Is it time for Safari 2.0?

Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
Not much has been said of any upcoming upgrades to Safari. It just feels like ages since Safari was launched. It's been pretty good, but it could always use some enhancements.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 30
    Safari 1.2 was just released.
  • Reply 2 of 30
    ebbyebby Posts: 3,110member
    And I hope they fix the bugs with 1.2 instead of waiting for 2.0.
  • Reply 3 of 30
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Brad

    Safari 1.2 was just released.



    Oh, must of missed that. Thanks. Well then,...move along.
  • Reply 4 of 30
    paulpaul Posts: 5,278member
    well that wouldn't be surprising (missing it) if you are still running jag...
  • Reply 5 of 30
    ryaxnbryaxnb Posts: 583member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Brad

    Safari 1.2 was just released.



    Actually, I think it is time for a new Safari 1.5 or 2.0 pretty soon.

    * VisiTab option: OmniWeb 5 copy

    * Session Saving: Partial OmniWeb 5 copy (no multiple workspaces functionality like OmniWeb 5 allows)

    * Site Preferences: Duh, copy OmniWeb 5 again

    * Flexible search: I'm Feeling Lucky, Site Search, Lycos, etc.

    * User Agent control: Put the main option, IE 6, in the main menus. Explain its use in the Help.

    * Flexible Color control: Allow you to specify link colors, text colors and background colors.

    * Better History: Searchable History, and more intuitive History access. Edit: removed another complaint, the link was there.

    * Bookmark Importing: Take it out of the Debug menu and put it in the main menu.

    * Ad blocking: Implement a more stable PithHemlet, built-in.

    * Full-screen: You know what I mean.

    * AppleScript Improvements: Support getting tab info and controlling tabs via AppleScript, for one thing. Add script menus and such, preferably.

    Edit: More stuff

    * Real customizable toolbars: Use the OS X system. You'd have to get rid of the dynamically draggable search field, but oh well. Instead, Mac OS X could offer two or three preset search field sizes.

    * Address bar underneath main bar option: You know what I mean.

    * More flexible Bookmarks: Make an option so you can display all your bookmarks in the bookmarks menu.

    * Stop/Reload separated option: Allow you to choose via the standard toolbar-customization interface, stop/reload combined or two separate buttons (or just one button, or no buttons at all, or all three.)



    These features would really make Safari compare to "power" browsers like OmniWeb and Firefox.
  • Reply 6 of 30
    ryaxnbryaxnb Posts: 583member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ryaxnb

    Actually, I think it is time for a new Safari 1.5 or 2.0 pretty soon.

    *snip*.




    For some reason editing isn't working, so here's something else I thought of:

    * AppleScript Improvements. Support manipulating and getting info on tabs via AppleScript, for one thing. Add script menus and such also.
  • Reply 7 of 30
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    Built-in ad blocking would be great. So would a bookmark system that is more compatible with other browsers - it's annoying when every browser uses a very different system of storing bookmarks. Kind of like email clients.



    I'd like the progress bar to respect the theme. I prefer Aqua Graphite over Blue, but Safari's progress bar is always blue no matter what. Same with the highlighted button color.



    A REAL customizable toolbar would be a welcome addition. So would separate stop and reload buttons. I know you'll say they're mutually exclusive... on the other hand, they serve the exact opposite function. One results in the halting of network activity, while the other starts it again. The problem I run into is that I'll click the stop button when I want a web page to stop loading. The click isn't registered until the web page finishes loading, because Safari is busy downloading and rendering. By the time the click goes through, the Stop button has turned into a Reload button, so now this site that I didn't want to load in the first place is being loaded twice. I click stop again, hoping that if I catch it early it will save me the trouble of having to wait for the site to load again. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it reloads the page a third time.



    I want separate buttons for those. Maybe even put them together just like the back/forward buttons, but I want stop and reload to be separate.
  • Reply 8 of 30
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ryaxnb

    [snip]



    These features would really make Safari compare to "power" browsers like OmniWeb and Firefox.




