Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 11th Jun 2007 18:27 UTC
Apple At its Worldwide Developers Conference today in San Fransisco, Apple discussed its upcoming operating system, Mac OS X Leopard. As always, Steve held his keynote speech wearing his well-known ensemble. The keynote dealt mostly with Leopard, while keeping the most interesting part for last. Read on for the details. Update: Read more for a screenshot of Safari running on Windows... Barely.
Order by: Score:
Two thumbs up
by Sabon on Mon 11th Jun 2007 18:37 UTC
Sabon
Member since:
2005-07-06

Two thumbs up. I can't wait until October. Definitely not just a service pack like some other OS.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Two thumbs up
by dagw on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:31 UTC in reply to "Two thumbs up"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

And no doubt they won't let you download it for free unlike service packs for some other OS.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Two thumbs up
by Kroc on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Two thumbs up"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Vista wasn't a free download for XP users, so why should this be?

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Two thumbs up
by dagw on Mon 11th Jun 2007 23:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Two thumbs up"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

And Vista wasn't a service pack. The OP said that this upgrade contained more new things than an XP service pack. I simply pointed out that given what Apple is charging it bloody well better.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Two thumbs up
by Kroc on Mon 11th Jun 2007 20:59 UTC in reply to "Two thumbs up"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Screenshot of Mac & PC versions side by side:
http://img522.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture1ip3.png

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Two thumbs up
by Alex Forster on Tue 12th Jun 2007 01:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Two thumbs up"
Alex Forster Member since:
2005-08-12

That's really interesting. Safari/Windows uses whatever OS X uses for font rendering, not XP's cleartype. I thought the text looked different. Time to dig around in CoreGraphics.dll!

Reply Score: 1

SJ got balls...
by Network23 on Mon 11th Jun 2007 18:37 UTC
Network23
Member since:
2005-07-11

Challenging both IE7 and FF2. And Safari will win. Common poeple will love it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: SJ got balls...
by VenomousGecko on Mon 11th Jun 2007 18:47 UTC in reply to "SJ got balls..."
VenomousGecko Member since:
2005-07-06

Safari will have a lot of the same market share problems as Netscape did when IE became bundled with the OS. People will not actively seek out Safari and install it without good reason. The major reason Firefox made large inroads into the desktop was because of the MASSIVE community around it and the security problems that users were facing with IE. I think it is a bit early to say "And Safari will win. Common poeple will love it."

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: SJ got balls...
by DigitalAxis on Mon 11th Jun 2007 22:48 UTC in reply to "RE: SJ got balls..."
DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

Bundle it with iTunes. That'll get it onto people's desktops.
Now, will they USE it?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: SJ got balls...
by modmans2ndcoming on Mon 11th Jun 2007 23:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: SJ got balls..."
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

not as long as it looks and feels out of place on windows

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: SJ got balls...
by tyrione on Mon 11th Jun 2007 23:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: SJ got balls..."
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

iTunes is a big hit on Windows. Safari bundled with iTunes will be used, especially if iTunes is extended with more WebServices.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: SJ got balls...
by StephenBeDoper on Tue 12th Jun 2007 16:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: SJ got balls..."
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

I doubt that the iTunes software would have much success in Windows on its own, if it weren't for the success of the iPod and the iTunes music store.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: SJ got balls...
by orestes on Tue 12th Jun 2007 11:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: SJ got balls..."
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah. Because everyone, Microsoft included, takes the Windows UI guidelines seriously. I mean, Office has always blended in perfectly with Windows, right? Surely IE7 on XP fits in like it was part of the original package? And Nero... well no one uses Nero anyway *shrugs*

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: SJ got balls...
by sappyvcv on Tue 12th Jun 2007 14:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: SJ got balls..."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

At least those apps use the native font rendering so it doesn't stick out horribly.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: SJ got balls...
by orestes on Tue 12th Jun 2007 15:39 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: SJ got balls..."
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

And they still stick out like sore thumbs. The point remains that claiming users won't use a piece of software because it clashes with the rest of the OS is silly, especially on Windows.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: SJ got balls...
by sappyvcv on Tue 12th Jun 2007 22:22 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: SJ got balls..."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Not true. All OSes have apps that don't use native widgets. Users are used to that. Apps that use something so simple like different font rendering stick out much different. It might make a user think something is wrong with it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: SJ got balls...
by Kroc on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:00 UTC in reply to "SJ got balls..."
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

It looks ugly on Windows. It still may not beat IE & FF, but it will absolutely pressurise Microsoft to stop kicking their heels and start supporting 10 year old standards.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: SJ got balls...
by Xaero_Vincent on Mon 11th Jun 2007 20:21 UTC in reply to "SJ got balls..."
Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18

People say Safari has problems rendering some types of Ajaxified/Javascript intensive pages because of its use of KHTML.

I dunno. Anyway, I have no use for Safari. FF2 and Opera are fine. If I want a an KHTML browser, I'd use Konqueror.

Reply Score: 2

RE: SJ got balls...
by monkeyhead on Tue 12th Jun 2007 11:32 UTC in reply to "SJ got balls..."
monkeyhead Member since:
2005-07-11

It's nice to know the mighty Steve cares for the common folk as well as his elite mac aristocracy.

Common people? I guess Mac users really do think they are better people because of the electronics they purchase.

Reply Score: 2

But...
by s_groening on Tue 12th Jun 2007 11:44 UTC in reply to "SJ got balls..."
s_groening Member since:
2005-12-13

Where is the Linux version of Quicktime, iTunes and Safari?

-Not that there aren't any alternatives, on the contrary, but rather since it would be a nice way for Apple think differently and for it to broaden the scope of its media offerings considerably...

Reply Score: 2

RE: But...
by abraxas on Tue 12th Jun 2007 14:16 UTC in reply to "But..."
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

Where is the Linux version of Quicktime, iTunes and Safari?

I agree. In fact I think there would be more interest in version of Safari for Linux than Windows.

Reply Score: 2

Well
by Duffman on Mon 11th Jun 2007 18:37 UTC
Duffman
Member since:
2005-11-23

Dudes, I really like Apple, but WTF is this.
Where are the top secret features ?
It's just like the WWDC 2006, nothing new out of some minor improvement of the finder and the dock.

This just suck !!!

Reply Score: 4

RE: Well
by tryphcycle on Mon 11th Jun 2007 18:50 UTC in reply to "Well"
tryphcycle Member since:
2006-02-16

hey Duffman, have you heard the POP, yet?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Well
by Kroc on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:02 UTC in reply to "Well"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

People have been calling for the finder to be replaced for /years/. A small feature, a new finder is not.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Well
by Duffman on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Well"
Duffman Member since:
2005-11-23

Because you are calling it a 'new' finder.
The only thing I see here is a new iTunes able to open more type of files.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Well
by hraq on Tue 12th Jun 2007 23:46 UTC in reply to "Well"
hraq Member since:
2005-07-06

"Where are the top secret features ? "

Games!

Reply Score: 1

Fastest browser
by sappyvcv on Mon 11th Jun 2007 18:42 UTC
sappyvcv
Member since:
2005-07-06

Fastest browser on Windows? Ballsy claim. Guess he's never used Opera.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Fastest browser
by Duffman on Mon 11th Jun 2007 18:44 UTC in reply to "Fastest browser"
Duffman Member since:
2005-11-23

BTW, you never used Safari on windows neither, so ...

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Fastest browser
by sappyvcv on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Fastest browser"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

I am using it right now. It's most definitely not faster than Opera nor FF2.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Fastest browser
by renox on Tue 12th Jun 2007 08:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fastest browser"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

What are you measuring?

My definition of fast means that the UI is responsive (don't care much about the time to render HTML pages) and here FF2 sucks, I hope that Safari is better in this respect.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Fastest browser
by DeadFishMan on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Fastest browser"
DeadFishMan Member since:
2006-01-09

Neither did I but hey, I will also port a completely new application from another platform that will be a lot faster than the current fastest application from the same category on this platform. Do you wanna bet? ;)

It is easy to make bold claims; back them up is a lot harder. Let see what SJ pulls from his sleeves but please spare us from your fanboyism in the meantime...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Fastest browser
by fretinator on Mon 11th Jun 2007 18:47 UTC in reply to "Fastest browser"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

Guess you've never been to Apple's Safari page at http://www.apple.com/safari

It includes Opera in its measurements. Of course, statistics never lie! ;}

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Fastest browser
by whartung on Mon 11th Jun 2007 18:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Fastest browser"
whartung Member since:
2005-07-06

The interesting number here to me is the Javascript number, more so than everything else.

A lot of the browser experience is dictated by the network connection. But with the push for more and more Javascript in the browser, Javascript times are becoming more relevant, and potentially less dicated by the network connection.

This is all interesting because the feature sets are closing in, so now we can worry about performance. I think S3 will be a good addition to Windows.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Fastest browser
by MollyC on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Fastest browser"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Those stats claim that Opera has the slowest HTML renderer, which goes against conventional wisdom.

But the fact is, connection speed is the real bottleneck. Quibbling over user-unnoticable differences in Javascript speed, HTML rendering speed, etc, is a waste of time; all of the modern browsers are fast enough in those areas.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Fastest browser
by fretinator on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fastest browser"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

The only thing I would diagree with you on is Javascript. Being an interpreted language, and with the increase in the amount of Ajax sites with piles of javascript code, performance in this area could be relevant.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Fastest browser
by hraq on Tue 12th Jun 2007 23:48 UTC in reply to "Fastest browser"
hraq Member since:
2005-07-06

opera is so crashable on both Fedora/RHEL/CentOS and Ubuntu. Especially when plugins and video is involved.
I simply cannot relay on it for business.

Reply Score: 0

Safari for Windows?
by DevL on Mon 11th Jun 2007 18:44 UTC
DevL
Member since:
2005-07-06

Seriously, other than Windows web developers who now can test compatability with Safari without buying a Mac - who are going to download/use Safari? It's not like iTunes in any respect as iTunes is a MUST HAVE due to the iPod and the iTunes store. Safari however has no hardware to give it extra appeal for Joe User on Windows.

I guess that as long as it doesn't siphon too much resources from proper OS X software, it doesn't hurt to have another app that _might_ lure 2 or 3 extra Windows users into switching, but I very much doubt it's potential. At best, in a year or two I'd give it around 1-2% of the total browser market share beyond the >5% that Safari on Mac already got today.

