well, coming from someone who a.) knows what he's doing and b.) follows all the standard safety precautions when updating and c.) has reinstalled more computers than he cares to think about, both 10.3.6 and 10.3.7 have had some really odd issues. almost all of them seem to be font and internet based, but beyond that i haven't been able to pin down the culprits by name. the super-slow page load times, the disappearing safari cursor, dropped fonts in PDFs, etc. making the issues even more fun is that they are intermittent and not always the same across machines.
and just scanning through the posts on macfixit.com, everyone has their own special voodoo to fix the problems -- one person fixes permissions, another deletes a .plist, another does both, another toggles a feature elsewhere on and off, etc., etc.
edit: by the way, before anyone thinks i am laying all of the blame at apple's doorstep, i also want to say that part of the font blame i think needs to be shoulder by adobe, whose apps use their own fonts folders in the system outside apple's design, as well as .fnt files that always seem to get corrupted.
Haven't checked the KHTML et al bug logs, have you? Apple has done an impressive job of bug stomping at the lower layers. Just because they haven't been adding a lot of features at the top levels doesn't mean that they're ignoring it. Sheesh.
Sheesh yourself.
Apple has ignored it for a very long time in failing to bring about changes which are of use to the end user.
"Bug stomping" as you put it should be a given. It is hardly praiseworthy.
Not true at all. Get a Linux LiveCD, boot from it, let it recognize your NTFS or FAT32 partition, and your data is there.
The only catch is, Windows doesn't refuse to boot after updates. It sucks as a system overall, but I've upgraded at least 20 systems from SP1 to SP2 and none refused to boot. They all booted fine and behaved perfectly fine.
Whereas with OS X, some updates tend to break things more than they fix. But I said some, not all. And I still dislike Windows, and like OS X, but lets give credit where its due.
Apple has ignored it for a very long time in failing to bring about changes which are of use to the end user.
"Bug stomping" as you put it should be a given. It is hardly praiseworthy.
And yet it is hardly 'ignored', now is it? What do you want, a new geegaw or bullet point on a feature list a week? Look to MS in that case, I'll take stability over new whizbang features any day. Make it rock solid before you start adding additional layers of crap on top. That's just good common sense, and good software engineering practice.
Fxing bugs is definitely 'of use to the end user'. I guarantee you most people appreciate the reduced bugs. If that's not high on your priority list, well, that's your business, but I utterly disagree.
And yet it is hardly 'ignored', now is it? What do you want, a new geegaw or bullet point on a feature list a week? Look to MS in that case, I'll take stability over new whizbang features any day. Make it rock solid before you start adding additional layers of crap on top. That's just good common sense, and good software engineering practice.
Fxing bugs is definitely 'of use to the end user'. I guarantee you most people appreciate the reduced bugs. If that's not high on your priority list, well, that's your business, but I utterly disagree.
If they did better work in the first place and released bug fixes in a timely manner it would not be such an issue. Safari lacks basic functionality of other browsers.
I completely disagree with your short sighted analysis.
Konqueror in KDE 3.3 seems to be far more stable and less bug-ridden than Safari, even though Safari is based on Konqueror. I think it was KDE 3.1 when Apple decided to use Konqueror as the base for its Safari browser.
From that point on, Konqueror has gotten much much more stable adding a lot of features and improving on existing ones.
On top of web browser, it also serves as a file manager, a universal viewing application for documents, and a canvas for different KDE components like KIO slaves to the KPart object interface.
Not everyone wants that many features in one application, but somehow, Konqueror feels much more stable on my Debian box than Safari in my Mac OS X 10.3.7 box.
I guess they're working on Safari 2 more than on fixing bugs on the existing one. Which is fine, I guess.
Originally posted by RBR Sheesh yourself. Apple has ignored it for a very long time in failing to bring about changes which are of use to the end user. "Bug stomping" as you put it should be a given. It is hardly praiseworthy.
Sure, there are features that I would like to have added to Safari, BUT good development means you stabilize the existing product before you start adding features. Apple has done an excellent job of this overall. I would rather see Safari, Mail, OSX, hardware get stabilized and working smoothly before they start adding features.
On the opposing claw we have MicroShrink's example - featureitis galore, program bloat, hogging of reasources and bugs & security holes be damned. With Windoze the atititude is "why bother fixing what we're going to abandon!"
Apple does a much better job which is why I prefer to use the Mac.
