I actually like the font rendering. In some ways, the fonts are easier to read for me.
Greg: I was wondering something similar. There are a few little animation effects which happen that are out of the norm compared to Windows XP movements. They seem to happen smoothly and I was wondering what was driving them.
And if they're already using Safari on Windows, they'll obviously be able to jump over to OS X Safari without missing a beat.
The public perception may be that way, but I really don't think it's true... IMO, switching at random between any of the modern web browsers (IE, FF, Safari, Konqueror, you name it) is already a no-brainer. The browsers can differentiate themselves by features (speed, standards compliance, extras, etc) but as far as I've seen, the differences in core user experience are so subtle that I don't even notice them.
Anyone know how to remedy this? It looks to be a font issue. Thanks!
It appears that the font used to display menus in Safari, and all of the text on the Apple Start Page, Lucida Grande, has not been installed. It?s available to download here, this should work.
I was able to log on (and remembering user/pass) on my company's web page. but I can't do bookmarks. Import, add, everything regarding bookmarks just crashes the program down. I tried reinstalling (with and without preferences flush) to no avail...
I guess i should try it with different peecee
the tabs reorganizing is cool! especially when tabs change into thumbnails of their contents
What the hellll? The tabs thing doesn't work on OS X? I can reorganize but drag tabs off the bookmark bar just makes them disappear in a puff of smoke???
Well I installed it and it is (wait for it) SLOWER for me. By the way "wait for it" seems to be an appropriate tag-line for the new Safari 3.0.
However, to be fair it does do one thing much faster than Safari 2 - It locks up good and fast.....Argh.
Same for me (slower), but I'll keep it anyway... Strange however that some people here report that it's faster and some other report that it's slower... How comes?
What amazed me and made me laugh was that one:
It reminded me Vista when I saw that I was going "Oh please no! Don't do that to me only because there's a version of Safari for Vista now!"
I think that's also available in 2.0 but anyway I've never seen that before... Fortunately I quickly found out how to deactivate it...
Enjoy your day!
Update: I had to switch back to Version 2 because MSN Messenger wouldn't work properly with Safari 3.0 installed ... Quite strange... Sadly all my friends are using messnger and I don't like aMSN or MercuryMessnger so: Goodbye Safari 3.0!
I?ve had mixed experiences. The beta installed and uninstalled fine on both my MacBook and my parents? Windows XP machine. Font rendering looks great on the PC. Also, as previously noted by other users, the animations, such as the sheet for adding a bookmark, a running incredibly smoothly, unlike other experiences in iTunes with Cover Flow and the blessed Start Menu. Perhaps they ported over Core Image too?
On OS X, it installed with out a hitch and was perfectly usable. I do have one small gripe though: it buggered up iTunes so that the only thing it could display was the iTunes Store, everything else I clicked on in the sidebar was blank. I had to revert to Safari 2.0 and reinstall iTunes, which turned out to not be that big a deal. What can you expect from beta software?
I have to say, however, that the browsing experience has become much more pleasurable on both OS X and Windows; now if only they can sort out Cover Flow on XP I?ll be happy!
The new Safari refuses to install itself on my G4 dual 10.4.9
Like others, it doesn't meet some (unnamed) requirements.
What an advertisement for Apple!
Maybe it's because I had deleted the old Safari after it refused to perform the simplest taks; Firefox beat it hands down. Now I can't install the new improved Safari to give it another chance.....
Same for me (slower), but I'll keep it anyway... Strange however that some people here report that it's faster and some other report that it's slower... How comes?
What amazed me and made me laugh was that one:
It reminded me Vista when I saw that I was going "Oh please no! Don't do that to me only because there's a version of Safari for Vista now!"
I think that's also available in 2.0 but anyway I've never seen that before... Fortunately I quickly found out how to deactivate it...
The public perception may be that way, but I really don't think it's true... IMO, switching at random between any of the modern web browsers (IE, FF, Safari, Konqueror, you name it) is already a no-brainer. The browsers can differentiate themselves by features (speed, standards compliance, extras, etc) but as far as I've seen, the differences in core user experience are so subtle that I don't even notice them.
Yes, but its a "no brainer" by geek standards. Joe and Jane Sixpack aren't near as tech savvy. There's also the comfort level involved in using something that looks the same as what you're used to using.
I would agree though that the much larger switcher bait is having Leopard's Finder be very much like iTunes. 300 million Windows users already know how to use iTunes, so they already know how to use the Leopard Finder, and the barrier to switching is lowered. Nice.
Now if only Apple would get more aggressive with its hardware lineup and pricing, switching might become as commonplace as Paris Hilton-in-jail 'news' stories.
Yes, but its a "no brainer" by geek standards. Joe and Jane Sixpack aren't near as tech savvy. There's also the comfort level involved in using something that looks the same as what you're used to using.
