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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.)
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.:-)
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!
"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.)
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.
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.)
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.
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:
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.;-)
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.
Standards compliance means nothing to users... not compared to what it means to web developers. I take great care and waste a lot of time making sure all my web developments look the same in IE6 as they do in Firefox, Opera, Safari or IE7.
I would surely love to see IE6 die
If you want IE to die, stop doing that and users will start caring about FireFox, Opera, and Safari. If a user gets a better experience in an alternative browser, then the point of standards compliance will come through loud and clear.
For an extreme example of this, take IE on a spin through my signature link.
Or you just offer weak support for bundling other browsers. If I'm not mistaken, many viewers will probably see Google Chrome ads on this page. Which is definitely a good start for getting out the word about alternative browsers. Even better is to apply peer pressure to your friends, neighbors, and relatives. Peer pressure can be an excellent tool for getting people to conform to non-conformity. (Bizarre idea, eh?) Especially when the non-conformity is actually the direction that conformity is going.
Let's just make sure we do the RIGHT thing and don't get too focused on a particular browser. As long as it's not IE, the world will be a better place.;-)
Amusing, but you destroyed the meter of the song. "Peaches" is two syllables while "songs" is one. The way the song is sung ("pee chez") you don't have enough syllables to fill the notes. Try using "MP3s" instead. It should fit into the meter a bit better.
"Moving to the bittorrent, gonna steal me a lot of em-p'threes"
See how much better that sounds?
(Yes, that was a totally pedantic and geeky thing to worry about. I make no apologies.:-P)
And if it were 10 years ago it may even be slightly relevant.
If you consider for a moment that 10 years ago is the last time that Microsoft put any serious investment in developing either Microsoft.com or Internet Explorer itself, the email is very relevant. It explains the exact thought process that brought us that site.
Of course, we don't have legal discovery on Microsoft anymore so we can't get a hold of such juicy emails which I'm sure are still floating around. So instead we have to look at Microsoft's behavior and realize that they haven't changed one bit. IE8 embraces the parts that Microsoft feels are not a danger (e.g. CSS2), incompatibly extends the parts that Microsoft sees as a potential danger (e.g. HTML5), and extinguishes the parts that Microsoft doesn't want to ever see the light of day (e.g. DOM2 Events, SVG). Then it throws a nice veiner over the crap-fest to convince users that it's the best thing since sliced bread.
Um... that was kind of my point. That IE-only compatibility on Microsoft.com is exactly what people should be expecting. But for some reason it's a huge surprise to people that Microsoft.com is incompatible with standards.
I don't get it. Why is everyone so surprised by this? Microsoft has been the biggest consumer of their own non-standard web technologies in both an effort to tie services to Windows and to convince other web developers to use their 'neato' technologies.
Has no one ever noticed that Microsoft.com had various effects, direct system access, and other features not found anywhere else on the web? Or that Windows Update only worked through Internet Explorer? Microsoft WANTS to be as non-standard as possible. And if you don't believe me, check out this wonderful document penned by none other than Bill Gates himself:
One thing we have got to change in our strategy -- allowing Office documents to be rendered very well by other peoples browsers is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company.
We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities.
Maybe I ought to replace my brain tubes with brain transistors, but then I'd have to wait for the damned thing to boot...
Nah, you just need to switch to a Unix system. The neat thing about Unix systems is that they really boot fast. You ought to see one boot, if you haven't already. It's inspiring to those of us whose LispMs take all morning to boot*.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
Yes and yes.
Yes.
Yes.
I don't know. I've never tried.
Don't be silly. That's what Google Search is for. ;-)
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.)
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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 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.
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:
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.
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.)
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. :-)
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.)
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.
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!
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.)
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.
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.)
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.
That's ACID2, not ACID3. As the article says, they'll probably update the ACID2 test to match the spec change.
