Apple's Safari 3.1 to support downloadable web fonts, more

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bluedalmatian View Post


    Possibly because Apple has never got the hang of putting network transmission & UI updating under the control of separate threads.



    As another example...try using Finder to connect to a file server which is down or on a slow network....Finder hangs for several minutes until the network connection times out.



    If you actually think Safari does it's network downloading on the same thread as the UI rendering, you're a moron.
  • Reply 42 of 79
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:

    They should try working on making Safari a better browser. Firefox is way more advanced and flexible comparing the Safari, and it is way more compatible with web sites than Safari. I can't use Safari for a lot of web sites. You have to accept to fact that you have a very marginal market share, and you can't just force your own standards, but you you have to comply with others'.



    A lot of this (as well as what a lot of people say) is subjective. Being flexible is not really more advanced its just different. I could just as easily say why can't Firefox be more advanced like Safari and use less of my computers resources.



    I really don't use a lot of browser plug-ins and that whole architecture doesn't matter to me.



    I think people are making a bit much about Safari working with websites. I would say four years ago when many more websites were optimized for IE. It was much more hit and miss. But today I rarely run into compatibility problems. Most every site is moving towards supporting standards.



    Safari is the number three browser used in the world. Firefox marketshare is only a little over twice that of Safari. IE owns a little less than 75% of the world browser marketshare. So everyone is much smaller than IE.
  • Reply 43 of 79
    #1) I'm sorry for being so dumb when it comes to web design and coding, but can someone please tell my why ActiveX and such can't be made to work with Safari? I hate being forced to use IE because certain sites are IE only thanks to ActiveX components. I want Safari all the time! Can't someone up with a plug-in or wrapper, or something?



    Also, its annoying when I try to visit those sites on my iPhone...because they don't work!



    #2) I've read lots about this, but what is the truth behind the iPhone not supporting Flash? Battery draining issues, longer loading times, Apple trying to kill the Flash format?



    Thanks in advance!
  • Reply 44 of 79
    Because Active-X is a proprietary Microsoft technology. It is an entire "stack" of technology that Microsoft created and holds the keys to the kingdom on.



    And the truth about Mobile Safari not supporting Flash is that 1) Apple feels Flash wasn't necessary, so they didn't pursue Adobe to create a version for the iPhone, and 2) Adobe is rumored to be working on it, and I'd bet that when the SDK is released, you'll see it within 2-4 months, and 3) Flash will drain the battery quickly on the iPhone. It does it on every phone I've seen with it, and you can bet that the iPhone will be no different.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdotdubz View Post


    #1) I'm sorry for being so dumb when it comes to web design and coding, but can someone please tell my why ActiveX and such can't be made to work with Safari? I hate being forced to use IE because certain sites are IE only thanks to ActiveX components. I want Safari all the time! Can't someone up with a plug-in or wrapper, or something?



    Also, its annoying when I try to visit those sites on my iPhone...because they don't work!



    #2) I've read lots about this, but what is the truth behind the iPhone not supporting Flash? Battery draining issues, longer loading times, Apple trying to kill the Flash format?



    Thanks in advance!



  • Reply 45 of 79
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Does anyone know how to use Alt Quit out of Safari now without it asking the same stupid question that you have "more than one window open"? It never did that before Leopard.

    If I'm telling it to quit why do I need to be asked that question even if I have 1,000 windows open?
  • Reply 46 of 79
    lantznlantzn Posts: 240member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I would just like to reiterate what mjtomlin stated about following standards. Safari follows more open standards than Firefox or IE.



    That's been true for years. Check it out here.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid2



    IE has been and still is the poorest web browser for supporting standards. It has done damage in holding back CSS on the web. Thankfully the adoption of alternative browsers is changing that and we can now tell people to switch and dump that POS IE.
  • Reply 47 of 79
    I've been using a build of 3.1 on my Windows machine at work all week, and it is a shit-ton better than anything they've released prior.
  • Reply 48 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    Does anyone know how to use Alt Quit out of Safari now without it asking the same stupid question that you have "more than one window open"? It never did that before Leopard.

    If I'm telling it to quit why do I need to be asked that question even if I have 1,000 windows open?



    I am using Tiger with Safari 3.1 but all you should have to do is go to preferences click on tabs and uncheck the box that says "Confirm when closing multiple pages".
  • Reply 49 of 79
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by diskimage View Post


    I am using Tiger with Safari 3.1 but all you should have to do is go to preferences click on tabs and uncheck the box that says "Confirm when closing multiple pages".



    It used to ask you if you didn't want this to be asked again but not in Leopard. I will try it tonight- thanks.
  • Reply 50 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by serpicolugnut View Post


    Because Active-X is a proprietary Microsoft technology. It is an entire "stack" of technology that Microsoft created and holds the keys to the kingdom on.



    And the truth about Mobile Safari not supporting Flash is that 1) Apple feels Flash wasn't necessary, so they didn't pursue Adobe to create a version for the iPhone, and 2) Adobe is rumored to be working on it, and I'd bet that when the SDK is released, you'll see it within 2-4 months, and 3) Flash will drain the battery quickly on the iPhone. It does it on every phone I've seen with it, and you can bet that the iPhone will be no different.



