WebKit Untouched for a Whole Week

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
Can someone tell me what's going on? Did everyone at Apple suddenly stop working because it's the Expo? Seems rather odd that there hasn't been a nightly in 7 days.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 35
    omegaomega Posts: 427member
    I believe the guy working on the nightlies is currently moving house. You know, real life intruding......



  • Reply 2 of 35
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    That'd be a good chance to friggin' have Apple official update Safari and catch it up to WebKit.
  • Reply 3 of 35
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    When the hell did Mac OS X become fucking Linux?
  • Reply 4 of 35
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Hehe.



    Well you have to admit, Safari 2 is a piece. Apparently the WebKit is much better currently. If they don't fix it by 10.4.3 I'm grabbing that WebKit distro of Safari.
  • Reply 5 of 35
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquatic

    Well you have to admit, Safari 2 is a piece.



    What kinds of issues are you having that you believe a newer rendering engine would fix?
  • Reply 6 of 35
    I think he, like me, wants to just be on the bleeding edge of webkits.
  • Reply 7 of 35
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker

    What kinds of issues are you having that you believe a newer rendering engine would fix?



    WebKit's been speed up some and like 99% of it's memory leaks have been fixed since the last Safari release. (And it passes the Acid 2 test).
  • Reply 8 of 35
    Where does one download the nightly builds from?



    TIA



    8)
  • Reply 9 of 35
    Quote:

    Originally posted by rob05au

    Where does one download the nightly builds from?



    TIA



    8)




    This like fella is your friend http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/18700



    Tonight's build gives me a generic app icon instead of the purdy gold one.. awwww no fair..
  • Reply 10 of 35
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquatic

    Hehe.



    Well you have to admit, Safari 2 is a piece. Apparently the WebKit is much better currently. If they don't fix it by 10.4.3 I'm grabbing that WebKit distro of Safari.




    They can actually keep improving it that much? Impressive.
  • Reply 11 of 35
    The Sept 29 build is really good...it hasn't crashed on me yet, is as fast as previous builds, doesn't leak memory (at least, not as much as the current official Safari build), has new CSS2 and CSS3 stuff as well as lots of new DOM HTML and XHTML stuff (more compatibility can't harm eh?)...



    I recommend downloading NightShift and giving the new build a whirl.
  • Reply 12 of 35
    I am going to give it a go and Thanks for the link.



    Rob
  • Reply 13 of 35
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Chucker are you kidding me? Safari leaks more memory than anything I can think of, and used to crash unexpectedly almost every day. It still does. 104.2 helped a little I think. It just needs massive work under the hood. And...an actual functional History and Download manager would be nice. They aren't even up to par for a friggin browser from last century. Pathetic. Safari was good at .82...but the biggest change since then was adding Tabs. They really have to pay more attention to Safari considering by many Mac users it's the most used app.
  • Reply 14 of 35
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquatic

    Chucker are you kidding me?



    No, I was merely asking for a detailed response.



    Quote:

    Safari leaks more memory than anything I can think of,



    It leaks considerably less than Firefox for me. You're right though, leaks are something to work on, and something that will be considerably better in the next major WebKit upgrade.



    Quote:

    and used to crash unexpectedly almost every day. It still does.



    Not for me. It crashes every now and then, yes, but only on websites that suck.



    Which, granted, is not an excuse. Nothing, absolutely nothing, should make an application crash, no matter how remote the reason. But crashing (or rather, lack thereof) has improved significantly for me between Safari 1.2 and 2.0.1.



    Quote:

    And...an actual functional History and Download manager would be nice.



    What's missing in the History? I've heard from many that it can't be searched; clearly it can.



    As for the Download Manager, having a full-blown one wouldn't match Apple's approach of separating applications from one another. Even so, Safari's download manager does everything important -- unlike IE/Win, it lets you see and copy the actual URL, pause and resume downloads where applicable, etc.



    Quote:

    They aren't even up to par for a friggin browser from last century. Pathetic.



    I cannot agree with that.



