AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple's Safari 3.1 to support downloadable web fonts, more
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's Safari 3.1 to support downloadable web fonts, more - Page 2

post #41 of 80
2/7/08 at 11:11am
With the new advanced features not being heavily used for a long time to come, I'd be concerned that S3.1 will introduce a new slough of security holes that no one but the criminals will know about.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 80
2/7/08 at 11:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedalmatian View Post

Possibly because Apple has never got the hang of putting network transmission & UI updating under the control of separate threads.

As another example...try using Finder to connect to a file server which is down or on a slow network....Finder hangs for several minutes until the network connection times out.

If you actually think Safari does it's network downloading on the same thread as the UI rendering, you're a moron.
- Tristan
Reply
- Tristan
Reply
post #43 of 80
2/7/08 at 11:22am
Quote:
They should try working on making Safari a better browser. Firefox is way more advanced and flexible comparing the Safari, and it is way more compatible with web sites than Safari. I can't use Safari for a lot of web sites. You have to accept to fact that you have a very marginal market share, and you can't just force your own standards, but you you have to comply with others'.

A lot of this (as well as what a lot of people say) is subjective. Being flexible is not really more advanced its just different. I could just as easily say why can't Firefox be more advanced like Safari and use less of my computers resources.

I really don't use a lot of browser plug-ins and that whole architecture doesn't matter to me.

I think people are making a bit much about Safari working with websites. I would say four years ago when many more websites were optimized for IE. It was much more hit and miss. But today I rarely run into compatibility problems. Most every site is moving towards supporting standards.

Safari is the number three browser used in the world. Firefox marketshare is only a little over twice that of Safari. IE owns a little less than 75% of the world browser marketshare. So everyone is much smaller than IE.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 80
2/7/08 at 11:27am
#1) I'm sorry for being so dumb when it comes to web design and coding, but can someone please tell my why ActiveX and such can't be made to work with Safari? I hate being forced to use IE because certain sites are IE only thanks to ActiveX components. I want Safari all the time! Can't someone up with a plug-in or wrapper, or something?

Also, its annoying when I try to visit those sites on my iPhone...because they don't work!

#2) I've read lots about this, but what is the truth behind the iPhone not supporting Flash? Battery draining issues, longer loading times, Apple trying to kill the Flash format?

Thanks in advance!
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 80
2/7/08 at 11:42am
Because Active-X is a proprietary Microsoft technology. It is an entire "stack" of technology that Microsoft created and holds the keys to the kingdom on.

And the truth about Mobile Safari not supporting Flash is that 1) Apple feels Flash wasn't necessary, so they didn't pursue Adobe to create a version for the iPhone, and 2) Adobe is rumored to be working on it, and I'd bet that when the SDK is released, you'll see it within 2-4 months, and 3) Flash will drain the battery quickly on the iPhone. It does it on every phone I've seen with it, and you can bet that the iPhone will be no different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdotdubz View Post

#1) I'm sorry for being so dumb when it comes to web design and coding, but can someone please tell my why ActiveX and such can't be made to work with Safari? I hate being forced to use IE because certain sites are IE only thanks to ActiveX components. I want Safari all the time! Can't someone up with a plug-in or wrapper, or something?

Also, its annoying when I try to visit those sites on my iPhone...because they don't work!

#2) I've read lots about this, but what is the truth behind the iPhone not supporting Flash? Battery draining issues, longer loading times, Apple trying to kill the Flash format?

Thanks in advance!
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 80
2/7/08 at 11:51am
Does anyone know how to use Alt Quit out of Safari now without it asking the same stupid question that you have "more than one window open"? It never did that before Leopard.
If I'm telling it to quit why do I need to be asked that question even if I have 1,000 windows open?
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 80
2/7/08 at 11:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I would just like to reiterate what mjtomlin stated about following standards. Safari follows more open standards than Firefox or IE.