True, that would mean a 20-40% increase, but it's nothing ground shattering in the grand scheme of things.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Safari for Windows?
by tryphcycle on Mon 11th Jun 2007 18:52 UTC in reply to "Safari for Windows?"
tryphcycle Member since:
2006-02-16

"At best, in a year or two I'd give it around 1-2% of the total browser market share"



Guess we'll talk in a year!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Safari for Windows?
by DevL on Mon 11th Jun 2007 18:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Safari for Windows?"
DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

I'd love to be proven wrong. If Safari would steal a bunch of IE users from Microsoft I'll be a happy camper.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Safari for Windows?
by zbrimhall on Mon 11th Jun 2007 22:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Safari for Windows?"
zbrimhall Member since:
2006-08-21

As a few others have pointed out, I doubt Apple gives a damn about browser market share. Here's the deal:

1. Choose AJAX, as rendered by WebKit, as the 3rd party development platform for the iPhone (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/06/11iphone.html)
2. Provide a WebKit environment that every developer with a Mac or a Windows box will have easy access to (http://www.apple.com/safari/)
3. ???*
4. Profit

* I suspect the "???" in this plan is going to be "sell iPhones as fast as you can make them, and with a healthy profit margin to boot." But I am one of the faithful--your opinion may vary.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Safari for Windows?
by l3v1 on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:03 UTC in reply to "Safari for Windows?"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

I tried it the moment I saw it, and I kinda like it, but e.g. osnews.com looks kinda funky in it, missing texts and disappeared links, but the ads look good ;) ) Other ~20 sites I quickly browsed to looked ok.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Safari for Windows?
by Alex Forster on Tue 12th Jun 2007 01:07 UTC in reply to "Safari for Windows?"
Alex Forster Member since:
2005-08-12

At least when designing websites I can test for Safari compatibility now. I'm happy.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Safari for Windows?
by TomB7 on Tue 12th Jun 2007 02:24 UTC in reply to "Safari for Windows?"
TomB7 Member since:
2006-01-03

"Seriously, other than Windows web developers who now can test compatability with Safari without buying a Mac - who are going to download/use Safari?"

Well, web sites will look the same on your PC and your iPhone......

And it IS a good browser. On Mac, I use Firefox about 75% of the time; Safari 25%. I don't bother with anything else. On Windows: Firefox 90%; IE6 10% (for screwy internal web sites written for IE).

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Safari for Windows?
by kozo on Tue 12th Jun 2007 08:53 UTC in reply to "Safari for Windows?"
kozo Member since:
2006-02-02

If people eventually picked up an iPhone, this will be the default web browser in it. Assuming 3rd party apps will really take off with the iPhone, guess what everyone will create an application that will be compatible in Safari. Competition is good and it's much good if they use open standards.

Reply Score: 1

nice
by poundsmack on Mon 11th Jun 2007 18:46 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

with all these Mac apps being ported to windows it makes me wonder if I should shell out the money for a mac or just theme XP and get all the apple apps. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: nice
by DevL on Mon 11th Jun 2007 18:47 UTC in reply to "nice"
DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

Buy a Mac. Windows with a new paint job will still have a crumbling foundation. :-)

Reply Score: 5

RE: nice
by modmans2ndcoming on Mon 11th Jun 2007 23:07 UTC in reply to "nice"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

Buy a Mac... You can run windows, OS X, Linux and BSD on the Mac... one the PC you can't run OS X (easily or efficiently or effectively)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: nice
by deb2006 on Tue 12th Jun 2007 10:24 UTC in reply to "RE: nice"
deb2006 Member since:
2006-06-26

One reason not to buy a Mac: If Apple cripples its OS and prevents it from running outside the Mac, why should anyone support that? On PPC it was obvious, since it was a different processor for which OS X was optimized. The same reason cannot seriously be given for x86 hardware.

Apple claimed they're a software company. This most certainly is not the case. They want to sell their proprietary and overprized systems. Otherwise they'd be selling "Systhem Builder" versions of OS X with no support to anyone who'd be interested in their OS.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: nice
by alcibiades on Tue 12th Jun 2007 15:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: nice"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

I don't have any interest in buying it, but its going to be interesting to see how they do the release. If they sell retail copies, as they do now for the PPC versions, it will be hacked within a week to boot and install on anything at all. Now, whether people actually want to do that in any numbers is another matter. But the exploit will be irresistable and impossible to prevent.

On the other hand its hard to see how they avoid releasing a retail version. Do they only sell upgrades, and make them in some way hardware specific, and reuse bits of the previously installed system, to stop people doing a clean install? It would be a little weird, I would have to go and buy multiple copies, each one hardware specific, in order to update my mini and my imac. That would be very strange and not very customer friendly. Maybe the mac customers will accept it though.

Its going to be interesting.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: nice
by ThanhLy on Tue 12th Jun 2007 15:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: nice"
ThanhLy Member since:
2006-03-14

@alcibiades
There will be a retail version of Leopard, the same as every other version of OS X previously.

It's really not as complicated as you think it is. When I bought my iBook G4, Panth was installed on it. A couple months ago I decided to try Tiger. So I ordered it (from Amazon, plus a stick of RAM because they're cheaper than Apple's store) and did a clean install.

The installer presents you with several options:
- erase everything then install (clean install)
- upgrade
- one other option I forget. Target mode or something?

Obviously my iBook has a PPC CPU. So the install DVD has files in both PPC and x86 flavors. So no, you do not need to buy multiple copies if you have a different CPU type. One install DVD takes care of it all. The core OS components are in separate folders, and I believe all the bundled apps are universal binaries anyways.

You will, however, need separate licenses for each of your Macs ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: nice
by Johann Chua on Sat 16th Jun 2007 12:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: nice"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Where are you getting the idea that the retail box for Tiger has x86 binaries? All the Intel Macs already come with Tiger.

Reply Score: 2

RE: nice
by watchingeyes on Thu 14th Jun 2007 00:12 UTC in reply to "nice"
watchingeyes Member since:
2007-05-04

None of Apple's iLife apps, Front Row and numerous other apps will run. If you want Apple, buy a Mac and then use Windows software on it.

Reply Score: 1

Pointless
by trou_macacq on Mon 11th Jun 2007 18:49 UTC
trou_macacq
Member since:
2007-02-26

Safari on Windows? But why? If ever there was a pointless move by Apple...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Pointless
by TownDrunk on Mon 11th Jun 2007 18:52 UTC in reply to "Pointless"
TownDrunk Member since:
2005-11-28

Safari on Windows?

iPhone development possibly??

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Pointless
by predictor on Mon 11th Jun 2007 18:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Pointless"
predictor Member since:
2006-11-30

"Safari on Windows? iPhone development possibly??"


No. It's all about media.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Pointless
by EmmEff on Mon 11th Jun 2007 18:55 UTC in reply to "Pointless"
EmmEff Member since:
2005-09-16

Apple wouldn't release Safari for Windows without some compelling reason... I imagine it might have to do with iPhone development, but there could be something else in the pipline.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Pointless
by Cutterman on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:58 UTC in reply to "Pointless"
Cutterman Member since:
2006-04-10

It's a feeler. Testing the water.

One day you'll be able to go into a store and buy OS-X for x86

Look for Apple/Intel to release "OS-X compatible" mobos (well "Tivo-ized").

Look for the stickers on the HDDs, video cards etc. saying "OS-X compatible"

MS is dying of premature senility and bloat.
Linux is endemic with squabbling factions.

The FSF are indifferent to success or business.
The GPL will strangle itself as it continuously
changes to block loopholes around Stallman's vision

D'ye get it now?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Pointless
by Elektro on Tue 12th Jun 2007 15:58 UTC in reply to "Pointless"
Elektro Member since:
2006-08-19

The point is that KDE4 will be available for windows. So why not also khtml or apple webkit. Easy to port.

If Safari would not be made available another khtml browser would. We have four www engines these days that matter, opera, IE, gecko and khtml.

Reply Score: 1

One word:
by Matt24 on Mon 11th Jun 2007 18:53 UTC
Matt24
Member since:
2005-07-23

WOW

Reply Score: 2

MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

The irony is that Windows users will be able to get up to date versions of Safari without needing to pay for OS upgrades. Mac users, on the other hand, need to pay for OSX upgrades to get the latest Safari versions.

For example, I'm still running Panther on my Mac, and therefore haven't been able to get Safari 2.x, since that requires paying to upgrade to Tiger. And it doubly-sucks since Apple has stopped releasing general bug fixes for Safari 1.x, and will stop releasing even security fixes once Leopard ships (assuming that Apple continues its policy of only supporting the two most recent versions of OSX).

Edited 2007-06-11 19:04

Reply Score: 5

DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

Just download WebKit (http://webkit.org/) - it's what Safari is based on anyway.

Reply Score: 4

mnasimh Member since:
2006-01-21

Did you visit the safari download page? There's a download for Mac, too.

Reply Score: 0

sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Did you visit it? You need 10.4.9+.

Reply Score: 5

mnasimh Member since:
2006-01-21

There's no Windows 98 version, oops.

Reply Score: 1

mat69 Member since:
2006-03-29

At least according to wikipedia 10.4.9 is the most recent version of Mac OS X.
10.4 was released 2005, so it is around two years old. Not that much if you ask me.

Imo your comment is off.

Reply Score: 0

mnasimh Member since:
2006-01-21

Sorry, you didn't get my joke! My point was to show that on the windows side they are supporting the latest as they are doing for the OS X.

Reply Score: 1

paws Member since:
2007-05-28

This isn't to spite you, you know. It's cos they're constantly adding developer features under the hood which makes it easier to write better software. Safari uses some of that, I'm quite sure... so they could port it to 10.3 without taking large chunks of Tiger with it...

Reply Score: 2

sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Probably. But the point is that they make it completely free for Windows users that are using an OS that is almost 6 years old, but not free for their own users using an OS that's less than 2 years old.

Reply Score: 5

Safari on Vista
by google_ninja on Mon 11th Jun 2007 18:56 UTC
google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

Already have it installed ;-)

I have never been the biggest fan of Safari, but am very glad to be able to test webpages against it now without having to switch platforms.

