Does it bother anyone else about the way bookmarks are organized? I know lots of people keep saying that the way Safari does it is much better, but I disagree.
I want all my bookmarks to be in the bookmarks menu, regardless of how they're organized. It takes two clicks to get to a bookmark when it's in the menu, compared to the bookmarks panel, where you have to click AT LEAST 3 times to do the same thing.
I know I can add all my bookmarks to the menu, but then that defeats the purpose of the panel. I hope Apple modifies this so that all bookmarks are automatically added to the menu, in addition to wherever else you might like to file them (sort of like with the Address Book and Rendezvous bookmarks).
Another thing: It renders beautifully. I´m making tabels in SPSS in 9 (SPSS doesn´t work in Classic) and the easiest way to see them while I´m using the data for PowerPoint presentations is by exporting them in HTML. Simply much more beatiful than in any other browser in X.
gah you clearly dont understand the bookmarks library, the menu is for slightly common stuff, the toolbar for really common stuff, and the folders in the library for stuff that isnt so common. Lets take an example a mac fanatic would use it
toolbar - things like these forums, daily visits and such
menu - maybe apple.com seen as you dont visit it daily
bookmarks library - maybe mac musuem etc, places you dont visit every day but you can still all bookmark without clogging up your bookmark menu
<strong>Does it bother anyone else about the way bookmarks are organized? I know lots of people keep saying that the way Safari does it is much better, but I disagree.
I want all my bookmarks to be in the bookmarks menu, regardless of how they're organized. It takes two clicks to get to a bookmark when it's in the menu, compared to the bookmarks panel, where you have to click AT LEAST 3 times to do the same thing.
I know I can add all my bookmarks to the menu, but then that defeats the purpose of the panel. I hope Apple modifies this so that all bookmarks are automatically added to the menu, in addition to wherever else you might like to file them (sort of like with the Address Book and Rendezvous bookmarks).
Am I alone in feeling this way?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The purpose is not defeated at all. Without the bookmarks view, how would you go about editing and organizing your bookmarks? What, a tiny window that gets lost? Are you mad? Rather than do it the time-tested way, Apple scores some points for keeping it all in the same window.
[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>hehe, just a little surprised that you of all people didn't catch those things </strong><hr></blockquote>
I have a feeling moki doesn't use Cocoa or Cocoa apps very often.
Otherwise, his first instinct would have been to control click on the text field and enable it.
Turns out that all the people who thought that David Hyatt would be building a Web-Browser for Apple were right... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>That page loads fine in Safari and clicking images works fine too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Funny to look at that page in Safari mainly because you have a brushed metal window with a (slightly different) brushed metal window from the wweb page inside it.
Interesting to see how images are loaded too. They sort of appear to "drop down," where the bottom of the image renders first and is shown at the to of the image then drops as the rest of the miage is loaded. (This isn't slow or smooth mind you, actually rather quick and renders in big chunks at a time.)
Why did Apple pick KHTML instead of Mozilla though? Mozilla seems to be picking up support from everywhere, there's a real bandwagon forming. I mean, AOL blessed, it has legs. What is better about KHTML?</strong><hr></blockquote>
According to Apple:
"For its Web page rendering engine, Safari draws on software from the Konqueror open source project. Weighing in at less than one tenth the size of another open source renderer, Konqueror helps Safari stay lean and responsive."
I'm sure someone with more experience programming web browsers would know a bunch of other reasons as well.
[quote] Various members of the Flash community have been reporting low frame rates when using Flash in Safari. I'm pleased to report that we have corrected the problem. The issue was not in WebCore, so I can't post a patch, but the issue has been addressed. <hr></blockquote>
As much as we all love Dave Hyatt, why does he get all the credit anyway? He's not the only guy on the Safari team.
The possibility of OW5 using Webcore and KHTML occurred to me this morning too. Great.. I guess OW5 won't be squashed by Safari after all. And so the Mac browser market is safe for the time being. Open source really is great.
On my brothers B&W G3/400MHz, the prefrences in Safari wouldn't show up, the window showed but it was blank, obviously this was a bug.
...so i cliked on the report a bug button and nothing happened, ANOTHER bug...how do you report this one? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>As much as we all love Dave Hyatt, why does he get all the credit anyway? He's not the only guy on the Safari team.
The possibility of OW5 using Webcore and KHTML occurred to me this morning too. Great.. I guess OW5 won't be squashed by Safari after all. And so the Mac browser market is safe for the time being. Open source really is great.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A lot of folks from the old Eazel team worked on this. They get a lot of the credit really. Hell, they probably did a huge chunk of the legwork! These folks are very versatile too, aren't they?
I see Safari remaining a simple application. Like other iApps, it will constantly be criticised for not having enough advanced features, but I don't see it as that kind of software, and I doubt Apple sees it that way either. OW will still have a big chunk of the market with its more advanced features, the ability to fine-tune settings more, more flexible UI, etc. If anything, this will help Omni focus OmniWeb's development. Same goes for Chimera, Opera and even IE if it isn't exclusively part of MSN service in the future.
Comments
This is on a Dual 1.25, but it is still visibly smoother than other applications.
Barto
<a href="http://discussions.info.apple.com/webx?50@103.p2VUaXzZfJZ.565249@.3bbdb9d6"; target="_blank">http://discussions.info.apple.com/webx?50@103.p2VUaXzZfJZ.565249@.3bbdb9d6</a>;
<a href="http://discussions.info.apple.com/webx?50@202.K7NOarcbf3d.2@.3bbdbb52"; target="_blank">http://discussions.info.apple.com/webx?50@202.K7NOarcbf3d.2@.3bbdbb52</a>;
I guess we've been lucky?
