Linked by David Adams on Tue 7th Jan 2003 18:05 UTC
Apple Steve Jobs just announced in his Macworld Keynote that Apple is releasing its own browser, called Safari. Its claim to fame is extremely fast performance on the Mac. The Mac platform has struggled from sluggish browser performance with IE (the old default browser). Update: According to Jobs, Safari is open source and based on khtml. It only runs on Mac OS X and will be available for download today.
Order by: Score:
Bout time
by Frostbyt on Tue 7th Jan 2003 18:09 UTC

Bout time.

Nuff said.

Should we assume it's mozilla based?
by Shamyl Zakariya on Tue 7th Jan 2003 18:10 UTC

Well, first off, I had no idea that the macworld keynote and whatnot had started yet... but them I'm always out of the loop.

Anyway, should we assume this is chimera/mozilla based?

No
by Chris on Tue 7th Jan 2003 18:20 UTC

Its based on khtml

that's an extremely fast post there, trigger.
by Anonymous on Tue 7th Jan 2003 18:23 UTC

"extremely fast" - compared to what? What is this, a 'first post' for news? There's no links, no specifics (such as whether this is mozilla based).

Phoenix
by Chris Herborth on Tue 7th Jan 2003 18:26 UTC

I'm really enjoying Phoenix (based on the Mozilla core) on Windows... if my Mac could run OS X, I'd certainly want to see Phoenix there.

How do you define "fast" these days anyway? Renders local pages quickly? Doesn't hog your system or UI while waiting on remote servers? Tabbed browsing? Opens new windows quickly?

The best part is...
by Blackthought on Tue 7th Jan 2003 18:33 UTC

That they are releasing the source code with all of the improvements! They used a program called i-bench to benchmark various browsers.

Pretty bold!

Soungs Great...
by DoctorPepper on Tue 7th Jan 2003 18:44 UTC

... I stopped using IE on my iMac about a week after buying it. I downloaded Chimera 0.60, and that's been my main browser ever since. I like its speed and capabilities, and the fact that I haven't had one browser crash since I started using it (unlike Mozilla 1.2.1 OR IE).

I will download and try Safari, mainly because it sounds neat.

For more info see...
by Anonymous on Tue 7th Jan 2003 18:44 UTC

I found some more info on Safari. See: http://www.macintouch.com

Performance...
by null_pointer_us on Tue 7th Jan 2003 18:47 UTC

> Its claim to fame is extremely fast performance on the Mac.

Kind of like a lightning-fast supercomputer that whips the P4 on specially contrived benchmarks? I hope that this is not simply more old-school marketing hype.

RE: Performance...
by Cesar Cardoso on Tue 7th Jan 2003 18:51 UTC

>Kind of like a lightning-fast supercomputer that whips the P4 on specially contrived benchmarks? I hope that this is not simply more old-school marketing hype.

To use KHTML (or, for that matter, Gecko) and end up with a slower browser that the oh-it's-dead-slow IE for Mac would be a BIG FAT shame for Apple.

Konqueror
by Xstyles on Tue 7th Jan 2003 18:52 UTC

KDE,Konqueror, Linux , GPL havent any of you heard of any of this
thats what khtml is and thats why its open source
I hope credit is given where credit is due

And i hope they dont violate GPL

Uhm, that does ring a bell...
by Chris on Tue 7th Jan 2003 18:57 UTC
RE: Konqueror
by Andrew on Tue 7th Jan 2003 19:09 UTC

They are releasing the inmprovements to KHTML today. No violation.

Really cool. Hope KDE incorporates the improvements into Konqueor soon.

Well, im using it now...
by Evan on Tue 7th Jan 2003 19:14 UTC

metallic window is gonna be hard to get used to, but it is slightly faster then Chimera.

They dont have to release the code until they start distributing the browser, so only today do they have to start doing that.

sheesh
by AlienSoldier on Tue 7th Jan 2003 19:14 UTC

when a company like apple is not able to do a simple browser from scratch you know that something have turned very wrong with how internet work.

... still wondering why a web browser should take more than 2M.

RE: Sheesh
by Evan on Tue 7th Jan 2003 19:15 UTC

Its very small btw ;p

ack no tabs though!

RE: Sheesh
by Spin on Tue 7th Jan 2003 19:18 UTC

Why bother writing the rendering engine from scratch?

comparisons
by Tom Barta on Tue 7th Jan 2003 19:21 UTC

I have watched Macs and PC's on the same network, and neither has a speed advantage browsing-wise. But of existing browsers, I most prefer (under OS X) Mozilla, because it has a killer feature set (pop-up killing; tabbed browsing; VERY solid standards support; etc) and IS a little faster than the rest I have tried (I was holding off on Chimera until verion 0.9 or so).

Screenshots?
by Xol on Tue 7th Jan 2003 19:23 UTC

I would like to see a screenshot.

This is really cool!
by Z_God on Tue 7th Jan 2003 19:23 UTC

I saw that there is a button to submit sites to Apple that do not work correctly. Since they use KHTML, this will mean that also more sites will be compatible with Konqueror in the feature!

safari
by seratne on Tue 7th Jan 2003 19:23 UTC

very fast, and good looking. NO TABS though.
The metallic look is very easy to get used to, the interface just gets out of your way. Also i believe the file size is ~7MB when uncompressed is because for one, all of the buttons are stored as tiffs, they could have used png, but might not have been as fast to display. Also it has rendezvous support so you can share bookmarks and such with no configuration. Plus it has the bug submit feature.

Nice options to configure also, pop up blocker, etc etc.

But no tabs. ;)

about time...
by scott on Tue 7th Jan 2003 19:23 UTC

but does anyone really use IE5 anymore? It so slow it could only be deliberate; Omniweb is good and Chimera is just fantastic, my 800Mhz iMac is far faster than my 2.1Ghz PC running IE. Lets hope Safari is as good or better.

online with safari
by nicnab on Tue 7th Jan 2003 19:24 UTC

i love it! i can't believe it's THAT good and THAT compatible! how do they do it?

re: Tom
by Evan on Tue 7th Jan 2003 19:24 UTC

Chimera is pretty stable at .6 on 10.2 for me, should give it a go.

Anyway, even Eugenia would be hard pressed to knock safari, it scrolls fast.

Wonder why they didn't go with Gecko
by Anonymous on Tue 7th Jan 2003 19:29 UTC

Strange that Apple didn't go with the Gecko renering engine.

The GPL can be a issue for compaines like Apple (BSD tends to be the prefered)

David Hyatt works for apple now (dude that does phenoix and Chimera)

Chimera kicks ass

Supporting the Mozilla project would piss M$ off even more.

Re: nicnab
by Strike on Tue 7th Jan 2003 19:30 UTC

They do it by using code that's been tested for years now.

Huh?
by Mike Hearn on Tue 7th Jan 2003 19:35 UTC

Yet they have hired Hyatt to work on Chimera? What's up with that?

KHTML by the way is an interesting choice. It's fairly fast and small yes, primarily by being very simple. KHTML simply does not compare with Gecko in terms of power. Luckily it's LGPLd, although given Apples previous "contributions" to open source I'd be surprised if it's little more than the patches that integrate it with the Mac.

Seems to be good
by Anonymous on Tue 7th Jan 2003 19:37 UTC

I'm using it just now. Fast... it's fast. I don't know if it's faster than IE. Interface is pretty, clear, but I think it's missing some feature I like, as tabbed windows. But this is a 1.0, and it's ok. I will ask for it. HTML support seems to be better than in konqueror installed in my Mandrake 9. Now i'm going to explore bookmarks feature and OS integration.

RE: RE: Performance...
by Andrew on Tue 7th Jan 2003 19:43 UTC

Are using saying Gecko is KHTML.

If so, it is not. KHTML is Konqueror which is very fast.

Secondly Gecko is not slow XUL can be slow.

Re: Mike Hearn
by spider on Tue 7th Jan 2003 19:54 UTC

Apples previous "contributions" to open source I'd be surprised if it's little more than the patches that integrate it with the Mac

Already with the sh|t-throwing? You just can't see anything positive when it comes to Apple can you? Are they gonna take away your PeeCee membership card if you don't immediately come out and bash Apple? Geez...

Safari good on eyes!
by Peter on Tue 7th Jan 2003 19:56 UTC

I've been using Chimera and iCab, both of these sometimes rendered illegible fonts and I have to hit enlarge font to even read. So far Safari has really improve legibility of small fonts. Even the tiny crap that some sites unforgivingly present.

X11 for MacOS X
by Kejar31 on Tue 7th Jan 2003 20:00 UTC

I dont know if anyone noticed but Apple also released X11 for MacOS X

http://www.apple.com/macosx/x11/

Pretty cool

safari link
by Adam Scheinberg on Tue 7th Jan 2003 20:03 UTC
a browser?
by stupid person on Tue 7th Jan 2003 20:04 UTC

IE from MS, Chimera from Mozilla, and now Safari from KHTML... you know, for a system that prides itself on having a creative user base, it's kind of funny that they have to port their browsers from other systems... I'm a PeeCee owner though, so you can ignore this

The Apple way vs. The Linux way
by c on Tue 7th Jan 2003 20:05 UTC

Apple has too much of an ego to contribute too much intellectual property back to the community. I don't believe they would unless they were required to by law. Its just not profitable for them. All that aside, Apple is a good company.