That's been true for years. Check it out here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid2

IE has been and still is the poorest web browser for supporting standards. It has done damage in holding back CSS on the web. Thankfully the adoption of alternative browsers is changing that and we can now tell people to switch and dump that POS IE.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 80
2/7/08 at 12:29pm
I've been using a build of 3.1 on my Windows machine at work all week, and it is a shit-ton better than anything they've released prior.
MacBook Pro 15" (Unibody)/2.4GHz Core 2 Duo/2 GB RAM/250GB HD/SuperDrive
iMac 20"/2 GHz Core 2 Duo/2 GB RAM/250 GB/SuperDrive
PowerBook G4 12"/1 GHz/1.25 GB RAM/60GB/Combo
iMac G3 333 MHz/96 MB...

Reply
MacBook Pro 15" (Unibody)/2.4GHz Core 2 Duo/2 GB RAM/250GB HD/SuperDrive
iMac 20"/2 GHz Core 2 Duo/2 GB RAM/250 GB/SuperDrive
PowerBook G4 12"/1 GHz/1.25 GB RAM/60GB/Combo
iMac G3 333 MHz/96 MB...

Reply
post #49 of 80
2/7/08 at 12:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Does anyone know how to use Alt Quit out of Safari now without it asking the same stupid question that you have "more than one window open"? It never did that before Leopard.
If I'm telling it to quit why do I need to be asked that question even if I have 1,000 windows open?

I am using Tiger with Safari 3.1 but all you should have to do is go to preferences click on tabs and uncheck the box that says "Confirm when closing multiple pages".
Addicted to a Mac since the Mac Plus
Reply
Addicted to a Mac since the Mac Plus
Reply
post #50 of 80
2/7/08 at 12:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by diskimage View Post

I am using Tiger with Safari 3.1 but all you should have to do is go to preferences click on tabs and uncheck the box that says "Confirm when closing multiple pages".

It used to ask you if you didn't want this to be asked again but not in Leopard. I will try it tonight- thanks.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 80
2/7/08 at 1:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by serpicolugnut View Post

Because Active-X is a proprietary Microsoft technology. It is an entire "stack" of technology that Microsoft created and holds the keys to the kingdom on.

And the truth about Mobile Safari not supporting Flash is that 1) Apple feels Flash wasn't necessary, so they didn't pursue Adobe to create a version for the iPhone, and 2) Adobe is rumored to be working on it, and I'd bet that when the SDK is released, you'll see it within 2-4 months, and 3) Flash will drain the battery quickly on the iPhone. It does it on every phone I've seen with it, and you can bet that the iPhone will be no different.

Then why the heck do developers create websites with that crap (ActiveX)??? Why would they want to limit the audience who visits their site? Is is laziness, stupidity? Is it because IE owns 70% of the browser market? I dunno, though 70% is large, I'm pretty sure that anyone would get quickly fired if the company they worked for lost 30% profits. 30% is still a pretty large number. I know Safari's share isn't that large, but it will be.

I just don't get it.

Is there no universal programing and development language that can be used to open up compatibility with all browsers? Why do people develop pages using ActiveX? What benefit does it provide besides restricting what browser people use to access the site's features?
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 80
2/7/08 at 2:15pm
Hmmm.... looks like Safari 3.1 and Firefox 3 (Beta 3's out next week) may release within a few weeks of each other.

This rivalry is getting interestin'.


.
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
post #53 of 80
2/7/08 at 3:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdotdubz View Post

Then why the heck do developers create websites with that crap (ActiveX)??? Why would they want to limit the audience who visits their site? Is is laziness, stupidity? Is it because IE owns 70% of the browser market? I dunno, though 70% is large, I'm pretty sure that anyone would get quickly fired if the company they worked for lost 30% profits. 30% is still a pretty large number. I know Safari's share isn't that large, but it will be.

I just don't get it.

Is there no universal programing and development language that can be used to open up compatibility with all browsers? Why do people develop pages using ActiveX? What benefit does it provide besides restricting what browser people use to access the site's features?

There was a time when IE was basically the only game in town, it made sense then. Any AX sites still running are probably legacy sites. There's no point in making a new site with it. I'm not sure if Microsoft is still bothering with it. I can't even say I've ever used an ActiveX site.
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 80
2/7/08 at 3:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

There was a time when IE was basically the only game in town, it made sense then. Any AX sites still running are probably legacy sites. There's no point in making a new site with it. I'm not sure if Microsoft is still bothering with it. I can't even say I've ever used an ActiveX site.