Falling Leaves Animation: http://webkit.org/blog-files/leaves/index.html
Bouncing Box Animation: http://webkit.org/blog-files/bounce.html
Rotate and Fade Animation: http://webkit.org/blog-files/pulse.html
CSS Recipes for Effects: http://developer.apple.com/safari/articles/webcontent/cssrecipes.html
CSS Gradients: http://developer.apple.com/safari/library/documentation/InternetWeb/Conceptual/SafariVisualEffectsProgGuide/Gradients/chapter_2_section_1.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40008032-CH7-SW11
Video tag (requires Quicktime): http://webkit.org/blog/140/html5-media-support/
CSS Gradients: http://webkit.org/blog/175/introducing-css-gradients/
Background Shaped Clipping: http://webkit.org/blog/164/background-clip-text/
Local Database Example: http://webkit.org/misc/DatabaseExample.html
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. ;-)
Anyone know if this is a new engine or just Squirrelfish renamed?
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.
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.
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.
^Win.
Welcome to the new web, where there are solutions for age-old problems like downtime. ;-)
I was also affected, but it was past my bedtime anyway so I didn't worry too much about it. As long as there's not an extended outage, I'll be fine.
If you want IE to die, stop doing that and users will start caring about FireFox, Opera, and Safari. If a user gets a better experience in an alternative browser, then the point of standards compliance will come through loud and clear.
For an extreme example of this, take IE on a spin through my signature link.
Now you DIE, Mr. Bond!
[...]
Or you just offer weak support for bundling other browsers. If I'm not mistaken, many viewers will probably see Google Chrome ads on this page. Which is definitely a good start for getting out the word about alternative browsers. Even better is to apply peer pressure to your friends, neighbors, and relatives. Peer pressure can be an excellent tool for getting people to conform to non-conformity. (Bizarre idea, eh?) Especially when the non-conformity is actually the direction that conformity is going.
Let's just make sure we do the RIGHT thing and don't get too focused on a particular browser. As long as it's not IE, the world will be a better place. ;-)
Amusing, but you destroyed the meter of the song. "Peaches" is two syllables while "songs" is one. The way the song is sung ("pee chez") you don't have enough syllables to fill the notes. Try using "MP3s" instead. It should fit into the meter a bit better.
"Moving to the bittorrent, gonna steal me a lot of em-p'threes"
See how much better that sounds?
(Yes, that was a totally pedantic and geeky thing to worry about. I make no apologies. :-P)
If you consider for a moment that 10 years ago is the last time that Microsoft put any serious investment in developing either Microsoft.com or Internet Explorer itself, the email is very relevant. It explains the exact thought process that brought us that site.
Of course, we don't have legal discovery on Microsoft anymore so we can't get a hold of such juicy emails which I'm sure are still floating around. So instead we have to look at Microsoft's behavior and realize that they haven't changed one bit. IE8 embraces the parts that Microsoft feels are not a danger (e.g. CSS2), incompatibly extends the parts that Microsoft sees as a potential danger (e.g. HTML5), and extinguishes the parts that Microsoft doesn't want to ever see the light of day (e.g. DOM2 Events, SVG). Then it throws a nice veiner over the crap-fest to convince users that it's the best thing since sliced bread.
Thankfully, users aren't buying it.
http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/plugin.htm
Lord only knows why that even exists...
Um... that was kind of my point. That IE-only compatibility on Microsoft.com is exactly what people should be expecting. But for some reason it's a huge surprise to people that Microsoft.com is incompatible with standards.
Shock and horror.
I don't get it. Why is everyone so surprised by this? Microsoft has been the biggest consumer of their own non-standard web technologies in both an effort to tie services to Windows and to convince other web developers to use their 'neato' technologies.
Has no one ever noticed that Microsoft.com had various effects, direct system access, and other features not found anywhere else on the web? Or that Windows Update only worked through Internet Explorer? Microsoft WANTS to be as non-standard as possible. And if you don't believe me, check out this wonderful document penned by none other than Bill Gates himself:
Nah, you just need to switch to a Unix system. The neat thing about Unix systems is that they really boot fast. You ought to see one boot, if you haven't already. It's inspiring to those of us whose LispMs take all morning to boot*. ;-)
* With apologies to John Rose
For great justice!
Sorry, sorry. Couldn't resist. :-P