Graphically it is pretty nice. The fonts that it uses are different then firefox/ie, and it seems to be using its own anti-aliasing. One UI issue I noticed right out is that they are not using the Vista widgets for close/minimize/maximize. On vista, if something is maximized you can throw your mouse into the upper right hand corner, and clicking will close the window. iTunes comes close, it uses the larger, easier to hit buttons. However, safari uses the oldschool tiny iTunes buttons. Not only that, but since the upper corners have that oh-so-attractive curve, clicking in the corner will close any window you have maximized behind it, which is disconcerting to say the least.

One thing is nice is that gmail works, which means safari finally has an ajax implementation. Overall it is pretty much what you would expect. IMHO on vista, if you need a lighterweight browser then FF, IE is the way to go, however this is definately a nice alternative for previous versions. Also, since now it is that much easier to test sites against it, It is some great news for us web developers.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Safari on Vista
by steverez1 on Mon 11th Jun 2007 22:49 UTC in reply to "Safari on Vista"
steverez1 Member since:
2006-12-06

Yep I would have to agree most sites render around 1 to 2 seconds slower on Safari compaired to IE7. I have also noticed that it both Safari processes start out at around 10mb (when added together)and adds 2 mb for every page you visit after 30 min browsing I was over 100 mb while IE would cap out at around 73 mb as to this I am not sure if they are caching the pages into ram like ff

as this is a beta it prob will be worked out and as the ram goes now with new computers having over 2 gb I don't really think it will make a differance (otherwise if ram mattered I would still be running 98se instead of Vista)

Edited 2007-06-11 22:52

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Safari on Vista
by Jules on Mon 11th Jun 2007 23:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Safari on Vista"
Jules Member since:
2007-01-30

A.f.a.i.k. Safari has a default setting that prevents it from displaying content before everything can be rendered in one go. This delay is a 'feature' to prevent the infamous fouc (flash of un-formatted content).
So you'll rarely ever see a page actually being built, as - in my experience - is often visible in IE.

I'm not saying Safari's method is necessarily better, but it's a valid choice.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Safari on Vista
by watchingeyes on Thu 14th Jun 2007 00:15 UTC in reply to "Safari on Vista"
watchingeyes Member since:
2007-05-04

Ummm, I've been using Gmail on Tiger with Safari 2.0 for well over a year. What it did not have is Rich Text Editing (which is FINALLY available in 3.0 beta), but it definitely had/has AJAX...

Reply Score: 1

New apple site
by Chezz on Mon 11th Jun 2007 18:56 UTC
Chezz
Member since:
2005-07-11

all the new info has been released to the new apple website.
you can download the beta for safari and see cool videos for finder and new dock etc.
http://www.apple.com

Reply Score: 1

yeah
by zombie process on Mon 11th Jun 2007 18:57 UTC
zombie process
Member since:
2005-07-08

I think I may have to agree with the folks saying "pointless" - I use safari on my Mac 75% of the time, and FF the other 25%. I use FF 90% of the time on my windows boxen and use IE the 10% of the time some jackass codes something IE specific on their page/app. I can't see a need for Safari on my windows installs, but then that's just my own take on the situation. On the other hand, considering I primarily use Konqueror on my linux boxen, and primarily use linux as my desktop, wtf do I know?

Reply Score: 5

Safari
by rickwood on Mon 11th Jun 2007 18:58 UTC
rickwood
Member since:
2005-09-26

Now that Apple is making Safari for Windows, maybe they will give it some more attention. I can't stand Safari and have switched to Firefox on my Mac. But maybe the new version of Safari will be better.

Reply Score: 2

Safari on PC
by ArcadeFX on Mon 11th Jun 2007 18:59 UTC
ArcadeFX
Member since:
2005-07-06

I like it, using it right now to type this comment.

I like the page snap back function, nice. ;) (Under history)

Reply Score: 1

At last there is a REAL news.
by Duffman on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:03 UTC
Duffman
Member since:
2005-11-23

Mac OS X is a UNIX system now.

Mac OS X Server is now an “Open Brand UNIX 03 Registered Product,” conforming to the SUSv3 and POSIX 1003.1 specifications for the C API, Shell Utilities, and Threads. Since Leopard Server can compile and run all your existing UNIX 03-compliant code, it can be deployed in environments that demand full conformance.

http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/leopard/more.html

Reply Score: 5

RE: At last there is a REAL news.
by poundsmack on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:09 UTC in reply to "At last there is a REAL news."
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

this is goan have a nice impact on apple's server market share I would hope.

Reply Score: 1

RE: At last there is a REAL news.
by Tyr. on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:35 UTC in reply to "At last there is a REAL news."
Tyr. Member since:
2005-07-06

Sweet - nice find.

Reply Score: 2

RE: At last there is a REAL news.
by Wes Felter on Mon 11th Jun 2007 20:39 UTC in reply to "At last there is a REAL news."
Wes Felter Member since:
2005-11-15

Does anyone care about those paper UNIX standards any more?

Reply Score: 2

Maybe they'll...
by Quoth_the_Raven on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:04 UTC
Quoth_the_Raven
Member since:
2005-11-15

just bundle it with iTunes downloads. That might get it on a helluva lot of Windows machines.

Reply Score: 2

Finally a new Finder!
by MollyC on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:04 UTC
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

I think the best part of what was announced is the overhaul to Finder (at long last :p ). I don't know if it'll mean all that much for developers, though (and this is ostensibly a developers conference). But it looks like there may be some api allowing devs to hook their apps into Finder to allow browsing an app's particular documents via coverflow (since they talk about browsing KeyNote presentations vis coverflow), but that's pure speculation on my part.

Reply Score: 2

Slow
by tony on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:05 UTC
tony
Member since:
2005-07-06

I just installed Safari. It's slower than Firefox, it takes over twice as long to load pages.

Also, there's no spell-check, like in Firefox. For a terrible speller like me, that's kind of a must.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Slow
by shykid on Mon 11th Jun 2007 20:59 UTC in reply to "Slow"
shykid Member since:
2007-02-22

I just installed Safari. It's slower than Firefox, it takes over twice as long to load pages.

Oh, quit Firefox fanboying!!!! The Apple website says that Safari on Windows is 925,000x faster than Firefox!!!!!!!! ::eyeroll::

I don't know what kind of HTML rendering they were doing on those benchmarks. It had to have been some well-planned code that the devs knew Safari could render exceptionally quickly, and they had to have exploited rendering-speed bugs in Opera. That is, if they didn't pull those benchmarks out of thin air.

Either way, there is absolutely no way those benchmarks could hold any semblence of truth in the real world, as opposed to Apple's cherry-picked speed test scenarios.

And Safari on Windows eats RAM like crazy, but it's a beta and I'm somewhat cofident they will at least partially fix that issue. Frankly, I think this "beta" is more of alpha quality with its rendering issues and minor UI ugliness.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Slow
by alwayscrashing on Tue 12th Jun 2007 02:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Slow"
alwayscrashing Member since:
2006-01-13

I think the reality is people expect a beta to be a release candidate these days.

'Beta' means bugs, pain and instability. It shouldn't be assumed that a beta version of anything should be useable. Things not working is sort of the point of the word 'beta'.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Slow
by Tuishimi on Tue 12th Jun 2007 06:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Slow"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Maybe they were comparing the Mac rendering times with the PC rendering times. ;) I am running Safari 3.0 on my mini right now and it is pretty zippy and I am not seeing the memory usage climb.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Slow
by navaraf on Wed 13th Jun 2007 19:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Slow"
navaraf Member since:
2005-07-08

That is, if they didn't pull those benchmarks out of thin air.


If you had only read the page completely it states that they used "VeriTest’s iBench Version 5.0 using default settings" and also states the exact system configuration, so it's not like it's pulled of thin air.

It may not be objective because they could have optimized the rendering for these test, but my limited experience tends to confirm the results with one exception - the Safari. In the past I have tried to use the WebKit engine on Windows and while very buggy (the Windows UI parts, that is) it was really fast. On the other hand the public beta of Safari seemed to be a bit slower.

(btw, the bottleneck of Safari seems to be more of a network access problem than the page renderer slowness)

Edited 2007-06-13 20:04

Reply Score: 1

RE: Slow
by navaraf on Wed 13th Jun 2007 19:52 UTC in reply to "Slow"
navaraf Member since:
2005-07-08

Also, there's no spell-check, like in Firefox. For a terrible speller like me, that's kind of a must.


There is a spell-checker which can be enabled under Edit -> Spelling menu, but on the 522.11.3 build it simply crashes the application the first time you try to type. Hopefully this will be fixed with the next release.

Reply Score: 1

Safari is for Windows iPhone users
by arbour42 on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:07 UTC
arbour42
Member since:
2005-07-06

I think the main reason they released Safari for Windows is because they expect many people will be using Safari on the iPhone, and they can then use the same browser on any machine at home, Windows or Mac.

Then factor in, sooner or later, that iPods themselves will be running Wifi and Safari. People will think: Safari on my iPod and on my Windows box - and they'll have the common Apple experience on all their most used machines. Between all these combinations, Safari can become one of the most used browsers in the world, eventually challenging IE.

Reply Score: 2

Spelling
by tony on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:07 UTC
tony
Member since:
2005-07-06

Just found the option, it does check spelling. Still substantially slower though.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Spelling
by modmans2ndcoming on Mon 11th Jun 2007 23:11 UTC in reply to "Spelling"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

uhh... did you miss the big fat BETA tacked on there?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Spelling
by Tuishimi on Tue 12th Jun 2007 06:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Spelling"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah but... where did they get their results (timing) from? The Beta version. So it follows that Beta or not, it should still be faster if that's what they posted on their site.

I'm not trying to smack Apple, I'm a mac fanboy, been using them forever.

But...

Reply Score: 2

Makes all the sense in the world
by denis.troller on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:07 UTC
denis.troller
Member since:
2007-06-11

Releasing Safari on Wndows makes all the sense in the world.

IPhone third party apps are going to be safari based. You don't want to reduce your developper base to Mac owners. Therefore, windows based developper need safari to test heir app against.

Simple, really. This has not much to do with swotching or getting more market share, Apple could not care less about the browser market. But they WANT people to use the IPhone, and they definitely have an eye on businesses with this one.