Unfortunately, some sites I use for work are coded specifically for IE and AOL of all freaking browsers. Even when they all migrated to new interfaces both last year and this year, all 3 websites have remained IE and freakin AOL only. When I call to complain for Safari & iPhone suppurt, they give me some crap about WAP-enabled versions of the site which are TOTAL garbage. \

I dunno
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 80
2/7/08 at 3:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdotdubz View Post

Unfortunately, some sites I use for work are coded specifically for IE and AOL of all freaking browsers. Even when they all migrated to new interfaces both last year and this year, all 3 websites have remained IE and freakin AOL only. When I call to complain for Safari & iPhone suppurt, they give me some crap about WAP-enabled versions of the site which are TOTAL garbage. \

I dunno

Does IE for Mac work well enough or is ActiveX actually required?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #56 of 80
2/7/08 at 4:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lantzn View Post

That's been true for years. Check it out here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid2

IE has been and still is the poorest web browser for supporting standards. It has done damage in holding back CSS on the web. Thankfully the adoption of alternative browsers is changing that and we can now tell people to switch and dump that POS IE.

IIRC IE was among the first to support CSS with decent quality, it was Netscape 4.x that held back adoption because Netscape's implementation was the worst. Times have chanced a lot since then.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 80
2/7/08 at 5:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Does IE for Mac work well enough or is ActiveX actually required?

ActiveX is required for some parts. They still make IE for mac? I thought it was discontinued?
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 80
2/7/08 at 5:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdotdubz View Post

ActiveX is required for some parts. They still make IE for mac? I thought it was discontinued?

I did business with a company where Safari or Firefox wouldn't work. The server would check the browser before loading the page. I was told that it needed ActiveX but IE for Mac worked fine for what I had to do.


It is discoed, but it's still downloadable if you Google it our grab it from a torrent site.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #59 of 80
2/7/08 at 5:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I did business with a company where Safari or Firefox wouldn't work. The server would check the browser before loading the page. I was told that it needed ActiveX but IE for Mac worked fine for what I had to do.


It is discoed, but it's still downloadable if you Google it our grab it from a torrent site.

Well, I just use Parallels and IE6 and IE7 when it comes to work stuff... sometimes I forget and log in through Safari and start cursing at myself when I remember
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 80
2/7/08 at 6:38pm
Quote:
Similarly, Animations offer a quicker route to AJAX-like effects, such as fading out an HTML element, or increasing the border of a box when hovered over.

For the record, AJAX standards for: Asynchronous JavaScript And XML. AJAX has little or nothing whatsoever to do with fading out HTML elements or increasing box borders; those type of effects are known as DHTML or Dynamic-HTML.

Just clarifying
Reply
Reply
post #61 of 80
2/7/08 at 7:42pm
I like some of the extensibility of Firefox, but there's two big gripes I have that I just cannot, CANNOT get passed.

1). Full-screen. In Safari, when you hit the "green" maximize button, the window gets just big enough to fit the content of the page you're viewing. In FF, you hit that and goodbye anything else being viewable. What the hell? The page is only 800 pix wide, why the hell does FF seem to think I want it to take up 1200 pix, at least 400 of which is utterly useless?

2). Draggable tabs in safari. Yes i know you can "arrange" tabs in FF, but I LOVE, absolutely love being able to drag a tab out to make a new window, or drag and drop tabs between windows to arrange viewing sessions more logically.


And FF is NOT faster than Safari. I always test this out myself, and it never fails, Safari finishes rendering the whole page first. FF just does it different, and it may "feel" faster at first, but it's most definitely not.
Reply
Reply
post #62 of 80
2/7/08 at 9:35pm
The only times I've had Safari go belly up has been on sites that make extensive use of Flash. Browse with plugin's off, and Safari just keeps going and going.