Linux on the other hand wants to give EVERYTHING away for free, because it knows that it is not perfect. It has no ego. And it doesn't care about money. All that aside, Linux is a good community.

it is great
by Satchel on Tue 7th Jan 2003 20:12 UTC

using safari right now. Works with css, frames and javascripts fine. Blazing speed. They did it right again.

ha ha ha apple haters
by appleforever on Tue 7th Jan 2003 20:12 UTC

Apple is rocking again, and again, and again. By the way, the keynote:

new imovie, new iphoto, new idvd, browser that has an awesome interface (except no tabs) and speed. New presentation software that used OPEN FILE FORMAT (reportedly) - and it has spreadsheet component built in.

New 12" powerbook. $1999 with superdrive. That's right, with superdrive. 4.6 lbs. Also, a 17 incher. Firewire 2 on that one.

new airport faster speed.

ha , ha, ha. When will people just give up and give Apple's it's due. WHEN?????? and don't give me that shit on "the price" Guess what, quality and innovation costs money. It ain't free pal. bye bye

RE: The Apple way vs. The Linux way
by Andrew on Tue 7th Jan 2003 20:13 UTC

It has no ego

Ummm. No. The Linux community has all types.

What are they thinking?
by Devon on Tue 7th Jan 2003 20:25 UTC

KHTML based? What the hell?

The stage is set for Mozilla based browsers to become the second most used browsers around! I cannot believe they didn't build off of what the Chimera project started! Didn't they hire the main Chimera programer a little while ago?

I downloaded Safari BTW. It was a shocking 3mb download! Not bad. Unfortunatly, its not that great. The speed advantage over Chimera is extreamly minor in everything except startup time and there is no tabbed browsing at all. I, frankly, cannot find any way that I would prefer it over Chimera. What are they smoking over there?

KHTML based. You must be kidding Jobs. Let me know when the REAL browser comes out, k?

...oh, and one more thing...
by Devon on Tue 7th Jan 2003 20:29 UTC

Its funny how the Chimera browser more closely matchs the OSX UI and its tenents then Apples own browser. Just another sign of the "half-assed" nature of this thing.

Re: What are they thinking?
by jbett on Tue 7th Jan 2003 20:30 UTC

You say that there is a noticeable speed difference, minor but you say there is, also you say that loading time is also faster, well that's what holds me back from using Chimera. I launch it, wait, and wait, Splash Screen, wait, it's done, wow it's pretty fast. I'm one of those people with a 1gb of RAM and a Dual G4 that doesn't like wasting resources by leaving programs open especially when running games. And I don't really feel the need at all to launch a browser like that everytime I want to view a webpage, it's painful watching it load like that IE loads faster than Chim.

Kool for apple
by Johnathan Bailes on Tue 7th Jan 2003 20:37 UTC

Good deal. They are not re-inventing the wheel and I believe they will probably contribute code back. Why? It is not like Safari will be making them any money so giving the code to the KHTML people will not cost them a dime and bring a bit of good-will at the same time.

@appleforever -- you are as bad as the knee jerk mac-haters. I will give Apple its due when they bring down the price a bit. Yes, I understand quality but I also understand the Apple premium. I was there when quality Apple notebooks use to go up flames. That is not the case now. They make good stuff but it still costs too much for what you are buying IMO. As in don't take it personal, it is just my opinion.

I will also give Apple its due when the par down the interface a bit and squeeze some reasonable speed out of those gui interface. It feels slow but smooth. The rendering and response is very smooth in window movement, text rendering stuff like that but still too slow. The good news is that they are making progress on this with every release and I know that one day it will be a thing of the past.

When they make enough progress I will be there to give them their due. If they start charging for iapps they will be making a mistake and I will them their due in regard to those apps. Those are some nice little apps very smooth, very nice to use. The airport I am sure is nice to but I have no experience with them so I can't "give them their due" in that regard.

Also:

@Andrew -

I agree there are all types in the Linux community like pretty much any community. There are huge festering egos and some really nice helpful people. Everyone talks about RTFM and attitude but I subscribed to the suse_en list and the redhat-list and I have not seen the attitude people talk about. Mailing lists are great places to get help. My only gripe with the community is that people who subscribe to the list tend to be old-timers and there advice always leads to the command line when there are gui-alternatives in the distro of their choice right there in the KDE control center of the System Configuration section of the Gnome menu.

SnapBack
by Manik on Tue 7th Jan 2003 20:39 UTC

Oh I love that feature!

No Apple is not perfect. But for too long too many people have refused to just acknowledge THE TRUTH: Apple makes the best personal computer experience. There were some dark years. But that is history. Apple is on an unbeliveable groove and yet still people debate whether it will be around next year. The response to that should be disbelief - what? why would the company making the BEST, pointing the way for all the copiers -- just disappear. Instead there is just a lot of denial and fuzzy thinking. There is simply nothing to be lost -- and everything to be gained -- by everyone just acknowledging the simple and obvious fact that Apple is AHEAD. Maybe then MS would get off it's fat monopoly butt.

Safari sucks. It doesn't even have tabs
by Jeff Self on Tue 7th Jan 2003 20:51 UTC

It reminds me too much of IE. No thanks. I'll stick with Chimera and Mozilla.

interesting
by Anonymous on Tue 7th Jan 2003 20:55 UTC

a couple weeks ago i noticed this: http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/misc/ -- apple had the KDE javascript core on their web site. I thought it was odd at the time....

Apple +++++
by Aki on Tue 7th Jan 2003 20:55 UTC

It is very interesting and refreshing to see how Apple selects less successful Open Source achievements and turns them into commercial spectacles.

IMHO, this is a very welcome thing for the whole community.

a further sign of things to come
by Aerick on Tue 7th Jan 2003 20:57 UTC

Since MS has threatened to take away support for MS Office and IE on the Mac platform, I think Apple is trying to make provisions for later.

Because OS X is already based on an open source project, they are trying to make themselves a more prominent figure in the OSS community, which may or may not be a good thing. In any case, I think it may just be a defense against MS - especially the attention they give themselves about releasing the code and keeping everything "open".

Good for Apple.

p.s - The news post itself here at OSNews was pathetic. I agree with previous posters that the lack of a link was really disturbing. I actually found the story on LinuxToday first, which had a more substantial article AND a URL.

Here is a list of changes,
by Tima on Tue 7th Jan 2003 21:05 UTC

As Safari is based on KHTML from used by Konqueror, here is a e-mail to the kde-guys from one guy at Apple. (many guys here!;) It contains a changelog of what Apple has done to improve khtml.

http://lists.kde.org/?l=kfm-devel&m=104196912316326&w=2

heh, money
by c on Tue 7th Jan 2003 21:10 UTC

quality and innovation costs money

This is a load of BS. Are you saying Linux is not quality software? Quality and innovation costs time. It takes knowledgable people working together creatively to innovate, and skilled people working passionately on a product to produce quality. Money has a lot to do with why most products are neither innovative nor high quality.

Re: c
by spider on Tue 7th Jan 2003 21:16 UTC

appleforever: quality and innovation costs money
c: quality and innovation costs time

If A = B and B = C then A = C, therefore

If (quality and innovation) = Money
and (quality and innovation) = Time
then Time = Money.

But didn't we already know this? ;)

JavascriptCore = kjs (mostly)
by Sdk on Tue 7th Jan 2003 21:21 UTC

Apple has already used kjs for a while (in Sherlock). It's part of JavaScriptCore

Posting, Link
by David Adams on Tue 7th Jan 2003 21:22 UTC

By the way, this news posting was made as Steve was still talking. No link, because there was no place to link to. I could go back and make a link, but if you can't find apple.com by yourself, I can't help you.

re: appleforever
by c on Tue 7th Jan 2003 21:22 UTC

why would the company making the BEST, pointing the way for all the copiers -- just disappear.

Because they require money to sustain their IP. Apple is what's "in" today, its popular, its good. But how long can it sustain its cash flow? What will it do when the screws get tightened? Apple has to move products and improve its stuff and make many new sales to stay alive. Its competition doesn't. Apple could be more like its competition if it wanted, to, but still insists on being proprietary in so many ways.

Releasing OSX for intel or alternative hardware would be a step in the right direction. So would open sourcing their OS. At least the most important parts of the OS are open source, so we know that will be around for a while, but Apple hardware is going to be obsolete in a couple years, like everything else. What happens if the company goes bankrupt or gets bought out? It disappears unless its profitable to continue building systems and software. What happens when it is no longer profitable? It disappears.

That's IP for ya. Its worthless unless you give it away for free.