Reply Score: 5

KDE4
by ebasconp on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:14 UTC
ebasconp
Member since:
2006-05-09

I do not know the internals of Safari, except that Safari shares the same HTML engine with KDE's Konqueror (KHTML).

Will Safari for Windows be available because the same technical improvements made on Qt4 and KDE4 about code portability?

Reply Score: 2

RE: KDE4
by rayiner on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:18 UTC in reply to "KDE4"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

KHTML and WebCore diverged a long time ago. I don't think any portability improvements in KDE4 have made it into Safari.

Reply Score: 3

RE: KDE4
by elsewhere on Mon 11th Jun 2007 20:56 UTC in reply to "KDE4"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Will Safari for Windows be available because the same technical improvements made on Qt4 and KDE4 about code portability?


Although there is a webkit port available for KDE4/Qt, Apple doesn't use Qt for Safari.

Reply Score: 2

Nice detail...Hibernation in OSX?
by Gryzor on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:20 UTC
Gryzor
Member since:
2005-07-03

"Just choose the new Apple menu item “Restart in Windows.” Your Mac goes into “safe sleep” so that when you return, you’ll be right where you were. It’s much faster than restarting the computer each time. "

Reply Score: 4

Very nice...
by UltraZelda64 on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:21 UTC
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

This news actually got me to reboot into Windows to try it out. It's left me with some nice first impressions, although I can't tell accurately how well it really runs yet, since my drives need defragged. :/ Still, it feels pretty responsive. Its fonts look extremely good... some of the best font rendering I've seen.

The only things I can think of that I truly miss are Adblock and maybe NoScript, and maybe a feature here or there from Opera/Firefox. The UI looks kind of funny (yet sleek), but that's to be expected, considering it's an app ported from Mac. Too bad this didn't come out sooner, before I switched to Linux--it would've been a great alternative to Opera, SeaMonkey and Firefox. Honestly, using this is pushing me to getting a Mac. If only I had the money...

Reply Score: 1

Not bad at all
by nathbeadle on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:21 UTC
nathbeadle
Member since:
2006-08-08

First of all, the screen shot included in this 'article' is not accurate. I'm writing this using Safari for Windows and everything has rendered fine. Speed has been good, haven't seen any major slowness or hog issues others have been mentioning.

I have to say that the FIND feature within the page is VERY nice. I know other browsers do the same thing, but Apple has once again made the common NICE. The way words are highlighted really stand out as the whole page dims, and having a count of matched items is quite handy.

All in all it's nice for us who use Apple at home and are stuck on Windows at work!!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Not bad at all
by fpbecker on Mon 11th Jun 2007 21:13 UTC in reply to "Not bad at all"
fpbecker Member since:
2005-07-08

The screenshot is accurate on my PC, running Windows Vista.

Other problems: It crashes left and right at any attempt to add a bookmark or import bookmarks, even the standard bookmarks coming with Safari aren't shown on the bookmarks bar. To me this looks like an Alpha build, and I wouldn't be very surprised if Apple posted an updated build within the next days.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Not bad at all
by aent on Tue 12th Jun 2007 00:30 UTC in reply to "Not bad at all"
aent Member since:
2006-01-25

Firefox does this too, on the find toolbar, choose "highlight"

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Not bad at all
by nathbeadle on Tue 12th Jun 2007 00:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Not bad at all"
nathbeadle Member since:
2006-08-08

Thank you. As I mentioned in my comment I'm aware that others do this, but like I said... this one is NICE. The words really stand out as the whole page dims, and the words are outlined and shadowed compared to just placing a colour highlight over them. Also, firefox is lacking the count of found matches.

Please read more thoroughly next time before replying.

Reply Score: 2

The end of Finder Spinning Balls?
by Gryzor on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:27 UTC
Gryzor
Member since:
2005-07-03

"The Finder and other applications needn’t wait for one mount to complete before requesting another."

:)

Reply Score: 1

shykid Member since:
2007-02-22

Welcome to 2001, Finder! Seriously, this was one thing that bugged me to death. I'd almost pay $129 just to get it fixed.

Reply Score: 2

Real new features are here
by Duffman on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:34 UTC
Duffman
Member since:
2005-11-23

http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/technology/

New multi threaded and self tuning TCP/IP Stack
New scheduler
New multi threaded optimised Apple Apps and others (almost everything)
New Sandbox to protect from attacker
New ACL for sharing according to your address book
New OpenMPI 2.0 support for cluster

Reply Score: 5

RE: Real new features are here
by Tuishimi on Tue 12th Jun 2007 06:41 UTC in reply to "Real new features are here"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh sweetness!

I can't wait to get a feel for the snap of the new Finder and networking performance.

Reply Score: 2

Safari bug on Windows
by asupcb on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:35 UTC
asupcb
Member since:
2005-11-10

I can't seem to delete the URL history in the autocomplete section. This seems like a very major bug to me personally and I wouldn't use it for this reason alone. I've reported it to Apple as well.

Reply Score: 1

eeewww
by TheDiver on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:35 UTC
TheDiver
Member since:
2006-12-12

I have tried the Safari on windows, and i am not impressed.

The GUI looks very old school, boring and ugly.
The rendering really suck, normal CSS it can't render correctly, even on sites that IE6/7, FF1.5/2 and Opera renders correctly. The Javascript engine has bugs.

To use that browser would be a huge stepback.

No thanks, i'll stick with Firefox 2.0 and all the lowly add-ons i have for that great browser.

Yeah even IE6/7 is a better browser. I sure hope for all your Mac fans, that Apple's other software is better quality than this, and no i don't think iTunes is any good.

Extra, Extra:
Even the uninstaller is screwed up, it just hangs and hangs and hangs all the time :-(

Edited 2007-06-11 19:44

Reply Score: 5

RE: eeewww
by altair on Mon 11th Jun 2007 20:24 UTC in reply to "eeewww"
altair Member since:
2005-07-06

And just what are these sites that work for FF and IE but not for Safari? I use Safari as my main browser every day and I don't see these CSS screwups that you are talking about.

I won't believe you until I see some links to the sites that don't work properly.

Reply Score: 5

Nice, but
by mnasimh on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:35 UTC
mnasimh
Member since:
2006-01-21

I can't see my Bangla sites I visit most. I think Safari does not render glyphs from windows, rather by itself, which is not a good idea. Do I have to use ATSUI for safari to render unicode glyphs properly? If so, that is insane.

However, the claim is true. It is a fast browser. OSNews loaded really fast and gmail works too!

Reply Score: 1

Inconsistent and buggy safari beta
by jonte on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:37 UTC
jonte
Member since:
2005-07-06

I tried safari on windows. Sadly it uses OS X-decors and widgets, which makes it very inconsistent with the windows GUI. I would prefer native widgets. But I bet the windows-OS-X-wannabes will go wild over this.

Second, it was really unstable, I know it's beta and all, but a crashreporter or something would probably be helpfull for catching the bugs. For me, it crashed by just typing in the searchbox at apple.com.

Edit: I'll try it again when it's out of beta. Hopefully it'll be a bit more stable then. :-)

Edited 2007-06-11 19:44

Reply Score: 5

parrotjoe Member since:
2005-07-06

Click the "Bug" icon in the main menu - that's your crash reporter.

Reply Score: 2

hmm
by broken_symlink on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:39 UTC
broken_symlink
Member since:
2005-07-06

i think people are forgetting that safari for windows is only a beta. they seem to be drawing huge conclusions about how well it will actually run once its done.

Reply Score: 3

gmail but not chat...
by xophere on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:45 UTC
xophere
Member since:
2006-07-19

why I use firefox most of the time on osx...

fast though on windows for sure...

Reply Score: 1

wow
by SK8T on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:52 UTC
SK8T
Member since:
2006-06-01

wow thats amazing!

Tiger, and even Vista are looking that old compared to Leopard in my opinion! I can't wait to get my copy! =)

Reply Score: 2

Anyone noticed these?
by nathbeadle on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:53 UTC
nathbeadle
Member since:
2006-08-08

There is a private browsing function that doesn't keep track of where you've been and what you've typed in.

As well, I noticed that when dealing with forms... you can readjust the size of TEXTAREAs by dragging the bottom right hand corner to suit your size. Interesting

Reply Score: 4

Leopard 64bit only
by Jack Malmostoso on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:54 UTC
Jack Malmostoso
Member since:
2006-01-20

Does this mean that it won't support G4s? I thought only G3s would have been dropped from support.

Oh well, I have Debian on my iBook anyway ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Leopard 64bit only
by paws on Tue 12th Jun 2007 00:15 UTC in reply to "Leopard 64bit only"
paws Member since:
2007-05-28

They'll hardly make Leopard 64 bit ONLY when they're still selling 32 bit Mac Minis.

Reply Score: 1

Stacks sound very much like...`
by JonathanBThompson on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:54 UTC
JonathanBThompson
Member since:
2006-05-26

"Fildirutes" (I think I got the spelling correct) as discussed on the Haiku Glass Elevator list. Well, this confirms that the person that's argued vigorously isn't alone, but the question remains: will this be something Apple will stomp down on if it does get implemented under a different name, or is there enough prior art (including the discussion on the GE list itself) to keep it from being a problem?

Reply Score: 1

MonkeyPie Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, Stacks sound very much like Piles:

Which was patented by Apple back in 1994.

There have been many rumors since Panther that "Piles" would find it's way into OS X. Looks like Piles turned into Stacks and are now part of Leopard. I think this is a great addition to the Finder/iTunes conglomeration that it has become.

I welcome the new Finder.

Writing this in Safari 3 on Windows XP. Speaking of which, it seems that it takes Vista a lot longer to install Safari than XP. But overall, I have been having a good time with speeds and stability with Safari, though I guess time will tell.

Reply Score: 4

Safari for Windows will be...
by systyrant on Mon 11th Jun 2007 19:56 UTC
systyrant
Member since:
2007-01-18

nice for web developers if for nobody else. Now I can test my sites against Safari as well (well when it is finalized).

As for speed. Because it's in beta I won't pass judgment, but the beta isn't any faster at rendering html pages than Firefox or Opera. It is pretty cool all the same.

