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

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 79
    ahmlcoahmlco Posts: 432member
    The only times I've had Safari go belly up has been on sites that make extensive use of Flash. Browse with plugin's off, and Safari just keeps going and going.



    Not to mention that you're spared from seeing most "rich" advertising.
  • Reply 62 of 79
    Are CSS-animation and CSS-transform part of CSS3? I really hope they are not going down the non-standard road.. God forbid it's hard enough as it is with the different rendering engines/browsers and their quirks...

    but a new native getElementsByClassName function?? SWEEEEEET. I've always thought this was such a PITA to not have in spidermonkey..
  • Reply 63 of 79
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by random bob, a.r.c. View Post


    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?



    I think you should give Flock a try. I just started using it when someone mentioned it in this thread yesterday. It's feeling like Firefox done much better. Not perfect, but at least for me, it's the best browser right now.



    It looks like Flock does this the way you want.



    http://www.flock.com/



    Quote:

    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.



    I think that is one of Safari's nicer features. Unfortunately, Flock doesn't do this, at least not yet.
  • Reply 64 of 79
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ahmlco View Post


    The only times I've had Safari go belly up has been on sites that make extensive use of Flash. Browse with plugin's off, and Safari just keeps going and going.



    Not to mention that you're spared from seeing most "rich" advertising.



    There are ways to selectively play Flash elements without having to disable all plugins, disabling all plugins is a bit extreme. I think Pith Helmet allows selective play for Safari, where you click on a "play" button if you want to see the item.



    As much as I don't like Flash, it's the de-facto standard for video on the web now, and there are a few neat little statistical apps such as what's in Google Finance that uses flash.
  • Reply 65 of 79
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Safari with all it's problems with web pages bothers me, but it is still my main browser. If there is a site that I have problems with I use Firefox. It's starts slow, but it works great for me once it's up and running.



    I always put in the same feature request to apple after every update and it's never been added. Does anyone remember IE's awesome save options? You could save web pages as a web archive, and save images, movies, sounds, and links up to 5 pages deep. That was so awesome!



    I used to save Maya tutorial pages and I could go through them offline because I had them saved on my desktop in a folder. It was an awesome feature. The best thing that IE ever had to offer.
  • Reply 66 of 79
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by onlooker View Post


    Safari with all it's problems with web pages bothers me, but it is still my main browser. If there is a site that I have problems with I use Firefox. It's starts slow, but it works great for me once it's up and running.



    I always put in the same feature request to apple after every update and it's never been added. Does anyone remember IE's awesome save options? You could save web pages as a web archive, and save images, movies, sounds, and links up to 5 pages deep. That was so awesome!



    I used to save Maya tutorial pages and I could go through them offline because I had them saved on my desktop in a folder. It was an awesome feature. The best thing that IE ever had to offer.



    I used to like the interchangeable transluscent buttons.
  • Reply 67 of 79
    crebcreb Posts: 276member
    It sounds like Apple is finally throttling the development of Safari to be what they profess it to be versus the Apple marketing hype. Good, as they will need to do so considering FireFox 3 is rapidly developing, and it looks very good, even in beta.
  • Reply 68 of 79
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    SunSpider's JavaScript benchmark has very impressive results for the latest WebKit.
    — Webkit 30109 = 3,800ms

    — Shiira 2.2 = 10,400ms

    — Safari 3.04 = 10,500ms

    — Camino 1.5 = 12800ms

    — Firefox 2.0.0.9 = 14,800ms

    — Opera wouldn't result properly



    (OS X 10.5.1, 2.0GHz C2D w/ 4GB RAM)
    PS: My only issue with this test is that it's hosted by WebKit. I'm not saying they are cheating in any way but I'd like to see results from an non-affiliated site.

    PPS: Some interesting browser comparisons across multiple OSes.

    PPPS: Anyone want to run this one Windows using IE6, IE7, Firefox, Safari 3.04 and the latest WebKit? Thanks.
  • Reply 69 of 79
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    We should all know by now that Safari was the first browser to complete the Acid2 test. And that it won't be until Firefox 3 and internet Explorer 8 are released before they will pass the open standards test.