First impressions
by Sdk on Tue 7th Jan 2003 21:24 UTC

The loading time for it was great... a lot faster than Chimera. In terms of browing speed, it seems to be faster than Chimera, but they are pretty close. I wish tabs were there, but snapback is pretty nice itself. I can't decide which one I like better. Also, Ithink safari's interface and rendering is a bit cleaner than Chimera, but i guess that's personal tastes.

spider
by c on Tue 7th Jan 2003 21:24 UTC

You have 5 minutes to live, how much do you want me to pay you for 1 minute of your time. ;)

Time != Money !!!

Time is worth far more than you'll ever know.

Still?
by spider on Tue 7th Jan 2003 21:26 UTC

but still insists on being proprietary in so many ways

Can you give us five examples? I can't think of any really.

Appleforever at i again...
by Chreo on Tue 7th Jan 2003 21:33 UTC

>new imovie, new iphoto, new idvd, browser that has an >awesome interface (except no tabs) and speed. New >presentation software that used OPEN FILE FORMAT
>(reportedly) - and it has spreadsheet component built in.

Are we a few years behind MS on this browserthingy and presentation software or what? Apple, IMHO, made a huge mistake in not using Gecko for the browser engine. Gecko just sweeps the floor with IE, Opera and KHTML feature and technology wise.

>New 12" powerbook. $1999 with superdrive. That's right, >with superdrive. 4.6 lbs. Also, a 17 incher. Firewire 2
>on that one.

12' !!! Anything below 14' is pointless and what kind of a lame sceen is that 17' one, OMFG, they use the iLamp screen. That screen have I have heard soo many complaints over it's quality that I thought they'd switched supplier... but OH NO! let's put in our prime notebook model!

I bought a notebook with a 15' screen 1450x1050 almost a year ago for less than the 12' PowerBook and it have far more features and CPU speed than either of the new models. Almost a year ago... heh, time flies

>new airport faster speed.

ever head of 802.11a? that's what some of us have been using for quite some time. same thing. "fantastic innit?!"

>ha , ha, ha. When will people just give up and give
>Apple's it's due. WHEN?????? and don't give me that shit >on "the price" Guess what, quality and innovation costs >money. It ain't free pal. bye bye

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Apple is just an MS wannabe and the latest software just reinforce that image. The quality issue is a no-no as Apple use just as cheapo PC components as the rest of the white-box manufacturers does. Innovation? Using a readybuilt htmlrenderer really shows innovation. How about the iFan that the Dual PowerPC really should be named. The new keyboard, on the powerbook, is, despite the overall package being substantially larger, no bigger than before... big miss. No speed upgrade on the

Apple is a nice company. Has nice design. But they are in no way AHEAD och better than others. I really urge you to look at what OpenSource can do for ya in terms of price/features that just leaves the Mac in the dust.

Oh and didn't you complain about MS charging for upgrades of their MovieMaker software. Guess you feel kindof stupid now that Apple does just the same with their iApps.

Slower
by AnalystX on Tue 7th Jan 2003 21:33 UTC

Safari is actually much slower than Chimera 0.6.0 with "Pipelining" turned on. Steve used a version of Chimera with "Pipelining" turned off for Apple's benchmarks. It also has a boatload of HTML element violations, and client-space rendering quirks. It is a beta without question.

not bad....
by scott on Tue 7th Jan 2003 21:37 UTC

Well I've been playing with Safari (sorry BAD name) and its not bad at all, but I'm not sure its a great leap forward from Chimera, its faster loading and a little faster, but not so much that I'll ditch Chimera from my HD just yet. Fonts seem better (mostly) but I've noticed some graphics that don't seem to render as well, but hey its a beta so whadda ya want. Dunno if I would not just have prefered Apple to help Chimera get to a 1.0 release. Suppose this way they have full control.

But as a step away from reliance on MS, its a good one, now all Apple need to do is to fund/assist with a native version of openoffice and they can sleep better at night, I wonder if the X11 they have released is an effort to increase the ease of use of openoffice (among other apps of course).

KHTML and complex browsers
by Rayiner Hashem on Tue 7th Jan 2003 21:38 UTC

Gecko is still pretty closely tied to the whole netscape platform. Off the bat, KHTML is easier to use as a rendering engine, as evidenced by the KHTML-based AtheOS browser. It's also probably a notch faster, because it is simpler. As for why browsers are so complex, just take a look at the latest HTML specs. There are complex layout and formatting standards (CSS) and active scripting (Javascript, among others) and just a whole lot of standards (and IE standards non-conformence) to deal with.

re: spider
by c on Tue 7th Jan 2003 21:39 UTC

OSX only runs on Mac hardware

Only recently was the iPod able to sync with Windows

For a *nix company one would think they'd support UNIX better, again with products like the iPod, drivers for their hardware, corporate network software and integration. OSX is an excellent system, but its far too expensive for most corporations to afford. I don't know all the details on their hardware support, but it is my impression that it is OSX or nothing.

I don't know. They're not all that proprietary I guess, but it doesn't change the fact that you must have Apple hardware and software to make use of it. What would people say if Microsoft stopped selling Windows XP unless you bought it on their Xbox PC or whatever. That's what I mean by proprietary.

Apple basicly uses PC hardware. I see no reason for them to horde the OS or the hardware like they do. Open it up, it'll stick around.

Re: Chreo
by spider on Tue 7th Jan 2003 21:41 UTC

Guess you feel kindof stupid now that Apple does just the same with their iApps

iApp. That is singular, $iApp = iDVD. The rest are still free. ;)

ever head of 802.11a?

Yeah, that's the one that is INCOMPATIBLE with 802.11b. Let's add *another* protocol to the mix, shall we. Nice try.

Just Tested it!
by jbett on Tue 7th Jan 2003 21:41 UTC

Umm.. well hahaha.. Buh bye IE, it loads in less than a second and loads webpages faster than IE, Chim, and OmniWeb.

All I have to say is stop bitching it works.... fast.

@Appleforever
by Johnathan Bailes on Tue 7th Jan 2003 21:43 UTC

I could seriously start to argue the innovation thing after all most of the effort software-wise revolves around getting together a core set of apps for MacOSX and making OSX better. Not a lot of big innovations like in the old days -- remember when Macs had voice recognition way back in the dark age? Ahead of their time again. Making the most out of OS X is what they need to do mind you. Still leaves little room for the big innovations that we use to see coming out of Apple all the time.

The hardware side is looking good for them except for the processor speed. They need an alternative quick. Good solid products -- slower processor than intel. Not good.

People amazed that Apple is still around? I am not. They really know how to please their core audience and retain enough users in even the hardest of times to survive. It would take a huge stumble for Apple to completely go under.

Jobs has done a good job of putting together the types of people and products Apple needs to survive in a MS dominated world.

I doubt that MS would even allow that considering the fact that as long as Apple is around MS has someone to point to as an alternative when the anti-trust lawyers come poking around. Also, they money off of Macs with Office and such. MS is a lot of things but business stupid is rarely one of them.

I will say that using huge sweeping terms about something like OSes is kind of silly. Macs are the best computers for a segment of the population. Wintel boxes are the best computers for another segment of the population. You'll pry that XP box out of most gamer's cold dead hands. Still, for Unix geeks and tinkerers linux is the best. Other people still love their BeOS. It all depends on what you want out of a computer.

I understand the anger for folks who bash macs or any other OS besides the one they like. However, look in the mirror. You look a lot like the people that tick you off.

Ha-Ha!
by OJ on Tue 7th Jan 2003 21:45 UTC

Konqueror rocks! No surprise they choose KHTML over Gecko. Sure, Gecko is currently the most complete open source rendering engine out there (when it comes to standards support), but it is s-l-o-w. KHTML is very fast, and standards support is good:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~ppk/css2tests/intro.html

...and getting better by the minute. It will be fun seeing the Mozilla fanboys cringe over this one, and make up lame excuses. But the truth is that Gecko sucks, and it will always suck, thanks to the morons behind the "Mammothzilla"-project.

Re: c
by Devon on Tue 7th Jan 2003 21:46 UTC

Wow! Your right! It WOULD be great if Apple opened all its software to everyone! We could all have OSX and iTunes on our PCs!

Well, except for the whole Apple going OUT OF BUSINESS thing...

Remeber: Apple is a hardware company! They compete with Dell, Gateway, and HP/Compaq, not with Microsoft. If you didn't have to buy a Mac to get the mac experience, why would you? Sure some still might, but not enough to support the kind of inovation that got them where they are today.

Hmm... Interesting.
by nnooiissee on Tue 7th Jan 2003 21:47 UTC

From http://www.barnard.columbia.edu/at/training/netscape/update/detect....

The browser that you are using:
The browser is Netscape
The version is 5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/48 (like Gecko) Safari/48
The codename is Mozilla

Guess this will probably show up as Mozilla most places. I don't see anything new on http://66.181.171.71/2/42699/400/?password=&sub_page=0&date=0&extra... except the fact that Mozilla is leading so far today (but that seems to usually happen early in the day (PST)).

RE: Sheesh
by Eugenia on Tue 7th Jan 2003 21:49 UTC

No, it would not have been wise to write a browser from scratch. Took 3-4 years to Mozilla and Konqueror and even IE to come where they are today, and Apple needed a browser today, not in 4 years. Writing a browser from scratch is a HUGE undertaking even if you are Apple or not.
The decision to use an existing HTML engine is of course wise, however I would favour Gecko and not KHTML today. A year ago I was still favoring KHTML to be honest, but the tables are turned these days.