Maybe I'm missing something, but does Safari have a built in inline spell checker? Or a spell checker at all?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Safari for Windows will be...
by systyrant on Mon 11th Jun 2007 20:16 UTC in reply to "Safari for Windows will be..."
systyrant Member since:
2007-01-18

Found the spell checking section. Doesn't seem to work yet though.

Reply Score: 2

ZFS?
by invisik on Mon 11th Jun 2007 20:09 UTC
invisik
Member since:
2006-08-03

Any talk of if ZFS will be default? (beyond the rumors from the Sun guy last week) ?

-m

Reply Score: 1

RE: ZFS?
by Luminair on Mon 11th Jun 2007 23:13 UTC in reply to "ZFS?"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

Frankly I think there is a 50% chance that Steve Jobs removed all mention of ZFS from the news just to spite Jonathan Schwartz.

They mention DTrace, another technology taken from OpenSolaris. So it's not like they're afraid of mentioning OpenSolaris tech they're using.

Reply Score: 1

Still no new AppleWorks
by ronaldst on Mon 11th Jun 2007 20:11 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

Leopard is looking like a Windows Vista. A mostly under the hood update.

I seriously doubt those claimed "300+ innovations" are truly mind-shattering.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Still no new AppleWorks
by nathbeadle on Mon 11th Jun 2007 20:42 UTC in reply to "Still no new AppleWorks"
nathbeadle Member since:
2006-08-08

You forget that Leopard IS just that, an update. A revolutionary new operating system completely different would be Mac OS 11... but seeing that this is just a .1 higher then Tiger why would you expect anything else. A lot of work has gone into this update to make things unified, and I'm not one to complain about that.

I wouldn't make an assumption on the 300+ features. I have no doubt that there are that many, but based on how we use the OS we probably won't be aware of them all. Developers will obviously be more in tune with new features behind the scenes, as system admins compared to the average user.

EDITED: typo

Edited 2007-06-11 20:43

Reply Score: 2

Nice, but...
by merde on Mon 11th Jun 2007 20:11 UTC
merde
Member since:
2007-04-05

...my favourite online game looks pretty messed up:
http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/6655/safariwindowsogamebg6.jpg

Reply Score: 1

Fuck Apple
by corrosive23 on Mon 11th Jun 2007 20:34 UTC
corrosive23
Member since:
2005-07-11

I'm glad they have decided that the 18 month old MacBook Pro I gave them $2000 for, is now considered obsolete and not worthy of Leopard. Im sure glad I spent my money!

Reply Score: 0

RE: Fuck Apple
by Kroc on Mon 11th Jun 2007 20:46 UTC in reply to "Fuck Apple"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Pardon? What are you smoking?
Leopard is 32 & 64-bit. It runs on both. There's only one DVD for all versions (unlike Vista)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Fuck Apple
by corrosive23 on Mon 11th Jun 2007 21:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Fuck Apple"
corrosive23 Member since:
2005-07-11

Nowhere does it say Leopard will run on 32 bit machines. All they said was that it will run 32 bit apps. Apple claimed at the last WWDC that Leopard would run on every machine since the g4's. Plain and simple they lied out their ass to get everyone who isnt 64 bit to buy a 64 bit machine. The prices of 32 bit Macs on Ebay and Craiglist are already lower.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Fuck Apple
by Kroc on Mon 11th Jun 2007 21:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fuck Apple"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

For goodness sake, screw your head on. It would be commercial suicide to make Leopard 64-bit only. There are still a majority of 32 bit Macs out there by a long shot. Leopard _adds_ 64-bit compatibility to the whole stack, 64-bit support is present in Tiger already, but only at the Unix level. Gettit? gottit? good.

edit:
Photo proving that Leopard runs 32-bit apps:
http://www.engadget.com/gallery/wwdc-keynote-photo-gallery/272162/

Edited 2007-06-11 21:35

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Fuck Apple
by milles21 on Mon 11th Jun 2007 21:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fuck Apple"
milles21 Member since:
2006-11-08

Man how dumb are you really, Tiger already has some 64bit functionality. Really I suggest you spend more time research instead of flying off the handle Leopard will run on all the macbook's don't be stupid for the sake of being stupid.

For the record yes I have confirmed this with a source at apple. No I didn't get signoff but since he is my brother and worked on the development I kind of too it for what it is.

Just for the record the feature complete version the handed out runs beautifully on a MBP core duo

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Fuck Apple
by siimo on Wed 13th Jun 2007 00:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Fuck Apple"
siimo Member since:
2006-06-22

leopard will run 64bit apps and 32bit apps but it will be a 64bit OS only so it will not run on the core duo intel machines before core 2 came out.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Fuck Apple
by Wes Felter on Mon 11th Jun 2007 20:47 UTC in reply to "Fuck Apple"
Wes Felter Member since:
2005-11-15

Who said your MBP is obsolete?

Reply Score: 2

Let's see
by deathshadow on Mon 11th Jun 2007 20:46 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

Installer layout broken on large font machines, Check.

Stupid 'value added' (Bonjour???) crapware? Check.

Annoying auto-updater as a standalone crapplet/service? Check.

Ignores the native UI to use it's own? Check.

Ignores the system metric and font settings so all the menus are too small and %/EM and PT sized fonts don't scale up? Check.

On a positive note, you can choose NOT to install the "Bonjour" crapware and auto-updater. I'm all for auto-updating, but I think Opera and Firefox got it right - do it when I run the ****ing program, don't install another crap service to sit there chewing CPU and memory for something that shouldn't even happen but every few months.

Is it just me, or is this running Apple's font smoothing technology atop windows? What did they do, port half of OSX over as windows runtimes? On the same hardware it seems like the UI is more responsive (even with the goof assed animated bullshit) under windows than OSX...

Still, I have to say this is more than welcome and for a Beta, it's not bad at all if for no other reason than it means a couple hundred less watts power use for me - It means I can (assuming they keep the OSX and Windows versions rendering engines on the same *****ing codebase) retire my DellMac (Dimension 8200 running 10.4.8 - it's on a KVM) and NEVER have to touch OSX just to test one browser ever again. This is a huge boon to web developers.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Let's see
by zbrimhall on Mon 11th Jun 2007 22:16 UTC in reply to "Let's see"
zbrimhall Member since:
2006-08-21

Not to argue with your main points (I have no real faith in Apple's ability to write decent Windows apps), but I'd stop short of calling Bonjour "crapware". You may not want it, but it's a boon to anyone who wants to have network services without having to pick up any network admin skills in the process.

For anyone who doesn't actually know what Bonjour is: http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/bonjour/ Basically, the marketing-speak boils down to "self-configuring, auto-discoverable services". iChat uses it to automatically discover all other iChat clients on the subnet, iTunes uses it to automatically share playlists, AirPort uses it for automatic file and printer sharing, etc.

So no, not useful to everyone, but certainly not "crapware". Though I do think the name is stupid.

Reply Score: 2

Why I (still) won't use safari
by Lion on Mon 11th Jun 2007 20:57 UTC
Lion
Member since:
2007-03-22

I've had a Mac for a couple of years now, and the same reason I use Firefox on my mac is why I won't be using Safari on Windows (or v3 when it's gone final for mac)

Until such time as Safari adds keycombo address completion I have no interest in using it.
Ctl+Enter for .com completion is so ingrained on my usage habits that it drives me nuts to not have it available.
I was hoping that Apple would catch up on that feature with this update.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why I (still) won't use safari
by mnasimh on Tue 12th Jun 2007 09:31 UTC in reply to "Why I (still) won't use safari"
mnasimh Member since:
2006-01-21

Try to learn Enter only!

Reply Score: 1

jsight
Member since:
2005-07-06

iTunes essentially already contained a port of Safari to Windows for the user interface, so this port couldn't have been too difficult. After playing with it for a bit, it feels fairly fast, and the memory footprint has not yet reached firefox like levels.

It looks out of place, though, and it seems the rendering could use some work.

It will be very beneficial for people who want to develop iPhone apps on Windows.

Reply Score: 1

Lots of interesting stuff.
by vimh on Mon 11th Jun 2007 21:18 UTC
vimh
Member since:
2006-02-04

The thing I'm excited about is the gaming. I think it's great that EA is putting more games on the Mac (though I don't buy EA products). More exciting is what was the stuff from id Software.

I hope they put a strong focus on the Mac. Hopefully I will be able to buy one box and be able to put it on either a Mac or PC from the get go.

Also, I hope the next id engine steals a little bit of DX10s thunder.

Reply Score: 2

In other news
by gesperon on Mon 11th Jun 2007 21:41 UTC
gesperon
Member since:
2006-12-27

Dtrace will be available in leopard (http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/technology/unix.html)

So I guess ZFS too.

Reply Score: 2

A little competition doesn't hurt.
by Jules on Mon 11th Jun 2007 21:43 UTC
Jules
Member since:
2007-01-30

Never has there been anything wrong with a little competition. So for that reason alone it's a nice thing to have an extra browser available on the Windows platform.

The reasons for releasing a Windows port seem obvious. As I see it more and more people on the Mac side make the switch (from Safari) to Firefox. Apple needs more Safari users to make sure that web developers remain incented to deliver decent Safari support.

Now that Safari has been ported to run on Windows, it seems obvious that parts of Cocoa have also. This is a good thing for Mac users because this might mean that iTunes will be ported over to Cocoa as well. In it's present state iTunes is one of the least mac-like programs presently available from Apple for the Mac and I would surely welcome this change.

Reply Score: 1

Umm
by Finchwizard on Mon 11th Jun 2007 22:23 UTC
Finchwizard
Member since:
2006-02-01

How you can point the finger at Safari, a Beta might I add, on Windows, having problems with OSNews.

Your code isn't even valid according to WC3.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.osnews.com

116 Errors.

Some of the CSS apparently has errors too.
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=www.osnews.com&war...

Don't get me wrong, it's a new browser in beta, with a site that isn't valid.

I'm not sure what kind of miracle cure you want.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Umm
by dagw on Mon 11th Jun 2007 23:15 UTC in reply to "Umm"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

Did you actually look at those WC3 errors? They where basically all pedantic niggles which should have no effect on a browser (even a beta browser) to render the site.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Umm
by Finchwizard on Mon 11th Jun 2007 23:31 UTC in reply to "Umm"
Finchwizard Member since:
2006-02-01

Yes, I agree, those errors do not usually cause problems.

