to Ian (I suggested a few, actually, based on knowledge of various Mozilla bugs), not something that deliberately set out to test functionality useful to web developers in general. Some of the fixes were utterly trivial (I fixed one that was a one-line change); others were more involved but not particularly difficult (I fixed several of these as well). Really, tho, the fundamental problem was that Acid2 tested things developers wanted to use but couldn't; Acid3 tested many things which will never see much use by developers.

    85. Re:Notes on New Features by thexile · · Score: 1

      Forgotten about Chrome? It's already a final product.

    86. Re:Notes on New Features by markiv34 · · Score: 0

      Safari might be loaded with a lot of features css animation etc, passes the acid3 test with flying colors but there are so many websites that are only Internet Explorer compliant and there is not answer to that. I know of many Bank websites that run only on Internet Explorer. Opera has been a leader in many thing tab preview, tabbed browsing, speed dial and many more thing, why not compare to Seamonkey, FireFox, Opera, Konqueror. When it comes to standards complaince Internet Explorer has never been upto the mark

      --
      No Black or White only shades of Gray
    87. Re:Notes on New Features by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      79/100. What about it?

    88. Re:Notes on New Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nitro JavaScript Engine

      Anyone know if this is a new engine or just Squirrelfish renamed?

      Acid 3 Compliance

      Looks like Safari might be the first Acid 3 browser to the market. Opera's version 10 is Acid 3 compliant, but it's still in Alpha testing.

      CSS 3 Web Fonts

      I noted this feature in Opera 10. The results shown in the demos were rather impressive. The web pages had more of a print-layout look to them without the classic trick of relying on images to cover all the content. This has the potential to completely change the look of the web for the better.

      CSS Canvas

      I'm still trying to figure out how being able to use Canvas as a style to apply to web elements is useful, but the idea definitely sounds cool. I suppose one could always set a fixed web page background as a canvas, then make it look like they're on an acid trip as they scroll. :-P

      I'm downloading the beta now. If it lives up to the hype that Apple is giving it, it will be an amazing piece of software.

      it's not that really a big deal if you've been using the webkit nightly's...

      Top Sites looks pretty, though.

      -- ac

  2. No so bold by kellyb9 · · Score: 1

    IE7 is actually getting a bit outdated as it is, so this claim isn't as bold as it seems. Why didn't they compare it to IE8? Or better yet if they really want to talk about speed, Google's Chrome is pretty fast.

    1. Re:No so bold by wereHamster · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://www.apple.com/safari/features.html - Safari 4 introduces the Nitro JavaScript engine, an advanced bytecode JavaScript engine that makes web browsing even faster. In fact, Safari 4 executes JavaScript up to 6 times faster than Internet Explorer 8 and up to 4 times faster than Firefox 3.1.

    2. Re:No so bold by hannson · · Score: 2, Informative

      On the Apple Safari feature page:
       

      Safari 4 introduces the Nitro JavaScript engine, an advanced bytecode JavaScript engine that makes web browsing even faster. In fact, Safari 4 executes JavaScript up to 6 times faster than Internet Explorer 8 and up to 4 times faster than Firefox 3.1.

      As the article sucks, here's some better info.

    3. Re:No so bold by prof_vestanpance · · Score: 0

      Chrome is based on Webkit so the comparison would probably be a bit redundant.

    4. Re:No so bold by pdabbadabba · · Score: 1

      Well, so far IE8's javasript performance is roughly 4x faster than IE7's (neowin), so...little bit of math...Safari 4's javascript performance should be about 7.5x faster than IE8 (beta)'s.

    5. Re:No so bold by WiseWeasel · · Score: 1

      Chrome uses a different in-house Javascript engine called "V8", though...

      --
      "I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
    6. Re:No so bold by pizzach · · Score: 1

      IE7 is actually getting a bit outdated as it is, so this claim isn't as bold as it seems. Why didn't they compare it to IE8? Or better yet if they really want to talk about speed, Google's Chrome is pretty fast.

      Comparisons are most useful when done against something someone knows. Most people know IE7. It also adds to the switch to a Mac argument when comparing against IE specifically. Is this case, marketers ask themselves, "Why NOT compare it to IE7?"

      --
      Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
    7. Re:No so bold by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

      The comparison against firefox that's in the summary is a good one, since the firefox engine is nearly as fast as the chrome engine, certainly close enough to call it equal for these purposes. The problem is that we need Resig and others to post their own benchmarks since the firefox engine slows significantly under certain recursive circumstances.

      In other words, they give a good comparison to modern and fast javascript engines, but they can't do anything to remove the bias from their tests.

    8. Re:No so bold by CortoMaltese · · Score: 1

      In fact, Safari 4 executes JavaScript [...] up to 4 times faster than Firefox 3.1.

      I did some Safari 4 vs. Firefox 3 testing using the definitive JavaScript test on PowerBook G4, and my test results indicate Firefox is slightly faster.

    9. Re:No so bold by jabithew · · Score: 1

      I see your anecdotal evidence and raise you a hearsay.

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
  3. Re:Top sites by Onaga · · Score: 1

    Chrome beat them to it.

  4. Saying you beat IE isn't much by kcbanner · · Score: 5, Funny

    Its like saying you beat the kid with a fake leg at sprinting, or beating the a preschooler at a spelling bee.

    --
    Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
    1. Re:Saying you beat IE isn't much by hendrix2k · · Score: 1

      Just as long as it isn't this sprinter.

    2. Re:Saying you beat IE isn't much by JuanCarlosII · · Score: 1

      That depends who you're racing.

    3. Re:Saying you beat IE isn't much by JuanCarlosII · · Score: 1

      That'll teach me to F5 before posting.

    4. Re:Saying you beat IE isn't much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but it's beating it by a factor of 30!

      This is the slightly more impressive stat, because it's like that time I beat up an entire class of first graders. There were 30 of them too! And believe me, it's a lot harder to get all 30 than it is to get just one.

      For one thing, they run really fast when scared.

    5. Re:Saying you beat IE isn't much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, sir, are correct.

    6. Re:Saying you beat IE isn't much by Karellen · · Score: 2, Funny

      I find it's much easier to go up against a lot of people. I haven't fought just one person for so long... I've been specializing in groups, fighting gangs for local charities... that kind of thing. You see, you use different moves when you're fighting half a dozen people than when you only have to worry about one. So just one person would give me so much trouble.

      --
      Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
    7. Re:Saying you beat IE isn't much by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Its called advertising. IE 7 still has the market share, and the largest group of users who will think it is important.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    8. Re:Saying you beat IE isn't much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No body who posts on /. could beet a preschooler at a speling bee.

    9. Re:Saying you beat IE isn't much by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Hi Fezzik. 'waves hello'

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  5. re: safari by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but does it run on linux?

  6. AdBlock and extensions by nkh · · Score: 2

    I love Safari and just installed the 4th version, and the Web Inspector is very pretty, but as long as extensions are not officially supported, I will use it for 24 hours only and switch back to Firefox (as I do for every new version of Safari).

    1. Re:AdBlock and extensions by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      Safari does have extensions... they call them plugins... though if you're on Windows I think you're out of luck.

      Ad Blocking for you. There are 7 options in this list. Most are free, I see one commercial offering.

      And of course you could always just use a hosts file and personal stylesheet to do the work yourself. If fact with the new support for CSS3 animations you could have some fun... make those ads do a dance before disappearing ;-p

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  7. But only in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the Reality Distortion Field!

    1. Re:But only in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah. I tried it out. It's blazing fast (at least on Mac) everywhere I used it compared to Firefox 3.0.6. At least it was after it took forever loading my top sites. Didn't bother trying it on my Windows box.

      Of course, speed isn't everything. I'd love for FF to be that fast, but I'm not giving up noscript, cookie button, adblock plus, etc. just for some speed.

  8. New look looks cluttered by line-bundle · · Score: 1

    I'm posting on it right now on a mac. It has some really innovative ideas and has made my day.

    However the titlebar now looks cluttered. Also, when you click on the title bar to focus, you might not get the window you were (half-) looking at. This is a bug they should fix.

    1. Re:New look looks cluttered by spud603 · · Score: 1

      I have always had the same issue with Firefox on mac. It's surprisingly frustrating.

  9. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been thinking of upgrading from my 56k modem connection that gets 48 kbps on a good day, but with a 30 times faster browser I won't need to! I can't tell how amazing that is! I can barely wait until the Safari 3.0 download finishes next week!

  10. From the horses mouth by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here's the actual claims from Apple's website:

    "Using the new Nitro Engine, for example, Safari executes JavaScript up to 30 times faster than Internet Explorer 7 and more than 3 times faster than Firefox 3 based on performance in leading industry benchmark tests: iBench and SunSpider.

    In addition to superior JavaScript performance, Safari offers top-flight HTML performance -- the best on any platform -- loading pages 3 times faster than Internet Explorer 7 and almost 3 times faster than Firefox 3."

    I'm not too familiar with either of these benchmarking programs, so I can't really pick at the results too much, but the actual claim is 'up to 30 times faster' which means that for some function it's 30 times faster, but for most it's probably not at that level of magnitude. It seems as though some of this important information was lost in the game of telephone that is internet news.

    Also, I'm more interested in how it stacks up against Firefox, Opera, and Chrome. Comparing it to IE7 is a little bit like Ford comparing their new car to a horse and cart. No offense meant to the browser, but from every chart I've seen it's the bottom of the barrel in terms of speed.

    1. Re:From the horses mouth by iangoldby · · Score: 1

      but the actual claim is 'up to 30 times faster' which means that for some function it's 30 times faster...

      Whenever I see the words up to I always mentally substitute no more than . For example: "No more than 30 times faster", "No more than 25% off", etc. You get the idea.

      If more people would do this then the silliness might stop.

    2. Re:From the horses mouth by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Comparing it to IE7 is a little bit like Ford comparing their new car to a horse and cart.

      Hey, a horse and cart can be faster than a Ford Mustang in an off-road race.

    3. Re:From the horses mouth by maztuhblastah · · Score: 1, Informative

      Let me guess that iBench is an apple app designed to highlight every slow part of JS in every browser. Oh and to be quick and use anything that Safari actually does right. Seems like a fair test to me. I bet even MS could make IE7 30 times quicker in some tests than Safari if they wanted too.

      Good guess. Unfortunately, you're wrong. It's an open source benchmarking app for Mac OS X.

    4. Re:From the horses mouth by Thornburg · · Score: 1

      Have you ever tried googling before opening your mouth?

      iBench is an open source benchmark tool for OS X.

      It's hosted on SourceForge.

      http://ibench.sourceforge.net/

    5. Re:From the horses mouth by RegularFry · · Score: 1

      Let me guess that iBench is an apple app

      No. Next?

      --
      Reality is the ultimate Rorschach.
    6. Re:From the horses mouth by hattig · · Score: 1

      That's odd. I was just reading the Apple Safari 4 page, and it very very clearly had graphs comparing Safari 4 with Chrome, Firefox (3.0 and 3.1 alpha), IE7 and IE8.

      Also, for you Safari-Is-Brushed-Metal moaners:

      Windows Native Look and Feel
      If youâ(TM)re using Safari on a PC with Windows Vista or Windows XP, youâ(TM)ll feel right at home. Thatâ(TM)s because Safari features a native look â" just like other Windows applications â" including a native title bar, borders, and toolbars. To provide a consistent Windows experience, Safari now uses Windows standard fonts, but you can choose to use Appleâ(TM)s crisp anti-aliased fonts if you prefer. Of course, Safari in Windows delivers the same lightning-fast performance provided by the Mac version.

    7. Re:From the horses mouth by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 1

      I doubt that. If you are trying to claim all of this is smoke and mirrors you're wrong.

    8. Re:From the horses mouth by Halo1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is about a completely different iBench. If you look at the the benchmark graphs, you'll note that

      • the displayed results are actually for Windows (click on the Mac link at the top to see the Mac results)
      • at the bottom: HTML and JavaScript benchmarks based on VeriTestâ(TM)s iBench Version 5.0 using default settings and the SunSpider Performance test.
      --
      Donate free food here
    9. Re:From the horses mouth by silent_artichoke · · Score: 1

      My favorite is "Up to XX% or more!!!" I figure they really have no clue and pulled that number out of their collective ass.

    10. Re:From the horses mouth by maztuhblastah · · Score: 2

      Good guess. Unfortunately, you're wrong. It's an open source benchmarking app for Mac OS X. [sourceforge.net]

      Good guess. Unfortunately, I'm wrong. That's (apparently) the wrong iBench. Mea culpa!

    11. Re:From the horses mouth by Lepton68 · · Score: 1

      When I see an "up to" claim I always add the "down to"...

      Up to 50% ,down to 0% off the full price. Up to 30% faster, down to 100% slower.

      Really deflates most claims...

      --
      Mike from www.myallo.com/blog
    12. Re:From the horses mouth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more than 3 times faster than Firefox 3

      Hmm, that's not fast at all, actually. Firefox 3.0 doesn't include TraceMonkey, which will appear in 3.1 (within the next few months). TraceMonkey is comparable to V8 and Safari's next-gen engines, while Firefox 3.0 has a last-gen engine.

      I haven't seen benchmarks yet, but based on being "3x faster than Firefox 3.0", I'm guessing it won't outperform Chrome or Firefox 3.1 in any significant way.

    13. Re:From the horses mouth by adisakp · · Score: 1

      Comparing it to IE7 is a little bit like Ford comparing their new car to a horse and cart.

      I'd say it's a fair comparison - granted a comparison against IE8 beta would be better. But comparing Apple's browser to the most recently fully supported browser released (IE7) from a different software company (MS) should not be considered unfair. MS has invested millions if not billions in IE development over the years. I'm pretty sure that MS has invested significantly more than Apple in Browser technology.

      The fact that IE sucks so much after all this money and time in development and that it's getting it's butt kicked on both standards and performance is a damning statement of Microsoft's competance as a software company.

    14. Re:From the horses mouth by memco · · Score: 1

      Yup, I can make IE7 break layouts 30 times faster, or I can make it crash 30 times faster, all kinds of things IE7 can do WAY faster than safari...

      --
      Get me a meat pie floater!
    15. Re:From the horses mouth by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      Reading your descriptions of the claims, I'm definitely interested.

      I guess it doesn't run on Linux, though. Right?

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    16. Re:From the horses mouth by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that, on another note, I here they posted a picture of you http://iggy.soup.io/post/13482237/finally-thank-you/

    17. Re:From the horses mouth by abhi_beckert · · Score: 1

      Also, I'm more interested in how it stacks up against Firefox, Opera, and Chrome. Comparing it to IE7 is a little bit like Ford comparing their new car to a horse and cart. No offense meant to the browser, but from every chart I've seen it's the bottom of the barrel in terms of speed.

      Actually "the bottom" of the barrel is IE 6, which still has about 30% marketshare on the websites I work on.

      But the real reason they're talking about IE 7 is simple: it's their only real competitor.

      Firefox's real strength is being customisable, which aims it squarely at a different target market to Safari. Chrome is using the same rendering engine as Safari, so any new marketshare to either one benefits both browsers and there's tons of markethsare available right now, and opera is too insignificant to even consider (Safari already has hardly any users and even it has 12x more than Opera according to wikipedia's reference: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=0)

    18. Re:From the horses mouth by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Common sense would dictate that a benchmark tool for OS X would be completely useless for benchmarking IE7 which only runs on Windows, which then puts us right back at "What is iBench?"

  11. How does firefox maintain competitive advantage? by HockeyPuck · · Score: 3, Funny

    If IE and Safari can look at Firefox's source code and see exactly how FF implement's something, how can FF maintain a competitive advantage as a core browser. By core browser I mean without all the plugins/themes/extensions. IE/Safari already have a distribution advantage in that the browser comes with the OS. I'm going to a assume that the folks over at Mozilla would not declare victory if Apple/MSFT decided one day to reskin and rename FF and package it with their OS.

    It's a unfair advantage that the OS vendors can see the source code of FF, however the reverse is not true. So if Safari has this great performance, how can the FF figure out how Safari does it?

  12. Re:Top sites by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    For what i saw in safari site, the functionality is pretty similar to Opera builtin Speed Dial and Firefox's Fast Dial extension.

    Is not trivial to innovate over what Opera do since years ago, at least in the meaningful features.

  13. Re:Top sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The new top sites feature is cool. It shows the sites you visit most often all in a window.

    Quite embarrassing if you ask me.

  14. Re:Top sites by AMSmith42 · · Score: 2, Informative

    >Chrome beat them to it.

    Not on the Mac, they didn't.

    http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/mac.html

  15. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by Tinlad · · Score: 5, Informative

    So if Safari has this great performance, how can the FF figure out how Safari does it?

    By heading over to WebKit.org and downloading the open source rendering engine it uses?

