Is Tiger going to be a boring update?

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 86
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    No idea, but I have six days worth.
  • Reply 42 of 86
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ZO

    I only have "Earlier Today" then the two days previous to that...



    How the heck do you have more than 3 days of history in Safari? It aint in the prefernces...




    Mine also goes back 6 days... but I believe I've had it go back even further. This is version 1.2.2. Perhaps there is a haxie to let you adjust this (Apple's big internet goof is requiring Safari or Mail to dictate what default internet app launches... an OS 9 feature needed in the system prefs if ever there was one).
  • Reply 43 of 86
    shroudshroud Posts: 30member
    Mine is 9 days!
  • Reply 44 of 86
    webmailwebmail Posts: 639member
    If you want to save a webpage in safari go to File > Print > Save as PDF. You're not supposed to be able to save a webpage and have all the images saved with it. IE does this and compiles it into a single PROPRIETARY FILE. If you need to have pages save as PDF or use a web siphion software to steal people's sites :-)
  • Reply 45 of 86
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    I don't want to save a page as a PDF. Besides the fact that I hate PDF with a passion now that it's used for everything, doing this defeats the purpose of the Internet basically. I want the page as it is. Exactly. Not a proprietary file. Just a web page. All in one file, or perhaps a folder that preserves the site/page structure, like PageSucker. PageSucker is great, but that kind of thing should be included in Safari. My History never goes over 3 days, I have the latest version of everything since I'm a VersionTracker whore. Odd.
  • Reply 46 of 86
    dale soreldale sorel Posts: 186member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sunrein

    Some did. This Cray XMP Supercomputer was used in 1984 to create special effects for the movie The Last Starfighter.



    I really liked that movie
  • Reply 47 of 86
    sport73sport73 Posts: 438member
    I used a Jaguar box recently because someone at work had it...



    Wow, you don't realize how AWESOME Panther is until you take a step back and use Jaguar. Finder was painfully difficult to use. No Expose. I could go on...



    I'm sure Tiger will make Panther look equally as inefficient.
  • Reply 48 of 86
    othelloothello Posts: 1,054member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquatic

    Besides the fact that I hate PDF with a passion now that it's used for everything, doing this defeats the purpose of the Internet basically.



    <tangent>

    and why do you hate PDF so much?

    </tangent>
  • Reply 49 of 86
    3.14163.1416 Posts: 120member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by othello

    <tangent>

    and why do you hate PDF so much?

    </tangent>




    I don't hate PDF, but I do get annoyed when it's used for no good reason. In most cases HTML is far better for reading on a screen, since the layout isn't forced into individual pages that are unrelated to the screen or window size.
  • Reply 50 of 86
    boubabouba Posts: 33member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquatic

    I don't want to save a page as a PDF. Besides the fact that I hate PDF with a passion now that it's used for everything, doing this defeats the purpose of the Internet basically. I want the page as it is. Exactly. Not a proprietary file. Just a web page. All in one file, or perhaps a folder that preserves the site/page structure, like PageSucker. PageSucker is great, but that kind of thing should be included in Safari. My History never goes over 3 days, I have the latest version of everything since I'm a VersionTracker whore. Odd.



    iCab does that.. it was one really great feature
  • Reply 51 of 86
    synoticsynotic Posts: 151member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquatic

    I don't want to save a page as a PDF. Besides the fact that I hate PDF with a passion now that it's used for everything, doing this defeats the purpose of the Internet basically. I want the page as it is. Exactly. Not a proprietary file. Just a web page. All in one file, or perhaps a folder that preserves the site/page structure, like PageSucker. PageSucker is great, but that kind of thing should be included in Safari. My History never goes over 3 days, I have the latest version of everything since I'm a VersionTracker whore. Odd.



    For what it's worth, almost all web pages out there have dependencies, there is rarely ever "one file". If there was then you can save it using Safari. Except for the simplest sites, anything but a proprietary file format would be a pain to deal with. What about dynamic pages? How do you save those? The ones that have dynamically generated images that simply don't exist anywhere in the site structure. But ignoring that, even if Safari saved the entire site as a folder, the actual page you would want would be nested deep within several folders anyways. It would simply be too messy to "save it as it is".