    What you may not know is that WebKit 30109 is already getting a 78 out of a 100 on passing the Acid3 test. IE6 is at 6/100, IE7 is at 13/100, Safari2 is at 39/100, FF2 is at 50/100, FF3 is at 57/100 and Opera is at 63/100.
    It is nice to see WebKit leading the pack again, especially with open standards becoming more and more common as IE loses it's proprietary hold.



    PS; The Acid3 test was just released on January 30th. At that time WebKit only was able to complete around 60 or the 100 tasks. In about a 10 days they have increased the number to 78. At this rate WebKit will be Acid3 compliant in about another 10 days.
  • Reply 70 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by onlooker View Post


    Safari with all it's problems with web pages bothers me, but it is still my main browser. If there is a site that I have problems with I use Firefox. It's starts slow, but it works great for me once it's up and running.



    I can't think of a page that hasn't rendered properly in Safari in a few years though apart from the god awful Avocent UPS I've got to connect to occasionally which uses browser sniffing and a Java plugin. It has issues in Firefox too though gets past the sniffer at least without faking the user agent.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by onlooker View Post


    I always put in the same feature request to apple after every update and it's never been added. Does anyone remember IE's awesome save options? You could save web pages as a web archive, and save images, movies, sounds, and links up to 5 pages deep. That was so awesome!



    Probably because Safari already has a Save as Web Archive option.



    If I want a whole site I usually drop to Terminal and wget it. Much finer control than any browser.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by onlooker View Post


    I used to save Maya tutorial pages and I could go through them offline because I had them saved on my desktop in a folder. It was an awesome feature. The best thing that IE ever had to offer.



    Try wget.
  • Reply 71 of 79
    I read somewhere that this new Safari update is in line with the upcoming iPhone SDK. Steve still wants most of the apps to be web based, the off-line memory function would allow for online apps to behave more natively and have access to native resources on the iPhone/iPod Touch. In essence, users wouldn't have to connect to the internet every time they launch a web app, though connectivity would still be available.



    Also, seems like the update should vastly improve loading times, keeping the iPhone snappy until 3G arrives later in the year.



    In these same articles, I also read that someone found some references in the iPhone OS to a 3rd multi-touch device that is not an iPhone nor an iPod Touch. Interesting. Its codenamed the N82.
  • Reply 72 of 79
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdotdubz View Post


    IIn these same articles, I also read that someone found some references in the iPhone OS to a 3rd multi-touch device that is not an iPhone nor an iPod Touch. Interesting. Its codenamed the N82.



    It's in the same category as the iPhone and not the iPod Touch. Does that mean it's an 3G iPhone or a Newton-like device with 3G?
    Platforms = (M68, N82, simulator);

    Platforms = (N45);
  • Reply 73 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdotdubz View Post


    I read somewhere that this new Safari update is in line with the upcoming iPhone SDK. Steve still wants most of the apps to be web based, the off-line memory function would allow for online apps to behave more natively and have access to native resources on the iPhone/iPod Touch. In essence, users wouldn't have to connect to the internet every time they launch a web app, though connectivity would still be available.



    Quite possible. If you look at most of the HTML5 and Javascript changes in Webkit lately, they've been about offline persistent storage, neat animation tricks and speeding up Javascript. All of these are exactly what you'd need for developing iPhone/Touch applications that behaved like they were full applications.



    I do hope that's not entirely what they're doing with the SDK though.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdotdubz View Post


    Also, seems like the update should vastly improve loading times, keeping the iPhone snappy until 3G arrives later in the year.



    No, it's not about loading times. It's more about giving Javascript interactions teh snappy by concentrating on keeping as much stuff AWAY from having to upload/download data. They know that that is a weak point so they're providing tools for web application developers to run more stuff local instead of on the server.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdotdubz View Post


    In these same articles, I also read that someone found some references in the iPhone OS to a 3rd multi-touch device that is not an iPhone nor an iPod Touch. Interesting. Its codenamed the N82.