  16. Native look and feel by reashlin · · Score: 1

    WTF?!?!? It still looks out of place...even the screenshots can't make it blend in with vista. Native look and feel means a complete skin replacement, not just window chrome.

  17. Titles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the dealio with misleading titles on Slashdot?

  18. Re:Top sites by MacColossus · · Score: 0

    Maybe if midget or amputee porn are in your top sites. Believe it or not, I have no porn sites in my top sites.

  19. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by prof_vestanpance · · Score: 1

    "So if Safari has this great performance, how can the FF figure out how Safari does it?" By looking at the Open Source Webkit that drives Safari.

  20. Removes existing installations by JuanCarlosII · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Given that this alleges to be a beta version and according to its own EULA:

    THIS IS PRE-RELEASE, TIME-LIMITED SOFTWARE MEANT FOR EVALUATION AND DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SOFTWARE SHOULD NOT BE USED IN A COMMERCIAL OPERATING ENVIRONMENT OR WITH IMPORTANT DATA.

    why do Apple insist on removing any existing Safari 3 install when installing?

    If we are supposed to evaluate and develop, then surely it would be prudent to allow a stable version to also be installed alongside for mission-critical usage.

    Surely it's a TERRIBLE idea for non-stable, evaluation software to disallow the use of an alternative stable version?

    1. Re:Removes existing installations by reashlin · · Score: 1

      Safari have Googleitis. Symptoms: releasing ALL software under the term Beta so that any bugs are just untested parts of the application. Seriously - they seem to have removed all traces of Safari 3 from their website as well. This is not a "beta" app in the traditional sense. Its a "play-it-safe" release.

    2. Re:Removes existing installations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      They've been over this again and again (and I'm too lazy to do the Googling for you). The browser comprises two parts, WebKit, the rendering engine, and Safari, the front-end. Much like Mozilla and Firefox.

      They replace the system-wide WebKit FOR DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES, so it can be tested with iTunes, Mail, and Dashboard (and other apps that use WebKit). The old Safari is not compatible with new WebKit, but both the old Safari and WebKit are preserved, so you can revert the change.

      If you want to develop for the new WebKit, download WebKit which does nastiness to allow you to use the old Safari and the new WebKit.

    3. Re:Removes existing installations by juuri · · Score: 1

      IIRC This includes a full new version of webkit.

      While it's relatively easy if you know what you are doing to have different browsers, with different whatevers... based on WebKit/Safari kit when you are releasing something to the masses (where you want specific kinds of diagnostic feedback) your aim is for a simple process.

      Why did you insist on installing this without verifying what it would do first? Why not run a nightly if you want both? If you are evaluating and "developing" then spend the 5 minutes to do it right.

      This is your FAIL; not Apple's.

      (Although there are many in this release.)

      --
      --- I do not moderate.
    4. Re:Removes existing installations by Explodicle · · Score: 1

      Replacing the previous version is functionality that the production version needs to have. If the feature is disabled in beta, it won't be tested, and problems won't get fixed. It would be nice if they added an option to turn replacement of the previous version on and off, but that would require spending time/money on a feature that won't be in the production version. Assuming there are more than enough people willing to test the beta despite this handicap, this is the most cost-effective option.

    5. Re:Removes existing installations by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Since it's a beta, it would make more sense to distribute it like the nightlies, as a stand-alone .app containing the WebKit framework. Then users could just run it, or Safari 3.1, or a WebKit nightly. Replacing the system-wide browser with a beta seems to be a fail to me.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Removes existing installations by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      The nightly builds of WebKit are stand-alone (it's an application called WebKit that contains its own stand-alone WebKit library), but the Safari beta replaces your system's WebKit library so Dashboard and other applications can use it. Since the whole point of a beta release is to test it, and the final version will work this way, it would be kind of pointless not to do this.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    7. Re:Removes existing installations by rizzo320 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Link for Safari 3:

      http://support.apple.com/downloads/#internet

      Clearly labeled as "Looking for Safari 3? Download here" at bottom of the Safari 4 download page.

    8. Re:Removes existing installations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely it's a TERRIBLE idea for non-stable, evaluation software to disallow the use of an alternative stable version?

      Not if the alt/stable version interferes with the eval version, and don't call us Surely.

    9. Re:Removes existing installations by dreemernj · · Score: 1

      That is very annoying. Although this has been the case with test versions of FF and IE as well. I don't know if test versions of FireFox still say not to install them along side existing FireFox installations, but I've been told that a few times before and the result has been the test version taking over the existing version.

      Are there any browsers besides Opera that allow you to have as many copies of as many versions of it installed as you want?

      --
      1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
    10. Re:Removes existing installations by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      The difference is, Safari 4 will be out of beta within 6 months.

      You're right, though: this is a "play it safe" release.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    11. Re:Removes existing installations by yabos · · Score: 1

      Yeah it's so hard to find Safari 3, except for the link labeled "Looking for Safari 3? Download here" right on the Safari download page here http://www.apple.com/safari/download/

    12. Re:Removes existing installations by yabos · · Score: 1

      If you download the Webkit nightlies, the webkit framework is included in the webkit application bundle. Apple could easily do this as well for the 4.0 beta.

    13. Re:Removes existing installations by mzs · · Score: 1

      And this would exercise the help system's, iTunes', and Dashboard's use of webkit how?

    14. Re:Removes existing installations by Angostura · · Score: 1

      You will notice that the installer comes with an uninstaller. Guess what that does.

    15. Re:Removes existing installations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't install Safari 3 if you have Safari 4 installed. I tried it myself. And it's a pain, because Safari 4 is crashing on startup for me. Lame.

    16. Re:Removes existing installations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The uninstall for Safari 4 restores your old Safari 3 browser. It doesn't seem to download it (as I did the uninstall without a net connection and got Safari 3 back).

      So, after installing Safari 4, your old Safari 3 is hiding somewhere on your drive - just not in the top-level Applications directory.

    17. Re:Removes existing installations by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Link for Safari 3: http://support.apple.com/downloads/#internet Clearly labeled as "Looking for Safari 3? Download here" at bottom of the Safari 4 download page.

      You mean they hid it just like the "Quicktime without iTunes" download?

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    18. Re:Removes existing installations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear fool,

      Please see the "Uninstall Safari 4 Beta" included in the disk image.

    19. Re:Removes existing installations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I stick to Opera (who has the time to keep hunting extensions and install updates every other day?), but I understand that if you're careful, you can do it

    20. Re:Removes existing installations by dreemernj · · Score: 1

      That is very helpful!

      --
      1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
    21. Re:Removes existing installations by vasi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've put together some docs on creating a standalone Safari 4: http://vasi.dyndns.org:3128/svn/SafariBeta/ . It runs exactly like the beta, only it does not replace the system's WebKit library and does not replace Safari 3. So you can continue to use the old Safari, and your applications will not use the new WebKit (and potentially break because of it).

      It also has a tiny patch allowing the use of an auxiliary preferences file. This lets you disable incompatible InputManager hacks for Safari 4 only, while Safari 3 will still use them.

      A couple of responses to miscellaneous comments in this thread:

      - Following the "Looking for Safari 3" link will just end up overwriting Safari 4 and its WebKit. Congratulations, you've reverted back to where you were before! But you still can't run Safari 3 and Safari 4 side-by-side.

      - Seriously, WebKit nightlies include WebKit inside their bundle, and other apps therefore don't see the new WebKit. This works. It is a standard technique on OS X, do not be surprised.

      - It is indeed a good thing that the Safari 4 beta upgrades the WebKit library, things really need to be tested before Safari 4 final is released and millions of users have their apps break. However, there's no excuse for Apple not providing a standalone Safari 3 so we can test in both versions. Also, this public beta is quite different from the last semi-private developer release of Safari 4--Apple really should have provided the beta as a dev release first, so folks could fix their WebKit-using apps.

      --
      "Hey, who took the cork off my lunch?" -- W. C. Fields
    22. Re:Removes existing installations by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Click the "Uninstall Safari 4 Beta" in the disk image you used to install Safari 4.

      I know you saw it, it's right there next to the install package.

  21. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by jerep · · Score: 1

    It would seems to me people with ideas are always ahead of people copying ideas.

  22. Comparing to old outdated tech isn't a win. by y86 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Yeah windows IE7 is better than Netscape 4.0. A like product should be compared to a like product.

    They don't compare it Chrome.

    Chrome is insanely fast. Chrome is all I use now for browsing. I can middle click on my "daily" folder which spawns 12 tabs. All tabs are loaded in less than 2 seconds.

    1. Re:Comparing to old outdated tech isn't a win. by hattig · · Score: 1

      They do compare it to Chrome.

      http://www.apple.com/safari/whats-new.html#performance

      Next.

    2. Re:Comparing to old outdated tech isn't a win. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chrome is based on Webkit, as is Safari. That would be like saying Safari is exactly as fast as Safari! Well duh. It uses the same engine.

    3. Re:Comparing to old outdated tech isn't a win. by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      They're comparing it to Microsoft's latest and greatest. Seems fair to me, even if it is like beating a one-legged man.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    4. Re:Comparing to old outdated tech isn't a win. by mraway · · Score: 1

      That performance looks awesome!

    5. Re:Comparing to old outdated tech isn't a win. by InfiniteLoopCounter · · Score: 1

      Seems fair to me, even if it is like beating a one-legged man.

      Hate to be pedantic here, but you have to specify what kind of contest. Otherwise, it is ambiguous.

      For instance, if it were a hopping contest, the one-legged man might have the slight edge.

  23. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by djcapelis · · Score: 1

    > how can the FF figure out how Safari does it?

    Man they'd have to like, use the Internet or something: http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk

    That's the source code to webkit, the rendering engine behind Safari. It's licensed under the LGPL.

    The reason, in case you were wondering, is because it was started from an open-source rendering engine called KHTML, which was written by the KDE project. The LGPL made sure that when Apple started improving it their improvements would stay in the open.

    And so you *can* in fact see all the nice things Apple has done with Safari and all the speed tricks they're working on.

    --
    I touch computers in naughty places
  24. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by mystik · · Score: 2, Informative

    Safari has Webkit @ it's core.

    FF devs can look @ the Webkit source. FF devs can also look @ the Google Chrome Source, which is also based on webkit.

    In fact, webkit is licensed under BSD + GPL, so IANAL, but I think this mesans FF can even *use* webkit's code directly in their browser ...

    --
    Why aren't you encrypting your e-mail?
  25. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    And what if IE has great performance, too, how will Firefox ever be able to keep up with that?

  26. Classic Apple performance claim inflation by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 3, Informative

    Apple loves to put in meaningless benchmarks with no real-world meaning to hype their products.

    For example, the "3 times faster than a Pentium II" claims back in some of the older PowerPC days - this was true for a single Photoshop operation that at that point had Altivec optimizations on PPC but was running straight scalar code (no MMX) on a P2.

    For nearly all other applications, the P2 was equal to or faster than the PPC. But Apple hyped their systems based on that one single meaningless-for-most-people benchmark. (As opposed to AMD's speed rating system which for the Athlon XPs was based on a suite of benchmarks and their average comparison to a similarly clocked P4, which was typically pretty accurate.)

    Here, how is Apple magically eliminating network latency and providing infinite network bandwidth with browser changes? For nearly all users, the network is the bottleneck.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    1. Re:Classic Apple performance claim inflation by ogdenk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Apple loves to put in meaningless benchmarks with no real-world meaning to hype their products.

      For example, the "3 times faster than a Pentium II" claims back in some of the older PowerPC days - this was true for a single Photoshop operation that at that point had Altivec optimizations on PPC but was running straight scalar code (no MMX) on a P2.

      If your going to spout blind FUD, do your homework. Altivec didn't even exist on PowerPC's back when the Pentium II was around. The current PowerPC CPUs were the PowerPC 604 and the newcomer was the G3.

      Altivec didn't arrive until the G4 and by then the Pentium III was out and selling.

      At the same clock rate, the PowerPC really was quite a bit faster. Not by rediculous "3x" margins but it really was quite a bit faster. The PowerPC is also a much cleaner and well-thought-out architecture. Anybody that still does any ASM can definitely vouch for this.

      Just because IBM/Moto/Apple didn't have the R&D dollars to polish a turd until it hit 4GHz doesn't mean the PowerPC sucked. It was and still is an awesome architecture.

      For nearly all other applications, the P2 was equal to or faster than the PPC.

      No, it wasn't. I ran several real-world benchmarks as I owned an Apple B&W G3 tower and a Pentium II at the time.

      Are they as fast as Apple claimed? Hell no. Were they genuinely faster? Yes.

      For nearly all users, the network is the bottleneck.

      Now that is very accurate. For what most people use a computer for, a single-board 1.6Ghz atom machine with a GMA950 is more than they'll ever need for web browsing, e-mail, playing youtube videos and running Word. A faster machine doesn't make you type faster or make web pages load faster.

      Safari's improvements though are very welcome as they free CPU cycles for more useful things. A more efficient app is always a welcome change.

    2. Re:Classic Apple performance claim inflation by juuri · · Score: 3, Funny

      Damn; you got served by a 5UID.

      --
      --- I do not moderate.
    3. Re:Classic Apple performance claim inflation by onefriedrice · · Score: 1

      Apple loves to put in meaningless benchmarks with no real-world meaning to hype their products.

      This applies to all companies in all markets. Such is the nature of advertising. Do you think the FTC will ever waste their resources investigating the correctness of a claim like this?

      Almost all companies (pharmaceuticals and the like excepted) make equally absurd claims in their advertising, because they can. You probably notice Apple's outrageous claims more than others because presumably you understand something about benchmarking and what's really happening a lot better than someone who isn't so involved with computers. However, I'd bet you are affected by other forms of misleading advertising regularly, in areas where you are not so informed.

      --
      This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
    4. Re:Classic Apple performance claim inflation by PsychicX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That still doesn't explain why G3 and G4 based machines are so god awful slow. Is it become OSX is so absurdly RAM hungry?

    5. Re:Classic Apple performance claim inflation by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For what most people use a computer for, a single-board 1.6Ghz atom machine with a GMA950 is more than they'll ever need for web browsing, e-mail, playing youtube videos and running Word. A faster machine doesn't make you type faster or make web pages load faster.

      I'm typing this on a 1.2GHz G4 Mac. I promise you that any browser improvements that make the new AJAXey Slashdot load faster than frozen molasses will be quite welcome.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    6. Re:Classic Apple performance claim inflation by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

      A faster machine doesn't make you type faster...

      Unless you're using voice recognition. /offtopic

    7. Re:Classic Apple performance claim inflation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of that matters. The only thing that does is the fastest x86 was ALWAYS faster than the fastest PPC CPU. Comparing "clock to clock" performance or efficiency is meaningless, only the end results matter.

      As for the PPC being a "cleaner" architecture, that is only your opinion. I prefer x86/x64.

    8. Re:Classic Apple performance claim inflation by Bullet-Dodger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Up until a few months ago I was running OS X on a 867MHz G4 with a half a gig of ram and it ran just fine.

    9. Re:Classic Apple performance claim inflation by ogdenk · · Score: 0, Troll

      None of that matters. The only thing that does is the fastest x86 was ALWAYS faster than the fastest PPC CPU.

      Wrong. The G5 mopped the floor with the Pentium IV's for a long time.

      The G4 was faster than the early Pentium 3's that were around when it debuted. It lost its edge for a while but the newer DDR-based G4's are certainly no slouch.

      The G3 kicked the Pentium II's ass.

      Clock-for-clock performance benchmarks do matter. So does efficiency. Intel sucked until the Core series. And surprise.... my old 1.42Ghz G4 w/ DDR RAM is FASTER than the first intel 1.83GHz core solo-based mac mini. Even though the core solo is much newer.

      It only "doesn't matter" to some punk kid who just wants to play games whose mommy and daddy are loaded and don't mind the sound of a jet engine in their living room.

      Core and Core 2 are definitely huge improvements but that doesn't mean the Intel instruction set isn't awful.

      As for the PPC being a "cleaner" architecture, that is only your opinion. I prefer x86/x64.

      x64 cleans some things up but straight x86 is awful. Not a matter of opinion. A matter of cold hard facts. If you did much ASM and had to deal with Intel CPU's pretty close to the metal, you would realize how bad it is. Especially if you ever dealt with other architectures like m68k.

      SPARC and PowerPC are much cleaner architectures than x86 will ever be.

    10. Re:Classic Apple performance claim inflation by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      I've installed Safari 4 and while it seems slightly faster than Firefox 3, it's only very slightly. In some ways it's far slower. It starts significantly slower, and scrolling up and down is also much slower. So, there may be some improvements but it definitely comes with some costs. It's also a big memory hog. Perhaps they will eliminate these issues before it goes gold.

      That said, I'm LOVING the new CSS 3 web fonts! Looks awesome!