    Regardless, I would like the option to save a page in a more usable format. Perhaps Apple can save a page in IE's format or its own more open format.
  • Reply 52 of 86
    I think it's quite simple to save a webpage as a file and folder that preserves the page in the state that you saw it in. All images, dynamic or otherwise, get thrown into a common folder, and all URLs that point to them are made to be relative to that folder. All relative URL links on the site should be resolved to point to the page online that you would have gone to if you clicked on them when first viewing the site. I don't think that's too hard to do and I wouldn't mind it. The problem with PDF's is that you can't then edit them.



    And my Safari is showing 10 days of history, plus today.
  • Reply 53 of 86
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    *NOT* IE's format... just save the HTML... but realize that it's almost guaranteed not to give you what you want, except for super-stupid-simple pages.



    SiteSucker is closest to what you want. It re-edits the pages as they come in to be local to your hard drive... but even then it doesn't get everything, such as server-side cgis that may be required to produce the data on the fly, etc, etc, etc.



    Since this is the direction of the future, the *ONLY* way of saving a web page, and having it look like what you saw at that point in time, is to save the rendering... and PDF is better than most other formats for that purpose.



    IE's format is... one of the dumber things they did in IE. And that's saying something.
  • Reply 54 of 86
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Code Master

    I think it's quite simple to save a webpage as a file and folder that preserves the page in the state that you saw it in.







    Not really, and it is getting harder all the time.



    Quote:

    All images, dynamic or otherwise, get thrown into a common folder, and all URLs that point to them are made to be relative to that folder. All relative URL links on the site should be resolved to point to the page online that you would have gone to if you clicked on them when first viewing the site. I don't think that's too hard to do and I wouldn't mind it. The problem with PDF's is that you can't then edit them.



    Ah. You don't want to save the page you saw, you want a template for your own HTML.



    SiteSucker.
  • Reply 55 of 86
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    It's still pretty simple to save most web pages a la SiteSucker and it's better than nothing. I hate PDF because people use it for everything, especially as a document format on the Internet. I think end users should almost never see it. It's a dumb format to put manuals, Read Mes, everything else these days etc, in, as it's bigger and less powerful than HTML. And not open. URI uses it for their online dining menus. Um no thanks. That is why I hate PDF. By one file I meant the folder/file structure.
  • Reply 56 of 86
    talksense101talksense101 Posts: 1,738member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquatic

    It's still pretty simple to save most web pages a la SiteSucker and it's better than nothing. I hate PDF because people use it for everything, especially as a document format on the Internet. I think end users should almost never see it. It's a dumb format to put manuals, Read Mes, everything else these days etc, in, as it's bigger and less powerful than HTML. And not open. URI uses it for their online dining menus. Um no thanks. That is why I hate PDF. By one file I meant the folder/file structure.



    You have no idea how useful 'print to PDF' functionality can be. All the internet store receipts, etc that need to be saved can just be stored as PDF files to be printed later on. The same holds true for dynamic web pages or secure pages like Peoplesoft, etc. I really miss this functionality when I use Windows. ***AND NO, I AM NOT GOING TO PAY ADOBE $$$$ TO PURCHASE ACROBAT FOR WINDOWS***



    There is nothing wrong with PDF. It may be bloated and properitary, but it is still the only true portable document format. Try getting the same print out from a different computer or printer with other formats.



    My biggest wishlist for Tiger is a database driven Finder. Panther enforces directories, but I like using things like iPhoto and iTunes and not have to worry about searching for the physical file. It gets annoying when you have to search for documents and keep them organized manually.



    My second wishlist for Tiger is for better GNU/Linux compatability with regards to compiles, etc. Panther was the first to fix some major irritants, but there is a lot to be done in this regard. And, I want X-Code to generate X11 based GUI from a platfrom independent Cocoa. Give me the ability to develop for both OS X and X11/Linux and I am in developer's heaven.
  • Reply 57 of 86
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquatic

    It's still pretty simple to save most web pages a la SiteSucker and it's better than nothing. I hate PDF because people use it for everything, especially as a document format on the Internet. I think end users should almost never see it. It's a dumb format to put manuals, Read Mes, everything else these days etc, in, as it's bigger and less powerful than HTML. And not open.



    How do you figure? It's open in that the spec is readily available for anyone to write a renderer for.



    HTML is good for some things - but rendering consistent it is *NOT*. Things are slowly getting better, but the IE/Netscape war screwed it up horribly for the next few years.



    When I save a document, I want the other person to see *EXACTLY* what I see. When I save a receipt online, I want, years from now, to see *EXACTLY* what I saw then.