Konqueror in KDE 3.3 seems to be far more stable and less bug-ridden than Safari, even though Safari is based on Konqueror.
Safari is *not* based on Konqueror (thankfully!), it is based on the same rendering engine (KHTML) as Konqueror.
Quote:
Not everyone wants that many features in one application, but somehow, Konqueror feels much more stable on my Debian box than Safari in my Mac OS X 10.3.7 box.
Can't stand Konqueror myself, but it does have a lot of fans.
Sure, there are features that I would like to have added to Safari, BUT good development means you stabilize the existing product before you start adding features. Apple has done an excellent job of this overall. I would rather see Safari, Mail, OSX, hardware get stabilized and working smoothly before they start adding features.
On the opposing claw we have MicroShrink's example - featureitis galore, program bloat, hogging of reasources and bugs & security holes be damned. With Windoze the atititude is "why bother fixing what we're going to abandon!"
Apple does a much better job which is why I prefer to use the Mac.
Actually, sound design practice is to integrate the concept so that it is not a patchwork of band aid tack ons.
Safari has had as many, if not more, bugs and stability problems from the outset as any other browser. There has been a rather surprising lack of testing on obvious things such as how Safari works on the Apple website...which it did not do at all well when first released.
Safari is *not* based on Konqueror (thankfully!), it is based on the same rendering engine (KHTML) as Konqueror.
Then I guess MyIE2 is very different from IE because they "only" use the same rendering engine (thankfully!). Safari is based on Konqueror so much so that Apple decided to release its enhancements back to the Konqueror.
Here's what Jobs said himself when he announced Safari:
Quote:
"How did we do this? We based Safari on an HTML rendering engine that is open source. [i.e. Konqueror's KHTML]
About half the code in Safari is this open-source rendering engine. Now, we started working with this over a year ago. And it needed a lot of improvement. We've dramatically improved the performance. Some things are up to an order of magnitude faster. And, some people have a problem with open source. We think it's great and, we are going to be putting all of our improvements to this code base -- we're going to be hosting them on the Web today.
The code base that we decided to start with was KHTML. It's very popular in the Linux world. And it was a very well architected HTML rendering engine that is now dramatically improved.... We have built an incredible browser around it. We could not be happier with it.
Quote:
Can't stand Konqueror myself, but it does have a lot of fans.
Last time I looked at MyIE2, it looked very different than IE and had such features as tabs, which IE clearly does not have.
I am not sure the point you're trying to make here...
Just because it has tabs doesn't mean its different from IE. It uses the same base. The same engine. It has a couple more features but its like a little child of IE.
I think my point is that Safari is based on Konqueror (the project that created KHTML). Remember that Konqueror is a component of KDE, not just a browser.
I don't see your point though. Its like saying Mac OS X is not based on *BSD because OS X has a different UI and some other features *BSD does not have.
Steve Jobs says himself that half of Safari's code comes from an open source project. Maybe you know something Steve Jobs doesn't. Anyway.
Just because two apps use the same set of shared libraries (in this case KHTML), it does not mean that one app is based on the other. Of course there are going to be similar interface code, but that's where the similarity ends.
MyIE2 is obviously not based on a single line of IE code for the simple reason that nobody other than MS has access to the IE code.
Safari uses the WebCore and WebFoundation frameworks. *THOSE* are essentially Obj-C API wrapped ports of KHTML, et al... the rendering engine of Konqueror, with some other stuff added in. Those frameworks are about 1/2 of the code in Safari, the rest is the UI that is all 100% Konqueror free.
You can use those frameworks too, if you like. Omnigroup does for OmniWeb.
So. The rendering engine in Safari is based heavily on (basically *is*) the rendering engine from Konqueror, but the derivation stops there. The rest of the app is Apple's.
Also, in the process of improving the K* libraries, Apple made sure to retain diff-patches along the way. The day Safari was released, the 'poor' KHTML team alone was *bombarded* with a few hundred bug fixes and improvements, all ready to be incorporated into the main project. (One of KHTML leads said he'd never seen Changelog carpet bombing before... and he was grateful for it.)
So in that sense, Konqueror is 'based on' Apple's changes...