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    11. Re:Classic Apple performance claim inflation by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      Clarification, the above review was for the Windows version. On the Mac, the startup and scrolling problem doesn't exist. It's still a huge memory hog though.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    12. Re:Classic Apple performance claim inflation by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      Well I'm serving you with my 6UID. The meek shall inherit! The meek shall inherit!

    13. Re:Classic Apple performance claim inflation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Wrong. The G5 mopped the floor with the Pentium IV's for a long time."

      Do you have any non-Photoshop filter benchmarks to back up that claim? In any case, you're wrong. Pentium 4 3GHz was out the same year the G5 came out. There was no competition, the best Pentium 4 and Athlon CPUs beat the best G5 CPUs.

      "The G4 was faster than the early Pentium 3's that were around when it debuted. It lost its edge for a while but the newer DDR-based G4's are certainly no slouch."

      Wrong again. By the time the G4 came out, the Pentium III 600MHz had already been released. Those spanked the G4 at basically everything. I know this from firsthand experience since I was a network admin at the time and had access to both new P3 and G4 systems.

      "The G3 kicked the Pentium II's ass."

      Wrong yet again. At best the G3 rivaled the Pentium II in performance.

      "Clock-for-clock performance benchmarks do matter. So does efficiency. Intel sucked until the Core series. And surprise.... my old 1.42Ghz G4 w/ DDR RAM is FASTER than the first intel 1.83GHz core solo-based mac mini. Even though the core solo is much newer."

      The original Core was an abysmal failure, that is why Intel brought out the Core 2 the very same year. I guarantee you that your G4 won't touch any Core 2 CPU in performance.

      "It only "doesn't matter" to some punk kid who just wants to play games whose mommy and daddy are loaded and don't mind the sound of a jet engine in their living room."

      Whatever makes you feel better, but I find it funny that you bring up cost since any Apple G3/4/5 costed significantly more than an equivalent or better x86 PC.

      "x64 cleans some things up but straight x86 is awful. Not a matter of opinion. A matter of cold hard facts. If you did much ASM and had to deal with Intel CPU's pretty close to the metal, you would realize how bad it is. Especially if you ever dealt with other architectures like m68k.

      SPARC and PowerPC are much cleaner architectures than x86 will ever be."

      Nope, it's your opinion. I used to write a lot of x86 assembly back in the days of the 8086, 286, 386 and 486. Never had a problem with it.

    14. Re:Classic Apple performance claim inflation by Hatta · · Score: 1

      For nearly all users, the network is the bottleneck.

      That's not really true. Javascript bloat is becoming a bigger and bigger performance problem. Especially in Firefox, where the entire UI hangs while scripts are running. Just try viewing slashdot.org. On my home connection it takes longer for javascript to format the tags on the front page than it does to fetch the page.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    15. Re:Classic Apple performance claim inflation by BollocksToThis · · Score: 1

      What version of OS X was this? I have a similar machine (slightly more RAM), and it seems to me 10.4 would rather stay in bed. I would happily put an older version on there, but I don't know which one would run well on this machine (and I don't currently have any versions to test with).

      --
      This sig is part of your complete breakfast.
    16. Re:Classic Apple performance claim inflation by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The only thing that does is the fastest x86 was ALWAYS faster than the fastest PPC CPU.

      Uh, no. Other than the low power varieties (603e), PowerPC chips were faster, mhz for mhz, than anything from Intel or AMD. And for a time, they were faster mhz wise as well. Until Apple killed the cloners and IBM and Motorola lost interest in PowerPC development. So it didn't matter if your G4 was a better design than a P4, if the P4 has a ghz over the G4.

      When Apple released the G5, IBM promised them a 3 ghz chip within a year - and years later, they never delivered on that, or on a low power version suitable for laptops. So Apple cut their losses and went with Intel.

    17. Re:Classic Apple performance claim inflation by tyrione · · Score: 1

      My iBook 1Ghz G4 with 1.5GB of Ram runs Safari Beta 4 very well. Go break the bank and spend $40 for RAM. Or you can always upgrade system.

    18. Re:Classic Apple performance claim inflation by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Mhz vs mhz performance doesn't matter.

      Of course it does. See also: AMD when they assigned their processors marketing ratings above the actual mhz of the chip so consumers wouldn't always take the 3.4 ghz P4 over the 2.6 ghz Athlon.

      If your PPC can't reach 3GHz, that's too bad for you because x86 processors can and do.

      Read much? What I said:

      Until Apple killed the cloners and IBM and Motorola lost interest in PowerPC development. So it didn't matter if your G4 was a better design than a P4, if the P4 has a ghz over the G4.

      When Apple released the G5, IBM promised them a 3 ghz chip within a year - and years later, they never delivered on that, or on a low power version suitable for laptops. So Apple cut their losses and went with Intel.

      Killing the cloners might have saved Apple, but killing the clones being made by the people who make your chips puts a bit of a damper on their desire to keep developing chips for you. Motorola was seriously pushing their clones as business machines and were offering five year standard warranties on their models at the time - their CEO was pissed when Apple pulled the plug.

      Also, PPC never had a clockspeed advantage over x86. You must have dreamed that or something.

      No, I didn't dream of the PowerPC 604 processor, which had a higher clock speed than Pentium processors at the time, as well as being a more powerful chip mhz for mhz. But then Apple killed the clones, Moto was pissed, and the rest is history.

    19. Re:Classic Apple performance claim inflation by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      How did this get +4 informative?

      It's -5 wrong. Altivec in the pentium 2 era? What the fuck are you smoking?

      The FUD is strong in this one.

    20. Re:Classic Apple performance claim inflation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *crickets*

    21. Re:Classic Apple performance claim inflation by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      Gee, using your argument, the Core 2 Duo is a worse CPU than the Pentium IV or Pentium D 940 when in reality it's MUCH faster.

  27. Vultures by Oakk · · Score: 0, Troll

    High five apple! You've managed to steal the good functions from other browsers and claim to innovative. Top sites from Chrome (and Opera) and Full History from Opera! To top it all off you compare the speed to IE7 (the slowest browser) on a sub-par benchmarking system. Way to make yourselves look legit. Stay tuned for Apple's next Safari release in which they'll come up with the innovative idea to allow user made extensions to the browser.

    1. Re:Vultures by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      The average user, is entirely unaware of this whole heated battle of the browsers nonsense.

      To them, all they see is "new update to Safari available", and they install it, and suddenly they have all these new amazing features, because to them, they are new.

      Stability and consistency is far more important than the latest and greatest toys. Personally, I have no real use or preference for Safari, but I'm not going to attack them for simply bringing in some features their users might like. Chances are pretty good that every feature of every single browser, of every platform, was already created somewhere else beforehand.

      Likewise, especially if you are a fanboi of whatever browser you use, you will rant and rave about how it has this feature that no other browser has, yet, you don't actually use it.

      And lastly, it's not exactly an instantaneous thing, there are quite a few factors they have to take into consideration, it's not just as easy as "hey thats cool, lets add that to ours" and 2 days later its coded, tested, packaged and posted. Much like any software, there is a 1 to 1.5 years between major releases, and you can't exactly force every browser to align their releases.

      Besides, Safari 4.0 has been around for almost a year as a developers preview.

      P.S. Opera User.

    2. Re:Vultures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the other browsers no longer have the features?

    3. Re:Vultures by Oakk · · Score: 0

      I'm not an Opera user. I'm fully aware of how code is written and the steps necessary to implement it. I'm also fully aware of how the average user interacts with the program. My issue is that they're calling it innovation, when it's clearly not.

    4. Re:Vultures by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The average user, is entirely unaware of this whole heated battle of the browsers nonsense.

      The average user doesn't read slashdot and is entirely irrelevant to the current conversation. If they are here, they are probably confused as fuck.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  28. Using the claims as a metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So IE operates at 1/30 Safari speed and Firefox operates at 1/3 Safari speed.
    Which means Firefox is 10 times faster than IE. Not my experience...

    1. Re:Using the claims as a metric by matazar · · Score: 1

      What about Opera?
      Which loads faster for me than any of the 3?

      I'd test the new Safari, but as my friend pointed out it fucks up Windows Live Messenger, so I'll wait until they fix that. If they ever do.

  29. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by djcapelis · · Score: 1

    BSD + LGPL actually. Which means *anyone* can use webkit's code in their browser, even a closed-source project. (And many do!)

    --
    I touch computers in naughty places
  30. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are assuming that Microsoft and Apple will see things in FF code that they could improve and do better than FF. So what.. The purpose of Open Source is just that. Get many eyes on the code and look for improvements. For every Microsoft developer looking at the code there many more open source developers also looking for improvements and creating new functionality.

  31. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by reashlin · · Score: 1

    Through the power of open software many developers can group together allowing many more times the programming ability than MS or Apple could ever pay for. What you mean you've never considered giving back to the FF project. This will always be a "disadvantage" (if you want to call it that) of Open software in a proprietary product world. But TBH who cares. If Safari and IE get better because of FF then FF has done its job as much as if it became the only browser in use. Software popularity is something only a pretentious prick would aim for. Actually impacting others development and making all software better - now thats a worth goal.

  32. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by djcapelis · · Score: 1

    Er... sorry, that should read "webkit" not "webkit's code"

    LGPL or GPL rendering engines can use webkit's code, but closed-source projects have to use the whole engine or publicly provide the alterations they make.

    --
    I touch computers in naughty places
  33. History by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has got to be the worst idea ever in a browser. I don't want to see my top visited websites, and I'm betting that if you guys are honest with yourself, you don't want to see yours either. I hope they provide an option to turn that tracking stuff off (that doesn't require a command-line parameter [I'm looking at you, Chrome!]).

    1. Re:History by Tirhakah · · Score: 1

      Safari has had Private Browsing for ages. I'm not hot on my browser history, but I believe it was one of, if not the, first to do this. (correct me if I'm wrong)

    2. Re:History by pohl · · Score: 1

      Private Browsing was introduced in version 2.0 of Safari, back in April '05.

      --

      The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

  34. Re:Top sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fap fap fap

  35. Me likey... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's what I know:
    It passed acid3 with 11 tests having to be retaken in order to pass. (not perfect) it feels fast, but at the same time laggy. (scrolling is fast, but isn't smooth, sort of choppy) and it has a minimal gui (me likey). Its going to be a great firefox replacement for a day :D

  36. Mac and PC? by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 1

    Ok, in this case PC is MS Windows. So it doesn't run on GNU/Linux. Considering the current Macs are build using almost the same components as any other PC (the only real difference being the lack of the old BIOS) they might as well drop the useless distinction and simply refer to MS Windows.

    1. Re:Mac and PC? by Paradigm_Complex · · Score: 1

      It's advantageous for Apple to keep consumers thinking that all non-Apple machines can be bunched up into the same category (ie, "PC's"). If you are not 100% happy with your machine - and it's not a Mac - you should probably get a Mac. It's simple and avoids a lot of potential confusion ("Do I have a Microsoft or Dell?"). It also helps ensure a potential customer does not realize there are other non-Microsoft options out there.

      --
      "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
  37. Kills Growl Mail.app Plugin by bhima · · Score: 2, Funny

    So it looks like the Safari 4 beta causes the growl plugin for the mail.app to crash the mail.app

    great.

    --
    Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    1. Re:Kills Growl Mail.app Plugin by matazar · · Score: 1

      It also borks Windows Live Messenger on Windows Machines.

    2. Re:Kills Growl Mail.app Plugin by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      They should really document features like that. I was going to skip the download, but now I'm eagerly awaiting its completion!

    3. Re:Kills Growl Mail.app Plugin by prockcore · · Score: 1

      It also kills all but the newest version of xcode.

    4. Re:Kills Growl Mail.app Plugin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      funny? ironic perhaps, but i'm not laughing.

  38. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    And what if IE has great performance, too, how will Firefox ever be able to keep up with that?

    Anyone believe that this will ever happen?

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  39. More Fun Demos by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Interesting
    1. Re:More Fun Demos by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 0
      "Video tag (requires Quicktime)"

      I've been wondering - can anyone confirm whether or not Safari 4 will correctly handle the same Ogg Vorbis/Theora <audio>/<video> tags that Firefox 3.1 hypothetically will (assuming it is ever released[1]...) if one has installed XiphQT?

      [1] Yes, yes, I know that eventually, someday, Mozilla Corporation will reach a release for Firefox 3.1. I think they just bit off way more than they could metaphorically chew and the unceasing stream of delays is making me all antsy here...

      (Moral: Never agree to a feature plan bigger than your head?)

    2. Re:More Fun Demos by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Informative

      Short Answer: Yes

      I was on the WHATWG mailing list when this was discussed. Apple was very clear that anything supported by Quicktime would be supported in the browser. They singled out OGG/Theora support as a format they will support, but only through user-installed plugins.

    3. Re:More Fun Demos by cuijian · · Score: 1

      Check out
      http://www.apple.com/safari/welcome

      All done using HTML 5 and CSS 3

    4. Re:More Fun Demos by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 1

      Excellent, thank you. Sounds like all of the major browsers but IE, Chrome, and Konqueror ought to support it one way or another then, assuming Firefox 3.1 comes out before everyone gets bored of the idea...

    5. Re:More Fun Demos by hattig · · Score: 1

      Everything's quite smooth here, and this naff Dell laptop uses naff Intel Integrated graphics. The CSS animations are neat, if rather esoteric right now until they are made part of the standard. It's nice that someone is driving the standards forward openly, just hope that the other vendors can get a word in edgewise before they're rubber stamped...

      The window styling does pick up the windows native theme, even if Safari is rendering it itself to do the Chrome-style tabs (i.e., it picked up my Windows Embedded theme on Windows XP, rather than just mimicking XP). Good. Chrome looks nicer, but doesn't match the Windows styling.

      The history works really well with the visual guides. The search works nicely. Correctly my secure website entries are not showing a picture.

      Oh, darn it, I crashed it ... no, no, it just hung for some seconds when I was deleting in the history search.

      It's definitely less clunky on Windows than Safari 3. It's pulled together a lot of features from different browsers in a very cohesive manner, and added its own stuff on top. As a beta it's not perfect, but it is very promising.

    6. Re:More Fun Demos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all of the major browsers but IE, Chrome, and Konqueror

      That's a pretty roundabout way of saying "Firefox, Safari, and Opera."

    7. Re:More Fun Demos by onefriedrice · · Score: 1

      That falling leaves animation causes Midori to use 100% of one of my Q6600 cores and still only gets around 2fps. Even if a new WebKit and better Javascript engine could improve that dramatically, sometimes I still wonder if we're not progressing backwards...

      Perhaps falling leaves isn't so practical, but it's still just a silly animation. Web apps of today require 20x the resources and are still not nearly as capable as solutions we've had all along. Even more amusing is the fact that web development isn't even considerably easier than traditional development when you consider the compatibility kludges and forced client-server model you have to adhere to. At least it's easy to distribute, right?

      Okay I'm done with this rant. Wow that felt good. I don't rant nearly enough.

      --
      This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
    8. Re:More Fun Demos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YEAH! You fuckin' tell 'im, cock-rat! Puh-OWNED!

    9. Re:More Fun Demos by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      That falling leaves animation causes Midori to use 100% of one of my Q6600 cores and still only gets around 2fps.

      Sounds like a problem with the Midori build. Safari 4 does use a core on my Core Duo 2, but the animation is silky smooth. Hopefully that's something that will be fixed in future builds of Midori. (This is rather cutting edge tech we're talking about here. I don't know if anyone else has even implemented CSS Animations, with the possible exception of Opera 10.)

      Web apps of today require 20x the resources and are still not nearly as capable as solutions we've had all along.

      Nonsense. You'll have a hard time finding a better free directions and mapping package than Google Maps. Or a free email client that provides all the features of GMail. Even stupid little features like digg allowing you to digg a story without refreshing is a huge improvement over the old way of doing things. If you think these features have not made us more productive, then you're probably looking at your memories through rose-tinted glasses.

      Even more amusing is the fact that web development isn't even considerably easier than traditional development when you consider the compatibility kludges and forced client-server model you have to adhere to.

      Are you kidding me? Web development is easier than ever! For the first time, code really does work across standards compliant browsers. The only exception is Internet Explorer, which is why I'm railing so hard for the thing to DIE. 67% market share and dropping. Woohoo!

    10. Re:More Fun Demos by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Or a free email client that provides all the features of GMail.

      Is getting its state confused when I click too fast a feature?
      Is running in a single threaded javascript UI a feature?
      Is having one browser tab on some random borked site crashing chrome (and therefore the 'email client' goes down too) a feature?

      Are you kidding me? Web development is easier than ever! For the first time, code really does work across standards compliant browsers. The only exception is Internet Explorer...

      That's like saying "My new public washrooms air freshener really works, everyone loves its clean refreshing scent that masks all offensive odors. The only exception is people with dark hair, it right fucks them up."