    Then why the heck do developers create websites with that crap (ActiveX)??? Why would they want to limit the audience who visits their site? Is is laziness, stupidity? Is it because IE owns 70% of the browser market? I dunno, though 70% is large, I'm pretty sure that anyone would get quickly fired if the company they worked for lost 30% profits. 30% is still a pretty large number. I know Safari's share isn't that large, but it will be.



    I just don't get it.



    Is there no universal programing and development language that can be used to open up compatibility with all browsers? Why do people develop pages using ActiveX? What benefit does it provide besides restricting what browser people use to access the site's features?
  • Reply 51 of 79
    tbagginstbaggins Posts: 2,306member
    Hmmm.... looks like Safari 3.1 and Firefox 3 (Beta 3's out next week) may release within a few weeks of each other.



    This rivalry is getting interestin'.





    .
  • Reply 52 of 79
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdotdubz View Post


    Then why the heck do developers create websites with that crap (ActiveX)??? Why would they want to limit the audience who visits their site? Is is laziness, stupidity? Is it because IE owns 70% of the browser market? I dunno, though 70% is large, I'm pretty sure that anyone would get quickly fired if the company they worked for lost 30% profits. 30% is still a pretty large number. I know Safari's share isn't that large, but it will be.



    I just don't get it.



    Is there no universal programing and development language that can be used to open up compatibility with all browsers? Why do people develop pages using ActiveX? What benefit does it provide besides restricting what browser people use to access the site's features?



    There was a time when IE was basically the only game in town, it made sense then. Any AX sites still running are probably legacy sites. There's no point in making a new site with it. I'm not sure if Microsoft is still bothering with it. I can't even say I've ever used an ActiveX site.
  • Reply 53 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    There was a time when IE was basically the only game in town, it made sense then. Any AX sites still running are probably legacy sites. There's no point in making a new site with it. I'm not sure if Microsoft is still bothering with it. I can't even say I've ever used an ActiveX site.



    Unfortunately, some sites I use for work are coded specifically for IE and AOL of all freaking browsers. Even when they all migrated to new interfaces both last year and this year, all 3 websites have remained IE and freakin AOL only. When I call to complain for Safari & iPhone suppurt, they give me some crap about WAP-enabled versions of the site which are TOTAL garbage. \



    I dunno
  • Reply 54 of 79
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdotdubz View Post


    Unfortunately, some sites I use for work are coded specifically for IE and AOL of all freaking browsers. Even when they all migrated to new interfaces both last year and this year, all 3 websites have remained IE and freakin AOL only. When I call to complain for Safari & iPhone suppurt, they give me some crap about WAP-enabled versions of the site which are TOTAL garbage. \



    I dunno



    Does IE for Mac work well enough or is ActiveX actually required?
  • Reply 55 of 79
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lantzn View Post


    That's been true for years. Check it out here.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid2



    IE has been and still is the poorest web browser for supporting standards. It has done damage in holding back CSS on the web. Thankfully the adoption of alternative browsers is changing that and we can now tell people to switch and dump that POS IE.



    IIRC IE was among the first to support CSS with decent quality, it was Netscape 4.x that held back adoption because Netscape's implementation was the worst. Times have chanced a lot since then.
  • Reply 56 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Does IE for Mac work well enough or is ActiveX actually required?



    ActiveX is required for some parts. They still make IE for mac? I thought it was discontinued?
  • Reply 57 of 79
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdotdubz View Post


    ActiveX is required for some parts. They still make IE for mac? I thought it was discontinued?



    I did business with a company where Safari or Firefox wouldn't work. The server would check the browser before loading the page. I was told that it needed ActiveX but IE for Mac worked fine for what I had to do.





    It is discoed, but it's still downloadable if you Google it our grab it from a torrent site.
  • Reply 58 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I did business with a company where Safari or Firefox wouldn't work. The server would check the browser before loading the page. I was told that it needed ActiveX but IE for Mac worked fine for what I had to do.





    It is discoed, but it's still downloadable if you Google it our grab it from a torrent site.



    Well, I just use Parallels and IE6 and IE7 when it comes to work stuff... sometimes I forget and log in through Safari and start cursing at myself when I remember
  • Reply 59 of 79
    Quote:

    Similarly, Animations offer a quicker route to AJAX-like effects, such as fading out an HTML element, or increasing the border of a box when hovered over.



    For the record, AJAX standards for: Asynchronous JavaScript And XML. AJAX has little or nothing whatsoever to do with fading out HTML elements or increasing box borders; those type of effects are known as DHTML or Dynamic-HTML.



    Just clarifying
  • Reply 60 of 79
    I like some of the extensibility of Firefox, but there's two big gripes I have that I just cannot, CANNOT get passed.



    1). Full-screen. In Safari, when you hit the "green" maximize button, the window gets just big enough to fit the content of the page you're viewing. In FF, you hit that and goodbye anything else being viewable. What the hell? The page is only 800 pix wide, why the hell does FF seem to think I want it to take up 1200 pix, at least 400 of which is utterly useless?



    2). Draggable tabs in safari. Yes i know you can "arrange" tabs in FF, but I LOVE, absolutely love being able to drag a tab out to make a new window, or drag and drop tabs between windows to arrange viewing sessions more logically.





    And FF is NOT faster than Safari. I always test this out myself, and it never fails, Safari finishes rendering the whole page first. FF just does it different, and it may "feel" faster at first, but it's most definitely not.
Sign In or Register to comment.