|
|||||||
| Register | Members List | New Posts | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 |
|
Kasper's Automated Slave
Join Date: Nov 1997
Posts: 6,151
|
Apple releases Safari 4.0.3
Apple Tuesday afternoon released a new update to its Safari browser, bringing a handful of minor fixes to the application.
The program is available for download direct from Apple or via Software Update on OS X. The update is said to include: Stability improvements for Web pages that use the HTML 5 video tag. A fix for an issue that prevented some users from logging into iWork.com. A fix for an issue that could cause web content to be displayed in grayscale instead of color. The previous update to Safari, 4.0.2, was released in early July. It reduced crashes related to Nitro, the custom JavaScript engine key to Safari's improved speed. It also rolled in unnamed compatibility and security fixes. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Oblivion
Posts: 1,408
|
I'm a "casual" Apple Fan Boi, so bear with me if this has already been addressed ad nauseum in other threads, but does Apple have a particular strategy in the web browser market? Are they trying to gain market share there, or have they pretty much conceded that battle to IE, FireFox, and now Chrome?
I do like what I see in Safari 4, although I currently prefer Google Chrome.
"Revolutionary means you ship and then test... Lots of things made the first Mac in 1984 a piece of crap - but it was a revolutionary piece of crap." -Guy Kawasaki
20" iMac G5 1.8GHz - 5 years old and still revolutionary |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 63
|
Toooo slow :P
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 249
|
Quote:
I just bought my first Mac (a 13" MacBook Pro) a couple of weeks ago after being with a PC for the past 15 years. I tried giving Safari a try, but ended up going right back to Firefox 3.5 (and all of my lovely extensions). It works great in OS X. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 138
|
Slower than ....
Safari 4 is slower than Safari 3. It is supposed to faster but it is not. I thought it was because of PowerPC in my G5, but after I got a Mac Pro, same thing continues. Taker longer to load pages than Safari 3.
Any ideas? ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 138
|
Still useless
I love using Safari. Problem is that's it's pretty much useless for corporate sites. Well just about any site that uses active-x, sharepoint or gov sites. Tends to break or lose functionality with most .net and .asp sites. Gotta use IE on Windows. It's why Macs are not good for corporate use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | ||
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,218
|
Quote:
Quote:
I hope 10.6 doesn't end up likewise........ (at this point, as a lay user who's very happy with 10.5.X, it's not even that obvious to me I should care). |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 471
|
Quote:
Go to OpenDNS.org and put those numbers in your Network/Airport or Ethernet/Advanced.../DNS. Turn IPv6 to off. Repair permissions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12
|
IE "Websites"
Quote:
Personally, I use both Safari and Firefox -- usually if one has an issue, the other will work. They each have their strengths. Thank goodness for AdBlock -- available now for Safari too! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,415
|
Quote:
Judged that way, they are the most successful browser on the planet as that's exactly the effect Safari has had on the market.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. There’s just no consistency. It’s just a big grab bag of monkey poop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,415
|
I don't know what your particular problem is, but Safari 4 is definitely *not* "slower than Safari 3." Check out Apple support as it just shouldn't be that way.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. There’s just no consistency. It’s just a big grab bag of monkey poop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,481
|
Bugs in either Safari or other OS parts.
Quote:
So what ever the bug was it didn't impact Firefox. Generally though I use Firefox as my backup browser as Safari is really growing on me. Part of that attachment to Safari is it's integration into the iPhone and the associated syncing. It is surprising how useful this combo has become. A few other things in Safari are growing on me also. In general I like it's transparent nature. For your issue though do upgrade everything and see what happens. There are other options I haven't tried above that might help but at this point it seems snappy. Dave |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 138
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 206
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 249
|
Quote:
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 126
|
Quote:
The only browser I would take a second look at is Chrome. The builds of Chromium of blazing fast and the I like the unified address bar. The address bar isn't that big of a deal though since I've already done that to Safari using keywurl. As for some other users on this thread Safari 4 is incredibly fast. It is neck and neck in terms of speed with Chromium. If Safari is slow for you then you are doing something to slow it down. There have been tests from tons of sites that have it as fast as Chrome. The main difference is that Chromium is way faster than Safari loading up. Chromium doesn't even bounce in the dock. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1
|
Not quite
Quote:
I think what he means is that once upon a time Mac users were severely disadvantaged because the world was dominated so much by IE and Microsoft deliberately broke standards in order to keep things that way. Mac users were marginalized on the Internet because of it. This situation still exists to some extent but not anywhere near as much as previously. His assertion that Safari has been successful because it has promoted open standards is correct. The Internet is a much easier place for Mac users to live now because of alternate browsers like Safari and firefox and the standards they are pushing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,481
|
Safari 4 is much faster than 3 , baring that it didn't hang.