      Oh and I can't beleive you used 'digg' and 'making us more productive' in the same paragraph. My head asplode. ;)

    11. Re:More Fun Demos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, darn it, I crashed it ... no, no, it just hung for some seconds when I was deleting in the history search.

      Were you dictating this post to your secretary?

    12. Re:More Fun Demos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yes! Layla's a good looking bird and wears awesome short skirts all the time, sometimes she bends over

      Okay that's it, I quit. I can't take the misogyny any more! No more will I take this constant stream of puerile behaviour and lechery!

    13. Re:More Fun Demos by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Is getting its state confused when I click too fast a feature?

      That depends upon what you mean by "confused". My experience is that clicking around while it's loading still causes GMail to do the right thing. It's just not always fast about it. But that slowness is caused by the network, which GMail already optimizes with caches and allows you to further avoid by turning on offline mode.

      Is running in a single threaded javascript UI a feature?

      Is that a question? Because no, it's neither a feature nor is it correct. GMail is a multithreaded application.

      Gears and HTML5 both have background thread support, but I fail to see how they would improve on GMail's existing multithreaded support.

      Is having one browser tab on some random borked site crashing chrome (and therefore the 'email client' goes down too) a feature?

      Chrome separates each tab into its own process. A random site should not crash the GMail tab, only the tab it's open on. Granted, The entire Chrome browser has crashed for me in the past when under stress, but it is a new product. Most of the issues went away by the time it reached 1.0.

      Now that you've had your peace, allow me to fire a few salvos in return:

      • Does your local email client support having messages in multiple folders?
      • Do you still have access to messages in your IMAP folders when you lose connectivity?
      • Does your client have integrated IM and video chat making it a complete communications platform?
      • Does your client automatically thread related messages?
      • Does your client automatically keep its spam filter up to date without any training?
      • Does your client provide sophisticated search facilities that allow you to quickly and easily find your old emails?
      • Does your client store IMs like emails, thus making searching quick and easy?
      • Does your client allow you to access your email from mobile devices, kiosks, and computers with nothing more than a web browser installed?
      • Does your email client automatically manage your contacts list so that you never lose track of a friend or associate again?

      I can't tell you how many times I wished my employer would switch to GMail instead of Outlook. Life would be so much better.

    14. Re:More Fun Demos by aliquis · · Score: 1

      But then Chome and Konqueror shouldn't even have made it to the major browsers list. Since both uses webkit I'm sure they will get there soon enough they to.

      IE is the problem, like always.

    15. Re:More Fun Demos by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That depends upon what you mean by "confused".

      I've gotten the state out of sync. Where clicking open closes something, and vice versa, because the data model is out of sync with what's rendered in the browser.

      Is that a question? Because no, it's neither a feature nor is it correct. GMail is a multithreaded application.

      Cite? Because seriously, I don't do a lot of Javascript programming, but I'm pretty sure all the major browsers only give you a single javascript thread per tab. And there are countless tutorials for 'simulating multiple threads' in browsers (meaning they work more or less like windows 3.1 and meaning they aren't really multi-threaded.)

      Chrome separates each tab into its own process. A random site should not crash the GMail tab

      And yet it can and does.

      Now that you've had your peace, allow me to fire a few salvos in return:

      (fyi: piece not peace)

      Does your local email client support having messages in multiple folders?

      I presume you mean one message in multiple folders at once, not copies of the same message in multiple folders?

      Even so, yes. OSX's mail.app does this, Thunderbird's 'Saved Search' is this and even supports message tagging (though not as robust as gmails). I'm pretty sure even the new outlook has this.

      Do you still have access to messages in your IMAP folders when you lose connectivity?

      Of course. Sync features from server and client are old hat.

      Does your client have integrated IM and video chat making it a complete communications platform?

      What if I use yahoo for IM? Is ICQ still around? Does gmail let me stay in touch with all the networks trillian supports? My standalone IM client lets me transfer files, and share a whiteboard... does gmail?

      But that's all beside the point ... IM and video chat are not a core feature of an email client, and suggesting that you need them to be a 'complete communications platform' is misleading.

      After all... we can run around all day about bolt on features that we need in a 'complete communications platform'... If I used twitter (I don't) then does gmail store all my twits like emails? If I used myspace or facebook (I don't and I don't) then does gmail store all the messages I get through that as email? Does gmail store all my incoming/outgoing phone calls and voice mail? What about feedback I leave in web forms on random web pages? My calendar? Shared calenders? Shared calendars with people using Outlook? What about to-do lists? Shared to-do lists? How about a calculator? Does it keep track of the urls I vist? I guess it needs a web browser too? Can it keep track of my passwords? Does it store my bookmarks? Does it reconcile my checking account with my paypal confirmation messages? Index transcriptions of the web based support chats offered by ebay? What about my WoW and EQ2 group chat? Internet faxing?

      To me all of those should be extensions or external apps. Maybe to you, IM is a native feature of an email client. Its not to me. And even if it was, none of my friends/family use gtalk; unless it supported ichat/aim, msn, and yahoo it would be useless.

      Ditto for video chat...

      Does your client automatically thread related messages?

      It actually does if I wanted it to. But I usually don't. I like new mail on top, sorted chronologically, not in threads. If I need to see the thread together I can, but most people simply leave the thread in the message body, so its not that common I need to see more.

      And I actually find threads quite annoying for email, because they only work within a thread. I prefer to filter to messages to/from/cc the recipient so I can see the entire communications with that person in chrono order regardless of whether it's in a thread or not.

      For example: If someone sends me a message, I reply, and then sends my boss a separate message, and my boss replies and cc's me, and then he replies back to me. And then he replies to my boss a

    16. Re:More Fun Demos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its one thing to outsource your mail to a host that manages it, provides you SSL, encryption, a proper service contract, etc. ... But to give the data to google to manage... fat chance. Completely irresponsible.

      Um, you do know that Google manages mail, provides SSL, encryption, and a proper service contract, right?

      There's more to GMail than just the free service that everyone and their dog seems to use.

    17. Re:More Fun Demos by vux984 · · Score: 1

      There's more to GMail than just the free service that everyone and their dog seems to use.

      Fair enough. What are the functional differences between it and the free service if any? But regardless, when all is said and done, it probably qualifies as a legitimate mail outsourcing option.

      I'm still leery of it though. Personally I trust google about as much as I trust Microsoft, but that's just me.

    18. Re:More Fun Demos by The+Phantom+Buffalo · · Score: 1

      Be grateful you don't use Lotus Notes.

    19. Re:More Fun Demos by seanalltogether · · Score: 1

      All those demos use -webkit specific css features. So now we're going to the late 90's mishmash of each browser vendor creating their own extensions for use in html? I don't see anything to applaud here.

    20. Re:More Fun Demos by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      I've gotten the state out of sync. Where clicking open closes something, and vice versa

      Can't say I've ever seen that happen. You must be lucky. ;-)

      Of course, that sort of issue can happen with a desktop toolkit as well. It's not very common, though.

      Cite? Because seriously, I don't do a lot of Javascript programming, but I'm pretty sure all the major browsers only give you a single javascript thread per tab.

      Ever hear of AJAX? As in "Asynchronous Javascript and XML"? AJAX allows the requests to the network to be threaded in the background, thus keeping the app snappy. That's how GMail can show you a "Loading..." image and allow you to interact with widgets while it's contacting the server.

      GMail can launch as many threads for networking as it needs. It's up to the browser to keep track of them.

      But that's all beside the point ... IM and video chat are not a core feature of an email client, and suggesting that you need them to be a 'complete communications platform' is misleading.

      That depends upon what you want. It's not misleading that GMail is more than a simple mail client. You don't like it? Fine. Don't use it. But that doesn't mean that it's not much more than your average mail application.

      My calendar? Shared calenders?

      Yes and yes.

      Shared calendars with people using Outlook?

      Yes.

      What about to-do lists?

      Yes.

      Shared to-do lists?

      I don't know. I've never tried.

      How about a calculator?

      Don't be silly. That's what Google Search is for. ;-)

      Does it keep track of the urls I vist? I guess it needs a web browser too? Can it keep track of my passwords? Does it store my bookmarks?

      Google Chrome, which is designed to integrate tightly with applications like GMail. Granted, it doesn't store this info in your GMail account, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was added in the future. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the rest of your items are eventually added. Internet Fax for example, sounds right up Google's alley. It's already possible with eFax or RingCentral. (The latter of which does voice mail too.)

      Does your email client automatically manage your contacts list so that you never lose track of a friend or associate again?

      Yes.

      I think you and I have different definitions of "automatically". Either that, or standard mail clients have been working long and hard to add Google's features to their products. (Which I could believe.) Outlook sure as hell doesn't do it. POS.

      Its one thing to outsource your mail to a host that manages it, provides you SSL, encryption, a proper service contract, etc.

      As someone already pointed out, Google does this. Full service with your domain, SSL handling, a proper service contract and everything.

      (Actually, you can use SSL on Google already. Just go to https://gmail.google.com/ instead of the usual http.)

    21. Re:More Fun Demos by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      No. Experimental new features are often deployed via browser-specific CSS until the standard has been finalized. This was added to the standard to ensure that developers don't rely on a feature that might change. (Or if they do, they know that it may change.) CSS3 is not yet finalized, so Safari is following the standard on this.

      FYI, I haven't tested in any detail yet, so the non-browser tags may be supported by Safari already. If they are, use at your own risk.

    22. Re:More Fun Demos by Keeper+Of+Keys · · Score: 1

      If you think Chrome will not soon be a major browser, you underestimate the power of GOOG.

    23. Re:More Fun Demos by tvon · · Score: 1

      Source here for the curious:

      http://gist.github.com/69810

    24. Re:More Fun Demos by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I don't say it won't soon be, but I doubt it currently is.

      It's still very fresh, though probably quite feature complete thanks to webkit heritage, it currently only run on Windows.

    25. Re:More Fun Demos by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Ever hear of AJAX? As in "Asynchronous Javascript and XML"? AJAX allows the requests to the network to be threaded in the background, thus keeping the app snappy.

      Yes I've heard of it, and no; cooperative multi-tasking techniques a la windows 3.1 is not multi-threading. It gets you something that's "like multi-threaded" but with all the instability and flakiness inherent in cooperative multitasking.

      As someone already pointed out, Google does this. Full service with your domain, SSL handling, a proper service contract and everything.

      And I acknowledged that message.

      (Actually, you can use SSL on Google already. Just go to https://gmail.google.com/ instead of the usual http.)

      That's pretty pointless. Why would I really want the peace of mind that that only google gets to data mine my messages? :)

      As for the laundry list of features that you partially responded to; I don't really care if any of them are in gmail or not. None of them are email features.

      I think its the wrong direction. I don't want to cram thousands of features into one ginormous app to take advantage of its unified search. That's just stupid. What I want is the opposite of that... multiple separate applications exposing their data to the OS.

      ie... what Apple's spotlight, or Microsoft Windows Desktop Search do. Where you have multiple applications expose their data to the OS search engine via modules or plugins. Spotlight for example has many such plugins...

      http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/spotlight/index_top.html

      I'd be far more interested in exposing my gmail index to my desktop OS search, than cramming an mp3 player into gmail so it can index my playsists and id3 tags.

      And I'd rather connect directly to my desktop remotely rather than some 3rd party data mining / advertising conglomerate web service to access my data. Then I get access to all my applications, all my data, not just what google supports, and without their 3rd party interference which is completely unnecessary.

    26. Re:More Fun Demos by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Yes I've heard of it, and no; cooperative multi-tasking techniques a la windows 3.1 is not multi-threading.

      Then apparently you haven't studied it enough. We're not talking about cooperative multi-threading. A true, honest to God thread gets spawned to handled these requests. "Cooperative multithreading" is the practice of scheduling processing and voluntarily using a limited amount of time for each turn. That's feasible without Gears or HTML5, but it's not what the XMLHttpRequest object does.

      That's pretty pointless. Why would I really want the peace of mind that that only google gets to data mine my messages? :)

      Relationships are about trust. You can't both voluntarily use Google's services and not trust them. Complaining that you don't trust them doesn't change your implicit trust of them.

      Personally, I've been very happy with Google's handling of privacy. I've used their professional domains service and it has worked out very well in that situation. I just wish my current employer thought the same. ;-)

      As for the laundry list of features that you partially responded to; I don't really care if any of them are in gmail or not. None of them are email features.

      That's okay. Because GMail is about more than just email. If you don't like their services, you're not required to use them. That doesn't stop them from providing a product that most users find superior to native clients.

      Besides, you brought them up. ;-)

      I think its the wrong direction. I don't want to cram thousands of features into one ginormous app to take advantage of its unified search. That's just stupid.

      That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. However, it has nothing to do with the original argument. GMail is a competitive software application. Arguing whether or not it meets some artificial barriers or not does nothing to change the fact that it is a superior experience for most users. There's a reason why users are moving from email clients in droves, and it's not just because they don't have to install anything.

    27. Re:More Fun Demos by macs4all · · Score: 1

      I get about 49% usage of BOTH CPUs (evenly distributed, curiously enough) on my 1.8GHz G5 Dualie with a not-so-fast GEForce FX 5200 with a whopping 64MB of RAM.

      But the animation is smooth. Not bad for a system that probably isn't the target of serious optimization at this point.

    28. Re:More Fun Demos by vandel405 · · Score: 2

      Then apparently you haven't studied it enough. We're not talking about cooperative multi-threading. A true, honest to God thread gets spawned to handled these requests. "Cooperative multithreading" is the practice of scheduling processing and voluntarily using a limited amount of time for each turn. That's feasible without Gears or HTML5, but it's not what the XMLHttpRequest object does.

      I think you guys are both missing the point. Asynchronous means asynchronous. That's it. It doesn't imply preemptive threading, and it doesn't imply cooperative threading. It just means asynchronous. Asynrchonousity can be implemented many ways. You could have one thread per asynrchonous call, or one thread for all asynchronous calls, or kernel support, it's really depends on the design and implementation of the library/API. They all have trade offs. You're both right, and you're both wrong. "Multi-threaded" isn't a feature. "Responsive" is a feature and there are many ways to get there, and that they're stable, and perform well is what really matters.

    29. Re:More Fun Demos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed his point. He was trying to say, it's great to go with someone who does all of that stuff, but it's not great that if you go with Google you have to hand over all of your data to them too.

    30. Re:More Fun Demos by vux984 · · Score: 1

      That's feasible without Gears or HTML5, but it's not what the XMLHttpRequest object does.

      The XMLHttoRequest object doesn't deliver multi-threading, even if it is itself multithreaded.

      Say I want to calculate pi to a million decimal places in a thread and tally up the sum of those digits, all locally, without contacting a remote server to do the work. I want another thread to keep a running monitor on the current progress of the first thread (ie how many digits calculated so far). I want still another thread to generate a 'visualization' akin to what your mp3 player does using the 'most recent digit calculated' in the first thread as its seed. (but without synchronization, so if thread 3 misses values that's fine... thread 1 doesn't need to wait on each digit for thread 3.

      And some AJAX in a browser using XMLHttpRequest can do this? I admit I'm not a javascript browser/html5/ajax ninja... but this seems seriously out bounds of what you can do without resorting to win3.1 style single threaded cooperative multitasking techniques.

      GMail is a competitive software application.

      Its a software service.

      I'd have virtually no hostility at all towards a gmail application I could install on my own servers.

      Relationships are about trust. You can't both voluntarily use Google's services and not trust them. Complaining that you don't trust them doesn't change your implicit trust of them.

      Right. I don't trust Microsoft with my data, but I trust my data in their software on my hardware. I could extend the same trust to google, but with them its either you trust them with your data, or you don't have relationship with them at all.

  40. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Firefox wins over users by offering a better product.

    Let's say IE8 was a repackaged Firefox, what would we learn?

    Firefox is where innovation happens. IE could not compete with Firefox. People who use IE8 will now have a better browsing experience because of Firefox.

    Why would anyone already using Firefox switch back? There's no reason. But a real reason still exists for IE8 users to move forward to Firefox.

    That's the magic of open source. The competitive advantage is that they want people to copy them. Who chooses the copy over the original?

  41. Re:Top sites by reashlin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Though not automatic - Opera beat them to it. Although yes I am an Opera "fanboy" (if you will) I genuinly prefer to know what is where on that list. The main reason is Opera binds Ctrl+[1...9] to the "favorites" as a shortcut. You need them to stay static to have any hope of remembering them.

  42. Safari 4 actually has SLOWER JavaScript... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    since Opera and Firefox with Noscript can run JavaScript at infinite speed. Until Safari has this capability, along with ad blocking, it is Full Of Fail.

    1. Re:Safari 4 actually has SLOWER JavaScript... by yabos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's the most retarded thing I've heard all week.