    I really can't see Apple pushing any of those any time soon.



    Safari isn't going to try to bully or compete hard feature-wise with the other browsers like Mozilla and OmniWeb. That's not the point. Safari was created to show that web browsing could be fast on Mac OS X and to integrate a quick, usable system-wide engine for other apps to use (like Mail, Help Viewer).



    In fact, I hope Apple keeps Safari simple. That's what makes it a great browser. It's not bloated with feature-shock like Mozilla. When Joe Sixpack gets his new Mac and sits down in front of Safari for the first time, he doesn't need to be bombarded with fifty preference options.



    Think of Safari like the other apps that are included with Mac OS X and the iLife suite. You can do some fantastic stuff with it and the interface is simple enough to work with novices to pros. Leave the needlessly complicated options and extra features to third parties. That's what they do best anyway.



    Remember, Apple isn't in the situation here like it is with apps like Final Cut Pro. Third parties are more than willing today to step in with new, better solutions. Apple doesn't have to rely solely on itself to provide the one decent app in the market for its users.
  • Reply 9 of 30
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Brad

    I really can't see Apple pushing any of those any time soon.



    Safari isn't going to try to bully or compete hard feature-wise with the other browsers like Mozilla and OmniWeb. That's not the point. Safari was created to show that web browsing could be fast on Mac OS X and to integrate a quick, usable system-wide engine for other apps to use (like Mail, Help Viewer).



    In fact, I hope Apple keeps Safari simple. That's what makes it a great browser. It's not bloated with feature-shock like Mozilla. When Joe Sixpack gets his new Mac and sits down in front of Safari for the first time, he doesn't need to be bombarded with fifty preference options.



    Think of Safari like the other apps that are included with Mac OS X and the iLife suite. You can do some fantastic stuff with it and the interface is simple enough to work with novices to pros. Leave the needlessly complicated options and extra features to third parties. That's what they do best anyway.



    Remember, Apple isn't in the situation here like it is with apps like Final Cut Pro. Third parties are more than willing today to step in with new, better solutions. Apple doesn't have to rely solely on itself to provide the one decent app in the market for its users.




    Me too, actually. I want a nice, simple browser. Some of these features, however, would probably appeal to the average user: History, Bookmarks, Toolbar Customization, Site Preferences, Session Saving (not multiple workspaces - that's too complex,) Address bar underneath main bar, VisiTabs.
  • Reply 10 of 30
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Luca Rescigno

    The problem I run into is that I'll click the stop button when I want a web page to stop loading. The click isn't registered until the web page finishes loading, because Safari is busy downloading and rendering. By the time the click goes through, the Stop button has turned into a Reload button, so now this site that I didn't want to load in the first place is being loaded twice. I click stop again, hoping that if I catch it early it will save me the trouble of having to wait for the site to load again. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it reloads the page a third time.



    It sounds like this could be fixed by determining (or saving) the state the button was in when it was clicked. I'm not sure how easy that would be to do with OS X's events, since I'm away from the docs, but it's the logical thing to attempt.



    The other thing Dave Hyatt's talked about doing with WebCore is making it less "chunky" - that is, not having it try to do so much at once. What you're running into is the "chunkiness" of the current renderer. If it stopped more often to figure out what else was going on there wouldn't be those long pauses before Safari (or any other app using WebCore) became responsive again, and the problem would be fixed by default.
  • Reply 11 of 30
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    Apple doesn't have to follow existing version number conventions. In fact, with David Hyatt at Apple, I'd expect Apple to follow the Mozilla convention of the second number being the major releases, and 1.x being stable projects.



    I wouldn't be surprised to see Safari 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8 and so on.