But on a BETA browser, who's to say what errors aren't going to cause problems?

Besides, I don't know what the guys at OSNews are doing, but it works fine here.

Everything I seem to read on OS X lately is hugely biased and completely false at times.

I suggest you check your machines, my Safari on Vista works like a treat on OSNews, with the old version and the new version.

http://img443.imageshack.us/my.php?image=osnews1yw0.png

http://img227.imageshack.us/my.php?image=osnews2yj4.png

Reply Score: 5

RE: Umm
by croco on Mon 11th Jun 2007 23:37 UTC in reply to "Umm"
croco Member since:
2005-09-16

I'm pretty sure that code of almost every site will not be 100% valid if you try to validate it:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.google.com
Result: Failed validation, 51 errors

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.yahoo.com
Result: Failed validation, 34 errors

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.myspace.com
Result: Failed validation, 214 errors

Do you really think that browser should screw layout of 99% pages just because they are not absolutely valid?

And this is how Safari renders on my Samsung X11 (I've already uninstalled Safari, but will install it now to make some screenshots for those screaming "It works just fine for me"):

http://amak.gomen.org/safariforwindows/

By trying to make screenshots of google.com Safari crashed every time I've tried to enter "Safari" into the search field. Pathetic.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Umm
by deathshadow on Tue 12th Jun 2007 00:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Umm"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

>> Do you really think that browser should screw
>> layout of 99% pages just because they are not
>> absolutely valid?


On legacy websites maybe, maybe not - Two of your three examples (Google and Yahoo) Should] get a 'by' because their sites are riddled with legacy code. Yahoo does not however because they just redesigned lately 'for real' - problem is their coders couldn't find their way out a piss soaked paper bag with a hole in the bottom.

Google though is STILL mostly legacy code... Note, google works FINE in Safari.

But there is ZERO EXCUSE for making a NEW web page filled with errors and outmoded code - NOT because of browser capabilities but because it is INVALID CODE. People rely on browser error correction like a crutch - and worse HACK AROUND the behaviors of certain error corrections instead of just fixing the actual problem. The end result is big, bloated pages that are broken cross browser, and worse make finding errors the proverbial needle in a haystack.

There is this attitude towards validation as 'worthless' and 'a waste of time' - in my opinion people who cannot move their coding habits INTO THIS DECADE are the ones who are worthless and a waste of time. These are the people who have to run around like chickens with their heads cut off costing their companies money and business every time a new 'flavor of the month' browser comes along. See the release of IE7 and FF 2.0

Seriously, if you cannot be bothered to write valid code on any NEW website in this day and age, back away from the keyboard and take up macrame weaving - quit dragging the rest of us back to 1997. SO MANY web developers have let their skills stagnate at that level, and worse are preaching all sorts of nonsense that no longer applies to the young...

Remember, the day you think you have nothing new to learn or are unable to embrace the new, is the day the rest of the world leaves you behind.

Of course, if you are a business it is IN YOUR INTEREST to have validating code, semantic markup, separation of presentation from content, and a host of other 'new ways' of coding sites because it increases accessability almost 'by default', decreases bandwidth and maintennance time, and therin reduces operating costs...

But nobody wants to hear that how they've been doing something for the past decade is wrong. Just because it works in IE, or works in FF doesn't make it RIGHT. You get these dimwits who chant 'code for FF, hack for IE' like a tantric mantra - as big a recipe for disaster as just saying 'but it works in IE'. One should code to all browsers at once, and a first step for that is validating your code.

Any variation from that is usually, eventually, a /FAIL/ - it's just a matter of time.

Edited 2007-06-12 00:36

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Umm
by mrhasbean on Tue 12th Jun 2007 00:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Umm"
mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

Do you really think that browser should screw layout of 99% pages just because they are not absolutely valid?


Hmmm. I have installed Safari on Parallels with XPSP2 running and all but one page (that contained embedded streaming video) worked perfectly. I compared the layout of the pages rendered in Safari on Mac and Windows as well as Firefox on both and IE 6 on Windows. The only one that had the occasional glitch was IE6 - but I don't have IE7 and IE6 is old so I won't judge it too harshly there. So it has me completely beat where you get your 99% of pages from?

You people need to get a life honestly. This is a BETA for crying out loud, and the FIRST beta at that! I don't recall ANYONE having this few issues with the first beta of anything that MS have released in recent times (if ever).

So the only thing I find pathetic is the obvious bias of your comment...

Reply Score: 1

Like I said
by Finchwizard on Mon 11th Jun 2007 23:44 UTC
Finchwizard
Member since:
2006-02-01

Beta browser, it's still being worked on, and with it's first release on Windows, it's even more of a beta test.

And here's the screenshots back.

http://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wikigq8.png

http://img69.imageshack.us/my.php?image=yahoomc1.png

It's starting to look like what kind of config you have.

Edited 2007-06-11 23:47

Reply Score: 1

Safari
by FishB8 on Tue 12th Jun 2007 00:03 UTC
FishB8
Member since:
2006-01-16

So, nobody has mentioned it yet... Who's going to be the first one with Safari installed on Linux using Wine?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Safari
by anyweb on Tue 12th Jun 2007 08:24 UTC in reply to "Safari"
anyweb Member since:
2005-07-06

didn't work, just tried it

see

http://www.linux-noob.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3050

cheers
anyweb

Reply Score: 1

Safari annoyance
by PlatformAgnostic on Tue 12th Jun 2007 00:36 UTC
PlatformAgnostic
Member since:
2006-01-02

I think it's cool that safari is now on windows, but I'm annoyed by one little thing: it's a mac app in that the only way to resize windows is by dragging the lower-right corner.

The first thing I wanted to test was its handling of resizeable webpages, but it was disconcertingly inconvenient to resize the damn thing.

I hope someone at apple tries to integrate a little better.

Reply Score: 3

Cleartype and Broken Fonts
by hechacker1 on Tue 12th Jun 2007 00:41 UTC
hechacker1
Member since:
2005-08-01

Negatives:
Safari has scrambled menus on my machine. Maybe safari is expecting a font I dont have? In fact, as I type this, random characters are corrupting (weird artifacted glyhps)

ctrl+f searches are slow (i.e. perceptible lag) because of the whole screen dimming while searching. It's a nice effect to let you focus, but IMHO not worth the efficiency of a simple highlight like Firefox.

Some lag while the page is loading in the background until its ready to be fully displayed. I much perfer firefox's 0 delay option.

My back and forward buttons on my logitech mouse don't work! I didn't think this had to be built in since Opera, Firefox and IE do this fine (without any special drivers).

Apple has used its own font engine. Personally, Cleartype is superior to every other font engine I have seen (with linux and skyos sharing a close second). I can't stand Apples "smoothed" fonts. They arent sub-pixel hinted AFAIK.

I can't really customize the UI like I can with firefox. See the picture for an example.

http://ordorica.org/misc/safari.vs.firefox.png

Positives:
Safari is very quick. It doesn't lag while scrolling, and it resizes with ease. The UI is very good for cross platform. I wonder what they are using?

Better than IE7. The UI is clean.

Lower memory usage than Firefox. 60MB vs 15MB for Osnews.com

Conclusion:
Sticking with firefox for now, but kudos to Apple for bringing some competition. I hope they fix some of these bugs and allow the native font engine to work.

Edited 2007-06-12 00:47

Reply Score: 1

RE: Cleartype and Broken Fonts
by deathshadow on Tue 12th Jun 2007 01:03 UTC in reply to "Cleartype and Broken Fonts"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

>> Apple has used its own font engine. Personally,
>> Cleartype is superior to every other font engine I
>> have seen (with linux and skyos sharing a close
>> second). I can't stand Apples "smoothed" fonts.
>> They arent sub-pixel hinted AFAIK


Well, as a developer I like that they use their own engine - that way I can SEE what pages I'm working on would look like under OSX - which is the only fathomable reason I can see a windows user starting up Safari in the first place - though as someone else already mentioned here, this could be a first step in making standalone crapplets based on the webkit API, just as many windows programs are built atop Trident (IE)

On the Mac, they do offer subpixel hinting as an option - I am somewhat surprised to see it not listed as a choice under windows...

I'm seeing across the web a lot of conflicting reports about speed - I'm suspecting it could be hardware related. Trying to run OSX on a standard PC you have the issue that not all PC CPU's have SSE2 or SSE3 - I'm wondering if they are calling those functions and emulating them if missing, which would explain why CPU consumption is way up and speed is way down for some people. (Which I'm not encountering at all on my A64 4000+ San Diego, which DOES support SSE3). I know iTunes under OSX requires both SSE2 and SSE3 unless you hack the tar out of it, and even then it never quite runs right - and Rosetta likewise requires it... if we are looking at some form of API wrapper and port of significant portions of OSX, that could be the cause of people seeing slowdowns.

It could also be a 2d video acceleration issue. I'm on a 640 meg 8800GTS - there is no such thing as video slowdown on my card... Older video cards, or worse integrated chipsets may be seeing major slowdowns and/or video corruption. I know SIS video chipsets for example have rendering problems on bold and italic fonts if their 2d acceleration is turned up all the way. (In XP/2K - display properties > settings > advanced > troubleshoot, turn down the slider one notch, corruption goes away)

Edited 2007-06-12 01:05

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Cleartype and Broken Fonts
by hechacker1 on Tue 12th Jun 2007 03:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Cleartype and Broken Fonts"
hechacker1 Member since:
2005-08-01

My system isn't slow for web-browsing requirements. I will just attribue my random bugs in Safari to beta code.

Apple isn't used to supporting so many varried configurations of PC's (excluding that bloated piece of software that is Quicktime + iTunes).

Athlon 64 @ 2.6GHz
2GB RAM
6800Ultra AGP

Reply Score: 0

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Well, as a developer I like that they use their own engine - that way I can SEE what pages I'm working on would look like under OSX - which is the only fathomable reason I can see a windows user starting up Safari in the first place - though as someone else already mentioned here, this could be a first step in making standalone crapplets based on the webkit API, just as many windows programs are built atop Trident (IE)


I agree 100%. Recently I did a site where I was using a small font size for copyright text (dont remember offhand the font/size). Looked fine on IE/FF, but my illustrator said they looked like a mess. I told him they really looked fine at my end, so I got him to send me a screenie. Turns out he was on safari, and they were an unreadable aliased mess. Played with the font a bit and got it working nice on safari, but it got me wondering, how often do I make sites that look like garbage to the average mac user?