    2. Re:Safari 4 actually has SLOWER JavaScript... by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      since Opera and Firefox with Noscript can run JavaScript at infinite speed. Until Safari has this capability, along with ad blocking, it is Full Of Fail.

      Presumably by "this capability" you mean the ability to selectively block Java, JavaScript, and Flash; Safari 3 lets you disable Java and JavaScript in toto, and there's the ClickToFlash plugin (requires Leopard) to prevent Flash from running until you click.

    3. Re:Safari 4 actually has SLOWER JavaScript... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were to record yourself, that would all change.

    4. Re:Safari 4 actually has SLOWER JavaScript... by bonch · · Score: 1

      You're not even a funny troll.

  43. It's worse than that. by Xest · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's like all those things but in a contest that doesn't even matter, like the kid who can eat the most worms or something.

    Okay, maybe I'm just being ignorant, I guess there are people who it matters to but personally I've never come across a website that I couldn't "run" because my browser wasn't optimised enough. Even IE7, the supposed slowest of the bunch has run every website I've ever been too fine although I nowadays always use Firefox.

    I guess it's more about future potential though? as Javascript performance improves then maybe we can see it become more useful for more things too.

    Anyone know why Javascript performance is repeatedly mouthed off as such a big deal? Is it to do with future hopes for Javascript or is it about making existing sites work on even the most low end of systems- would that even matter to Apple when they don't really even sell particularly low end systems?

    1. Re:It's worse than that. by kcbanner · · Score: 0

      JS *is* a big deal, at least for me. I turn javascript off unless I need it because it causes annoying lag issues, especially on badly coded pages (not to mention its used way too much for doing silly little performce-eating things). For me on linux using firefox, I find gmail lags all to hell, it takes 1-2s to tab switch away from it. I switch to HTML mode sometimes because it gets on my nerves. This is on a core2duo 2.4ghz with 2GB of RAM. JS can really get out of hand, I'm looking forward to FF 3.1 with tracemonkey.

      --
      Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
    2. Re:It's worse than that. by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Anyone know why Javascript performance is repeatedly mouthed off as such a big deal?

      Two reasons:

      1. Faster page loads. Unless a page uses the non-standard "defer" option for Javascript, the page load/render stops every time the browser encounters a Javascript file. Until the script is done parsing and executing (Javascript is loaded into the VM via execution), the page cannot finish loading. Thus a faster JS engine means faster page loads overall.

      (A tip for web design: Put your unimportant scripts toward the bottom of the page. The user will be less likely to notice the load pause if the page is already rendered.)

      2. Upcoming uses of web technologies. High performance JS applications are coming down the pipeline. Examples like those in my sig are going to become more common, not less. Improving the speed of Javascript will make new applications more responsive, thus opening the doors to sophisticated programs that can compete with anything deployed to the desktop. In fact, the web technologies provided by HTML5 browsers may even surpass installable apps simply due to the wide availability of sophisticated technology.

      (That right there is why Microsoft is fighting tooth and nail to NOT support modern standards in IE8. If the platform makes it to the types of features we see in this Safari 4 demo, then the desktop is lost. Microsoft will LOSE their software lock-in and multiplatform software will rule.)

    3. Re:It's worse than that. by vally_manea · · Score: 1

      Until then you could try using Swiftfox which seems much faster than the stock browser.

    4. Re:It's worse than that. by kcbanner · · Score: 1

      I have tried swiftfox but not noticed much difference, but I haven't tried it recently. I did notice that changing my GTK engine was a big performance boost, I'm using the 'Calla' theme now and it seems very fast.

      --
      Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
    5. Re:It's worse than that. by Logic+and+Reason · · Score: 1

      I see you've never used Amazon's EC2 Console on FF3/Mac.

    6. Re:It's worse than that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for 1, most of the time the java script is at the top for loading ads before anything else gets loaded. I started blocking ads all the time when I saw status messages like "Waiting for ads.doublclick.net..." that lasted more than a split second.

    7. Re:It's worse than that. by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Or do what everyone does; use one of the many good javascript-libraries out there, and *do* defer javascript-stuff. It's not hard. In jQuery, for example, it's just a question of instead of writing: dostuff(), you write $(function(){dostuff()}) works *precisely* the same way, but doesn't slow down the page-load.

    8. Re:It's worse than that. by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Actually, you're slowing the page load down even more. Now not only does it have to load your Javascript, it has to load all the JQuery libraries as well. Each and every one of those loads is going to result in a pause whether or not you're running logic.

      Take this Javascript as an example:

      function abc() { alert("ABC!"); }
      function xyz() { alert("XYZ!"); }

      Nothing's happening, right? Wrong. Here's what's going on:

      1. Script tag encountered. Rendering is blocked until script tag is completed.

      2. Wait for script to download.

      3. Send script to the Javascript evaluator.

      4. Convert script to internal bytecode.

      5. Hoist named functions as static values.

      6. Begin script execution.

      7. Run "window.abc = function() {...}" and "window.xyz = function() {...}".

      8. Script tag handling complete. Resume rendering.

      So in effect, the world STOPS with each script. Don't think for a moment you're getting anything for free by deferring execution of a function. The script still has to load via execution. If you're curious as to the reason, consider the issue of having abc() and xyz() in two different script files. If the xyz() script called abc(), then the first script file would need to be completely loaded before the xyz() script can be executed.

      On a more personal note, I highly recommend understanding the underlying language rather than relying on a framework so heavily. I'm not saying the framework is necessarily a bad thing, but it can lead to situations of false confidence like the one you just exhibited. And besides, is the following really so hard to use in conversation?

      document.onload = function() {};

      Alternatively:

      setTimeout(function() {}, 100);

      The latter is a fun trick because the Javascript thread doesn't get freed until rendering is done. So you can begin execution after the page is rendered, but not have to wait until everything is fully loaded. ;-)

    9. Re:It's worse than that. by bonch · · Score: 1

      You're wondering why it's important for Apple to advertise that its browser performs better than the most-used browser in existence? I don't know, maybe it's because they want people to download and use the damn thing. Just a hunch.

    10. Re:It's worse than that. by Xest · · Score: 1

      No I'm wondering why they'd use a seemingly irrelevant metric to suggest their browser is better because an irrelevant metric wont have that effect.

      For example, when Firefox 3 came out, I didn't download it because it's Javascript engine was 10x faster or whatever, I downloaded it because it had lots of useful bookmarking and tagging features for managing my sites.

    11. Re:It's worse than that. by BZ · · Score: 1

      > Anyone know why Javascript performance is repeatedly mouthed off as such a big deal?

      Web applications, and direct competition between the web platform (JS, HTML5, , , etc) and Flash and Silverlight.

      In other words, people suspect that "websites" being created now or in the next few years (not existing ones) will require such performance, and would rather they were created using the web platform and not other technologies. Hence "website" in quotes: I'm not sure a flash-only thing should be called that.

  44. Impressions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    - Scrolling this /. page is extremely slow in safari.
    - The tabs in the window's title bar is just plain annoying and feels really out of place.
    - Just like Google's Chrome this browser also doesn't blend in well with MS Windows UI. It's feels alien to the other programs.

    1. Re:Impressions by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 5, Funny

      - Scrolling this /. page is extremely slow in safari.
      - The tabs in the window's title bar is just plain annoying and feels really out of place.
      - Just like Google's Chrome this browser also doesn't blend in well with MS Windows UI. It's feels alien to the other programs.

      -No, it's 30x faster than anything you've ever seen.
      -That's Windows' fault and yours. Windows should be designed around Safari, not the other way around.
      -Again, the Windows UI is just a thin shell meant to blend nicely with Safari. If it doesn't, then it's Windows fault.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    2. Re:Impressions by CaptScarlet22 · · Score: 1

      Here....type this in the terminal for moving the tabs back were they were in v3.

      defaults write com.apple.Safari DebugSafari4TabBarIsOnTop false

      --
      It's left blank because I have nothing to say to you punks!
    3. Re:Impressions by Repugnant_Shit · · Score: 1

      You're not kidding about the out-of-place tabs in the title bar. They repurposed the "Window sizer lines" for each tab - they move the tab rather than resize it.

      It is going to take a fare bit of getting used to the new design. It's off putting enough that I'm going to return to FF I think. I'm on OSX and I still think Safari looks really weird.

    4. Re:Impressions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>- The tabs in the window's title bar is just plain

      >> annoying and feels really out of place.

      I'm on a Mac and I have to agree with that. The tabs looked weird but I couldn't put my finger on what was wrong until you pointed it out.

    5. Re:Impressions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's Windows' fault... Windows should be designed around Safari, not the other way around... Again, the Windows UI is just a thin shell meant to blend nicely with Safari. If it doesn't, then it's Windows fault.

      Ahh, but isn't everything in Windows stolen from Apple? Therefore, it all comes back to being Apple's fault.

    6. Re:Impressions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous Coward?

      More like Anonymous Curmudgeon.

    7. Re:Impressions by localman · · Score: 1

      The rendering and javascript seem fine -- at least as fast as before and possibly faster. But _every_ UI change they've made sucks. And I don't say that about all UI changes that come down the line.

      1. tabs in the title bar turn it into a minefield: grabbing the window to move it (something i do a lot) is now a button-dodging exercise
      2. spread out tabs in the title bar means the close buttons move around more erratically than they used to when closing multiple tabs
      3. the stop/refresh button has been moved away from all the other navigation buttons, requiring extra mousing
      4. the new spinner progress meter gives less information and requires a precise visual scan, unlike the previous blue bar meter that gave some indication of progress and could be seen without having to specifically look at it

      Why would they do all that? I can't think of any advantage to any of those changes. Sigh.

    8. Re:Impressions by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Just like Google's Chrome this browser also doesn't blend in well with MS Windows UI. It's feels alien to the other programs.

      I don't know about Safari, but Chrome blends into Vista UI remarkably well. Maybe because on Vista, most built-in Windows applications (IE, Windows Explorer, Control Panel etc) do some fancy shmancy effects with mixing their UI into window chrome, so it doesn't look out of place there.

      In fact, I'd say that Chrome looks more native on Vista than IE does...

    9. Re:Impressions by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      - Scrolling this /. page is extremely slow in safari.

      -No, it's 30x faster than anything you've ever seen.

      I see. It's just like a fan blade. Once it gets moving so fast it actually appears to move very slowly (or even backward). Right?

    10. Re:Impressions by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Scrolling this very page in Safari 4 on my iMac is *fast*. It feels about the same speed as Safari 3, but it's by no means slow (not as slow as scrolling this page in Firefox on Ubuntu, for example).

      It's probably not faster than Safari 3 at scrolling, but it's smooth and silky like it always was.

      I do not like the tabs up in the title bar though - I wish they were back where they always were. Hopefully that will become an option though.

      And from a Windows standpoint - what is a "Windows look and feel" - pretty much every app I've ever seen on Windows is totally different UI-wise to everything else.

    11. Re:Impressions by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Sweet. Exactly what I needed.

      I'm liking the beta so far, but I do not like the tabs in the title bar, mainly because I use that bar to grab focus or to move the whole window around, and while you can drag it around from anywhere on the bar without it changing tabs, it just doesn't sit right with me.

  45. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've tried pointing that out before, but you're probably wasting your breath. The tin-foil hat crowd here at slashdot seems to think that Apple is keeping all the juiciest enhancements for themselves. I know it's not true because I run Safari on my macs and have run some webkit browsers like midori on my linux machines, they're about as fast, certainly faster than firefox. I'd use midori as my full time browser, but it's not as full featured as firefox and is unstable (or was last version I downloaded, like 0.0.21 or so).

    --
    Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
  46. Re:Top sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    To quote Apple:

    You can even customize the display by pinning a favorite site to a specific location in the grid. That locks it into position, so you know just where to find it every time you open Top Sites.

  47. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by jeffasselin · · Score: 1

    How is it unfair? Firefox can look at Safari's code source and do the same things it does.

    And who cares if Firefox can compete more? It already has a good distribution, and Firefox's point isn't to "compete" or gain a monopoly, or any such thing, but to deliver a good, standards-compliant browser to help foster more standards-compliance in the marketplace. The best situation is to have a number of web browsers that are all fully compliant and have a minimal popularity to be sustainable.

    --
    If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
  48. To read more about safari's legendary stability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Just type data:%80,; into your address bar!

  49. Re:Top sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Me neither.
    Of course, just after I installed Safari4, i Had to quickly remove youporn from Top Sites, but at least NOW I don't have any porn in my top sites.

  50. The Full Feeature List by PPCAvenger · · Score: 0, Redundant

    If anyone wants to enter full Apple marketing land they can click this link to see the full list of "150 features".

      Some that popped out at me: They now seem to be adopting a few Google Chrome ideas such top of the window tabs and the search box now auto suggests sites as Google's browser does... didn't Google take a lot of fire for that? Will Apple allow you to turn it off?

      On the Windows side, they are now using standard Windows... windows (titlebar, scrollbar, etc..) to give it a more native appearance as well as native font rendering with Apple's font rendering still available as a toggle.

      They claim to have first browser support for HTML 5 offline and have integrated an sql-like database (that is user accessible and query-able) for holding everything that's needed to run advanced web apps offline.

  51. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by Sloppy · · Score: 1
    I think you're trolling, but there's an interesting issue here anyway.

    If IE and Safari can look at Firefox's source code and see exactly how FF implement's something, how can FF maintain a competitive advantage as a core browser

    By having different goals.

    For example, Chrome could copy FF's adblock extension. But they won't, because they don't want to. FF (and probably Opera) is mostly for the user (though FF has arguably compromised the users' interest in favor of the commercial CAs); Chrome is for the advertiser and javascript web app maker; MSIE is for the intranet proprietary web app lockin; Safari is probably intended to address a mix of various concerns (but overall very pro-user as well).

    The OpenBSD and Linux projects can see each other sources, but they've nevertheless gone in different directions, because their goals are different.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  52. looks like iTunes by onefriedrice · · Score: 1

    The screenshots make it look very similar to iTunes, but presumably Safari is pretty fast. What they need to do is find a way to make iTunes not run like a pregnant cow...

    --
    This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
  53. Re:Top sites by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 1

    Safari has had that, at least Mac-side, for a while--Command-[1...9] are bound to the first nine bookmarks in the Bookmark Bar.

    --
    Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
  54. How to get the old tab bar back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    defaults write com.apple.Safari DebugSafari4TabBarIsOnTop -bool NO

  55. Yes but... by Randall311 · · Score: 1

    Is it faster than not executing the scripts at all? (NoScript for Firefox)

    1. Re:Yes but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There's always one (or, on Slashdot, several) - a clown that can't resist basking in some supposed or believed superiority by virtue of some plugin he runs, usually NoScript, AdBlocker Plus, or a Flash Blocker.

      No-one cares. You'll realize this one day.

    2. Re:Yes but... by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      That must be some Internet experience you have, being able to go to only one website, OldestCrappiestSiteOnline.com!

  56. 30x faster than IE7, so what... by chrysalis · · Score: 1

    We shave to design web sites for the lowest common denominator.

    --
    {{.sig}}
    1. Re:30x faster than IE7, so what... by pohl · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe you do, but I shave to keep my ballsack silky.

      And just because you have to design for the LCD doesn't mean you have to always use the LCD. Life is short. Use a better browser. I don't care which one, but only stoop to the LCD when you absolutely have to.

      --

      The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

    2. Re:30x faster than IE7, so what... by mrdoogee · · Score: 2, Funny

      I read your acronym as Liquid Crystal Display 3 times until I realized you were saying Lowest Common Denominator.

      We so need a "commonly used acronyms on /." refresher course.

      Of course this is coming from a guy (me) who still reads IANAL as "I anal"

    3. Re:30x faster than IE7, so what... by RetroRichie · · Score: 1

      hahaha oh god I wish I had mod points!

  57. Tabs on top? by argent · · Score: 2, Funny

    Tabs on Top
    Manage your tabs elegantly and open a wide window for exploring the web.

    NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

    F*** you, Google, now everyone's going to start using this f***ed up idea.

    1. Re:Tabs on top? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      F*** you, Google, now everyone's going to start using this f***ed up idea.

      Actually, Opera was the first browser to put tabs above the address bar, and, I believe, also the first one where you could put the tab bar above everything else but the main menu (which could be hidden).

      Cue the "Opera fanbois" jokes here...

    2. Re:Tabs on top? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you continuously leave your browser window maximized (many people do), having the tabs on top isn't all that terrible, esp. on Windows systems where the top edge of the screen usually doesn't have anything other than the title bar.

      Fitts's Law. I really wish more UIs took advantage of this.

    3. Re:Tabs on top? by argent · · Score: 1

      If you continuously leave your browser window maximized (many people do)

      Only on Windows.

      And I am so sick of people quoting Fitts Law where it doesn't apply. The location of the tabs changes depending on what tabs you have, so you can't use "muscle memory" to reliably hit a tab by sweeping your mouse to the top of the screen, you still have to look at the actual target and navigate to the specific tab... so it's no easier to hit than if it was inside the window.