Ugh...
by Devon on Tue 7th Jan 2003 21:52 UTC

-------------
"Konqueror rocks! No surprise they choose KHTML over Gecko. Sure, Gecko is currently the most complete open source rendering engine out there (when it comes to standards support), but it is s-l-o-w."
-------------

Please... have you even compared Safari to Chimera? Im sorry but Chimera is FAR from slow. Even when Safari DOES manage to beat Chimera, its not by much, except for the cold start time. Chimera is still in development too though, and they can still get the start time down before 1.0, in fact the latest version is already much improved in that respect from the previous. Add to all that the technological and feature superiority of Mozilla... well Im not to interested in Safari. At LEAST they need tabs!!

I am using KDE for many years now. O.K., there are some geeks that think KDE is not cool, but for me it is the best user interface available for Linux. One of the reasons I really like KDE is the fact, that Konqueror integrates very nicely with the rest of KDE. And furthermore, Konqueror is fast and since I am using KDE3.0/3.1 i did not encounter a single web page Konqueror could not display. The essential point is: a lot more people are developping gecko than khtml. Nevertheless, Konqueror is almost as good as Mozilla (maybe as good). Why is this? In my opinion, because the KDE Apis and frameworks are very well designed. I think it is a very good choice that Apple uses khtml. On the one hand khtml is small and fast, on the other hand, is is very nicely designed. And both, Apple, and KDE profit from this. So stop blaming Apple for making the wrong choice. They probably decided absolutely right!

some things seem exageration
by ssa on Tue 7th Jan 2003 22:02 UTC

I tried a rather large page(http://www.wcdebate.com/7others/regions.htm) to compare rendering speed and found that on a 1Ghz G4 that the difference in rendering speed once it was cached between IE and safari was insignifigant. I will try something bigger, but I am somewhat skeptical that the rendering is that much faster than IE that it is purported. Also what about opera? I haven't used the mac version lately, but the windows version renders even huge documents(10mb+) in a seconds.

bla bla
by Anonymous on Tue 7th Jan 2003 22:15 UTC

"when a company like apple is not able to do a simple browser from scratch you know that something have turned very wrong with how internet work."

To be able and willing to do are two different things.

good for apple, good for kde
by cool on Tue 7th Jan 2003 22:46 UTC

This is good! Safari will improve Konquerer and vice versa.
There are lot of developpers improving gecko-based browsers and now another khtml browser. More choice, more comptetion , opensource. Good for KDE, good for Apple!

http://lists.kde.org/?l=kfm-devel&m=104197092318639&w=2

What more do we want?
Apple and opensource working together making a better office (koffice or openoffice)?

macos X, chimera and safari to me...
by JReZIN on Tue 7th Jan 2003 23:01 UTC

I've been using MacOS X everyday at work... and still a very painfull task sometimes... almost no keyboard navigation though the system and options, time's precious! specially if you're typing something and have to swith one hand to the mouse/tablet just to click a button everytime... and things like that...
That's also why Dock's very bad to switch between several browser windows (i use lots of then... =] ), you have to click on dock once, and then in the windows of the app... Chimera has a good work around for the problem with tabs (actually I don't use then in windows, prefer windows taskbar, but in MacOS X...)

Safari looks good, too dummy to me in some areas (no status bar, no tabs, auto-expand and auto-delete downloaded compressed files, SnapBack thing, bookmarks in diferente windows, and so on...), but... after all that's just MHO...
I'll probably stick with Chimera, but I'll give a try to Safari soon as I get at work.
It's good finally any browser from Apple to MacOS X... probably it'll make a lot of people happy... Well, let's take a better look later today...

status bar
by spider on Tue 7th Jan 2003 23:09 UTC

no status bar ?

The status bar has been married to the place where you type the URL, that is actualy a pretty cool feature.

re: some things seem exageration
by Non-religious Mac User on Tue 7th Jan 2003 23:27 UTC

ssa: the web page you mentioned is large, but it is dead simple: no signinficant tables, stylesheets or graphics. Heavy use of deeply embedded tables, complex stylesheets and graphics are what really slow down pages in IE--not long lists of ASCII text.

Public Beta, and misconceptions
by Rob on Tue 7th Jan 2003 23:31 UTC

Please remember that this is a public beta, and not a 1.0 release. That's why the feedback button is there on the toolbar, to notify the developers of problems you encounter (whether it's an application problem such as a crash, or rendering issue, or, heaven forbid what'll happen most of the time, badly coded websites not showing up properly). This, however, is a good thing -- a nice step for the Mac OS X platform.

Also, a couple of notes. Someone mentioned they wanted to see Phoenix (mozilla/browser) for OS X. It's not going to happen. Chimera is the Phoenix for OS X, and will remain so according to the Mozilla developers.

KHTML vs. Gecko. Does it really matter if it's rendered with khtml or Gecko? They are both good standards-compliant browsers. Sure, the khtml engine is a bit smaller, but Gecko has a larger developer base? These points don't matter, at least to me.

Tabs. Everyone's complaining about tabs. I think the SnapBack feature remedies many of the needs for tabs. I would use tabs to open up each hit I wanted to investigate from a search page. Now, Command + Option + S brings me to the results page, regardless of how deep into the site I was. This is very handy.

Another thing I've noticed was mentioned by CodeBitch in her latest article -- http://www.macedition.com/cb/cb_20030106.php . Many people are switching from OmniWeb to Chimera because it looks good. No other reason. I tend to agree. If Safari can look good, and provide me support for the web technologies that matter to me, then I'll use it regularly. Sure, it's "Appearance" preference pane isn't as complete as Chimera's, but that can easily be remedied by using a style sheet of my own creation (an option that isn't available in Chimera, IIRC). Plus, another thing I've noticed just now, typing in text boxes on a web page is not as slow or otherwise horrible in Safari as it is in Chimera. (This is being posted from Safari.)

And if you don't like the "Textured" brushed metal look of the application, open its nib in IB, uncheck "Textured", save, and open. Presto, it's a regular Aqua app. And for whomever it was that stated there's no status bar, investigate the View menu. (IE6/Win had its status bar off on default for me, too.)

-- Rob

Re: status bar
by qwilk on Tue 7th Jan 2003 23:32 UTC

...of course there is a status bar, it's just not displayed by default... ;)

re macos X,chimera and safari to me...
by Maarten on Tue 7th Jan 2003 23:35 UTC

About the keyboard switching. Agree. Some things are missing. About the Dock. Well to switch between applications in the dock. You don't have te click on them. Just use APPLE-TAB combination to switch between youre open applications.
What Apple should do is provide us with a good users-manual. I have learned more about keyboard navigation via "SAMS Teach Yourself Mac OS X in 24 hours". then the manual from Apple.
About Safari, have just downloaded it. Like what I see so far, but the real test has just to begin. Let's see what it can do.

Small text ...
by Rob on Tue 7th Jan 2003 23:44 UTC

One more thing I forgot to add: Small text is *far* more legible in Safari than in Gecko-based browsers (Mozilla 1.1/1.2, and Chimera 0.6.0, and the latest stable nightly that the Chimera team recommends over 0.6.0). This makes reading pages far easier, as I prefer smaller text sizes.

-- Rob

(It's still quite zippy on my Lombard 333/256MB with X.2.3)

this will be good for everyone
by Roy on Tue 7th Jan 2003 23:58 UTC

I too am surprised that Apple went with kthml over Gecko. From everything I've read, Gecko is more standards compliant. However, I've seen some plausible explanations (easier embedability, faster, smaller footprint). Either way, it is a good thing that Apple is creating a non-IE based browser. One problem with IE is that its user base is so large that non-standards compliant IE behavior becomes the only supported behavior by many websites. Neither Gecko (Mozilla/Phoenix, Chimera, Galeon, KMeleon) nor html (Konqueror, Safari) will have huge user bases in the near term. Browser diversity is a good thing because it forces web sites to be more standards compliant. I just hope that this doesn't kill the Chimera project.

Any details on the plug-in architecture used by Safari?

intial opinion mixed... wait for 1.0
by ssa on Wed 8th Jan 2003 00:06 UTC

I have found that with the default settings that netscape's webmail will give an error message. Once I allowed it to take all cookies it worked fine. The default settings may draw the ire of people using some websites which use cookies that are from a different url which safari blocks by default. Sounds like a good default at first until you find that some sites don't work properly. The dropdown search currently appears to support a google search. Better than nothing, or only being able to search msn or some other lame search engine, but I would like to see the ability to add other search engines. Having the source one could add the ability, but it would be nice to have a means of doing it easily for the end user. Otherwise it looks pretty good for a beta. No crashes so far.

re: status bar
by Anonymous on Wed 8th Jan 2003 00:30 UTC

"Safari delivers the attention to detail you expect from Apple. Take the space-saving progress bar integrated directly in the address field, for instance"

Now THATS innovation.