I would agree though that the much larger switcher bait is having Leopard's Finder be very much like iTunes. 300 million Windows users already know how to use iTunes, so they already know how to use the Leopard Finder, and the barrier to switching is lowered. Nice.
Now if only Apple would get more aggressive with its hardware lineup and pricing, switching might become as commonplace as Paris Hilton-in-jail 'news' stories.
.
Apple's doing this for the same reason MS made Windows CE, and Windows Mobile look like the Windows computer desktop, even though OSes are COMPLETELY different. Familiarity, as you said.
Looks like we already have people coming up with vulnerabilities of the Safary browser for windoes. Some of these guys will not be informing Apple, instead the will use it.
I suppose another reason for releasing Safari on Windows, besides the "iPhone SDK nonsense", is that it will probably allow Windows users to synchronize their Bookmarks from their PC to their iPhone. Sure, they could have tried converting IE favorites over to the iPhone version of Safari, but this way would be a lot neater.
Who knows, maybe it'll also allow for .Mac synchronization between Safari on a Mac and on Windows...
Looks like we already have people coming up with vulnerabilities of the Safary browser for windoes. Some of these guys will not be informing Apple, instead the will use it.
From what I've read so far, this could be a huge problem for uptake on the platform, and for Apple's game plan. Hope it isn't anything more than teething pain.
If Apple's browser gains a reputation, right out of the gate, of being very insecure, it does exactly the opposite of acting as a trojan horse for switchers-- it instead confirms Windows users prejudices that Apple's claims to being "more secure" than Windows is just because their software doesn't have the high profile of Windows.
"See?", they can say, "As soon as you put Apple's stuff on the majority platform it gets hammered and is revealed to be a house of cards."
I just downloaded the beta for OSX, and damn it's fast. It's noticeably faster than Camino 1.5, and I didn't think that was possible. Too bad the Java supports is still shitty!
Java support? Both Camino and Safari use the same Java engine. Or do you mean Javascript?
If so, I've found the javascript support is much improved. The problem that remains is that many javascript scripts like the WYSIWYG editors such as FCKEditor sniff for the browser string and find WebKit and switch off features in the script because Safari 2.0 didn't work the same as IE/FF. Apple added support for the features used by these scripts but the script people themselves now have to fix there sniffer code.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whiskerlickins
I'm having the most bizarre problem and I've searched everywhere and found no solution.
This isn't my screenshot, but I'm having the same problem in XP:
Anyone know how to remedy this? It looks to be a font issue. Thanks!
That's because you've a Lucida Grande Font installed that is corrupt. Delete the installed font and it should then work. You can also get around it by moving the font files out of the Safari resources folder and installing them as system fonts.
Safari will just add that anyway if you don't type them and it can't find it. But a bigger question would be why you're not using OpenDNS.com for your name resolution. That even corrects .cmo and other common mistakes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wealjays
* Hovering over browser buttons doesn't provide any info (annoying but I will figure out the cryptic icons)
It does on the Mac so I presume that's just an oversight on Windows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wealjays
* Keeps resizing the window on me (upon returning after switching apps) [side note: a feature in general that I am shocked is not availabe on a Mac (I am even more shocked that no one talks about it) is that you can't toggle a window to full size easily like in Windows
Because that behaviour sucks. On the Mac the maximise window button has always sized the window to the 'largest size needed to fit all the content' as opposed to stupid behaviour Windows introduced where it maximises it to the entire screen regardless of if you need it that big. As monitors get bigger, the Mac way makes even more sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Truth is, I was expecting much more, going from 2 to 3. This seems like a point release.
There is more in v3 but you're not seeing it yet as some of it relies on Leopard. eg. Webclips, however I'd disagree, the interface changes are subtle but the engine changes are major, especially javascript and CSS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagerDragon
Looks like we already have people coming up with vulnerabilities of the Safary browser for windoes. Some of these guys will not be informing Apple, instead the will use it.
That would be David Maynor. Nobody takes him seriously. How can you take any security expert seriously if they refuse to demo the bugs they've found never mind tell the application developer about them.
There is more in v3 but you're not seeing it yet as some of it relies on Leopard. eg. Webclips, however I'd disagree, the interface changes are subtle but the engine changes are major, especially javascript and CSS.
That's certainly possible. I'm just going by what I'm seeing, and what I'm seeing isn't major, and hasn't fixed some of the bugs that I've already mentioned. Since it's still a beta, I'm not too concerned, but I hope that Apple will have looked at some of them.
That's certainly possible. I'm just going by what I'm seeing, and what I'm seeing isn't major, and hasn't fixed some of the bugs that I've already mentioned. Since it's still a beta, I'm not too concerned, but I hope that Apple will have looked at some of them.