Quote:
I also share your desire with respect to 64 bit Safari. That should be impressive if any of the prerelease comments are accurate. SL is only a few weeks away at worst, I'm hoping it lives up to it's performance goals. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 18
|
Quote:
4.2.2.1 4.2.2.2 4.2.2.3 4.2.2.4 4.2.2.5 4.2.2.6 http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/08...-DNS-Hijacking Safari on OS X, for me, is fine. It's when it's on XP that I have slowdown issues or page rendering issues. So, I use Chrome for XP instead. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 442
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 85
|
No permissions repairs were found necessary after this update. I use Safari 4 almost exclusively because it responds and renders faster (on a university network) and is less fussy than Firefox (which I need to use for Typo3 web-site editing.. lame as Typo3 is.). On my setup (PPC + Tiger on a Windblows network) it has been capable and perfectly stable since 4.0.1.
To those who wonder why Apple bothers: I think it is because Apple needs it as their Webkit development shell. Steve's always looking where things *will be* in a few years time and JS/html-5 for most things could be where it's at. Chrome and FF are fine browsers but they're pretty much working towards the same goals as Safari. I see MS IE as the Lennie Small of the internet, the big retard that dreams of "living off the fatta' the lan'" (and looking after rabbits?) forever more. PS: I've found SafariBlock does a great job of reducing the clutter on most commercial pages. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 1,265
|
Just loaded 4.0.3 and it still takes about a minute to fully open (first time from power-up).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 109
|
You know, Safari 4 with it's redesigned user interface and regression of tab browsing is such a disappointer. I just can't get with Safari's new address bar and search bar UI, plus the fact that Apple took away the aqua progress bar and tabs at the top.
It's sad when your beta product is much better than the finsihed product. I had choice in Safari beta 4 but now it's Apple's way or the highway. Also has anyone ever tried to pop out video at hulu.com or tried viewing Yahoo! news videos on a 13 MacBook? Functionality of tabs is awful. It's not suppose to be this way. Anyway I gave up on Safari and now I enjoy using Camino 2.0. There are some really nice features in store for Camino 2.0 to make it on par with feature rich browsers like Opera, Safari and Firefox. I was hoping to see that Apple included the option for tabs at the top again and the beloved elegant aqua progress bar. ![]()
Switching From Windows on Nov. 30th 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3
|
Safari and Apple Veering Off Course
I used only Safari until version 4. The "Top Sites" feature goes behind your back to past web-sites you've visited. You can't turn that off, even if you "turn-off" Top Sites. The loss of the blue progress bar is inexplicable, as is movement of reload button.