    If you need more features, there's tons and tons of extensions at PimpMySafari, and Mac OS X has by far the most versatile market of browsers, from Shiira to Camino to OmniWeb to Opera to Firefox. I'm sure I forgot one or two significant alternatives to Safari.



    I'm not an Apple apologist and seeing as I've been through a week of hell with my iBook's hard drive (AGAIN!) and Apple's Online Store's retardedness isn't helping either, I have no *reason* to be an Apple apologist.
  • Reply 15 of 35
    nauticalnautical Posts: 109member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by gregmightdothat

    WebKit's been speed up some and like 99% of it's memory leaks have been fixed since the last Safari release. (And it passes the Acid 2 test).



    No it doesn't. Acid 2 is still a garbled mess with the latest webkit nightly.
  • Reply 16 of 35
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    The History doesn't have any options basically. What if I don't want it to keep more than a day of History, or if I want it to keep an infinite History (something I would prefer.) And the download manager in IE 5 is better.



    And Safari since 2 has crashed on me far more than in Jaguar and Panther, for who knows what reason.



    It is slow and eats hundreds and hundreds of megs of RAM after being open for just a few hours.



    Firefox does not do this. At least in my observations.



    I am hoping that through community peer review on WebKit these issues can be rectified, at least the stability and efficiency ones.
  • Reply 17 of 35
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    The download manager in IE 5 may be better, but Apple strives for a "less is more" paradigm; pretty much the only exception to this is iTunes.



    Like I said, there's external download managers that can better handle this. I for one am satisfied with what Safari offers; then again, I often use curl or wget instead. They simply offer more flexibility than any GUI program ever could/should/would.



    Safari Enhancer can change history limits, but only by amount, not by days.



    I haven't seen a recent browser to support an infinite history.



    Again, I'm not trying to defend Safari, I just don't have much of a negative experience with it. I've been through months of using OmniWeb, which I ended up finding too slow in comparison, although I sorely miss some of its features (most notably, complete state retainment after crashes and relaunches, including filled out forms, etc., and also the extended form editor). I also miss some stuff from having used Firefox on Windows including Firefox extensions, such as the resizable form text fields, the web developer bar (though it is horribly cluttered, its Edit CSS thing is of use at times, as are the validators), etc.



    It boils down to: no browser that I've used, be it on OS X, Windows or GNOME, is even close to the feature set I'd like it to have, and yes, I'm willing to pay. But Safari is so compact (and thus fast -- to me at least, and I'm on a G3 iBook!) as to be hard to resist.
  • Reply 18 of 35
    pbpb Posts: 4,233member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker

    I've been through months of using OmniWeb, which I ended up finding too slow in comparison...





    Now that you said it, what really happens with Omniweb? It looks like Omni somewhat gave up to fast development. I mean it just can't keep up in speed compared to other browsers.



    Quote:

    But Safari is so compact (and thus fast -- to me at least, and I'm on a G3 iBook!) as to be hard to resist.



    Personally I find Chimera (Camino) as the fastest browser on the Mac platform. Many will say that it is Firefox, but I beg to differ.
  • Reply 19 of 35
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Firefox isn't as fast as Safari for me; Camino is indeed the fastest, period. Opera would be fast if it wasn't for its slightly sluggish (non-native) GUI.



    OmniWeb is slow because

    1) its GUI carries a lot of bulk due to the many, many features

    2) it uses a custom build of WebCore, rather than Apple's WebKit framework. OMNI Group decided to manually handle this, which means they have to re-add all their modifications every time Apple updates. Omni's WebCore is still at 1.2, not 1.3/2.0.
  • Reply 20 of 35
    pbpb Posts: 4,233member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker



    OmniWeb is slow because

    1) its GUI carries a lot of bulk due to the many, many features

    2) it uses a custom build of WebCore, rather than Apple's WebKit framework. OMNI Group decided to manually handle this, which means they have to re-add all their modifications every time Apple updates. Omni's WebCore is still at 1.2, not 1.3/2.0.




    I hoped they would change that, but apparently no. Do you know why Omni decided that handling their own version of WebKit would be better for them? Because it seems that it is not.
Sign In or Register to comment.