    There's a Nokia N82 that runs Webkit but perhaps as solipism pointed out, that would appear to not be it.
  • Reply 74 of 79
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post


    There's a Nokia N82 that runs Webkit but perhaps as solipism pointed out, that would appear to not be it.



    Since it requires to Mobile OS X supported hardware platforms it can't be that and because WebKit is run on all Symbian S60 OSes which is more than just the N82 series by Nokia. Unless Apple has decided to license Mobiel OS X to Nokia.
  • Reply 75 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Since it requires to Mobile OS X supported hardware platforms it can't be that and because WebKit is run on all Symbian S60 OSes which is more than just the N82 series by Nokia. Unless Apple has decided to license Mobiel OS X to Nokia.



    So, 3G iPhone next Tuesday ???
  • Reply 76 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Since it requires to Mobile OS X supported hardware platforms it can't be that and because WebKit is run on all Symbian S60 OSes which is more than just the N82 series by Nokia. Unless Apple has decided to license Mobiel OS X to Nokia.



    Well, from what I know, the M68 is the iPhone, and the N45 is the iPod Touch. Judging by that, I would say its not a mobile phone, and perhaps more of an iPod device.



    Honestly tough, I don't think there is a need for a Newton. The iPod Touch can already do all that and more as a platform as soon as the SDK comes out. The iPod is already a trusted and established brand name, and it was clear that Apple is developing the iPod Touch/iPhone as a mobile platform that will serve as a mini-computer in your pocket with desktop power.



    I would like to say its the Macbook Touch tablet, but I doubt Apple would cripple a tablet with the optimized (scaled down) OSX the iPod and iPhone get. I honestly have no idea what it could be. Maybe its the new Apple Remote I was talking about in my "AppleTV 2?" thread, lol...
  • Reply 77 of 79
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdotdubz View Post


    Well, from what I know, the M68 is the iPhone, and the N45 is the iPod Touch. Judging by that, I would say its not a mobile phone, and perhaps more of an iPod device.



    Honestly tough, I don't think there is a need for a Newton. The iPod Touch can already do all that and more as a platform as soon as the SDK comes out. The iPod is already a trusted and established brand name, and it was clear that Apple is developing the iPod Touch/iPhone as a mobile platform that will serve as a mini-computer in your pocket with desktop power.



    I would like to say its the Macbook Touch tablet, but I doubt Apple would cripple a tablet with the optimized (scaled down) OSX the iPod and iPhone get. I honestly have no idea what it could be. Maybe its the new Apple Remote I was talking about in my "AppleTV 2?" thread, lol...



    I don't think the N prefix is enough justification to say it's not a phone. We do know that the iPhone and iPod Touch do use a slightly different OS. Here is my reasoning why...



    We know that M68 refers to the iPhone and that N45 refers to the iPod Touch. We also know that there are two separate platforms they list and that the iPod Touch and iPhone are, in fact, two separate platform in that one has phone dialing software and the other.



    Since the N82 is grouped with the iPhone platform I think it has to be a device that can make and receive calls like the M68 but would have some differences in hardware that would require different drives or other software. Upping storage capacity doesn't alter the software so I think this reason is a 3G iPhone.



    Note: We have no record of such a phone being submitted to the FCC so we shouldn't one to miraculously appear with at least a 6 week heads-up period with pre-orders. Releasing the SDK, and announcing 3G iPhone would make for a good event. Do Penryn MBPs really need to be "announced"?
  • Reply 78 of 79
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Safari is about to get crazy fast



    "There is no other way to say it. Holy cow is this thing fast! I am currently testing Webkit build r30090 (more recent versions are now there) against standard Leopard Safari 3.04. This unoptimized WebKit build version is running circles around the standard Safari browser. It isn't even close."
  • Reply 79 of 79
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    Safari is about to get crazy fast



    "There is no other way to say it. Holy cow is this thing fast! I am currently testing Webkit build r30090 (more recent versions are now there) against standard Leopard Safari 3.04. This unoptimized WebKit build version is running circles around the standard Safari browser. It isn't even close."



    So, will this make part of the 10.5.2 update?
Sign In or Register to comment.