Top Sites bloats web-site hit counts by multiples and your disk drive by GB. It slows the machine by hogging bandwidth as it's background process hogs the network. It takes snapshots of sensitive data like e-mail, finances and passwords, storing them in cache without telling you, then popping them up for display (although the display can be turned off). Reports are that it allows kids to circumvent parental blocks. When I get a Mac I now have to: a) disable iSight camera (don't want, don't need, security/privacy violation) They creepiness of a camera in every computer staring back at the room never diminishes. b) disable Spotlight (don't want, don't need, security/privacy violation) (I use EasyFind instead) c) Disable Safari so no one accidentally runs it and starts filling the disk and saturating the network with web-site caching nobody needs or knows about -- very close to mal/spyware. d) adjust room lighting to near darkness and bob my head back and forth to avoid the mirror-like reflections. e) Pull out the adapter plugs so I can use recent/new firewire 400 peripherals Apple has "moved beyond". f) Replace the Apple chiclet keyboard with a real one. I've always used Apple machines, but it's getting to the point that I start wondering why I'm putting up with this. Apple thinks they are "leading" by pushing these poorly thought-out ideas on people. They seem desperate to appear innovative, so go kooky. I just want a computer that does what I tell it to do, not what Apple thinks it should do. It may well be that there are no GOOD new ideas for the browser concept So what? Perfect the security and improve performance. Plenty to do there. Apple is badly misreading the situation if they think the popularity of iTunes for music downloads and iPhone for communications are models of what a fully functional computer of the future should be. They are moving toward "slick but useless or unappealing or even offensive" full throttle. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 791
|
Check out the list of security fixes
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3733 3 different ways in there a website can execute arbitrary code on your computer. |
|
|
|
|
|
#26 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Belgium
Posts: 351
|
Quote:
On my 2 year old first gen alu iMac it opens up in about 4 seconds from cold boot. Do you perhaps open Safari with the "Top Sites" window visible? Cause that can be quite sluggish... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#27 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 317
|
ActiveX is not an HTML standard
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 317
|
Did they fix that horrible copy/paste bug?
I'm generally very happy with Safari 4, espeically since it now has an Adblock plugin available:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/safariadblock/ I just want to know if they've fixed the VERY slow copy/paste issue I've been seeing. The system takes 2-3 seconds when copying/pasting data on some forums. |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 345
|
Safari 4 is a pig, for sure. Safari 3 was significantly faster for most of the sites I visit regularly, both on Intel and on PPC, both on my Macs at home, and at the ones at work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 317
|
Considering benchmarks are widely available I would tend to suspect the sites your visiting are poorly designed or they don't use a lot of Java:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-272792.html Since the performance numbers tend to be in the milliseconds, it's unlikely you would notice a 200 ms difference in performance unless Java is involved, which is tweaked quite a bit under S4. You could always just test your rig yourself and see exactly how they stack up: http://service.futuremark.com/peacek...tistics.action |
|
|
|
|
|
#31 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 345
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
Safari 4.0.2 : 3218 Safari 4.0.3 : 4656 Firefox 3.5.2: 1750 I've also got the latest Firefox beta which I'll test in a moment. I'm surprised at how poorly a release version of FF did. Not sure why it returned such poor numbers, but it did poorly on the Canvas tests. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 317
|
Namoroka (Alpha Firefox) did a bit better than FF 3.5
Quote:
Safari 4.0.2 : 3218 Safari 4.0.3 : 4656 Firefox 3.5.2: 1750 Firefox 3.6a1: 2336 (alpha) Testing Chrome (also alpha for Mac) next... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 317
|
Safari 4.0.2 : 3218
Safari 4.0.3 : 4656 Firefox 3.5.2: 1750 Firefox 3.6a1: 2336 (alpha) Chrome 3.0.197: 2635 (alpha) I'm surprised about the Chrome numbers as well, although it is VERY early alpha for Mac (meaning a lot of functions don't work on it). I would be curious to see what numbers a Windows user gets back. By the way, these were all run on an iMac 3.06 / 4GB 800Mhz DDR2 SDRAM Here's the bechmark URL again: http://service.futuremark.com/peacekeeper/index.action |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 277
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#36 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
End the end it harms nothing to scan for and can possibly resolve issues due to permissions problems. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#37 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 442
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 | |||||||||
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: India
Posts: 1,444
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
p.s> either welcome to the boards or bye bye troll. ![]()
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 1,265
|
Hmmm, I just found out something new (that's probably known) that Safari can do. If you have two windows open, you can drag a tab from one window to the other window.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 317
|
Did anyone ever test the browser speed on a Windows box? I'm curious how they stack up but too lazy to boot into my Win7 partition.
If no one does by this afternoon I'll give it a spin. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|