Not to mention that you're spared from seeing most "rich" advertising.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 80
2/8/08 at 1:11am
Are CSS-animation and CSS-transform part of CSS3? I really hope they are not going down the non-standard road.. God forbid it's hard enough as it is with the different rendering engines/browsers and their quirks...
but a new native getElementsByClassName function?? SWEEEEEET. I've always thought this was such a PITA to not have in spidermonkey..
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 80
2/8/08 at 6:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by random bob, a.r.c. View Post

I like some of the extensibility of Firefox, but there's two big gripes I have that I just cannot, CANNOT get passed.

1). Full-screen. In Safari, when you hit the "green" maximize button, the window gets just big enough to fit the content of the page you're viewing. In FF, you hit that and goodbye anything else being viewable. What the hell? The page is only 800 pix wide, why the hell does FF seem to think I want it to take up 1200 pix, at least 400 of which is utterly useless?

I think you should give Flock a try. I just started using it when someone mentioned it in this thread yesterday. It's feeling like Firefox done much better. Not perfect, but at least for me, it's the best browser right now.

It looks like Flock does this the way you want.

http://www.flock.com/

Quote:
2). Draggable tabs in safari. Yes i know you can "arrange" tabs in FF, but I LOVE, absolutely love being able to drag a tab out to make a new window, or drag and drop tabs between windows to arrange viewing sessions more logically.

I think that is one of Safari's nicer features. Unfortunately, Flock doesn't do this, at least not yet.
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 80
2/8/08 at 6:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahmlco View Post

The only times I've had Safari go belly up has been on sites that make extensive use of Flash. Browse with plugin's off, and Safari just keeps going and going.

Not to mention that you're spared from seeing most "rich" advertising.

There are ways to selectively play Flash elements without having to disable all plugins, disabling all plugins is a bit extreme. I think Pith Helmet allows selective play for Safari, where you click on a "play" button if you want to see the item.

As much as I don't like Flash, it's the de-facto standard for video on the web now, and there are a few neat little statistical apps such as what's in Google Finance that uses flash.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 80
2/8/08 at 8:37am
Safari with all it's problems with web pages bothers me, but it is still my main browser. If there is a site that I have problems with I use Firefox. It's starts slow, but it works great for me once it's up and running.

I always put in the same feature request to apple after every update and it's never been added. Does anyone remember IE's awesome save options? You could save web pages as a web archive, and save images, movies, sounds, and links up to 5 pages deep. That was so awesome!

I used to save Maya tutorial pages and I could go through them offline because I had them saved on my desktop in a folder. It was an awesome feature. The best thing that IE ever had to offer.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #67 of 80
2/8/08 at 10:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

Safari with all it's problems with web pages bothers me, but it is still my main browser. If there is a site that I have problems with I use Firefox. It's starts slow, but it works great for me once it's up and running.

I always put in the same feature request to apple after every update and it's never been added. Does anyone remember IE's awesome save options? You could save web pages as a web archive, and save images, movies, sounds, and links up to 5 pages deep. That was so awesome!

I used to save Maya tutorial pages and I could go through them offline because I had them saved on my desktop in a folder. It was an awesome feature. The best thing that IE ever had to offer.

I used to like the interchangeable transluscent buttons.
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 80
2/8/08 at 10:15am
It sounds like Apple is finally throttling the development of Safari to be what they profess it to be versus the Apple marketing hype. Good, as they will need to do so considering FireFox 3 is rapidly developing, and it looks very good, even in beta.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 80
2/9/08 at 9:03pm
SunSpider's JavaScript benchmark has very impressive results for the latest WebKit.

— Webkit 30109 = 3,800ms
— Shiira 2.2 = 10,400ms
— Safari 3.04 = 10,500ms
— Camino 1.5 = 12800ms
— Firefox 2.0.0.9 = 14,800ms
— Opera wouldn't result properly

(OS X 10.5.1, 2.0GHz C2D w/ 4GB RAM)
PS: My only issue with this test is that it's hosted by WebKit. I'm not saying they are cheating in any way but I'd like to see results from an non-affiliated site.
PPS: Some interesting browser comparisons across multiple OSes.
PPPS: Anyone want to run this one Windows using IE6, IE7, Firefox, Safari 3.04 and the latest WebKit? Thanks.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #70 of 80
2/9/08 at 9:51pm
We should all know by now that Safari was the first browser to complete the Acid2 test. And that it won't be until Firefox 3 and internet Explorer 8 are released before they will pass the open standards test.