    4. Re:Tabs on top? by argent · · Score: 1

      True, but Opera's quote-tabs-unquote have always been broken because they're really just a specialized mode of Opera's MDI interface.

      But, OK, F*** you Opera, too.

    5. Re:Tabs on top? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Opera's quote-tabs-unquote have always been broken because they're really just a specialized mode of Opera's MDI interface.

      This hasn't been true since Opera 8 (or maybe even 7, I don't remember now). Oh, you can still enable the old MDI mode if you want, complete with the ability to move windows inside the MDI parent and all; but the default settings are all such that Opera tabs behave precisely as they do in IE/Firefox/Chrome - you cannot have a window with no tabs, you cannot de-maximize or minimize a tab, and so on.

    6. Re:Tabs on top? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20090224084121758 has a tweak to have it back as Safari 3.

    7. Re:Tabs on top? by argent · · Score: 1

      So when did they go to tabs-on-top?

      I use Opera sporadically, but I don't recall ever using a version that had tabs that weren't in some way funky.

    8. Re:Tabs on top? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      So when did they go to tabs-on-top?

      Hm... tabs first appeared in v5, if I remember correctly. At that time, they were actually at the bottom of the window, so the overall look was as if Opera window had its own task bar (and I think that was deliberate). This persisted in v6, and I believe it was v7 which finally reverted to tabs at top, but also putting the tabs above the address bar (which, I think, was a first - at least it wasn't that way in various tabbed IE variants and Mozilla at that time).

      I use Opera sporadically, but I don't recall ever using a version that had tabs that weren't in some way funky.

      I think that it was since v8 when they've been really simplifying the default configuration a lot in an attempt to get a more straightforward out-of-the-box user experience, and v9 was probably the first version that had properly achieved it; until then, there were always a lot of complaints about unneeded complexity and UI clutter from people migrating from other browsers which I believe were quite justified. You could always make it look precisely the way you want, but - much like Linux - it required considerable time and effort. I'm not sure if there were any such specific tab-related UI problems from v7 on, but there may well have been.

      Things are more complicated because a lot of Opera users (myself included) tend to move their Opera config files from system to system and from upgrade to upgrade (they tend to be compatible for the most part); so some bits of my Opera setup could date back several years, and do not represent the default out-of-the-box config.

    9. Re:Tabs on top? by argent · · Score: 1

      Hm... tabs first appeared in v5, if I remember correctly. At that time, they were actually at the bottom of the window, so the overall look was as if Opera window had its own task bar (and I think that was deliberate). This persisted in v6, and I believe it was v7 which finally reverted to tabs at top, but also putting the tabs above the address bar (which, I think, was a first - at least it wasn't that way in various tabbed IE variants and Mozilla at that time).

      Like I said, I don't recall a version of Opera in which tabs weren't in some way funky.

      Tabs above the address bar is simply wrong. Tabs should frame the components whose presence depends on which tab you are on.

    10. Re:Tabs on top? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Tabs above the address bar is simply wrong. Tabs should frame the components whose presence depends on which tab you are on.

      This is debatable. I would say that the correct statement is: tabs should frame the components whose presence or content depends on which tab you are on. Because otherwise, following your logic, a tab bar in Windows (or Gnome, or KDE) should be "under" the window title bar. Opera follows the model I defined - tab bar is above the address bar, but it is below the main menu bar (it's less evident now when address bar is surrounded by some buttons, but back in the day of Opera 7 address bar only had the address field, and there was a separate tab bar for back/forward etc - and tabs were above the former and below the latter). IE7 doesn't follow this - its menu bar, when visible, is beneath the tab bar - and I consider this broken. Chrome weasels out by not providing a menu bar at all.

      In any case, you can put the tab bar below the address bar in Opera if you want to. It's just not the default setting.

    11. Re:Tabs on top? by argent · · Score: 1

      I would say that the correct statement is: tabs should frame the components whose presence or content depends on which tab you are on.

      The bookmark bar doesn't depend on that, not do any of the toolbar widgets other than the location box. If they move the other widgets out of the toolbar, then perhaps, but the bookmark bar definitely doesn't belong inside the tab.

      Because otherwise, following your logic, a tab bar in Windows (or Gnome, or KDE) should be "under" the window title bar.

      What tab bar in Windows?

      As for KDE and Gnome, consistency has never been a strong suit for them. APple, however, makes a point of their UI expertise. They shouldn't be screwing up like this.

    12. Re:Tabs on top? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The bookmark bar doesn't depend on that, not do any of the toolbar widgets other than the location box. If they move the other widgets out of the toolbar, then perhaps, but the bookmark bar definitely doesn't belong inside the tab.

      That is true. As I've pointed out, Opera used to have these things separately. But then they caved in to Firefox, which stuck everything on a single toolbar, and copied that - at which point an inconsistency was introduced. But a similar argument can be made against Firefox - for consistency, the location field in it should be under the tabs, and it is not.

      In fact, by those criteria, I don't know of a single browser that does it correctly out of the box, and Opera is the only one that I know which is possible to configure that way...

      What tab bar in Windows?

      I mean the task bar, of course :)

    13. Re:Tabs on top? by Karellen · · Score: 1

      Meh. I hardly ever use tabs anymore, and have gone back to using multiple windows for all my browsing sessions.

      Of course, it helps that I have a vertical taskbar on the left-hand side of my monitor. It's about 200px wide and has plenty of horizontal space to display the first few words of each window title, even with 15-20 windows open. The "Taskbar thumbnails" effect (display scaled down window in giant tooltip, along with whole window title, when hovering the taskbar item) is just a nice cherry on top.

      Given that I rarely need any windows to be the full width of my screen, but find myself scrolling vertically a fair amount, the extra vertical space is really useful.

      --
      Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
    14. Re:Tabs on top? by argent · · Score: 1

      It's arguable whether the location field belongs inside or outside the tab bar, but the rest of the toolbar and the bookmark bar certainly don't. And you can't configure Opera with the tab bar below the bookmark and toolbar, and above the location field.

      For the second part... I'm still kind of confused exactly WHAT you're referring to, since Windows Explorer doesn't have tabs.

    15. Re:Tabs on top? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      And you can't configure Opera with the tab bar below the bookmark and toolbar, and above the location field.

      You can. The bookmark bar (which is called "personal bar" in Opera) is already above the tab bar; location is already below. So all we need is some way to get all other controls around location field above the tab bar. Now, Opera has several toolbars which are fully customizable; "address bar" is one such thing - it can contain any toolbar elements, not just location field, and, in fact, it need not contain location at all. But there's one more like that, "main bar". "Address bar" is always below tab bar, "Main bar" is always above. The trick is that "Main bar" is hidden by default in Opera 8+ - if you right-click on any toolbar and go into "Customize", then you can enable "Main bar", and then drag all back/forward/etc buttons from "Address bar" to "Main bar" - leaving just the location field there.

      For the second part... I'm still kind of confused exactly WHAT you're referring to, since Windows Explorer doesn't have tabs.

      I don't mean Explorer, I mean Windows as a whole. When tabbed browsing first appeared in NetCaptor and then Opera, it was realy just an attempt to mimic the task switching behavior of the OS. In that sense, it could be said that OS windows are also "tabs", and the task bar is really a "tab bar". Some X WMs work that way, actually (tiling ones - Ion etc).

    16. Re:Tabs on top? by argent · · Score: 1

      I don't mean Explorer, I mean Windows as a whole.

      You mean MDI, then.

      See my previous comment referring to MDI as "screwed up tabs".

      And, yes, I've looked at BOFHish window managers like Ratpoison. They're cruddy user interfaces too.

      Regardless, what's in Safari 4 is not MDI, and it's not Opera's tabs, it's a third kind of "just plain broken".

  58. Standalone versions by pavon · · Score: 1

    Furthermore, wouldn't Apple want developers to keep a copy of Safari 3 around for compatibility testing, even after Safari 4 goes out of beta? Yeah, I know that you can only have one official Webkit install that the rest of the system uses, but there is nothing preventing Apple from providing a standalone version of the the beta, or repackaging Safari 3 to be standalone when you install the Safari 4.

    Anyway, Michel Fortin was nice enough to do that for all the major stable releases of Safari. Enjoy.

  59. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by overlordofmu · · Score: 1

    Reverse engineering is fun. It can also be consider illegal but so is kneeling on a skywalk in Spokane, WA. (see law below)

    Reverse engineering should be commended, not prohibited but U.S. laws are often moronic. Here is the example I promised above:

    Listing 10.10.060 Skywalks -- Prohibited Acts.

    A. No person may commit any of the following acts within the pedestrian skywalk system or within any pedestrian mall:

    1. sit, kneel, lounge, lie, or otherwise recline upon floors or stairs;

    (Ord. C-28629)

    Effective Date: 4/1/1987. Passed On: 2/23/1987

    If you need to tie your shoe, you better have good balancing skills or be very flexible.

  60. Re:Top sites by lwsimon · · Score: 1

    Meh. It is an issue at work. My top site is my company's intranet, thank god, but everything else is marginally work-related.

    --
    Learn about Photography Basics.
  61. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by cmburns69 · · Score: 0, Troll

    The problem is that we don't KNOW what Apple is keeping to themselves. It may be the juicy bits, or it may just be roughage, but we don't know.

    And here on slashdot, that recipe is sure to bring out the tinfoil hat crowd.

    --
    Online Starcraft RPG? At
    Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
  62. Re:Top sites by Rockoon · · Score: 1

    As the parent noted.. nearly all of the "killer features" that other web browsers "boast" about these days were in fact first seen in Opera, usualy many years before anyone else.

    Tabbed browsing since 1994 (nineteen fucking ninety-four)

    I'm sick of hearing about how great Firefox is, when its really just a bloated pig like internet explorer and safari. You need a fucking extensions for this? for that? everyone uses that one too? Jesus Christ. You heard me.. a bloated fucking pig. Deal with it, FOSS worshipers.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  63. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firefox's point isn't to "compete" or gain a monopoly, or any such thing, but to deliver a good, standards-compliant browser to help foster more standards-compliance in the marketplace.

    You're being too generous. MoCo's actions are not as altruistic. And it's always entertaining to see what this dipshit is frothing about.

  64. This is now my default Windows browser by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For anyone that has both a Mac and PC, one of the minor frustrations you face is constantly having to remember to use different keyboard shortcuts when you move back and forth. Safari on the PC was an option for me for this reason alone. Sadly, the Mac-look, odd window handling, terrible font rendering and random long pauses (something to do with advertisements I think) made it an option only - I had to keep Chrome and FF around for some sites.

    No longer. Safari 4 is now my default Windows browser. And not just because of the keystrokes, it's faster than any of the other (always up-to-date) browsers on this machine, renders everything perfectly (Chrome still has serious problems here), the font problems are gone (now Chrome is the one that looks bad), the random pauses are missing, etc.

    So basically Safari now does everything any of the other browsers does, plus more, plus its faster, AND it has the same keystrokes.

    Still not perfect though: I'm still trying to get the font sizes right (the readable text above is fine, but this editor has HUGE text) and I want to remove the Chrome-like tools menus (I like real menu bars, thanks), and there's some oddity when scrolling long pages. But nevertheless the problems are less than those in Chrome and the speed of FF in comparison makes me willing to overlook them.

    Maury

    1. Re:This is now my default Windows browser by darkshadow · · Score: 1

      "I like real menu bars, thanks"

      You can choose "Show Menu Bar" from the Tools Icon menu and even hide the Tools Icon menu by choosing "Customize Toolbar..." from the Tools Icon menu and dragging it off the tool bar.

      --
      -Darkshadow (There was a thing called Heaven; but all the same they used to drink enormous quantities of alcohol.)
    2. Re:This is now my default Windows browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and I want to remove the Chrome-like tools menus (I like real menu bars, thanks)

      You can enable the menu bar in the browser on Windows.

  65. Re:Top sites by FreeFull · · Score: 1

    In Firefox it's called Smart Bookmarks->Most Visited. And no porn sites there for me.

    --
    No ascii art.
  66. Disable "Tabs on Top" Feature by mrOpie · · Score: 0

    If you want to revert the tab behavior to that of Safari 3, you can disable "Tabs on Top" with a hidden preference key: http://observationpoint.org/articles/2009/02/24/disable-tabs-on-top-feature-of-safari-4-0-public-beta/

  67. Fake! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a hoax. Doesn't run at all on my Ubuntu PC.

  68. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 1

    It's a unfair advantage that the OS vendors can see the source code of FF, however the reverse is not true. So if Safari has this great performance, how can the FF figure out how Safari does it?

    First off if people have to copy you then by definition you are in the lead.

    I write Open Source code and don't see it as a disadvantage. The reason I make it open source is that I WANT others to use it. I have a day job to pay the bills.

    You have to look at the motivation of the people working on the software. Some peo9ple just like to make things, some paint, some make photos some make software. All of this beats watching TV.

  69. lost in the past by skoony · · Score: 0

    what does one use when the machines i'm running have
    windows 98 fe and windows me?
    cant afford to upgrade regards,
    mike

    1. Re:lost in the past by toddestan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Opera still supports all the way back to Windows 95, which may be your only choice for a browser that's still being actively maintained. Otherwise, there is Firefox 2 which was maintained all the way to December 2008 so it's still fairly up to date. IE6 is still supported on Windows 2000 but I think 98/ME are S.O.L. as far as that goes.

    2. Re:lost in the past by skoony · · Score: 0

      thanks for the info.
      regards
      mike

  70. plugins/extensions working fine here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok I don't know what everyone is bitching about extensions/plugins (whatever you want to call them its just semantics) for i just installed safari 4 and Safari Adblock, Safari Stand, Click to Play Flash & the handful of other plugins I had installed in safari 3 all still work fine with the exception of twice tab but I think that has more to do with not having any blank space to double click then Apple disabling it.

  71. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Apple build WebKit with the same compiler and build settings as everyone else. There's nothing stopping you from grabbing the XCode project from webkit.org, building it yourself, and comparing the results to the version Apple ships. Or you can just grab the nightly builds from webkit.org and replace the Apple-supplied version. Or you can troll on Slashdot. It's your choice.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  72. 'Full History Search' by moria · · Score: 2, Interesting

    for searching through not only the URLs and titles of visited pages, but also the complete text within the page itself - something "Mac OS X Spotlight' has been doing for a while. I turned on the feature on Safari to never delete history, so that I could always find an article I read last month on fossils of mammoth.

  73. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by Sentry21 · · Score: 1

    Probably by looking at the source code. WebKit, WebCore, and JavaScriptCore are all open-source. This is why they're used everywhere, including in recent GNOME browsers, QT 4, on Symbian, Android, and WebOS on the Palm Pre.

  74. In other news... by stormbringer_comming · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Opera 10 has been out months with these features, and it's javascript speed is very good on REAL WORLD SITES, not just the Webkit optimized SunSpider synthetic benchmark...

    1. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Opera is neither Free Software nor does it come bundled with an OS. Nobody cares.

    2. Re:In other news... by herve_masson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I gave safari a run on my web app, which uses a lot of clientside scripting and has been designed to "work" on FF, IE7, chrome. I did not optimize anything for any browser, it was just a test to make sure I would make mac users happy. I was amazed by performances, really. The JS runtime is way better than anything else I've tested, and even beats chrome which is also really good. More importantly, it seems almost immune from memory leaks, compared to ff3 which needs a restart when approaching 1GB.

    3. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everybody forgets all these nice shiny new toys are the hand me downs from Opera.

    4. Re:In other news... by Bazouel · · Score: 1

      But when is the last time we have seen Opera make the front page on /. ?

      --
      Intelligence shared is intelligence squared.
    5. Re:In other news... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The big problem Safari faces is that Opera users already dominate the snobby-over-nothing niche Apple usually occupies :-(

      You missed the recent developments - Google has overtaken Opera there recently with Chrome. :[

      - a smug Opera fanboi

    6. Re:In other news... by tyrione · · Score: 1

      Opera 10, just like Opera 9.63 crashes constantly and is only a Qt3 buggy build for amd64. Mum seems to be the word on how it is that i386 has Qt4, but not amd64.

      I'm not impressed with Opera 10.

  75. Be Careful: Safari 4 Crashed Apple Mail by slashdot.cc · · Score: 1, Informative

    I am interested in trying this beta, but it caused a problem with Apple Mail. I used the Uninstall package that came with the image and removed it. End of problem. I reported the problem and I am looking forward to the stable release.

    1. Re:Be Careful: Safari 4 Crashed Apple Mail by Repugnant_Shit · · Score: 1

      You might want to check Growl if you're using it. Might have a problem with Growl's Mail.app plugin and Safari 4.