Comments
and just scanning through the posts on macfixit.com, everyone has their own special voodoo to fix the problems -- one person fixes permissions, another deletes a .plist, another does both, another toggles a feature elsewhere on and off, etc., etc.
edit: by the way, before anyone thinks i am laying all of the blame at apple's doorstep, i also want to say that part of the font blame i think needs to be shoulder by adobe, whose apps use their own fonts folders in the system outside apple's design, as well as .fnt files that always seem to get corrupted.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Haven't checked the KHTML et al bug logs, have you? Apple has done an impressive job of bug stomping at the lower layers. Just because they haven't been adding a lot of features at the top levels doesn't mean that they're ignoring it. Sheesh.
Sheesh yourself.
Apple has ignored it for a very long time in failing to bring about changes which are of use to the end user.
"Bug stomping" as you put it should be a given. It is hardly praiseworthy.
Originally posted by RBR
"Bug stomping" as you put it should be a given. It is hardly praiseworthy.
I wish MS would have this idea about Office. Bug stomping as a priority over features is ALWAYS a good thing.
afterwards the computer died on every boot.
I used the "press T during init to turn the computer
into a firewire drive", and copied the files to my wife's
emac, reinstalled, and reapplied the update, with
no problems afterwards.
The firewire trick was the final straw that made me
want to convert to the mac myself. If that was
a windows pc, the data would be gone forever.
Originally posted by e1618978
If that was
a windows pc, the data would be gone forever.
Not true at all. Get a Linux LiveCD, boot from it, let it recognize your NTFS or FAT32 partition, and your data is there.
The only catch is, Windows doesn't refuse to boot after updates. It sucks as a system overall, but I've upgraded at least 20 systems from SP1 to SP2 and none refused to boot. They all booted fine and behaved perfectly fine.
Whereas with OS X, some updates tend to break things more than they fix. But I said some, not all. And I still dislike Windows, and like OS X, but lets give credit where its due.
Originally posted by RBR
Sheesh yourself.
Apple has ignored it for a very long time in failing to bring about changes which are of use to the end user.
"Bug stomping" as you put it should be a given. It is hardly praiseworthy.
And yet it is hardly 'ignored', now is it? What do you want, a new geegaw or bullet point on a feature list a week? Look to MS in that case, I'll take stability over new whizbang features any day. Make it rock solid before you start adding additional layers of crap on top. That's just good common sense, and good software engineering practice.
Fxing bugs is definitely 'of use to the end user'. I guarantee you most people appreciate the reduced bugs. If that's not high on your priority list, well, that's your business, but I utterly disagree.
Originally posted by Kickaha
And yet it is hardly 'ignored', now is it? What do you want, a new geegaw or bullet point on a feature list a week? Look to MS in that case, I'll take stability over new whizbang features any day. Make it rock solid before you start adding additional layers of crap on top. That's just good common sense, and good software engineering practice.
Fxing bugs is definitely 'of use to the end user'. I guarantee you most people appreciate the reduced bugs. If that's not high on your priority list, well, that's your business, but I utterly disagree.
If they did better work in the first place and released bug fixes in a timely manner it would not be such an issue. Safari lacks basic functionality of other browsers.
I completely disagree with your short sighted analysis.
Then use another browser. Done.
From that point on, Konqueror has gotten much much more stable adding a lot of features and improving on existing ones.
On top of web browser, it also serves as a file manager, a universal viewing application for documents, and a canvas for different KDE components like KIO slaves to the KPart object interface.
Not everyone wants that many features in one application, but somehow, Konqueror feels much more stable on my Debian box than Safari in my Mac OS X 10.3.7 box.
I guess they're working on Safari 2 more than on fixing bugs on the existing one. Which is fine, I guess.
Originally posted by RBR Sheesh yourself. Apple has ignored it for a very long time in failing to bring about changes which are of use to the end user. "Bug stomping" as you put it should be a given. It is hardly praiseworthy.
Sure, there are features that I would like to have added to Safari, BUT good development means you stabilize the existing product before you start adding features. Apple has done an excellent job of this overall. I would rather see Safari, Mail, OSX, hardware get stabilized and working smoothly before they start adding features.
On the opposing claw we have MicroShrink's example - featureitis galore, program bloat, hogging of reasources and bugs & security holes be damned. With Windoze the atititude is "why bother fixing what we're going to abandon!"
Apple does a much better job which is why I prefer to use the Mac.
Safari on Tiger seems very stable but so does Firefox.
Dobby.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Konqueror in KDE 3.3 seems to be far more stable and less bug-ridden than Safari, even though Safari is based on Konqueror.