What you may not know is that WebKit 30109 is already getting a 78 out of a 100 on passing the Acid3 test. IE6 is at 6/100, IE7 is at 13/100, Safari2 is at 39/100, FF2 is at 50/100, FF3 is at 57/100 and Opera is at 63/100.

•

http://www.acidtests.org/ It is nice to see WebKit leading the pack again, especially with open standards becoming more and more common as IE loses it's proprietary hold.

PS; The Acid3 test was just released on January 30th. At that time WebKit only was able to complete around 60 or the 100 tasks. In about a 10 days they have increased the number to 78. At this rate WebKit will be Acid3 compliant in about another 10 days.

•

http://www.css3.info/acid3-completed/
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #71 of 80
2/10/08 at 3:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

Safari with all it's problems with web pages bothers me, but it is still my main browser. If there is a site that I have problems with I use Firefox. It's starts slow, but it works great for me once it's up and running.

I can't think of a page that hasn't rendered properly in Safari in a few years though apart from the god awful Avocent UPS I've got to connect to occasionally which uses browser sniffing and a Java plugin. It has issues in Firefox too though gets past the sniffer at least without faking the user agent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

I always put in the same feature request to apple after every update and it's never been added. Does anyone remember IE's awesome save options? You could save web pages as a web archive, and save images, movies, sounds, and links up to 5 pages deep. That was so awesome!

Probably because Safari already has a Save as Web Archive option.

If I want a whole site I usually drop to Terminal and wget it. Much finer control than any browser.

Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

I used to save Maya tutorial pages and I could go through them offline because I had them saved on my desktop in a folder. It was an awesome feature. The best thing that IE ever had to offer.

Try wget.
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 80
2/10/08 at 6:01am
I read somewhere that this new Safari update is in line with the upcoming iPhone SDK. Steve still wants most of the apps to be web based, the off-line memory function would allow for online apps to behave more natively and have access to native resources on the iPhone/iPod Touch. In essence, users wouldn't have to connect to the internet every time they launch a web app, though connectivity would still be available.

Also, seems like the update should vastly improve loading times, keeping the iPhone snappy until 3G arrives later in the year.

In these same articles, I also read that someone found some references in the iPhone OS to a 3rd multi-touch device that is not an iPhone nor an iPod Touch. Interesting. Its codenamed the N82.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 80
2/10/08 at 6:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdotdubz View Post

IIn these same articles, I also read that someone found some references in the iPhone OS to a 3rd multi-touch device that is not an iPhone nor an iPod Touch. Interesting. Its codenamed the N82.

It's in the same category as the iPhone and not the iPod Touch. Does that mean it's an 3G iPhone or a Newton-like device with 3G?
Platforms = (M68, N82, simulator);
Platforms = (N45);
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #74 of 80
2/10/08 at 7:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdotdubz View Post

I read somewhere that this new Safari update is in line with the upcoming iPhone SDK. Steve still wants most of the apps to be web based, the off-line memory function would allow for online apps to behave more natively and have access to native resources on the iPhone/iPod Touch. In essence, users wouldn't have to connect to the internet every time they launch a web app, though connectivity would still be available.

Quite possible. If you look at most of the HTML5 and Javascript changes in Webkit lately, they've been about offline persistent storage, neat animation tricks and speeding up Javascript. All of these are exactly what you'd need for developing iPhone/Touch applications that behaved like they were full applications.

I do hope that's not entirely what they're doing with the SDK though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdotdubz View Post

Also, seems like the update should vastly improve loading times, keeping the iPhone snappy until 3G arrives later in the year.

No, it's not about loading times. It's more about giving Javascript interactions teh snappy by concentrating on keeping as much stuff AWAY from having to upload/download data. They know that that is a weak point so they're providing tools for web application developers to run more stuff local instead of on the server.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdotdubz View Post

In these same articles, I also read that someone found some references in the iPhone OS to a 3rd multi-touch device that is not an iPhone nor an iPod Touch. Interesting. Its codenamed the N82.