My browser has had that for what, 4+ years?

alt+tab vs apple+tab
by JReZIN on Wed 8th Jan 2003 00:33 UTC

Hi Maarten,

I know about APPLE+Tab thing... Actually I'm using macs for some time... But there's a diference... APPLE+TAB switch between APPs, also when a window of the opened ones... and in Windows, Alt+TAB switch between opened windows of every app... Apple+tab doesn't help me switching between 10 opened windows of the browser on Mac... It'll try switch to finder usually... ;]

This behavior could not look so important, but it's to me! =]

Cool, Can't wait to tryit out for myself!
by Alex on Wed 8th Jan 2003 00:48 UTC
JReZIN
by Anonymous on Wed 8th Jan 2003 01:17 UTC

Most of the Mac browsers have their own key command to switch between windows. I can only vouch for Opera and IE off the top of my head, but this is doable.

I am NOT an Apple user. FYI, I am running FreeBSD:

bash-2.05b$ uname -a
FreeBSD tchaikovsky.stpetersburg 4.7-RELEASE-p3 FreeBSD 4.7-RELEASE-p3 #0: Tue Jan 7 14:54:13 EST 2003 matgarnz@tchaikovsky.stpetersburg:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC i386
bash-2.05b$

Firstly, having look at the change log, there has been a boat load of changes/additions given back to the community. I assume the only part that is proprietary is the interface, which, in the grand scheme of things isn't really the most sexiest piece of code on the planet.

As for the accusations that Apple is proprietary. Who cares? I think it is about time companies stood back and realised that cheap PC doesn't mean a reliable PC. Sure, I can get a $200 PC from some bargin basement store, however, will it run as reliably as Dell? hell no, because there has been a tonne of corners cut to reduce the cost of production.

As for the comment regarding Apple being so-called "proprietary", funny how I never hear any one moan about Compaq's weird and obscure BIOS or HP's "Firmware tweaks". The only people who are throwing the stones are the Johnny and Jane CheapSkates of the world who are a little pissed they can't build a wizzbang computer for 50cents out of dodgy parts from some dodgy cheapskate local PC store.

As for buying "quality PC's", you do a comparison and Apple only comes out $50 more expensive, HOWEVER, that doesn't take in account all the software and crap you get with the computer. Heck, I've just had a look at Dell, and talk about a bundle of sweet bugger all. Great, I am going to get excited about Windows XP + Works Suite? geepers, Bundle something that is atleast remotely tempting to the user.

As for the reason why Apples aren't in the majority. People are sheep. They follow the few uneducated leaders in society believing that unless they run what everyone else is running they're some how "different" and there for must be "evil".

re
by Art Vandelay on Wed 8th Jan 2003 02:15 UTC

[quote]"Safari delivers the attention to detail you expect from Apple. Take the space-saving progress bar integrated directly in the address field, for instance"

Now THATS innovation.

My browser has had that for what, 4+ years?[/quote]

Christ, you have to be a downer. On the Mac, no brower supported it. So get it through your head and complain somewhere else.

Indicator in the address bar?
by spider on Wed 8th Jan 2003 02:22 UTC

My browser has had that for what, 4+ years?

Share with us what browser that is, my company's been testing our hosted products on over 15 browsers over the past three years and I've never seen a browser with this feature. So pony up, which browser had this before Apple?

I have something else to add, I just saw TechTV's coverage on TechLive about MacWorld and they had a little poll asking what people thought of MacWorld and the choices were "Proud", "Dissappointed", "Who cares, I'm a Windows user" and the results were as follows;

52% Proud
5% Dissappointed
46% Don't care - windows users.

On another topic entirely:

I really have to ask, if only, what, 3% of the market is Mac users, how did 52% of those responding to the poll say they were 'Proud' to be MacHeads. I dunno. Then I got to thinking. All the normal stats on Market share is based on what else, but Sales right? Then I thought about the company I'm employed at, and all the companies that my company deals with. I've been through many a server room in the past two years and I've noticed that, yes, most computers are non-Apple. Not Windows either (Linux/FreeBSD mostly) but still non-Apple. And it dawned on me that those server rooms really skew the stats because while the server room are chock full of PC's there is only a few USERS of those computers, mainly the admins. Most of em are servers. I've seen many multimedia companies who have over 50 boxen running Linux as their servers yet there production team works on about 10 Macs, the office is MOSTLY Macs save the Linux servers. So what does this all mean? While I don't know how much the 'Official' market share would change but I would venture to guess that there are more than a mere 3-5% of ACTUALLY PEOPLE USING Macs than what the market share dictates. How many of these Gateways and Dell's are being shoved into server rooms and never touched by a REAL USER (clients to the server are not REAL PEOPLE users, they are dumb-terminals).

I Dunno, maybe Macheads simply like to respond to polls but really, how can over 50% say they were 'Proud' ? ? ?

Re: survey
by Anonymous on Wed 8th Jan 2003 02:29 UTC

More likely most Windows user did not care to respond to the poll.

the Safari
by JReZIN on Wed 8th Jan 2003 02:30 UTC

Ok, I'm testing it right now...

First of all, there's status bar... good (I don't click a link that I don't know where it will send me... =] ) It's always saying "Go to http://...", "Send e-mail to someone@somewhere...", "Run script..."... a kind of funny, but very usefull for starting users...
I got some problems acessing a https site, but it's a beta, so ok for now...
Unfortunally there's no shortcut to change between opened pages/windows...

About the SnapBack thing, I didn't test it yet, but you can mark a point to snapBack... so may could be actually usefull...

I've liked a of the Send bug feature... can send an screenshot of the current page and the url of that one... you can describe the problem very basically and so one...

Looks like could be a very good browser... but as it's for MacOS X... To me needs tabs... =]

Switching Windows
by Rob on Wed 8th Jan 2003 03:00 UTC

All Mac OS X applications have the ability to switch and cycle between their open windows. Just use Command + ` (that's the backquote), or Command + ~ (that's Shift + backquote) to cycle backwards. And, as previously mentioned, Command + Tab cycle through running apps.

-- Rob

To JReZIN
by Jasenko on Wed 8th Jan 2003 03:03 UTC

You can easily switch beetwen windows just as you did in IE using keyboard shortcut apple-`

Gecko
by boyo on Wed 8th Jan 2003 03:20 UTC

My suspicion is that they used khtml because its easy to embed (as a component). OTOH, the Mozilla project is just getting started on separating/creating the GRE (Gecko Runtime Engine).

Although by all accounts Gecko *is* way more standards complaint (this is not a knock against the KHTML guys) that's proabably the major reason why Apple went with KHTML.

Confused PC user
by Wayne on Wed 8th Jan 2003 03:26 UTC

> I bought a notebook with a 15' screen 1450x1050 almost a year ago for less than the 12' PowerBook and it have far more features and CPU speed than either of the new models. Almost a year ago... heh, time flies

It had a slot-loading DVD burner in it? 802.11g? Bluetooth? An equivalent graphics card? Illuminated keyboard? Firewire 800? No?

Oh, you meant, *roughly*, *kind of* equivalent, as most people do when comparing Yugos to BMWs or PCs to Macs.

> >new airport faster speed.

> ever head of 802.11a? that's what some of us have been using for quite some time. same thing. "fantastic innit?!"

You really have to read more. 802.11a is NOT compatible with 802.11b, which means that the speed is the same, but the usability -- and a laptop will be ported around to places where there are only 802.11b hubs -- is not nearly the same as Apple's move to 802.11g. (Not to mention, you could've gotten an 802.11a PC card for a Mac a long time ago, just as you did for your PC.)

Satchel
by Anonymous on Wed 8th Jan 2003 03:51 UTC

I must say I am excited by the 12'' tibook. I was actually desiring one before it existed. The Ibook sounded a little underpowered for me, and the 15'' tibook was too large (I like travelling light, and monitors and keyboards are not hard to find where I travel). Best of both worlds, you can now grab a powerful (enough for me) tibook in a 12'' form factor with an adequately long battery life for the price of a decked up ibook. wee !

Good news from MacWorld
by Jay on Wed 8th Jan 2003 04:07 UTC

Apple continues to put together a great package for Mac buyers. The integration of the iApps is another good step forward.

I think the 12" PowerBook is going to be red hot.

Safari- I've been using all evening and it definitely is beta. I, like many, was surprised they didn't go with Gecko. But, now Mac users have a nice duo with Chimera and Safari. Both will continue to improve and everyone wins.

Some of the things announced today are stunning. But, it is also stunning what was not announced...upgraded iMacs, the expansion of the iPod or a new digital lifestyle device. I think there are going to be announcements about these types of things, mayber even later this month (I hope). I really think this is going to be a big year for OS X and Apple generally.

First Take
by Herbert Gone on Wed 8th Jan 2003 04:08 UTC

It does seem fast for some reason. Interface is clean and has that google toolbar.. I'm sure I'll need Mozilla for some web pages, but this'll ween me further away from IE.

khtml option: it's politics not technology
by amilcarodonte on Wed 8th Jan 2003 04:12 UTC

I'm under the impression that Apple chose KHTML because adding such a big corporate support to gecko (i.e. Netscape-AOL's strategy) would have pissed off MS and wouldn't have made much sense also to keep apple independent. KHTML seems a relatively well-developed third party player that, added benefit, doesn't intend to compete openly with MS.