I want all my bookmarks to be in the bookmarks menu, regardless of how they're organized. It takes two clicks to get to a bookmark when it's in the menu, compared to the bookmarks panel, where you have to click AT LEAST 3 times to do the same thing.
I know I can add all my bookmarks to the menu, but then that defeats the purpose of the panel. I hope Apple modifies this so that all bookmarks are automatically added to the menu, in addition to wherever else you might like to file them (sort of like with the Address Book and Rendezvous bookmarks).
Am I alone in feeling this way?
[ 01-08-2003: Message edited by: JLL ]</p>
Is it because its a cocoa app?
toolbar - things like these forums, daily visits and such
menu - maybe apple.com seen as you dont visit it daily
bookmarks library - maybe mac musuem etc, places you dont visit every day but you can still all bookmark without clogging up your bookmark menu
<strong>Does it bother anyone else about the way bookmarks are organized? I know lots of people keep saying that the way Safari does it is much better, but I disagree.
I want all my bookmarks to be in the bookmarks menu, regardless of how they're organized. It takes two clicks to get to a bookmark when it's in the menu, compared to the bookmarks panel, where you have to click AT LEAST 3 times to do the same thing.
I know I can add all my bookmarks to the menu, but then that defeats the purpose of the panel. I hope Apple modifies this so that all bookmarks are automatically added to the menu, in addition to wherever else you might like to file them (sort of like with the Address Book and Rendezvous bookmarks).
Am I alone in feeling this way?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The purpose is not defeated at all. Without the bookmarks view, how would you go about editing and organizing your bookmarks? What, a tiny window that gets lost? Are you mad? Rather than do it the time-tested way, Apple scores some points for keeping it all in the same window.
[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>hehe, just a little surprised that you of all people didn't catch those things
I have a feeling moki doesn't use Cocoa or Cocoa apps very often.
Otherwise, his first instinct would have been to control click on the text field and enable it.
<strong>Two small points Hassan (you twat):
1) It's thoroughbred not bread. It's a horse, not a loaf. Or rather a browser-horse, not a browser-loaf.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh yes. And, er, it has spellchecking too, which is something Chimera doesn't.
I've turned it on now.
According to this:
<a href="http://www.macfixit.com/MFIbeta/article.php?story=20030108084927319"; target="_blank">http://www.macfixit.com/MFIbeta/article.php?story=20030108084927319</a>;
Also, you can upgrade the kHTML renderer component, called WebCore separately from the rest of the app.
So says this guy:
<a href="http://www.mozillazine.org/weblogs/hyatt/"; target="_blank">http://www.mozillazine.org/weblogs/hyatt/</a>;
Barto
<strong>That page loads fine in Safari and clicking images works fine too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Funny to look at that page in Safari mainly because you have a brushed metal window with a (slightly different) brushed metal window from the wweb page inside it.
Interesting to see how images are loaded too. They sort of appear to "drop down," where the bottom of the image renders first and is shown at the to of the image then drops as the rest of the miage is loaded. (This isn't slow or smooth mind you, actually rather quick and renders in big chunks at a time.)
<strong>
Why did Apple pick KHTML instead of Mozilla though? Mozilla seems to be picking up support from everywhere, there's a real bandwagon forming. I mean, AOL blessed, it has legs. What is better about KHTML?</strong><hr></blockquote>
According to Apple:
"For its Web page rendering engine, Safari draws on software from the Konqueror open source project. Weighing in at less than one tenth the size of another open source renderer, Konqueror helps Safari stay lean and responsive."
I'm sure someone with more experience programming web browsers would know a bunch of other reasons as well.
[quote] Various members of the Flash community have been reporting low frame rates when using Flash in Safari. I'm pleased to report that we have corrected the problem. The issue was not in WebCore, so I can't post a patch, but the issue has been addressed. <hr></blockquote>
The possibility of OW5 using Webcore and KHTML occurred to me this morning too. Great.. I guess OW5 won't be squashed by Safari after all. And so the Mac browser market is safe for the time being. Open source really is great.
On my brothers B&W G3/400MHz, the prefrences in Safari wouldn't show up, the window showed but it was blank, obviously this was a bug.
...so i cliked on the report a bug button and nothing happened, ANOTHER bug...how do you report this one?
<strong>As much as we all love Dave Hyatt, why does he get all the credit anyway? He's not the only guy on the Safari team.
The possibility of OW5 using Webcore and KHTML occurred to me this morning too. Great.. I guess OW5 won't be squashed by Safari after all. And so the Mac browser market is safe for the time being. Open source really is great.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A lot of folks from the old Eazel team worked on this. They get a lot of the credit really. Hell, they probably did a huge chunk of the legwork! These folks are very versatile too, aren't they?
I see Safari remaining a simple application. Like other iApps, it will constantly be criticised for not having enough advanced features, but I don't see it as that kind of software, and I doubt Apple sees it that way either. OW will still have a big chunk of the market with its more advanced features, the ability to fine-tune settings more, more flexible UI, etc. If anything, this will help Omni focus OmniWeb's development. Same goes for Chimera, Opera and even IE if it isn't exclusively part of MSN service in the future.
[ 01-08-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
Barto