Apple releases Safari 4.0.3

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 40
    sc_marktsc_markt Posts: 1,402member
    Just loaded 4.0.3 and it still takes about a minute to fully open (first time from power-up).
  • Reply 22 of 40
    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.
  • Reply 23 of 40
    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.
  • Reply 24 of 40
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member
    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.
  • Reply 25 of 40
    lorrelorre Posts: 396member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sc_markt View Post


    Just loaded 4.0.3 and it still takes about a minute to fully open (first time from power-up).



    Sounds like something's wrong. Unless you're on a 7 year old G4 or something like that.

    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...
  • Reply 26 of 40
    djrumpydjrumpy Posts: 1,116member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by slapppy View Post


    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.



    It is embedded as an object and is support only on a Microsoft OS. If you hit a web site that uses it to the exclusion of other OS's and browsers (i.e. Mozilla, Safari, Opera, etc), then you should probably complain to the site designer.
  • Reply 27 of 40
    djrumpydjrumpy Posts: 1,116member
    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.
  • Reply 28 of 40
    bsenkabsenka Posts: 799member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by OC4Theo View Post


    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?



    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.
  • Reply 29 of 40
    djrumpydjrumpy Posts: 1,116member
    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
  • Reply 30 of 40
    bsenkabsenka Posts: 799member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post


    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



    The test you linked to is PC only. the ZDnet testing doesn't compare Safari 3, only other brands of Browsers. Also, considering they claim that Safari 4 for WINDOWS is the fastest browser on that platform, I have to disregard anything they ever say again, because they are clearly just making crap up. Safari 4 for OS X is slower than Safari 3, but it's still faster than Firefox, etc. It's still the best current Mac browser, hands down. However, Safari 4 is by far the worst Windows browser there is. It's molasses slow in XP. Even IE is good in comparison.
  • Reply 31 of 40
    djrumpydjrumpy Posts: 1,116member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bsenka View Post


    The test you linked to is PC only. the ZDnet testing doesn't compare Safari 3, only other brands of Browsers. Also, considering they claim that Safari 4 for WINDOWS is the fastest browser on that platform, I have to disregard anything they ever say again, because they are clearly just making crap up. Safari 4 for OS X is slower than Safari 3, but it's still faster than Firefox, etc. It's still the best current Mac browser, hands down. However, Safari 4 is by far the worst Windows browser there is. It's molasses slow in XP. Even IE is good in comparison.



    Then test it yourself on your own box. The second link will let you compare browser performance on Mac, Linux, Windows, whatever. I just ran through them (warning..takes about 5 minutes per browser).



    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.
  • Reply 32 of 40
    djrumpydjrumpy Posts: 1,116member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post


    Then test it yourself on your own box. The second link will let you compare browser performance on Mac, Linux, Windows, whatever. I just ran through them (warning..takes about 5 minutes per browser).



    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.



    Namoroka v 3.6a1 (alpha) did a bit better than FF 3.5.2, coming in at 2336, but still far below Safari.



    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...
  • Reply 33 of 40
    djrumpydjrumpy Posts: 1,116member
    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
  • Reply 34 of 40
    gustavgustav Posts: 827member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macFanDave View Post


    Did you try emptying the cache?



    Go to OpenDNS.org and put those numbers in your Network/Airport or Ethernet/Advanced.../DNS.



    Turn IPv6 to off.



    Repair permissions.



    Just how exactly is repairing permissions supposed to speed up a browser?
  • Reply 35 of 40
    djrumpydjrumpy Posts: 1,116member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gustav View Post


    Just how exactly is repairing permissions supposed to speed up a browser?



    If a component of the browser (plugin, cache file, etc) has the incorrect permissions on it, the OS will spend time trying to access it and eventually fail, which can cause inconsistencies in app function and performance.



    End the end it harms nothing to scan for and can possibly resolve issues due to permissions problems.
  • Reply 36 of 40
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by galto123 View Post


    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.



    Perhaps you should just buy a DELL computer.
  • Reply 37 of 40
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by galto123 View Post


    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.



    Submit a bug report to Apple if kids can indeed use top sites to by pass parental controls. Again, submit a bug if you think top sites is working when it is turned off. You might to do it with reproducible steps.



    Quote:



    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.



    Hmm...



    Quote:



    b) disable Spotlight (don't want, don't need, security/privacy violation)

    (I use EasyFind instead)



    If you RTFM you can easily figure out how to configure spotlight to index what you want it to. There is no violation here as it indexes things you have permission to.



    Quote:

    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.



    Submit a bug report with proof.



    Quote:

    d) adjust room lighting to near darkness and bob my head back and forth to avoid the mirror-like reflections.



    Ok.



    Quote:

    e) Pull out the adapter plugs so I can use recent/new firewire 400 peripherals Apple has "moved beyond".



    You don't need adapter plugs. The firewire is an industry standard. Just go to the electronics store and buy a firewire cable 9pin to 4pin to attach your camera or buy a 9pin to 6pin to attach your hard disk.



    Quote:

    f) Replace the Apple chiclet keyboard with a real one.



    The chicket works well and the keys aren't cramped. You want a keyboard that represents the old mechanical typewriters?



    Quote:

    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.



    Provide feedback. Also, if snow leopard doesn't represent Apple's commitment to performance, I don't know what can convince you.



    Quote:

    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.



    If they do that, they will fail, but I think common sense prevails.



    p.s> either welcome to the boards or bye bye troll.
  • Reply 38 of 40
    sc_marktsc_markt Posts: 1,402member
    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.
  • Reply 39 of 40
    djrumpydjrumpy Posts: 1,116member
    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.
  • Reply 40 of 40
    I haven't read all of the posts, but I've turned off the "Favorites" option in Safari Preferences and it seems to be doing better.



    I'll see if the beach ball returns - I know I was seeing it too much before turning it off.
Sign In or Register to comment.