I went quickly through a few of the sites Im currently working on, turns out this one asp ecommerce site Im doing has its tables rendored COMPLETELY wrong.

As a rule of thumb, I figured since FF is so standards compliant if it works there, then all I need to do is check for IE bugs. From recent experience, I am finding that there are FAR more safari bugs, and I am really glad that I can test for them now.

Reply Score: 1

deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

>> As a rule of thumb, I figured since FF is so
>> standards compliant if it works there, then all
>> I need to do is check for IE bugs


As I said above, repeatedly you will hear many so called 'experts' chanting 'Code for FF, hack for IE' like some tantric mantra. They hold up Firefox as a shining example of standards compliance...

So... How's support for Colgroups coming? What that you say? It's a whole section of the decade old HTML 4 specification they STILL haven't implemented? What about display:inline-block? Oh, you can do it with the -moz specific flags but only if you don't put any elements inside the one you are assigning it to... How's acid2 coming along? Oh, works in internal builds for over a year and a half but still not seeded into the mainstream releases, INCLUDING the 3.0 alpha.

ALL of the browsers have major shortcomings on the 'standards', MAJOR differences when it comes to error handling... and worst of all some things in the specifications for HTML and CSS are so open to interpretation (default line-height and appearance of form inputs come to mind) that it is a simple fact that coding to any one browser then 'hoping' it will work in another is utter nonsense... There are FOUR major browser engines, not TWO, targeting those two is akin to saying you play both kinds of music - Country AND Western.

The BIGGEST problem a lot of developers have is not testing AS THEY GO. They'll write the whole page for Firefox or IE, loaded with unneccessary DHTML (usually to do things CSS can do BETTER these days), none of it validating, then load up on hack after hack of browser specific nonsense to support the 'other' browser, bloating the page out to twice it's needed size, then wonder why they had to run around to fix their pages when IE7 or FF 2.0 came along, and why their pages don't work in alternative browsers like Opera or Safari.

It is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE to code relatively hack free semantic code for most any layout that works in every browser post IE6 - Mostly it involves not using the coding techniques 90%+ of web developers have built their pages around since before the dawn of CSS. One or two * HTML hacks for IE6, fine... feeding each and every browser different stylesheets? /FAIL/

Of course, that hits the other problem - people still bending over backwards to support IE 5.x and Netscape 4 (though the latter is increasingly ignored). You know what, It's 2008 - how long are we going to bend over backwards to support pre-standards browsers? We're at a decade, how long? We still going to try and support IE 5.2 Mac in 2030? To hell with that. (Sorry G3 and Power Mac users who can't run OSX - them's the breaks)

In any case, the method I've found that works best is to code in sections, testing each section as you go. First thing I do is lay down all the content as minimalist as possible on HTML tags. No tables, DIV's only to group items that are part of the same section together. Then I start styling from the top trying to avoid adding HTML as MUCH as possible... style the header, TEST IN FOUR ENGINES, style a column, TEST IN FOUR ENGINES, style each section group in that column, TEST IN FOUR ENGINES

Because at the end of the day there are FOUR major browser engines you need to worry about - Gecko, Presto, Trident and KHTML/Webkit. Anyone who thinks that firefox is standards compliant enough to test only for it, then bloat the crap out of your code to support IE... well, do us all a favor, go back to coding MySpace pages and leave real websites to the professionals.

Reply Score: 5

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

First of all, in my experience FF has by FAR the least browser bugs out of anything else out there. I am not talking about full implementations of specifications, I am talking about standard stuff. It has been my experience that if you write against FF, you get far less problems with the others. I also think you got the wrong impression from what I was saying, I only write browser specific code *extremely* rarely, typically if there is a problem, I will do things a different way rather then doing browser hacks. (JS being an exception)

What I was talking about is that everyone is used to IE having lots of rendoring bugs, and everyone knows how to work around them. Nowadays, I am finding that IE really isnt doing that bad, and that out of the bunch I am getting more wierd problems from Safari then anything else.

As for not supporting archaic browsers, I agree with you 100%. If you have problems with IE5 on mac, then it is your own damn fault at this point. For most websites, I wont bother with that kind of thing.

Reply Score: 2

deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

>> I also think you got the wrong impression from
>> what I was saying,


I wasn't singling you out - I was generalizing the majority of people I see asking for coding help on places like Sitepoint, Digital Point, Opera's Cross-browser section of their forums, etc. etc.

>> First of all, in my experience FF has by FAR the
>> least browser bugs out of anything else out there.
>> I am not talking about full implementations of
>> specifications, I am talking about standard stuff.


Which is the opposite of my own experience with it compared to other browsers. When Opera, Safari and IE ALL do something one way, and Firefox is the odd man out, targeting Firefox only is... well... Special. as in some Olympics are... Claims of standards compliance doubly so.

I've generally found that if you work against Opera, FF and IE simultaneously, and as you said "Do things a different way rather than doing browser hacks" (Which IMHO is the key to good HTML - Bravo) Safari on the whole just kind of 'works'. I can't think of anything I've written lately that was problematic on Safari.

Though you did in a previous post mention you used really small fonts - remember from a usability standpoint anything smaller than 12px is a total /fail/ and in general page content should either be 14px or larger, or even better 10pt or larger or 100% default or larger. Why? So you don't **** 'large font users' (like myself) by making them unable to even see your text without zooming in 20-50%. It's one of the reasons phpBB is such a total /FAIL/ (apart from security holes big enough to cruise the USS IOWA through), 99% of their skins assume everyone is going to be browsing at the same system metric.

Reply Score: 1

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I wasn't singling you out - I was generalizing the majority of people I see asking for coding help on places like Sitepoint, Digital Point, Opera's Cross-browser section of their forums, etc. etc.


Well thats good at any rate ;-) I've been doing this professionally for about five years now, while I don't think I'm the best, I think I'm a bit beyond MySpace at this point.

Which is the opposite of my own experience with it compared to other browsers. When Opera, Safari and IE ALL do something one way, and Firefox is the odd man out, targeting Firefox only is... well... Special. as in some Olympics are... Claims of standards compliance doubly so.


I guess I could accept that, as long as we are talking about IE7. Three out of the five years experience I mentioned was writing an intranet webapp specifically for IE. I made sure my pages worked on FF (cause the dev tools pwnd at the time), but never really tested against opera until recently, and only against safari very recently. Since my few run-ins with safari have been quite frustrating, I may have gotten the wrong impression about it.

After actually fixing the code, I'm kinda embarassed to say it was my own damn fault. I had just redone a few layout issues on my local machine, but hadnt finished. Usually I make sure to use both align="center" and the margin way of centering, cause its not much of an effort to support old browsers, and it really doesnt uglify the code that much. Turns out I had forgotten to use the css, and both safari and FF aligned to the left. Opera and IE both centered it, even though I was in standards mode for the page. So, ignore my earlier comment about layout bugs, it was really just my own stupidity.

Reply Score: 1

deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

>> Usually I make sure to use both align="center"
>> and the margin way of centering


inlining ANY presentation these days is just asking to fail somewhere. If you are going to attempt centering, use auto margins - If you are concerned about supporting IE 5.x, add text-align:center to the parent element... I kid you not. text-align:center will center a fixed width block level element set to margin:0px auto; in IE 5.x.

Remember - semantic markup. Anything in the html should say what it is, not how it looks. How it looks is what CSS is for.

Since I took that attitude of separating presentation from content to heart for my largest client, I cut their bandwidth per hit by 50% but quadrupled their traffic... Why? Because there's no presentational markup to confuse search engines - SEO and all that guff... and by moving so much out of the HTML, it means across multiple pages on the same site we can take advantage of the client's cache to not resend that stuff over and over and over.

Edited 2007-06-13 09:37

Reply Score: 1

RE: Cleartype and Broken Fonts
by ronaldst on Tue 12th Jun 2007 01:36 UTC in reply to "Cleartype and Broken Fonts"
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

Better than IE7. The UI is clean.


Nah. The UI is old and overused. IE7 has a much better UI than FF2 and Safari. FF2's UI hasn't budged an inch. And Safari needs a makeover. The idea of putting buttons next to tabs in IE7 was brilliant. App UI space well used. Plus they actually made the sidebar in browsers worth using. I toggle off the MenuBar. It's just wasting precious screen space. There's a few things I find annoying like having RSS feeds directly on my Links Bar like in FF. But on the whole, IE7's UI is much better designed than it's competitors.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Cleartype and Broken Fonts
by deathshadow on Tue 12th Jun 2007 01:46 UTC in reply to "Cleartype and Broken Fonts"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

>> Lower memory usage than Firefox. 60MB vs 15MB for
>> Osnews.com

Which is odd, and leads me to believe different modules are being loaded/unloaded for different hardware.

On my machine, the OSNews main page as only tab open, set to be only page to load on startup:

Results from XP SP2, A64 4000+, 2 gigs RAM, multiple SATA hard drives totalling over 1tb.

Safari 3 beta: 55,132K

Firefox 2.0.4: 28,336K

IE 7.0: 29,236K

Opera 9.21: 29,566K (Damned impressive condsidering that's not just a browser, but a e-mail client, widget engine, and 80%+ of the stuff people apply to Firefox as plugins BUILT IN)

Though on my desktop machine, everything in Safari is fast, fast and faster than everyone else - and having rebooted into OSX on this same hardware for an even comparison, Safari IS INDEED faster under XP than it is under OSX - which is wierd since I have Natit giving me QE/OpenGL/etc... I'd be interested to hear some speed results from people running boot camp, so we have a true even comparison.

But, I installed it on my old 1ghz P3 laptop, and it's AGONIZING compared to Opera, IE or FF. Memory use for 'the rest' is roughly equal to on the uber desktop, but Safari opening up OSNews there is chewing 83,168K, and 50% CPU ALL THE TIME

So... Yeah, hardware. Anything lower in specs than a Mac Mini probably isn't going to run it very well... and there are a LOT of PC's out there with less CPU than the mini. Not everyone has sunk money into D class Pentiums, Athlon X2's or Core processors yet.