I'm not sure those are bugs. Some of them are just things you don't like working that way whereas I'm quite fine with them working that way and others I don't have (like issues with urls beginning irc...)
Perhaps you've a corrupt prefs file for your internet helpers. John Gruber had a similar problem...
That would be David Maynor. Nobody takes him seriously. How can you take any security expert seriously if they refuse to demo the bugs they've found never mind tell the application developer about them.
Comments
Greg: I was wondering something similar. There are a few little animation effects which happen that are out of the norm compared to Windows XP movements. They seem to happen smoothly and I was wondering what was driving them.
And if they're already using Safari on Windows, they'll obviously be able to jump over to OS X Safari without missing a beat.
The public perception may be that way, but I really don't think it's true... IMO, switching at random between any of the modern web browsers (IE, FF, Safari, Konqueror, you name it) is already a no-brainer. The browsers can differentiate themselves by features (speed, standards compliance, extras, etc) but as far as I've seen, the differences in core user experience are so subtle that I don't even notice them.
I'm having the most bizarre problem and I've searched everywhere and found no solution.
This isn't my screenshot, but I'm having the same problem in XP:
http://www.imagespar.com/img/40bf6c9...8cd669/wtf.PNG
Anyone know how to remedy this? It looks to be a font issue. Thanks!
It appears that the font used to display menus in Safari, and all of the text on the Apple Start Page, Lucida Grande, has not been installed. It?s available to download here, this should work.
I was able to log on (and remembering user/pass) on my company's web page. but I can't do bookmarks. Import, add, everything regarding bookmarks just crashes the program down. I tried reinstalling (with and without preferences flush) to no avail...
I guess i should try it with different peecee
the tabs reorganizing is cool! especially when tabs change into thumbnails of their contents
What the hellll? The tabs thing doesn't work on OS X? I can reorganize but drag tabs off the bookmark bar just makes them disappear in a puff of smoke???
Well I installed it and it is (wait for it) SLOWER for me. By the way "wait for it" seems to be an appropriate tag-line for the new Safari 3.0.
However, to be fair it does do one thing much faster than Safari 2 - It locks up good and fast.....Argh.
Same for me (slower), but I'll keep it anyway... Strange however that some people here report that it's faster and some other report that it's slower... How comes?
What amazed me and made me laugh was that one:
It reminded me Vista when I saw that
I think that's also available in 2.0 but anyway I've never seen that before... Fortunately I quickly found out how to deactivate it...
Enjoy your day!
Update: I had to switch back to Version 2 because MSN Messenger wouldn't work properly with Safari 3.0 installed
On OS X, it installed with out a hitch and was perfectly usable. I do have one small gripe though: it buggered up iTunes so that the only thing it could display was the iTunes Store, everything else I clicked on in the sidebar was blank. I had to revert to Safari 2.0 and reinstall iTunes, which turned out to not be that big a deal. What can you expect from beta software?
I have to say, however, that the browsing experience has become much more pleasurable on both OS X and Windows; now if only they can sort out Cover Flow on XP I?ll be happy!
Good job, Apple.
Like others, it doesn't meet some (unnamed) requirements.
What an advertisement for Apple!
Maybe it's because I had deleted the old Safari after it refused to perform the simplest taks; Firefox beat it hands down. Now I can't install the new improved Safari to give it another chance.....
Same for me (slower), but I'll keep it anyway... Strange however that some people here report that it's faster and some other report that it's slower... How comes?
What amazed me and made me laugh was that one:
It reminded me Vista when I saw that
I think that's also available in 2.0 but anyway I've never seen that before... Fortunately I quickly found out how to deactivate it...
Enjoy your day!
crap. how. i've forgotten.
The public perception may be that way, but I really don't think it's true... IMO, switching at random between any of the modern web browsers (IE, FF, Safari, Konqueror, you name it) is already a no-brainer. The browsers can differentiate themselves by features (speed, standards compliance, extras, etc) but as far as I've seen, the differences in core user experience are so subtle that I don't even notice them.
Yes, but its a "no brainer" by geek standards. Joe and Jane Sixpack aren't near as tech savvy. There's also the comfort level involved in using something that looks the same as what you're used to using.
I would agree though that the much larger switcher bait is having Leopard's Finder be very much like iTunes. 300 million Windows users already know how to use iTunes, so they already know how to use the Leopard Finder, and the barrier to switching is lowered. Nice.
Now if only Apple would get more aggressive with its hardware lineup and pricing, switching might become as commonplace as Paris Hilton-in-jail 'news' stories.
.
Yes, but its a "no brainer" by geek standards. Joe and Jane Sixpack aren't near as tech savvy. There's also the comfort level involved in using something that looks the same as what you're used to using.
I would agree though that the much larger switcher bait is having Leopard's Finder be very much like iTunes. 300 million Windows users already know how to use iTunes, so they already know how to use the Leopard Finder, and the barrier to switching is lowered. Nice.