  76. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by Nebu · · Score: 1

    Let's say IE8 was a repackaged Firefox, what would we learn?

    [...]

    Why would anyone already using Firefox switch back? There's no reason. But a real reason still exists for IE8 users to move forward to Firefox.

    That's the magic of open source. The competitive advantage is that they want people to copy them. Who chooses the copy over the original?

    Lots of people chose Ubuntu over Debian.

  77. Re:Top sites by dreemernj · · Score: 1

    I believe its the grid of webpage thumbnails he is referring to when he says Opera beat them to it. The difference with Opera's compared to Chrome is that Opera doesn't automatically pick what goes there, the user has to do that. It looks like the same goes for Safari and also Safari has a smoother visual for it.

    The Control 1-9 is just his justification for why he likes that Opera doesn't automatically pick what sites go there. Its not the feature he is emphasizing.

    --
    1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
  78. Comparison to IE7? by nmg196 · · Score: 0

    Why do people insist on benchmarking and comparing BETA web browsers against IE7 - released in 2006? It would be far fairer to compare it to IE8 which is at a similar stage of development to Safari 4 or Chrome and WAY faster than IE7.

  79. Benchmarks faster than the competition's betas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the jsBalls fight timedemo Safari 4 public beta is faster than IE8 rc1, Firefox 3.1 beta 2, and Opera 10 alpha 1. Looks like it is shaping up to be a good release.

  80. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by cmburns69 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    During the early days of Safari 3.0, I was in charge of making sure my companies product was compatible with Safari.

    I have built WebKit from their xcode project. I have submitted bugs. And I know that sometimes the fix arrives in Safari months before WebKit.

    I have much respect for that development team, but to say that Apple (as close-lipped and proprietary as they are) isn't holding anything back is just naive.

    --
    Online Starcraft RPG? At
    Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
  81. xcode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not sure if it's related, but since i installed, my xcode will not run. rebooted, doesn't run. uninstalled safari 4 with supplied uninstaller, rebooted, and still does not run.

    not in the mood to reload X today. :\

    -anonymous coward (only because i'm too lazy to register)

  82. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by PitaBred · · Score: 0, Troll

    Nice. Webkit is based on KHTML, and there's no way to get a Linux build. Thanks for all your help, Apple!

  83. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to a assume that the folks over at Mozilla would not declare victory if Apple/MSFT decided one day to reskin and rename FF and package it with their OS.

    Don't tell Mike Pinkerton, he might get upset about having the wrong hypothetical feelings.

    Apple isn't going to switch to Mozilla. If they were, they would have done so eight years ago, when they commissioned a demonstration of a Mozilla-based browser for bundling with their operating system, and then took Dave Hyatt off the project so they could scrap all of that work and use KHTML instead.

    Since others already have, I needn't tell you that WebKit is open source, too.

  84. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It helps when you know what you're talking about. MS employees are forbidden to even look at GPL'd code. Doing so or even incorporating one line of OSS code can be immediate grounds for termination.

  85. *PC* or Mac? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It says "PC or Mac" versions. *I* have a PC, running Ubuntu; where's the download for my "PC"?

    Ah, yes, it's the typical marketing ploy of saying "PC==Windows"

  86. Uh yes you do by yabos · · Score: 1

    If you look at the source code already linked to, you can see for yourself. Webkit source code is always ahead of the official release that comes with Safari. Safari != Webkit either. The download of Webkit basically comes with a Safari like interface but it not Safari.

    Are you suggesting Apple uses some magical build that is not related at all to the publicly available Webkit source? Because if you do then you're pretty ignorant on that topic.

    1. Re:Uh yes you do by abhi_beckert · · Score: 1

      Actually the webkit nightly builds launch safari and then patch it to use the nightly build of the framework. It's not a "safari like interface", it is the safari interface.

      For example, I had yesterday's webkit nightly installed on my computer, and I just installed safari 4.0 beta.

      Launching yesterday's webkit nightly brings up the safari 4.0 user interface, which it most definitely didn't do yesterday.

  87. Shortcuts config by f1vlad · · Score: 1

    I love it, especially how they redesigned tabs. The only thing I'd love to see is ability to configure (on Mac) COMMAND+1..9 shortcut to switch between tabs. I haven't found a way to achieve that yet, has anyone?

    --
    o_O
    1. Re:Shortcuts config by Arcady13 · · Score: 1

      I don't know how to do that, but Command-Shift-(Left/Right) Arrow works to cycle through them.

    2. Re:Shortcuts config by f1vlad · · Score: 1

      Yes, I think that used to work on older version. What didn't work on older versions was CMD+TAB :) and it works on Safari 4!

      --
      o_O
  88. Tabs on Title Bar?! Bad bad bad... by Domini · · Score: 1

    I have to second that annoying tab bar. The problem with having the tabs located on the actual title bar on mac is that you inadvertently minimize your whole Safari if you sometimes try to switch to a tab.

    I've done this many times... first click to try and switch to a tab I move the mouse slightly (Safari sees this as an attempt to move the window and does not switch to tab... yay!, then I try again, and this time it picks up that I've now double-clicked and the default on OS X is to minimize.

    Argh. Yup, it seems I'm still going to be waiting for Chrome... at least then I will have my tabs in separate processes and will finally be able to kill only the tabs which are using up all my memory.

    1. Re:Tabs on Title Bar?! Bad bad bad... by argent · · Score: 1

      Chrome has the bloody tabs on top too.

      I hate this, it completely breaks the framing model of tabs. The tab is supposed to frame the content that is contained in the tab. My toolbar ad bookmarks are NOT part of the bloody tab, you idiots, don't put them "inside" the tab frame.

      Idiots.

      I haven't installed it yet, because I'm using my computer for actual work (hey, Apple, why do I need to replace safari, or reboot my computer, just to try out a demo of a new program?), and I was hoping that this was an option. I guess not.

    2. Re:Tabs on Title Bar?! Bad bad bad... by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      I thnk it only breaks the model on Windows computers but not on macs.

      The difference is that on macs the menus items (which logically are hierarchically above the window) are at the top of the screen not the top of the window.

      Tabs are just a way of organizing a set of windows. So having them at the top of the window actually makes sense.

      The problem is that in windows apps, the menu goes below the title bar. So moving the tabs to the title bar now makes tabs superior to the menu which as you say is mentally wrong.

      but it makes sense from the mac side.

      And in general having a menu detached from the window and at the top of the screen still makes more sense. (and it will continue to do so till screens start getting massively larger than windows. They are not their yet)

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    3. Re:Tabs on Title Bar?! Bad bad bad... by prockcore · · Score: 1

      It doesn't really break the model. The address bar, forward and back buttons all change depending on the tab currently selected.. only makes sense to put them inside the tab content area.

    4. Re:Tabs on Title Bar?! Bad bad bad... by argent · · Score: 1

      The contents of the address bar, or whether the buttons are hilighted, is not "changing the widgets".

      If it was something like the Microsoft Office toolbar, where the actual widgets changed depending on the context, so you actually got different *widgets* depending on the site you were on, maybe.

      And the bookmarks definitely don't change.

      This is just breaking the user interface because it's cool, which Apple does on occasion.

  89. In Beta by HermMunster · · Score: 1

    Though in beta it is buggy as all hell, and in so many ways. It doesn't look like safari of old. It isn't really any faster. Watching screen redraws, watching page scrolling, watching page load times, it just isn't any faster. Maybe javascript is, but overall it isn't.

    --
    You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  90. Sadly... by MindVirus · · Score: 1

    Infinity divided by thirty is still infinity.

  91. Safari still a memory pig? Crash protection? by Theovon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I switched to Firefox for two reasons. One is that Safari is a major memory hog. It can use like 3x the memory as Firefox for the same thing. (And I'm talking about fresh starts. I know all about how VMs can swap unused pages to disk.)

    The other missing thing from Safari was something as basic as session saving and crash protection. You have to buy Saft for that. With Firefox, it's free.

    I wonder if Apple has done anything about these issues.

  92. Then what is Google for? by olddotter · · Score: 1

    Searching through the text of every page you have ever visited? Isn't that what Google is for? :-)

  93. Crash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wonder if it crashes 3x an hour like Safari on iPhone does?

  94. No Linux Support? Don't take them seriously. by HardWoodWorker · · Score: 0, Troll

    Why do I care about your lousy browser? If it only runs on Mac and PC, it is not a serious browser. The Linux browser market is expanding due to netbooks and phones.

    Screw Apple. I always though iTunes was a pretty crappy program. It performs poorly, crashes often, and was always behind its competitors in terms of features.

    Why bother supporting Safari? If I want enthusiasts and casual users to support my site, I only need to code for IE and Firefox. Firefox has better plugins anyway.

    Speed? Firefox 3.1 is pretty fast, We'll have to see just how fast Safari 4 is when both Firefox 3.1 and Safari 4 are officially released. I doubt Safari will be much faster than Firefox 3.1 on Windows.

    Think Differently? I don't see any difference between Apple and MS these days. They both try to tie you into proprietary formats and do a piss poor job of supporting other operating systems. IE runs poorly on Mac and (relatively) well on Windows, Safari barely ran on Windows and was well supported on Mac. I don't see how Apple is any better. They're just Microsoft in a prettier dress.

  95. Firewire? by robogobo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Requirements:

    Mac with an Intel processor or a Power PC G5, G4, or G3 processor and built-in FireWireî

    um, looks like the latest Macbook isn't up to spec. nice one, Apple.

    1. Re:Firewire? by adpowers · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think you should read that as:

      (Mac with an Intel processor) or (a Power PC G5, G4, or G3 processor and built-in FireWireî)

      and not

      (Mac with an Intel processor or a Power PC G5, G4, or G3 processor) and (built-in FireWireî)

    2. Re:Firewire? by DiLLeMaN · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, the latest MacBook has an Intel processor, therefore it meets the requirements.

      I could be wrong, of course...

      --
      /var/run/twitter.sock is a twitter socket puppet.
    3. Re:Firewire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're sure that isn't "Mac with an Intel processor or a Power PC G5, G4, or (G3 processor and built-in firewire)"?

    4. Re:Firewire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *woosh*
      Or are we not supposed to even read comment subjects anymore?

    5. Re:Firewire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that means PowerPC G5, G4, or (G3 with FireWire)

    6. Re:Firewire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you just read this wrong. You need a Mac with an Intel processor OR a Mac with a Power PC G5, G4 or G3 and built-in FireWire.

  96. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  97. Mr Blond by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    Nitro has more street cred.

    Squirrelfish sounds like a slimy little douchebag trying to get out from under a last call chick who has him pinned at the end of the bar.

    an image of Steve Buscemi flashed before my eyes. SquirelFish is so Mr. Pink. Nitro is mr Blond

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Mr Blond by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      My 'Squirrelfish' joke contribution:

      You do *not* want to go swimming in the squirrelfish pond when they are stocking up for winter.

  98. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The same thing I said last time someone said this to me: prove it. I'm not trolling here, and I don't think it's beyond what Apple is capable of, but I need more proof than your assertions before I believe you. Do you have any evidence, or at least an example bug, of when this has happened?

    --
    Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
  99. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever heard of Webkit? You know i is opensource right?

  100. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

    MS employees are forbidden to even look at GPL'd code. Doing so or even incorporating one line of OSS code can be immediate grounds for termination.

    Speaking of not knowing what you're talking about ... you're full of shit.

  101. Don't do it! by mrraven · · Score: 1

    I downloaded it onto a MacBook with 3 gigs ram Core2Duo 2.0 ghz latest Leopard 10.5.6 and the first thing it did was replace my stable Safari install WTF!!!???

    Then it beach balled as soon as it launched on apples own web site.

    So I went through a renaming rigarolmole to see if I could run both 3.21 and 4 beta running (I couldn't).

    Then it crashed mail.app when reading rss feeds with a message about being incompatible with growl.

    So then I had to run the uninstaller and reboot (again), grand total 40 minutes down the drain with nothing to show for it. If you want to tests squirrelfish use the far more stable nighties:

    http://nightly.webkit.org/

    --
    Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
  102. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they wanted, they could even *use* webkit itself. Of course, diversity is good too.

  103. Re:Safari still a memory pig? Crash protection? by kestasjk · · Score: 1

    I wonder if Apple has done anything about these issues.

    Do they involve browsing/organizing/searching thumbnails of some form of media?

    Then no :-(

    --
    // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
  104. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    If Apple distributed modified versions of WebKit without releasing the changes in source form then they are in violation of the LGPL and you should let someone with standing to sue (e.g. any of the KHTML contributors) know. If, on the other hand, you are just trolling, please be quiet.

    As with LLVM, they often hold back changes and only merge them into the public repository on the day when they release their product (check out the LLVM ARM backend changelog for the day the iPhone SDK was announced), but I have yet to see any evidence of them distributing a modified version without distributing the source, especially not for WebKit where that would count as copyright infringement (distributing KHTML code on a massive scale without a license) with statutory penalties greater than the value of the company.

    That's not to say, of course, that they don't build additional things on top of WebKit and not distribute the sources for those.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  105. In other news... by kestasjk · · Score: 3, Funny

    The big problem Safari faces is that Opera users already dominate the snobby-over-nothing niche Apple usually occupies :-(

    --
    // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
  106. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by JohnnyKrisma · · Score: 1

    What incentive would they have to hold code back? They are bundling it with OSX. It's built into the iPhone. Are there really that many people that are eschewing Safari and downloading the Webkit nightly builds or OmniWeb that they're going to lose money from directing Google searches? Or are you suggesting that they're worried about Firefox stealing the code? I just don't see the reasoning for it.

  107. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by appleprophet · · Score: 1

    These are very serious allegations. Please link to your bugzilla report.

  108. Re:No Linux Support? Don't take them seriously. by el3mentary · · Score: 1

    The difference is that the average user couldn't give a shit whether it runs on Linux or not.

    Statistically that is a correct statement.

    --
    I reject your reality and substitute my own.
  109. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    ... Except of course LLVM isn't released under the LGPL license, but a BSD style license that doesn't require changes to be made public. However, my experience working on LLVM is that all the Apple developers check their changes directly into the main (open) LLVM repository anyway.

    I don't know what the situation is with webkit, but I expect it's something similar.

  110. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by DiLLeMaN · · Score: 1

    Nice. Webkit is based on KHTML, and there's no way to get a Linux build.

    Sure there is, and that's just the browser that's been named in the comments on this article a dozen times. Also, this.

    --
    /var/run/twitter.sock is a twitter socket puppet.
  111. Re:Tabs on Title Bar? Solution? by argent · · Score: 1

    Here's how to turn tabs-on-top off on Mac: Disable "Tabs on Top" Feature in Safari 4 Public Beta

    This doesn't work on Windows, alas, even if you patch the property list. The tab bar does move from the title bar to the right location, but it doesn't work as a tab bar...

  112. Interesting update by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    The jump in speed versus Firefox (on my Mac, anyway) is actually noticeable. There seem to still be significant memory leaks; but, unlike Firefox, Safari 4 remains responsive even as it sucks up more and more RAM.

    But still - extensions are the reason I keep going back to Firefox, and it doesn't look like that'll change in the near future. I prefer Webkit to Gecko overall; but Firefox's extensions are too big a deal to pass up.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  113. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, you better get yourself checked. I think you're suffering for brain damage. Or do you use Linux? That might explain it.

    >Friday, June 10, 2005 8:49 AM by LarryOsterman

    [....] But Microsoft does have lawyers. And they have stated that looking at GPL'ed code requires approval. [...]

    http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archive/2005/06/09/427309.aspx

  114. Apple site slow? Try Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given that the Apple Website seems congested down at the moment, for those that don't want to wait an hour:

    Mac OSX
    http://www.download.com/Apple-Safari/3000-2356_4-34119.html

    Windows
    http://www.filehippo.com/download_safari/
    http://www.download.com/Safari/3000-2356_4-10697494.html

  115. Re:To read more about safari's legendary stability by DiLLeMaN · · Score: 2, Interesting

    OMG SIGBUS LOL I wouldn't go as far as to use this data: sillyness to point out a browser's instability, but it is a bug allright. The fun part is that it only crashes with %80 (128 in dec) and higher, when I replace that with 7F it just displays a semicolon.

    --
    /var/run/twitter.sock is a twitter socket puppet.
  116. Sorry by Daimanta · · Score: 1

    I tried helping but I wasn't able to test the results properly because my browser crashed when I tried to input that. Must be windows.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
  117. No love for Chrome? by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

    Google's browser uses the same rendering technology (WebKit) with a distinct JavaScript engine.

    Could it be that no comparisons are made against Chrome because

    • Chrome does not run on OS X nor PPC
    • The results aren't so impressive?

    V8 vs Nitro performance... perhaps a car analogy is needed here? :)

    1. Re:No love for Chrome? by abhi_beckert · · Score: 1

      The nightly builds of WebKit have been faster than V8 since the day V8 was released, and WebKit has a lot more developers than chrome, the gap has grown significantly in the last months.