There's a Nokia N82 that runs Webkit but perhaps as solipism pointed out, that would appear to not be it.
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 80
2/10/08 at 7:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

There's a Nokia N82 that runs Webkit but perhaps as solipism pointed out, that would appear to not be it.

Since it requires to Mobile OS X supported hardware platforms it can't be that and because WebKit is run on all Symbian S60 OSes which is more than just the N82 series by Nokia. Unless Apple has decided to license Mobiel OS X to Nokia.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #76 of 80
2/10/08 at 8:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Since it requires to Mobile OS X supported hardware platforms it can't be that and because WebKit is run on all Symbian S60 OSes which is more than just the N82 series by Nokia. Unless Apple has decided to license Mobiel OS X to Nokia.

So, 3G iPhone next Tuesday ???
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 80
2/10/08 at 11:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Since it requires to Mobile OS X supported hardware platforms it can't be that and because WebKit is run on all Symbian S60 OSes which is more than just the N82 series by Nokia. Unless Apple has decided to license Mobiel OS X to Nokia.

Well, from what I know, the M68 is the iPhone, and the N45 is the iPod Touch. Judging by that, I would say its not a mobile phone, and perhaps more of an iPod device.

Honestly tough, I don't think there is a need for a Newton. The iPod Touch can already do all that and more as a platform as soon as the SDK comes out. The iPod is already a trusted and established brand name, and it was clear that Apple is developing the iPod Touch/iPhone as a mobile platform that will serve as a mini-computer in your pocket with desktop power.

I would like to say its the Macbook Touch tablet, but I doubt Apple would cripple a tablet with the optimized (scaled down) OSX the iPod and iPhone get. I honestly have no idea what it could be. Maybe its the new Apple Remote I was talking about in my "AppleTV 2?" thread, lol...
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 80
2/10/08 at 12:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdotdubz View Post

Well, from what I know, the M68 is the iPhone, and the N45 is the iPod Touch. Judging by that, I would say its not a mobile phone, and perhaps more of an iPod device.

Honestly tough, I don't think there is a need for a Newton. The iPod Touch can already do all that and more as a platform as soon as the SDK comes out. The iPod is already a trusted and established brand name, and it was clear that Apple is developing the iPod Touch/iPhone as a mobile platform that will serve as a mini-computer in your pocket with desktop power.

I would like to say its the Macbook Touch tablet, but I doubt Apple would cripple a tablet with the optimized (scaled down) OSX the iPod and iPhone get. I honestly have no idea what it could be. Maybe its the new Apple Remote I was talking about in my "AppleTV 2?" thread, lol...

I don't think the N prefix is enough justification to say it's not a phone. We do know that the iPhone and iPod Touch do use a slightly different OS. Here is my reasoning why...

We know that M68 refers to the iPhone and that N45 refers to the iPod Touch. We also know that there are two separate platforms they list and that the iPod Touch and iPhone are, in fact, two separate platform in that one has phone dialing software and the other.

Since the N82 is grouped with the iPhone platform I think it has to be a device that can make and receive calls like the M68 but would have some differences in hardware that would require different drives or other software. Upping storage capacity doesn't alter the software so I think this reason is a 3G iPhone.

Note: We have no record of such a phone being submitted to the FCC so we shouldn't one to miraculously appear with at least a 6 week heads-up period with pre-orders. Releasing the SDK, and announcing 3G iPhone would make for a good event. Do Penryn MBPs really need to be "announced"?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #79 of 80
2/10/08 at 10:50pm
Safari is about to get crazy fast

"There is no other way to say it. Holy cow is this thing fast! I am currently testing Webkit build r30090 (more recent versions are now there) against standard Leopard Safari 3.04. This unoptimized WebKit build version is running circles around the standard Safari browser. It isn't even close."
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 80
2/11/08 at 3:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Safari is about to get crazy fast

"There is no other way to say it. Holy cow is this thing fast! I am currently testing Webkit build r30090 (more recent versions are now there) against standard Leopard Safari 3.04. This unoptimized WebKit build version is running circles around the standard Safari browser. It isn't even close."

So, will this make part of the 10.5.2 update?
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple's Safari 3.1 to support downloadable web fonts, more