Now if only Apple would get more aggressive with its hardware lineup and pricing, switching might become as commonplace as Paris Hilton-in-jail 'news' stories.
.
Apple's doing this for the same reason MS made Windows CE, and Windows Mobile look like the Windows computer desktop, even though OSes are COMPLETELY different. Familiarity, as you said.
Who knows, maybe it'll also allow for .Mac synchronization between Safari on a Mac and on Windows...
Looks like we already have people coming up with vulnerabilities of the Safary browser for windoes. Some of these guys will not be informing Apple, instead the will use it.
From what I've read so far, this could be a huge problem for uptake on the platform, and for Apple's game plan. Hope it isn't anything more than teething pain.
If Apple's browser gains a reputation, right out of the gate, of being very insecure, it does exactly the opposite of acting as a trojan horse for switchers-- it instead confirms Windows users prejudices that Apple's claims to being "more secure" than Windows is just because their software doesn't have the high profile of Windows.
"See?", they can say, "As soon as you put Apple's stuff on the majority platform it gets hammered and is revealed to be a house of cards."
Worse, I can't think of a good response.
I just downloaded the beta for OSX, and damn it's fast. It's noticeably faster than Camino 1.5, and I didn't think that was possible. Too bad the Java supports is still shitty!
Java support? Both Camino and Safari use the same Java engine. Or do you mean Javascript?
If so, I've found the javascript support is much improved. The problem that remains is that many javascript scripts like the WYSIWYG editors such as FCKEditor sniff for the browser string and find WebKit and switch off features in the script because Safari 2.0 didn't work the same as IE/FF. Apple added support for the features used by these scripts but the script people themselves now have to fix there sniffer code.
I'm having the most bizarre problem and I've searched everywhere and found no solution.
This isn't my screenshot, but I'm having the same problem in XP:
http://www.imagespar.com/img/40bf6c9...8cd669/wtf.PNG
Anyone know how to remedy this? It looks to be a font issue. Thanks!
That's because you've a Lucida Grande Font installed that is corrupt. Delete the installed font and it should then work. You can also get around it by moving the font files out of the Safari resources folder and installing them as system fonts.
* No Ctrl-Enter for www.----.com insertion
Safari will just add that anyway if you don't type them and it can't find it. But a bigger question would be why you're not using OpenDNS.com for your name resolution. That even corrects .cmo and other common mistakes.
* Hovering over browser buttons doesn't provide any info (annoying but I will figure out the cryptic icons)
It does on the Mac so I presume that's just an oversight on Windows.
* Keeps resizing the window on me (upon returning after switching apps) [side note: a feature in general that I am shocked is not availabe on a Mac (I am even more shocked that no one talks about it) is that you can't toggle a window to full size easily like in Windows
Because that behaviour sucks. On the Mac the maximise window button has always sized the window to the 'largest size needed to fit all the content' as opposed to stupid behaviour Windows introduced where it maximises it to the entire screen regardless of if you need it that big. As monitors get bigger, the Mac way makes even more sense.
Truth is, I was expecting much more, going from 2 to 3. This seems like a point release.
There is more in v3 but you're not seeing it yet as some of it relies on Leopard. eg. Webclips, however I'd disagree, the interface changes are subtle but the engine changes are major, especially javascript and CSS.
Looks like we already have people coming up with vulnerabilities of the Safary browser for windoes. Some of these guys will not be informing Apple, instead the will use it.
That would be David Maynor. Nobody takes him seriously. How can you take any security expert seriously if they refuse to demo the bugs they've found never mind tell the application developer about them.
There is more in v3 but you're not seeing it yet as some of it relies on Leopard. eg. Webclips, however I'd disagree, the interface changes are subtle but the engine changes are major, especially javascript and CSS.
That's certainly possible. I'm just going by what I'm seeing, and what I'm seeing isn't major, and hasn't fixed some of the bugs that I've already mentioned. Since it's still a beta, I'm not too concerned, but I hope that Apple will have looked at some of them.
That's certainly possible. I'm just going by what I'm seeing, and what I'm seeing isn't major, and hasn't fixed some of the bugs that I've already mentioned. Since it's still a beta, I'm not too concerned, but I hope that Apple will have looked at some of them.
I'm not sure those are bugs. Some of them are just things you don't like working that way whereas I'm quite fine with them working that way and others I don't have (like issues with urls beginning irc...)
Perhaps you've a corrupt prefs file for your internet helpers. John Gruber had a similar problem...
http://daringfireball.net/2004/05/internet_helper
J
That would be David Maynor. Nobody takes him seriously. How can you take any security expert seriously if they refuse to demo the bugs they've found never mind tell the application developer about them.
Not just Maynor.