Now, the question I'm asking myself is if this KHTML option had something to do with opendarwin.org having a special KDE project... Signal of a tighter integration of MacOSX with the X11 world?

I'm sorry, I'm not a geek, all this may not make any sense from a techno p[oint of view...

simply godly
by Matt on Wed 8th Jan 2003 05:34 UTC

I was waiting for Steve Jobs to develop something to replace the horrible excuse of a internet browser, Internet Explorer. I don't know what Microsoft was thinking when designing and programming IE, but the Apple version was bad. I could never get a page to load correctly at all, it would always push text off the page, and load images where it wanted within the page.

I just loaded Safari, and thus far I love it. I'm inches away from totally deleting IE off my powerbook. But Safari is only a beta, so better be careful. Anyway, this browser has the best of Netscape, Microsoft, and Opera pushed all into one amazing piece of software. Much better then any linux browser I've worked with. I am very greatful Apple made this move. Even if they charge for this software, it is well worth the money!

Lets all remember Cyberdog
by Fed on Wed 8th Jan 2003 07:12 UTC

Lets all hope that this doesnt go the way of Cyberdog (dead). Cyberdog was superior to other browsers but Apple someone canned it. The introduction of Safari makes it more compelling to by a Mac.

Fed
by Jay on Wed 8th Jan 2003 07:15 UTC

Don't worry about that, Fed - Cyberdog was a casualty of OpenDoc.

RE: X11 for MacOS X
by Jason O'Neil on Wed 8th Jan 2003 07:29 UTC

Signal of a tighter integration of MacOSX with the X11 world?

Apple has also just released X11 for Mac, so Linux programs should run without too much trouble. I can't find the official link, but heres something:
http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0301/07.x11.php

About the browser, looks good, but I'm not a Mac user (But with all the news I've recieved today I must say that I'm entinced). I think it's good that they've used KHTML, even though I personally prefer gecko. This way there will be more competition, not only in front ends (Mozilla, Netscape, Phoenix, Galeon etc.), but also in the actual rendering of the page.

And if all the Mac users stop using IE, web designers might wake up and realize that they need to make standards compliant web pages. They seem to ignore complaints from Linux users, but Linux and Mac users combined?

Good
by k_semler on Wed 8th Jan 2003 07:46 UTC

Any compitition that MS has in the browser market is a good thing. Hopefully this will usher in an era of W3C HTML complant websites, I hope MSHTML gets eradicated from this planet.

Quote
by kma on Wed 8th Jan 2003 07:46 UTC

A buddy of mine talked to one of the developer of the Opera browser. He said that 10% of the time goes to follow the standard and the rest 90% goes to follow Microsofts Standard.

Btw, my impressions
by kma on Wed 8th Jan 2003 07:48 UTC

I don't care what render engine they use. Safari does pages that Chimera couldn't do. It had troubles with the that the Swedish language have. Well, I like it, then I'll use it.

Browser emulation
by ~CdBee~ on Wed 8th Jan 2003 07:54 UTC

Can Safari emulate MSIE for compatibility purposes? I find a lot of sites don't like Opera when set to identify as such - although ID'ing as MSIE5 gets by just fine.

For example, signing into eBay with a Passport.. yes I know I should know better! - doesnt work with Opera 6 unless I set ID as MSIE

Huh?
by Mike Hearn on Wed 8th Jan 2003 09:29 UTC

Any compitition that MS has in the browser market is a good thing. Hopefully this will usher in an era of W3C HTML complant websites, I hope MSHTML gets eradicated from this planet.

They seem to ignore complaints from Linux users, but Linux and Mac users combined?

What? Statistically nobody uses Macs at all, ditto for Konqueror. Microsoft has the browser market locked down completely, Mozilla has been better than IE for quite some time now, but at the end of the day most people don't care enough about the browser to bother replacing it.

In terms of web standards, this announcement means nothing.

Firstly, having look at the change log, there has been a boat load of changes/additions given back to the community.

Perhaps, but Jordan Hubbard himself said there had been only a few minor patches and some test suites contributed back. Ironically, KHTML is probably going to end up getting far more important and useful contributions back than FreeBSD.

I assume the only part that is proprietary is the interface, which, in the grand scheme of things isn't really the most sexiest piece of code on the planet.

No disrespect, but you should learn more about the internals. It's practically all proprietary. No, not just Aqua, huge amounts of system code too:

- Quartz
- Aqua
- CoreAudio
- IOKit
- API Services
- GUI applets (menu bar/dock/control panel etc)

OS X is a proprietary platform. I don't understand why some people persist in thinking it's open source.

As for the accusations that Apple is proprietary. Who cares?

Er, me? Have we really learnt sod all from the last decade? Jobs would turn into the next Gates in the blink of an eye if we let him, probably worse, at least Gates doesn't have an ego the size of a house. Not that it matters what I think, the economy cares - proprietary tends to lose, quality regardless (vhs vs betamax, pc vs mac etc).

As for buying "quality PC's", you do a comparison and Apple only comes out $50 more expensive

I suggest you study their hardware margins, and the margins of their PC counterparts. Macs are overpriced, nobody can deny that. Yes, even the iMac. No, arbitrarily saying an iMac processor is equivalent to a 1.5ghz pentium or whatever does not make them cost equivalent unless all you do is run 2 photoshop plugins all day, over and over.

As for the reason why Apples aren't in the majority. People are sheep.

We have left reality completely, and are now in the realm of total fantasy. Apple aren't in the majority because they have a business model that doesn't let them be in the majority. Their customers seem to be mostly made up of people who have convinced themselves they are paying over the odds for an exclusive quality piece of kit, or something. That's arguable. What isn't really arguable is that Apple market themselves as the Rolls Royce of computing meaning they are forever destined to be a minority platform. Apple once had 40% market share yes? Something like that. Ponder the reasons why today it's more like 0.4% (for macos x).

To Jasenko
by JReZIN on Wed 8th Jan 2003 09:39 UTC

Tks for all the help... =]

Actually I know that shotcut too... Actually it's CMD+~, in US keyboard the ~ is with `, usually before the "1/!" key... but here in my brazilian keyboard it's near the enter key... and changing to international keymap it goes to a weird key near the left shift... damn weird keyboard layout from Apple Brazil... =]
I used this shortcut a lot in the college's Macs... but here and also with new college's macs this weird keyboard layout makes it a bit less usefull... But I still using it with IE, I just don't use it at all anymore, just for a few sites, for compatibily measures...

Too bad that Safari doesn't have yet any shotcut at all for window switching... = Anyone knows if I can do that in AppleScript or something similar? =]

Window switching within Safari
by Richard McPike on Wed 8th Jan 2003 11:21 UTC

Just like any other Mac OS X application, JReZIN, to switch between open windows in Sufari, you press Apple-~. Apple and the key above your Tab key. In all OS X compliant programs, this will shuffle you between open windows. That's how you swap windows in Sufari. It's a basic OS X UI feature.

Re: Wayne - Confused PC user
by Chreo on Wed 8th Jan 2003 11:29 UTC

>> I bought a notebook with a 15' screen 1450x1050 almost a year ago for less than the 12' PowerBook and it have far more features and CPU speed than either of the new models. Almost a year ago... heh, time flies

>It had a slot-loading DVD burner in it? 802.11g? Bluetooth? An equivalent graphics card? Illuminated keyboard? Firewire 800? No?

>Oh, you meant, *roughly*, *kind of* equivalent, as most people do when comparing Yugos to BMWs or PCs to Macs.

No it doesn't have illuminated keyboard Question? is the signs on the keys illuminated also because just illuminating the edges of the keys is not helpful (missed that part of the presentation). No it doesn't have an DVD burner inside but then again so doesn't the 12" PowerBook in standard edition either. You have to pay extra for that and then the 12" PowerBook is way more expensive than my notebook. AND my notebook have a 15" screen which is worth way more than a superdrive. Why? Cos I can buy an external DVD burner but upgrading the screen is harder while still remaining mobile. An my notebook cost $1799 a year ago and you get an even more powerful solution today for the same money or the same config for far less.
FireWire 800? No that wasn't available a year ago... even on the PowerBooks then. Bluetooth was also not available builtin either on PowerBooks or PCs. I bought a USB-Bluetooth thingy instead which doesn't use any power unless plugged in. Not a big gripe.

Have you even looked at the placement of the keyboard on the PowerBook. You have to have your hands right up to the screen when typing and the keyboard size is smaller than on my notebook which I think is bad. The keyboards on notebooks are small the way they are anyway.

> >new airport faster speed.

> ever head of 802.11a? that's what some of us have been using for quite some time. same thing. "fantastic innit?!"

>You really have to read more. 802.11a is NOT compatible
>with 802.11b, which means that the speed is the same,
>but the usability -- and a laptop will be ported around
>to places where there are only 802.11b hubs -- is not
>nearly the same as Apple's move to 802.11g.
>(Not to mention, you could've gotten an 802.11a PC card
>for a Mac a long time ago, just as you did for your PC.)