      It's at the point now where speed is a non-issue on desktop systems, but it does mean better battery life on notebooks and better performance on phones, so they're still pushing hard to optimise.

      Chrome is faster than IE/FireFox, and it has some very interesting features. But safari is definitely the fastest, and with the UI changes in Safari 4, it looks like apple has taken the best ideas in chrome and added their own flair.

      Overall I think it's fantastic to see two big companies competing hard and even a bit dirty to make the best browser experience, while both using the same rendering engine. This is *exactly* how open source contributes to better software.

  118. onload reloaded? by janwedekind · · Score: 1

    Is this perfomance due to the innovative use of the onload function or is this some new way of rendering web pages and starting the clock later?

  119. Nitro may be fast but... by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    The rest of it was choking and sputtering.

    To be fair it should be better over time. It's just trying to generate loads of images for my bookmarks which I'll probably never really appreciate.

  120. Why is Session Restore still not an option, god by LoneIgadzra · · Score: 1

    I don't understand why Safari still offers no automatic session restore. One little option in the prefs is all I ask! Every other browser supports this better than Safari. In Safari to restore my tabs I have to remember to choose a menu option that has no keyboard shortcut, and doesn't even always work (sometimes tabs are inexplicably blank).

    1. Re:Why is Session Restore still not an option, god by goombah99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't understand why Safari still offers no automatic session restore.

      Safari 4 does have a restore session. Also since safari 3 there has been a prefernce for autorestore session.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    2. Re:Why is Session Restore still not an option, god by LoneIgadzra · · Score: 1

      Nope, triple checked prefs, still not there or I am blind.

  121. Admin stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I tried to install, was told I needed admin privileges. I hate it when that happens.
    Apple, pls get back to me when you're ready for
    prime-time. You're not there yet.

  122. Re:Safari still a memory pig? Crash protection? by DiLLeMaN · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The session *is* saved, and you can restore it using History - Reopen All Windows From Last Session.
    If you want this to happen automatically when Safari starts up, you could install SafariStand, which does this and a whole lot more for free.

    As for the memory issues... I don't know which browser uses more memory, but I sure know which one feels slow and unresponsive on my machine, and it's not Safari.

    --
    /var/run/twitter.sock is a twitter socket puppet.
  123. How to restore the old tabs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Open a Terminal and run

    defaults write com.apple.Safari DebugSafari4TabBarIsOnTop -bool NO

    This will restore the tabs to the previous ( more sane ) behavior.

  124. Re:Safari still a memory pig? Crash protection? by pwagland · · Score: 1

    The other missing thing from Safari was something as basic as session saving and crash protection. You have to buy Saft for that. With Firefox, it's free.

    I wonder if Apple has done anything about these issues.

    I don't know about the first issue, but certainly the second is fixed. Go to the History menu, and "reopen all tabs from last session". It doesn't let you save arbitrary sessions, but it does give you crash protection.

  125. Automatically identifies top sites? by Cyko_01 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Safari automatically identifies your favorite sites and displays them as a wall of stunning graphical previews. To visit one of your top sites, just click any of the previews. As you browse, Safari identifies the websites youâ(TM)re most interested in based on how often and how recently you visit a site.

    oh great! now next time grandma opens up my web browser she'll be bombarded by porn sites! that's exactly what I was missing in firefox!

  126. Re:Safari still a memory pig? Crash protection? by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    Safari 4 has restore session now.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  127. Safari 4 beta + Gmail = FAIL by PGillingwater · · Score: 1

    I just installed Safari 4 beta under Leopard, and now cannot access Gmail. I have rebooted, cleared history, cleared the cache, etc., but to no avail. Navigating to Gmail brings the URL for a successful login (I can still reach google.com/ig and login and logout just fine), but the screen stays white.

    This was working fine with Safari 3 -- however, Firefox seems to exhibit identical behavior. Oddly, I can access the "corporate" version of Gmail (based on sites), but not the "primary" Gmail. Note that I have been using Google Gears with offline storage option, which might have contributed to this.

    Anyone else seen this?

    --
    Paul Gillingwater
    MBA, CISSP, CISM
    1. Re:Safari 4 beta + Gmail = FAIL by steak · · Score: 2, Informative
  128. Was that on Windows or the Mac? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because back when Firefox still ran on my computer (it stopped working after a critical security update) it used to hog lots more memory than Safari did. It also took ages to start. Safari's load times were comparable to IE, that is to say very fast. The only thing I always hated Safari for is that the way they implemented page scrolling is really sucky. Instead of asking the OS/window manager to scroll the window a bit and then fill the new bit in (like almost all other applications do) it insists on doing a full page redraw. While I understand why that may be necessary for some pages (fixed backgrounds, those are slow in IE too, and they're distracting, you should be able to turn those off) it results in unimaginably poor scrolling performance for all pages. One flick of the scroll wheel? Just as slow as minimizing and restoring. Smooth scrolling? For bloody get it. And to think that Windows has a built-in function for smooth scrolling, that automatically scrolls a bit, asks your application to draw the newly exposed bits, and so on at very high performance... "We're Apple employees, we can't be bothered to read MSDN." /rant

  129. Re:No Linux Support? Don't take them seriously. by Super_Z · · Score: 3, Informative

    Why do I care about your lousy browser? If it only runs on Mac and PC, it is not a serious browser. The Linux browser market is expanding due to netbooks and phones.

    The latest safari nightly (r41176) compiles and runs just fine on my stock Ubuntu Hardy box. The only pain I encountered was the libsoup 2.25 library dependency which I had to pull down and compile myself instead of using the older library supplied from the Hardy repository.

    Think Differently? I don't see any difference between Apple and MS these days. They both try to tie you into proprietary formats and do a piss poor job of supporting other operating systems. IE runs poorly on Mac and (relatively) well on Windows, Safari barely ran on Windows and was well supported on Mac. I don't see how Apple is any better. They're just Microsoft in a prettier dress.

    Not only is WebKit open-source, it also seems like Apple has gone to great length to ensure that this piece of software is portable to other operating systems. The key is to actually do the "wget, autogen.sh, make, make install" steps yourself. It's really not that hard.

  130. Tabs on Title Bar still make no sense on Mac. by argent · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Friend, I'm on a Mac.

    The toolbar and bookmark bar are ALSO logically above the tab bar in the hierarchy. They do not change: the content of one toolbar widget, the location box, changes... but the rest of the widgets are fixed and the location box itself is fixed. They should be above the tab bar.

    So, no, it makes no sense from the Mac side either.

    1. Re:Tabs on Title Bar still make no sense on Mac. by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      I think it's kinds arguable. THe tool bar controlls what happens in that tab not the other tabs so I don't see what you rpoint is there. it's tab specific. the bookmarks bar also controls what get opened in that tab. it too is tab specific as to where it directs the action. The exception being "open in tabs" which opens new tabs and also overwrites the current tab. But that's a lot like the right click "open in new tab" which also directs the opening of new tabs.

      So I guess I'm not seeing you point. which is okay but I think it shows it's equivocal. Some tools are application type tools (the menu) and some are tools that operate on the current tab.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    2. Re:Tabs on Title Bar still make no sense on Mac. by argent · · Score: 1

      The only thing tab-specific in the toolbar is the contents of the location widget.

      Everything else is fixed in both location and appearance, and does not change from tab to tab. If you had different tools available depending on the site, or if the bookmarks were context-sensitive based on the site, then I could see them being part of the tab.

      They're no more tab-specific than the Windows menu bar. You can't say it makes sense on the Mac and doesn't make sense on Windows.

  131. g3 performance by steak · · Score: 2, Informative

    i have a ~9 year old pismo powerbook (tiger, g3, firewire) which is at the very low end of the supported hardware. in my limited experience with safari 4, it seems to perform about as well as firefox 3 memory wise. also safari 4 gets 100 on the acid3 test.

    by the by if anyone wants to contribute to the buy me a new laptop fund call 1-800-.....

  132. Re:Safari still a memory pig? Crash protection? by 666999 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Session restore? SafariStand works great, and brings a whole raft of other features as well, such as click-to-play Flash.
    Ad-blocking? I use SafariBlock with Rick752's EasyList.
    Both are free.

    I can't comment on your issue with Safari's memory usage, as I haven't experienced the same problem.

  133. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by bdash · · Score: 4, Informative

    As a developer working on WebKit, this is completely wrong and more than a little insulting.

    The versions of WebKit included with Safari releases are built directly from the public tree. There is no secret version of WebKit that Apple fixes bugs in for Safari releases before eventually landing the changes in the WebKit tree. The WebKit tree is Apple's official WebKit tree, and is where all of Apple's development on WebKit for Mac OS X and Windows takes place.

    For sake of reference http://trac.webkit.org/browser/releases/Apple/Safari%204%20Public%20Beta contains the exact source code of WebKit that was built and released as Safari 4 Public Beta earlier today. There are no secret changes in the version of WebKit that Apple shipped. The changes are all there in the open for the world to see.

  134. Re:Top sites by Keeper+Of+Keys · · Score: 1

    Hm, is that why Opera is at last emulating FireBug with Dragonfly?

    FF3 is actually quite a slender piglet without any extensions; it's just that they're so darned useful.

  135. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To my understanding, with most apple bug reports, you are *technically* under NDA when you submit them. You can report bugs, but you can't discuss them.

  136. Re:Safari still a memory pig? Crash protection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The other missing thing from Safari was something as basic as session saving and crash protection. You have to buy Saft for that. With Firefox, it's free.

    try SafairStand for session saving and crash protection, among other things, and its free.

  137. SafariBlock by theurge14 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Been available here for Safari for a long time.

  138. Not what the summary says by jensend · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apple isn't claiming their entire rendering engine is 30x as fast as IE's Trident and 3x as fast as FF's Gecko- they're saying their JavaScript implementation is 30x as fast as IE's and 3x as fast as FF's (that would be the SpiderMonkey 3.0.x JS performance, not the 3.1 Tracemonkey performance which is also a lot faster than 3.0.x). That's an entirely reasonable claim.

  139. Yeah, but... what about plugins? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AFAIK, they still don't support a plugin architecture to enable functionality like adblock, etc.

    As far as I'm concerned, Safari still SUCKS until they fix that.

  140. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    I think this mesans FF can even *use* webkit's code directly in their browser ...

    Oh yes; if only we could have a lightweight, non-bloated browser with a narrow focus on "just browsing"... ~

  141. Re:Safari still a memory pig? Crash protection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Safari has had session saving and last session restore (like after a crash) since 3.2, possibly earlier. Under bookmarks menu, "Add bookmark for these __ tabs" and under history, "Reopen all windows from last session"

    As far as memory goes, if I launch each app, load the same 12 websites in tabs FF uses 158MB Real/1.13GB Virtual and Safari 4 uses 120 Real/1.07 Virtual.

    Hope that helps.

  142. The fix: by sRev · · Score: 1

    defaults write com.apple.Safari DebugSafari4TabBarIsOnTop -bool NO.

  143. Doesn't work with themes by cpicon92 · · Score: 0

    the chrome-style tabs built into the top of the window break almost all custom styles on windows. eg, they only work with windows classic and luna.

  144. Sure mmhmm by FyberOptic · · Score: 0, Redundant

    All I'll say is that Apple sure makes grandiose claims for a browser that takes 25MB to download.

  145. why are apple installers so big? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i mean 25 mb installer for a browser, when firefox and even ie8 do it in about half the size. and another big offender is itunes. 65 mb for a media player. maybe they need to have some sort of custom libraries from mac?

  146. Re:Safari still a memory pig? Crash protection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The other missing thing from Safari was something as basic as session saving and crash protection. You have to buy Saft for that. With Firefox, it's free.

    History > Reopen All Windows From Last Session

  147. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by Homer1946 · · Score: 1

    Since webkit and the new JS engine are open source (and have been) Linux enthusiasts can create a webkit based browser for themselves. I thought that was much of the point of FOSS. Make the code open and we will built it ourselves. Now you want Apple to do it for you?

  148. Re:Top sites by Rockoon · · Score: 1

    Dragonfly is a perfect example of how Opera continues to innovate.

    Sure, inspired by FireBug ... but goes much much further. Like everything done at Opera, they do it superior. There is very little that it half-assed comming out of Opera.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  149. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 1

    if MSFT decided one day to reskin and rename FF and package it with their OS.

    Please Jesus, Please.

  150. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No mod points today, but this should be modded up.

  151. Re:No Linux Support? Don't take them seriously. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

    If you are interrested in a browser that runs on more than mac's and pc's... the most widely ported browser ever is called Opera. Give it a try.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  152. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    No, LLVM isn't LGPL'd, but Apple still act as if it were. They release their changes in source form as soon as they release the binary products. This is what I would be very surprised if they didn't do the same thing with WebKit. If a company does something when they are not legally required to, it would be slightly confusing if they didn't do it when they were.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  153. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by Velska1 · · Score: 0

    The thing is not that IE and Safari developers can see FF source. It's that IE developers can see Windows source and Safari developers can see OS X source. It is well known that M$ has left unpublished API calls in Win that M$ and partner apps can use to gain an integration advantage. (This may or may not be remedied in newer versions of the OS.)

    --
    Every problem has a solution that is simple, easy and wrong. Selling our Liberty for a little Security is a much too de
  154. Re:uzbekistan tour by uzbekistan · · Score: 1

    http://www.apple.com/safari/features.html - Safari 4 introduces the Nitro JavaScript engine, an advanced bytecode JavaScript engine that makes web browsing even faster. In fact, Safari 4 executes JavaScript up to 6 times faster than Internet Explorer 8 and up to 4 times faster than Firefox 3.1.

    and what?????? what is good?

  155. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by Millennium · · Score: 1

    If IE and Safari can look at Firefox's source code and see exactly how FF implement's something, how can FF maintain a competitive advantage as a core browser. By core browser I mean without all the plugins/themes/extensions.

    The thing is, the plugins/themes/extensions pretty much is FF's main competitive advantage, what with the apparent de-prioritization of standards and performance. Discounting extensibility isn't really fair.

    So if Safari has this great performance, how can the FF figure out how Safari does it?

    Pretty much the same way Safari figures it out for FF: by downloading the source code. But it doesn't really matter, because the core architectures of Safari and FF (and IE, for that matter) are so different that a lot of the performance stuff in each browser can't really be applied across them. You can use some of the higher-level stuff, and both FF and Safari have done this with one another in the past, but the low-level stuff just doesn't translate all that well. The best you can do in cases like this is to use the code as documentation to help write your own, and even then it will come out looking very different.

  156. Mod up ^ by jo_ham · · Score: 1

    Mod this up. SafariBlock is superb, and it even works neatly with this new beta version 4.

  157. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by jo_ham · · Score: 1

    I don't even use Linux full time (have a hobby Ubuntu box) and even I know about Midori.

    Please hand in your trolling card at the front desk, you're fired from Trolls R Us.

  158. Beta 4 breaks Back-To-My-Mac by nsayer · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Beta 4 breaks Back-To-My-Mac by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't mobileme was down.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    2. Re:Beta 4 breaks Back-To-My-Mac by nsayer · · Score: 1

      I think something else was going on. I had two machines, one with the beta, one without. The one with the beta couldn't connect while the other one worked just fine.

  159. Crashing by sickstick · · Score: 1

    Crashes every time in vista x86 when trying to visit this site. http://www.theaa.com/breakdown-cover/european-breakdown-cover.jsp

  160. Re:Safari still a memory pig? Crash protection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, Safari is a memory hog, I'm not sure if the true magnitude of its "hog-ness" is known. Take a look at http://sylvestersteele1.07x.net/Site/Safari_is_memory_heavy%21.html

  161. Safari 4 Beta is faster than Safari 3 by compusci · · Score: 1

    With all the hype out there, it seems impossible that Safari is as good as Apple says. However, I must admit that it is a much better release than Safari 3, which I thought was a downgrade from v2. Safari 4 beta starts up and loads pages much faster than v3. Also, it does appear to consume less memory while running. Apple has also integrated the "lazy susan" thumbnails for bookmarked pages and also includes the new "top sites" page. I'd say it is faster than Firefox for some things, but overall, Firefox includes more features. However, Safari 4 is still better than v3 and of course IE - any version.

  162. Re:How does firefox maintain competitive advantage by BZ · · Score: 1

    > In fact, webkit is licensed under BSD + GPL

    This is not correct. Some parts of webkit are licenced BSD + LGPL. Some are LGPL-only. The latter is a more restrictive license than the MPL/GPL/LGPL trilicense Mozilla uses, so only code that falls under the former could be used in Mozilla internally. LGPL-only code could, of course, be used as a separate library.

    That said, Gecko developers _do_ look at Webkit code, and vice versa, as far as I know.