Edited 2007-06-12 02:00

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Cleartype and Broken Fonts
by hechacker1 on Tue 12th Jun 2007 03:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Cleartype and Broken Fonts"
hechacker1 Member since:
2005-08-01

Well, it turns out my 15MB figure for Safari on Osnews.com is AFTER you minimize Safari. Then restore it, and memory usage holds at ~16MB here.

When browsing its using ~35MB-55MB.

Reply Score: 1

crappy looking text
by mikesum32 on Tue 12th Jun 2007 01:00 UTC
mikesum32
Member since:
2005-10-22

Wow, the text really sucks on a crt. "Text smoothing" is just ugly and no way to turn it off. You can only change the strength . Also ctrl + doesn't work to change font sizes,a t least not like firefox does.You have to hit the control key and the plus or minus under the function keys. The numeric pad doesn't work.

Edited 2007-06-12 01:04

Reply Score: 1

Safari is cool, but whats better?
by fz105 on Tue 12th Jun 2007 01:25 UTC
fz105
Member since:
2007-03-20

I'm glad that mac has ported it to Windows and would hope they port it to linux as well. I tried it out and installed it and definitely like it. It's definitely faster then firefox, that I noticed. It way better then IE7, totally better. But when I played around with it, i kept on saying to myself "It's just Firefox", it's firefox without the extensions or themes.

Is it me or does safari have nothing better to offer over firefox?

Firefox is still my default browser, but safari def. has potential...it definitely edges out ie7 by a mile in my book.

Reply Score: 1

HUH??
by viator on Tue 12th Jun 2007 01:42 UTC
viator
Member since:
2005-10-11

Safari is a dog on my mac i cant imagine how slow and buggy it will be in windows.

Reply Score: 0

RE: HUH??
by raver31 on Tue 12th Jun 2007 01:51 UTC in reply to "HUH??"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

I am using it here, it is very fast indeed.
I don't know what that update was about, but no memory hog, no slowdowm, and all the sites I have looked at are fine.

Reply Score: 2

WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

From a friend of mine ...

ell ... let me start off with "initial impressions".

First, the UI is ass-ugly. Once again, people - if you're writing an app for Windows, please use Windows established standards for UI. The frilly OS Glass crap may be fine for the mac-heads, but if you want to win over the Windows crowd, don't give us non-standard interfaces and expect us to cheer (see GIMP for more information).

Second, there is no proxy support yet, so I cannot test it on anything other than our internal sites - which doesn't allow me to properly bench the browser in the wild. I'll have to install it at home.

Third, this browser is so barren of features, it makes Firefox look kickass out of the box. I mean - I should have known by the "touted features" list that this browser had very little extra to offer - but DAMN. Almost ANYTHING worthwhile was lifted by other browsers YEARS ago.

Fourth - misc observations ...

- Spellchecking isn't working. Beta?
- I simply cannot use a browser that doesn't support real time screen scaling anymore (Opera, IE7) - I can't stand browsing low res pages in high resolution. Honestly, I don't see how anyone can.
- Font smoothing looks good, but has it's share of mangling things that used to fit in an area without smoothing.
- Draggable sizing text area boxes. Alright, that kicks major ass. This is the ONLY thing about Safari that impressed the crap out of me.
- View Source uses it's own crappy internal editor ... trying to find out how to replace that. REQUIRED for any good web developer.
- Snapback; hit and miss. I'll use linked windows in Opera and be LOTS happier. BTW, what's the point of making the user SET the snapback page?
- The iTunes manager stuff bugs me. I've never been a fan of it.
- Buggy ... but it's beta. I'll let that slide.
- I'll say it once and for all; if you're going to steal ... steal right. I've only found ONE WAY to properly pull off a sidebar - and that's Opera's implementation. Clicking the left margin to expand and collapse, and allowing near instant access to Transfers, Bookmarks, history, etc. Try doing it in Safari or firefox or - then try it in Opera.

... more to come ...

Reply Score: 3

ClearType > OSX Font Rendering
by Kabal on Tue 12th Jun 2007 02:34 UTC
Kabal
Member since:
2005-07-09

On one hand, I like that they implemented their font rendering - It's so close to OSX that it'll be great for testing your websites to see how they look in OSX.

On the downside, there is no way in hell I would use it because it is so damn inferior to ClearType its not even funny.

Gonna use it today just for giggles but then i'll be back to Opera ;)

Edited 2007-06-12 02:35

Reply Score: 3

RE: ClearType > OSX Font Rendering
by wing on Tue 12th Jun 2007 04:29 UTC in reply to "ClearType > OSX Font Rendering"
wing Member since:
2005-07-07

Cleartype better than OSX font rendering? You must be joking, because at least on XP, Cleartype was a joke compared to OSX.

In my opinion, OSX strikes a very nice balance between font contrast and shapes. Also it supports font smoothing without LCD sub-pixel rendering. When I had windows I used it on a CRT, so the only way that cleartype was bearable was if you set it for maximum contrast.

Though I admit that when I tried it on LCDs Cleartype worked fine, I still prefer OSX's font rendering compared to it.

Reply Score: 4

Kabal Member since:
2005-07-09

Though I admit that when I tried it on LCDs Cleartype worked fine, I still prefer OSX's font rendering compared to it.


You're only supposed to use ClearType on LCDs. It looks terrible on anything else, but on an LCD it completely destroys OSX font rendering for readability IMO.

Looks like im not the only one:

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000884.html

Edited 2007-06-12 06:47

Reply Score: 2

deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

>> You're only supposed to use ClearType on LCDs.

Well, that's not ENTIRELY true. You see, if you run windows on one notch higher resolution than you normally would on a CRT, and that CRT uses RGB striping, it actually does work - in fact, IMHO it looks better than an LCD does. (of course if you are on one of the goofball color masks like Mitsubishi diamondscan, it's going to look like crap)

Which is why I run a 17" display at 1280x960 and two 21" displays at 1600x1200 on my primary workstation with 'large fonts/120dpi' on. (No, NOT 1280x1024 - unlike some people I don't like having my aspect ratio ****ed up)

Of course being I've been running 'one setting higher @ large fonts' since Windows 3.0, and multiple displays on one computer since Windows 3.1 via a targa board - you could say I'm obsessive about having enough workspace on the screen and at a decent resolution... Which is funny since Macs are actually what got me into multiple displays in the first place - something you cannot even think about doing on a new Mac anymore without dropping two and a half grand.

Besides, 4480x1200 kicks ass.

Edited 2007-06-12 07:06

Reply Score: 2

deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

My bad - I was comparing Safari 2 on OSX to Safari 3 Windows. Safari 3 beta for OSX is just as fast as it's windows counterpart, meaning there have been MAJOR speed improvements to the codebase for 3.

Which is MORE than welcome - speedwise, especially from javascript manipulating elements via the DOM was a joke, holding back a lot of AJAX programs from being viable on that platform... and this is REALLY good news for people already using Safari.

Reply Score: 3

Disabling plugins/bundles
by tyrione on Tue 12th Jun 2007 04:37 UTC
tyrione
Member since:
2005-11-21

When one dumps the Adobe bundles sans flash and drops the DRM.bundle you'll notice performance increases for both Safari 2 and 3.

Note: Just move the bundles/plugins into the /Library/Internet Plug-Ins/Disabled Plug-Ins/ folder.

Edited 2007-06-12 04:38

Reply Score: 1

PowerPC Macs?
by Malakim on Tue 12th Jun 2007 06:40 UTC
Malakim
Member since:
2007-04-03

Has there been any word on how well the new eye-candy and other features will work on older, non-Intel Macs?

I don't want to part ways with my old PowerBook G4 just yet ;-)

Reply Score: 1

Scripting integration...
by Tuishimi on Tue 12th Jun 2007 06:58 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

...I like that they are also focusing on Java, Ruby, Perl and Python a bit, making them more useful out of the box. I have all customized versions of each of them...

I have my /Users mapped to a separate drive, so I can do a clean install of the OS, and it sounds like my RoR sites won't even be affected. ;) I hope. Gotta make sure I export my MySQL tables tho'...

Reply Score: 2

browser on mac
by micken on Tue 12th Jun 2007 09:06 UTC
micken
Member since:
2006-08-15

I use Omniweb on my mac.

Reply Score: 1

Re: ZFS
by Luminair on Tue 12th Jun 2007 10:04 UTC
Luminair
Member since:
2007-03-30

Days ago we saw this: "This week, you'll see that Apple is announcing at their Worldwide Developers Conference that ZFS has become the file system in Mac OS X," said Schwartz.

That didn't happen, although they did announce another OpenSolaris feature called DTrace.

Word now is that the Leopard beta does in fact have ZFS bits in it, but that they are incomplete (? "Readonly implementation") and that the installer doesn't support ZFS (HFS+ only). Source: http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=128542#128542

Reply Score: 2

There's something wronf with fonts...
by merde on Tue 12th Jun 2007 12:42 UTC
merde
Member since:
2007-04-05

Just take a look at this:
http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/8826/safariosnewsfv0.jpg
Looks like bold fonts sometimes aren't rendered at all.
Checked on two machines running XP SP2.

Reply Score: 1

Gryzor Member since:
2005-07-03

I've got the same problem. Freshly installed WinXP SP2.

Reply Score: 1

Security Flaws Discovered
by elsewhere on Tue 12th Jun 2007 15:19 UTC
elsewhere
Member since:
2005-07-13

Safari for Windows Not So Secure.
http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9728500-7.html

One security researcher Avi Raff called out Safari's statement "Apple's engineers designed Safari to be secure from day one." Raff was able to find a vulnerability within three minutes using publicly available fuzzing tools. Raff found a memory corruption error that could allow an attacker to insert malicious code on a Windows machine.

Another researcher, David Maynor, found a total of 6 vulnerabilities, two of which allowed code execution.

Yes, yes, it's beta. But even as a beta, if the program is broken by publicly available testing tools I can't help wondering how much security they've actually designed into it. This is the stuff that should have been identified and locked down before it was pushed out the door, or was it rushed in order ride the marketing buzz from the conference? I guess time will tell.

Not trying to single out Apple here, but if Mozilla, Opera or particularly MS released a browser that was broken that quickly, even as a beta, people would be screaming bloody murder.

Reply Score: 3