I never said it was compatible. What I meant was that it has the same speed. And FYI my notebook is dually 802.11b AS WELL AS 802.11a. And what's the point with the builtin 802.11b if you're gonna put out extra for an PC Card to get 802.11a?

Re: Wayne - Confused PC user
by Chreo on Wed 8th Jan 2003 11:32 UTC

Oh forgot to add that my notebook have ATI Radeon 7500 for graphics and the same model today have ATI Radeon 9000 which is more powerful than the Geforce 420. The Geforce4Go wasn't available a year ago either.

what?
by Jason on Wed 8th Jan 2003 12:00 UTC

"And FYI my notebook is dually 802.11b AS WELL AS 802.11a."

Your laptop came with built-in b and a tech? What model was that, cuz I sure as heck have never seen it.

It's nice
by Geoffrey Clements on Wed 8th Jan 2003 13:14 UTC

Been using Safari for the last half hour. It's pretty nice. The only two comments I have is the switch between bookmarks panel and browser panel was a bit confusing at first and the up and down arrows on the scrollbars needs to jump by a bit more. Otherwise, I like it.

geoff

BSD vs (L)GPL
by Tim Jansen on Wed 8th Jan 2003 14:12 UTC

> Perhaps, but Jordan Hubbard himself said there had been only a few
> minor patches and some test suites contributed back. Ironically, KHTML is
> probably going to end up getting far more important and useful
> contributions back than FreeBSD.

Yes, that's the advantage of the (L)GPL. BSD-licenses are more business friendly, but they don't require companies to contribute back. And depending on what you do with the code, it can even cost a lot of time/money to contribute code back, at least if you don't want to disclose your additions.

BTW khtml hackers are already porting patches from Safari to khtml.


Never satisfied....
by Blackthought on Wed 8th Jan 2003 15:30 UTC

I've read many comments on here about how much Apple sucks and they really don't give back to the open source community, and they refuse to open up their some their software (quartz extreme, quicktime, etc...)

Man, it sounds like you guys are never satisfied. Of course Apple isn't going to open up a lot of their technologies..they are in the business of making money. They have to keep somethings to themselves to keep a competitive advantage.
Also, Apple will never port quicktime. The GPL gets in the way. Remember a lot of Quicktime is licsensed software (MPEG-4) that Apple pays the royalities for. If Red Hat wants to pay the royalties and develop their own stnadard then fine.

*yawn*
by Anonymous on Wed 8th Jan 2003 16:00 UTC

new browswer big deal. i would rate apple's stock as a sell

Reality check.
by BR on Wed 8th Jan 2003 17:18 UTC

[Mike Hearn]
>Any compitition that MS has in the browser market is a good >thing. Hopefully this will usher in an era of W3C HTML >complant websites, I hope MSHTML gets eradicated from this >planet.

>They seem to ignore complaints from Linux users, but Linux >and Mac users combined?

"What? Statistically nobody uses Macs at all, ditto for Konqueror. Microsoft has the browser market locked down completely, Mozilla has been better than IE for quite some time now, but at the end of the day most people don't care enough about the browser to bother replacing it.

In terms of web standards, this announcement means nothing."

But they don't have the *server* "locked down". A VERY important fact. Standards would have disappeared long ago, otherwise. This anouncement reenforces the other side of the standards equation.

[Blackthought]
Repeat after me, Sorenson. That's ALL. And no the GPL doesn't get in the way. Your being disingenious here.
Two things. Plugins, and "other licenses".

My take on Safari
by rajan r on Wed 8th Jan 2003 17:29 UTC

Gawd, the metalic browsers. Isn't iLife enough? If I was to use the Mac, I would take that KHTML source and write my very own front end because as the most used app, I wouldn't want metallic browsers.

But I'm really interested in those PowerBooks...

appleforever: Apple is rocking again, and again, and again. By the way, the keynote:

Apple made a front end and improved KHTML, while made a presentation software. how hard is that>

appleforever: browser that has an awesome interface (except no tabs) and speed.

Awesome? Well, maybe for you. But I notice they don't have a benchmark against Opera itself..

appleforever: Also, a 17 incher. Firewire 2 on that one.

Yes, I can just count the amount of times I needed Firewire 2 and needed to buy a PMCIA card for my laptop... not.

appleforever: When will people just give up and give Apple's it's due.

When will Mac zealots just give up and give PC's it's due?

appleforever: Guess what, quality and innovation costs money.

Well, I would detest on quality. It is put together by the same people then put together PCs in Taiwan. But innovation - people don't want that, they want things that can improve their life.

Devon: KHTML based. You must be kidding Jobs.

What is soooo bad with KHTML?

My take on Safari
by rajan r on Wed 8th Jan 2003 17:29 UTC

Gawd, the metalic browsers. Isn't iLife enough? If I was to use the Mac, I would take that KHTML source and write my very own front end because as the most used app, I wouldn't want metallic browsers.

But I'm really interested in those PowerBooks...

appleforever: Apple is rocking again, and again, and again. By the way, the keynote:

Apple made a front end and improved KHTML, while made a presentation software. how hard is that>

appleforever: browser that has an awesome interface (except no tabs) and speed.

Awesome? Well, maybe for you. But I notice they don't have a benchmark against Opera itself..

appleforever: Also, a 17 incher. Firewire 2 on that one.

Yes, I can just count the amount of times I needed Firewire 2 and needed to buy a PMCIA card for my laptop... not.

appleforever: When will people just give up and give Apple's it's due.

When will Mac zealots just give up and give PC's it's due?

appleforever: Guess what, quality and innovation costs money.

Well, I would detest on quality. It is put together by the same people then put together PCs in Taiwan. But innovation - people don't want that, they want things that can improve their life.

Devon: KHTML based. You must be kidding Jobs.

What is soooo bad with KHTML?

Re: Good
by rajan r on Wed 8th Jan 2003 17:53 UTC

Any compitition that MS has in the browser market is a good thing. Hopefully this will usher in an era of W3C HTML complant websites, I hope MSHTML gets eradicated from this planet.

Actaully, for a long long time, IE was the most compliant browser. Now, they haven't updated MSHTML for a couple of years already, except for minor features. Maybe IE 7.0 would herald a big change, *if* it is released.

However, you must realize that MSHTML is based on Mosaic. At some point of its life, it is bound to face the problems Netscape had with its Mosaic-based rendering engine. Maybe Microsoft is rewriting... who knows?

Re: My take on Safari
by nnooiissee on Wed 8th Jan 2003 21:29 UTC

Gawd, the metalic browsers. Isn't iLife enough? If I was to use the Mac, I would take that KHTML source and write my very own front end because as the most used app, I wouldn't want metallic browsers.

I tried Safari without the texturing, and it was good. If you have project builder you can change it yourself, otherwise just ask and I can send you the modified file (< 24K).

Apple made a front end and improved KHTML, while made a presentation software. how hard is that

Other than the front end they are something no one on *nix has done. ;-)

I wish Apple had Open Sourced their PP import/export code, but they didn't. I am hoping they did a good job with their file format which could be a much greater gift. Hopefully some Free projects will see fit to support Apple's new open file format, and maybe even adopt it as their native format. Of course my fear is that this file format could be as poorly designed as I hear OO's is.

Awesome? Well, maybe for you. But I notice they don't have a benchmark against Opera itself..

Yep. Or OmniWeb. And they didn't optimally configure Chimera . Safari wins in Back/Forward speed, hands down, but over a 56K line it is no great performer in fetch speed. Pipelining and maybe a few other tweaks might hit it by the true 1.0, but I'm not too hopeful as Apple's support for modem users is nearly as bad a *nix's.

When will Mac zealots just give up and give PC's it's due?

Show me a PC and I will give it its due. The question is far to broad.

But innovation - people don't want that, they want things that can improve their life.

And MicroSoft doesn't give them either. =D

What is soooo bad with KHTML?

Don't know. Maybe its small size? Maybe its LGPL which forces Apple to only release changes to it and not their entire code base? Maybe because it is a small project with no other big corporate sponsors to fight?

I'm mildly annoyed that Mozilla doesn't have another sponsor (except it does since they are paying Hyatt and that allows him to continue developing on Mozilla/Chimera). I'm also mildly annoyed that Apple is supporting KDE rather than GNOME, but it has been pointed out many times that K is more corporate friendly (despite more companies throwing developers at GNOME). But I think this is by far the best choice for Apple, and for those still using Mac OS X's IE. To me Safari does not seem to be targeted at Mozilla/Chimera/Netscape/OmniWeb/Opera users, just IE. Furthermore, for most IE users it is a better program.

Actually, for a long long time, IE was the most compliant browser. Now, they haven't updated MSHTML for a couple of years already, except for minor features. Maybe IE 7.0 would herald a big change, *if* it is released.

Yep, and the Mac version(s) actually fix a couple of bugs that MS didn't see fit to fix on Windows. Even if it is the best, that is no reason to let it be the only.