    HTML rendering is still too variable to be useful for important things that need to be preserved *exactly*. PDF is very stable and precise. I'll take it over HTML any day for documents where I need spatial and content fidelity.



    I would *NEVER* send in a conference paper in HTML... I'd have no idea what browser engine they were using to view it, and therefore, no idea where figures would end up, or if *their* renderer said I was over the page limit where *mine* said I wasn't... and that's true even if I stuck solely to standard HTML.



    PDF is lightyears ahead of HTML for such purposes.
  • Reply 58 of 86
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquatic

    It's still pretty simple to save most web pages a la SiteSucker and it's better than nothing. I hate PDF because people use it for everything, especially as a document format on the Internet. I think end users should almost never see it. It's a dumb format to put manuals, Read Mes, everything else these days etc, in, as it's bigger and less powerful than HTML. And not open. URI uses it for their online dining menus. Um no thanks. That is why I hate PDF. By one file I meant the folder/file structure.



    For those of you who 'hate' PDF, have you ever coded a website? Even a 'simple' one? I do it daily, and every freakin' browser is broken in one way or another. A large amount of the HTML, javascript, css and even dynamic code out there is poorly done, too. People are coding in dreamweaver, golive and [sic] frontpage, thinking they are generating useful and w3c-compliant code. Bull. You want to grab the files (all of them), download them with pagesucker (or my favorite, WebDevil) and think you will get what you see in your browser? Only if that is the only browser you will ever use.



    There is a secret out there: every browser parses pages just a little bit differently. None look 'identical' -- not Safari, Netscape, IE, iCab, Opera .... none of them will give most sites exactly the same treatment unless it is the simpliest of creations.



    Why do you 'hate' PDF? Because it works? Because it is cross-platform? Because you can have thumbnails or an index or concatenate files together? Because it renders, for the most part, the same file the same way across versions or platforms? Because it doesn't get corrupt as an attachment or carry viri like Word or other file formats? Or is it because you can't go in and poke at the source code of what you are looking at? And if that's the case, and you poke that code, then you've changed the site file from the original anyway. Why not just look at the sourcecode when you are viewing the page and copy/paste it into a BBEdit document? Save that? Drag/drop the images -- save them?



    Others have written about dynamic site issues here, and they are all correct. Perhaps you would be better off defining what you 'hate' about PDF as a free option to Mac users (Windows users still get to buy the option to do what we can do freely from our OS). If you have a legit reason for wanting only the source code for simple sites, and looking/copying/pasting the source code isn't the answer (or Web Devil / pagesucker), then I suppose I don't understand your point. Browsers were meant to browse... not become editors (netscape's failing) or site suckers (IE and its proprietary format failing).



    Sounds like you want a browser that will suck a page and all graphic content, relink the content locally, save in an 'open' format -- and I suppose you'd like that for free. Am I close? I suggest you start coding some websites, or writing a tool to do just this... I'll wager when you are done, you won't give it away for free. It's a very tough call. No, I'm not trying to flame you here -- I mean no real insult. Only that your statement of what you hate, and what you want, may be a bti unrealistic or shows some unfamiliarity with the incredible variety of sites and technologies out there that will not permit you to have your way easily. If we code a dynamic site using MGI or PHP/mySQL, you'd be completely screwed to achieve your site sucking desires. And many of our clients would not like someone idly sucking their site -- but that's a different topic.



    Good luck with your quest -- we all have our windmills, so don't feel bad about your own.
  • Reply 59 of 86
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    I also like PDFs to do things like save receipts online, and it is far more compact that sucking/saving the html or whatever when you want all the images and non-text content too.



    Having said that, I've been a little too persuasive around work about the benefits of PDFs because people think it's some sort of panacea for communicating with the outside world. People do silly things like open a .jpeg and then print it to PDF with Acrobat here. What's the point?!



    Maybe the PDF pros/cons argument should be another thread? Or is this just a temporary digression?
  • Reply 60 of 86
    synoticsynotic Posts: 151member
    I think the page saving issue has been pretty much explained... so I'll tackle the "Safari's 3 day history" problem



    I was just checking out Cocktail today and noticed an option for Safari...







    Which seems to explain the phenomenon... some people view more sites than others. I'm not sure if there's a free application out there that alleviates the "problem" though. It might just be a preference edit.
Sign In or Register to comment.