Safari is *not* based on Konqueror (thankfully!), it is based on the same rendering engine (KHTML) as Konqueror.
Not everyone wants that many features in one application, but somehow, Konqueror feels much more stable on my Debian box than Safari in my Mac OS X 10.3.7 box.
Can't stand Konqueror myself, but it does have a lot of fans.
Originally posted by pubwvj
Sure, there are features that I would like to have added to Safari, BUT good development means you stabilize the existing product before you start adding features. Apple has done an excellent job of this overall. I would rather see Safari, Mail, OSX, hardware get stabilized and working smoothly before they start adding features.
On the opposing claw we have MicroShrink's example - featureitis galore, program bloat, hogging of reasources and bugs & security holes be damned. With Windoze the atititude is "why bother fixing what we're going to abandon!"
Apple does a much better job which is why I prefer to use the Mac.
Actually, sound design practice is to integrate the concept so that it is not a patchwork of band aid tack ons.
Safari has had as many, if not more, bugs and stability problems from the outset as any other browser. There has been a rather surprising lack of testing on obvious things such as how Safari works on the Apple website...which it did not do at all well when first released.
Is it getting better? Yes, but ever so slowly.
Originally posted by mikef
Safari is *not* based on Konqueror (thankfully!), it is based on the same rendering engine (KHTML) as Konqueror.
Then I guess MyIE2 is very different from IE because they "only" use the same rendering engine (thankfully!). Safari is based on Konqueror so much so that Apple decided to release its enhancements back to the Konqueror.
Here's what Jobs said himself when he announced Safari:
"How did we do this? We based Safari on an HTML rendering engine that is open source. [i.e. Konqueror's KHTML]
About half the code in Safari is this open-source rendering engine. Now, we started working with this over a year ago. And it needed a lot of improvement. We've dramatically improved the performance. Some things are up to an order of magnitude faster. And, some people have a problem with open source. We think it's great and, we are going to be putting all of our improvements to this code base -- we're going to be hosting them on the Web today.
The code base that we decided to start with was KHTML. It's very popular in the Linux world. And it was a very well architected HTML rendering engine that is now dramatically improved.... We have built an incredible browser around it. We could not be happier with it.
Can't stand Konqueror myself, but it does have a lot of fans.
To each his own I guess.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Then I guess MyIE2 is very different from IE because they "only" use the same rendering engine (thankfully!).
Last time I looked at MyIE2, it looked very different than IE and had such features as tabs, which IE clearly does not have.
I am not sure the point you're trying to make here...
Originally posted by mikef
Last time I looked at MyIE2, it looked very different than IE and had such features as tabs, which IE clearly does not have.
I am not sure the point you're trying to make here...
Just because it has tabs doesn't mean its different from IE. It uses the same base. The same engine. It has a couple more features but its like a little child of IE.
I think my point is that Safari is based on Konqueror (the project that created KHTML). Remember that Konqueror is a component of KDE, not just a browser.
I don't see your point though. Its like saying Mac OS X is not based on *BSD because OS X has a different UI and some other features *BSD does not have.
Steve Jobs says himself that half of Safari's code comes from an open source project. Maybe you know something Steve Jobs doesn't. Anyway.
MyIE2 is obviously not based on a single line of IE code for the simple reason that nobody other than MS has access to the IE code.
Half the code is a bit more than just shared libraries, methinks.
But anyway, its clear we are not gonna agree so the best thing would be to stop this conversation.
Thanks.
Safari uses the WebCore and WebFoundation frameworks. *THOSE* are essentially Obj-C API wrapped ports of KHTML, et al... the rendering engine of Konqueror, with some other stuff added in. Those frameworks are about 1/2 of the code in Safari, the rest is the UI that is all 100% Konqueror free.
You can use those frameworks too, if you like. Omnigroup does for OmniWeb.
So. The rendering engine in Safari is based heavily on (basically *is*) the rendering engine from Konqueror, but the derivation stops there. The rest of the app is Apple's.
Also, in the process of improving the K* libraries, Apple made sure to retain diff-patches along the way. The day Safari was released, the 'poor' KHTML team alone was *bombarded* with a few hundred bug fixes and improvements, all ready to be incorporated into the main project. (One of KHTML leads said he'd never seen Changelog carpet bombing before... and he was grateful for it.)
So in that sense, Konqueror is 'based on' Apple's changes...