However, you must realize that MSHTML is based on Mosaic. At some point of its life, it is bound to face the problems Netscape had with its Mosaic-based rendering engine. Maybe Microsoft is rewriting... who knows?

Interesting, although I thought MS did a major rewrite of their rendering engine.

Well, I installed (or downloaded, since there is no installer - good play, Apple!) Safari and I like its speed. Granted, it fails to work on so many pages (yes I know about the Bug button, but when it cannot be reliably reproduced, and it's a hard crash, reporting things with that button doesn't offer much hope and is often not possible).

I still have to use IE. Slow and such, but it crashes far far less. Sad. I have yet to use a single piece of open source software that is both stable AND fast. It's usually one or the other or neither.

=D
by aphex on Thu 9th Jan 2003 04:23 UTC

Would be nice to see it on BeOS =)

PC's
by appleforever on Thu 9th Jan 2003 06:48 UTC

rajan: "When will Mac zealots just give up and give PC's it's due?"

Actually, we do it all the time: windows PCs are cheaper, windows PCs are faster, windows PCs have more games, windows PCs have the more unusual software titles (for lack of a better term). there

But we don't care about the money, the speed is fast enough (and we've just had a rough patch here that will be ending), we don't play games all day and finally, the last one is the only one that really matters - it's the only downside I can possibly find to the mac. But it has lots of software PC users can only hope for at some date in the future

Linux is a separate issue. I like linux a ton because it, not the mac, is the only hope for dealing with MS the big fat monopoly that makes crud.

Re: PC's
by rajan r on Thu 9th Jan 2003 14:18 UTC

I'm not going to say that Apple have no competitive egde. Their userbase obviously bought Apple for some of their own reasons. My point is that you complain about us complaining about Apple, but you complain a lot about PCs and Microsoft.

Besides, I like Linux because of its unique capabilities, not because I hate Microsoft. I don't hate Microsoft. Albeit if I was running Microsoft, a lot of things would change and those changes would bring in even more profit without pissing off customers..

Besides, I can't comment on how good Safari is because I haven't used it. But the fact that it is a brush metal app turns me down almost completely. And if what they say is true that tabs don't exist on Safari, there is practically nothing to go celebrating for.

Besides, to note, all the software I use have a version for the Mac, and I hardly play games (well, hardly is a understatement...). I use PCs mainly because I can decide how good it is made. What parts should I use. But ultimately for speed.

Even now, I want to get a faster machine.

Re: Re: My take on Safari
by rajan r on Thu 9th Jan 2003 14:38 UTC

I tried Safari without the texturing, and it was good. If you have project builder you can change it yourself, otherwise just ask and I can send you the modified file (< 24K).

I don't have to use Visual Basic to change IE's look that goes against Windows HI Guidelines, now would I? Out of the box, for something made for consumers, they are better off laying off the brushed metal for ALL their apps. Or put brush metal for EVERYTHING. They have been the biggest proponent of consistency, what's wrong with this picture?

Other than the front end they are something no one on *nix has done. ;-)

Oh really? Things like OpenPresenter and KPresenter don't exist?

I am hoping they did a good job with their file format which could be a much greater gift.

So at first you say Keynote's format is good, yet..

Of course my fear is that this file format could be as poorly designed as I hear OO's is.

... you fear it is not good at all. Besides, OOo's XML file formats isn't all that bad. It is at least human-readable. Anyway, I'm against a unified file format. Maybe export and import filters, but that's it.

Show me a PC and I will give it its due.

Are you saying that you never saw a PC before?

And MicroSoft doesn't give them either. =D

Actually, Microsoft gives the latter, things that improves people's life. For example, go to a randomly picked company that uses Windows workstations. Go over to a secretary's workstation and see how well and fast she uses Office.

So maybe for you Microsoft provides neither, but for many they provide the latter. For some, they provide both.

Maybe its small size?

What's so bad about that?

Maybe its LGPL which forces Apple to only release changes to it and not their entire code base?

And how this differ from Gecko? Besides, I don't see this as a bad thing. Linux is definately going to be the second most used OS. While Konqueror, IMHO (there is, obviously, no real numbers) have been growing in popularity and is around No. 2 or 3, so they could benefit from having the same rendering engine as Konqueror.

Plus the fact that KHTML is portable due to Qt.

I'm also mildly annoyed that Apple is supporting KDE rather than GNOME

They support neither. They could have used GtkHtml, but that would be so dumb there isn't a proper word to call it.

Furthermore, for most IE users it is a better program.

Except for those using OS 9, which IE is really probably their best choice (there are more OS 9 users than OS X). Besides, there is rumours Microsoft would be release IE 6.0. Maybe that would be rather major..

Yep, and the Mac version(s) actually fix a couple of bugs that MS didn't see fit to fix on Windows.

Well, to point out that IE for Mac uses a rather different rendering engine than IE for Windows. Albeit both are still based on Mosaic.

Interesting, although I thought MS did a major rewrite of their rendering engine.

Well, go to Help > About IE and there is this passage "Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"

They are supposed pay a certain percentage of royalty to NCSA, but since IE was released as free, guess NCSA didn't earn anything. But then accroading to all pro-Windows sites, MSN Explorer would be the new IE, and there's a charge for MSN Explorer, so I guess royalties..

look no further
by jens on Thu 9th Jan 2003 21:50 UTC

just downloaded and tried safari today and have to say that this browser kicks all others ass right here, period.

Re: Re: Re: My take on Safari
by nnooiissee on Fri 10th Jan 2003 05:15 UTC

I don't have to use Visual Basic to change IE's look that goes against Windows HI Guidelines, now would I? Out of the box, for something made for consumers, they are better off laying off the brushed metal for ALL their apps. Or put brush metal for EVERYTHING. They have been the biggest proponent of consistency, what's wrong with this picture?


As far as I know IE is uncustomizable, aside from displaying a picture behind the toolbars. But anyway, it was just an offer. I can work with the native Aqua, or the textured version. I really don't care. IMHO Java's Metal theme is about as good as it gets. The only thing I am protective of is Modern (although Orbit can be nice): I like knowing that my browser will have the same look wherever I am.

Oh really? Things like OpenPresenter and KPresenter don't exist?

Hadn't looked at OpenPresenter or KPresenter. KPresenter looks rudimentary and doesn't seem to have had any activity in the last four months, and I couldn't find anything on OpenPresentor on OO.org or google.

So at first you say Keynote's format is good, yet you fear it is not good at all. Besides, OOo's XML file formats isn't all that bad. It is at least human-readable. Anyway, I'm against a unified file format. Maybe export and import filters, but that's it.

I'm saying that I think it is a good thing that Apple is using an open format for Keynote's files, but I haven't seen any of its files. I hope they did a good enough job to be worthy of copying.

Not sure what you are refering to as a "unified file format." Something like MS Office or OOo with mixed WP and spread sheet and more data in one file? If so then I agree with you.

Are you saying that you never saw a PC before?

Alienware's computers must suck because HP makes sucky computers. Dell's computers must be small and quiet because I saw this computer with a ATA Flex motherboard and it was so small!

If you want me to make a blanket statement about PCs than I will be going with "PCs suck." I could say about anything about them and have it be true. How about PCs are cool because they have coper cases (yes, I have seen one): that is really giving them their due.

All I'm saying is it is like asking me my oppinion of matter.

For some, they provide both.

Fair enough.

From my post:
Don't know. Maybe its small size? Maybe its LGPL which forces Apple to only release changes to it and not their entire code base? Maybe because it is a small project with no other big corporate sponsors to fight?

I hope you realized I was completely joking here. I'm going to take all of your arguments against my arguments as jokes.

Except for those using OS 9, which IE is really probably their best choice (there are more OS 9 users than OS X).

Yeah. Except that Safari isn't competing for OS 9 users: it is OS X only.

Besides, there is rumours Microsoft would be release IE 6.0. Maybe that would be rather major..

And maybe Safari has helped to spur them on. Safari is here now, IE 6 isn't (here being relative).

Well, to point out that IE for Mac uses a rather different rendering engine than IE for Windows. Albeit both are still based on Mosaic.

That is about what I thought. OTOH, it is possible that IE is close to a total rewrite now.

They are supposed pay a certain percentage of royalty to NCSA, but since IE was released as free, guess NCSA didn't earn anything. But then accroading to all pro-Windows sites, MSN Explorer would be the new IE, and there's a charge for MSN Explorer, so I guess royalties..

Ha! Deal with the devil and you are going to get burned.

Re: nnooiissee
by Datschge on Fri 10th Jan 2003 05:15 UTC

"(...) but it has been pointed out many times that K is more corporate friendly (despite more companies throwing developers at GNOME)."

Indeed? Where did who point that out? I'm getting the impression that KDE is pretty much unorganized as a whole and everything is more or less a mixed bag where some small companies participate as well. But as a whole there's still no common movement or anything I could see to fit calling as "corporate friendly" or any other attribute. Care to enlighten me?

konqueror
by nuno on Thu 16th Jan 2003 02:39 UTC

No it is not based on mozilla.
It is a Konqueror from KDE 3.0.2
Now apple must give somthing back to the linux.........................
Quicktime ???? on linux ....