    Barto
  • Reply 12 of 30
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    That's an awfully silly numbering scheme if in x.y.z, x=1 means 'stable'...



    x = major release

    y = minor release

    z = bug fix



    alphabetic trailers indicate:

    a = alpha release - expect to crash, features in flux

    b = beta release - might crash, features more or less frozen, testing only

    f = final candidate - shouldn't crash, features locked, test the crap outta it



    The number after that would be the round of testing for that stage for that release.



    1.2.2b3 would be the third beta testing round for the first major release, second minor release, second bug fix.



    With the New Apple, this has been pretty much the norm *THANK GOD*... iPhoto 4 being an oddball (skipping the entire 3.0 release...)
  • Reply 13 of 30
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ryaxnb

    Full-screen: You know what I mean.





    no i dont.





    but anyways, i think safari is just fine--if they start adding too much, then it'll just become IE. i like safari because its plain and simple, no crap. i use safari all day long, and i cant think of anything more i really need out of it.
  • Reply 14 of 30
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    That's an awfully silly numbering scheme if in x.y.z, x=1 means 'stable'...



    I'm not saying it's a good numbering scheme... I'm just saying that's what the Mozilla Project uses and David Hyatt, the very public face of Safari/WebKit used to work at Netscape/Mozilla.



    So it's not surprising the numbering scheme carried over.



    Barto
  • Reply 15 of 30
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Brad

    In fact, I hope Apple keeps Safari simple. That's what makes it a great browser. It's not bloated with feature-shock like Mozilla. When Joe Sixpack gets his new Mac and sits down in front of Safari for the first time, he doesn't need to be bombarded with fifty preference options.



    reminds me of a PAINFUL presentation on technology in the classroom i attended this morning at the hour of "why am i awake?" f'n nimrods were presenting in internet explorer 6 for winXP, and they had EVERY TOOLBAR AND BUTTON ON! it was probably about thirty buttons all totaled. i wanted to raise my hand and go "listen, answer me truthfully.. how many of those buttons besides "forward, back, home and stop" do you actually USE?" but everyone else was so gung-ho and rah-rah in the room for blackboard (it's an online database people, not the fukkin' dead sea scrolls...), i didn't want to be the wet blanket of reality.
  • Reply 16 of 30
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Yeah, you did. Try it! It's fun!
  • Reply 17 of 30
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    personally, as a web designer by day (and by night), i wish hyatt and crew would spend more time and just work out lots of standards kinks, rather than all these incremental updates, where i have to work in seventeen hacks or workarounds in order to compensate for each. i mean, i know css is supposed to help with a lot of that, but if he et al. keep changign HOW css is rendered little teeny bit by bit with each x.1 update, our css style sheets are going to be as long and complex as our old html nested-table designs used to be.



    and before you ask, i am not just laying this blame on apple. they're ALL to blame, especially IE which has revisions like 6.01278 buildr15. i just think apple is the most likely to assert some control over this issue. i'm certainly not hoping for the open-source community to suddenly get all organized and fast on either mozilla or firefox.
  • Reply 18 of 30
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    rok, could you be more specific with the issues you're having with Safari's engine?
  • Reply 19 of 30
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by rok

    personally, as a web designer by day (and by night), i wish hyatt and crew would spend more time and just work out lots of standards kinks, rather than all these incremental updates,



    All these updates? Two updates in a year is a lot?
  • Reply 20 of 30
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JLL

    All these updates? Two updates in a year is a lot?



    yes, it is when you're a designer, and find out that css margins are held or broken or confused between releases 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 (that's one particular headache i'm dealing with now with 1.2). and the "all these updates" was more in reference not just to safari, but also to the mozillas, firefoxes, internet explorers et al. when you're dealing with one standard in css, and designing with the correct way in mind and then reverse-engineering it for those slight changes in between incremental updates, it's enough to send you screaming right back to nested-table designs again and building for the lowest-common denominator.



    and like i said, had you read my post, i am not laying all the blame at apple's feet. i just think they have enough sense compared to other makers to really make sure they are confident in their releases before they go out the door.
Sign In or Register to comment.