Safari GM? [Archive] - MacRumors Forums

Mineral

May 22, 2003, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Harrell
:rolleyes: For instance?

Well...

When you are uploading multiple documents, instead of taking you back to the folder you're uploading from it defaults back to the desktop. This is SO frustrating.

Some HTML codes involving layers of scrolling text still don't work in Safari.

When logged in as an admin for a board I work on, I keep having to re-enter passwords to do anything because my session "times out".. I end up having to do it in Mozilla.

Time-outs when trying to upload big files.

A few sites (such as my college's email website) don't let me use Safari, because they say they only accept IE and Netscape. Is there no way Safari can "trick" sites into thinking it is IE or Netscape?

If they can fix these minor glitches I'll be happy. Don't get me wrong.. I love Safari and will delete IE for good when it is done in a ritualistic fashion. I use Safari 95% of the time (with the metal look disabled) ;)

Sonofhaig

May 22, 2003, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Shadowfax
dear god.

The "G" in GOD should be capitalized. (It's a sign of respect)
Otherwise, (My opinion) don't use the word....

Hawthorne

May 22, 2003, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Mineral

A few sites (such as my college's email website) don't let me use Safari, because they say they only accept IE and Netscape. Is there no way Safari can "trick" sites into thinking it is IE or Netscape?

Yes, there is (http://macupdate.com/info.php/id/10607) . Works like a charm, too. Just choose "User Agent" under the Debug menu, even gives you Windoze IE 6.0 as an option. Works around sites who's developers are too lazy to write a real browser detection script.

Dave_B

May 22, 2003, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Harrell
:rolleyes: For instance?

It seems to have a problem with frames and sundry smaller html rendering issues which I'm sure we've all come across and reported to apple.

He's not saying Safari isn't a nice browser just that, as is, its a beta.

Wonder Boy

May 22, 2003, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Mineral
I use Safari 95% of the time (with the metal look disabled) ;)

HOW! HOW! HOW!
Stop toying with me and please tell me how to disable the metal. I HATE it. god so i hate it.

If you tell me, Ill dance at your wedding.<-- What movie?

Thanks

ZildjianKX

May 22, 2003, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Sonofhaig
The "G" in GOD should be capitalized. (It's a sign of respect)
Otherwise, (My opinion) don't use the word....

Some cultures say you shouldn't spell out "GOD"... its a sign of respect (G-D)... so otherwise don't use it...

jeez, its a bulletin board, take it EZ man.

I'm slightly fearful of browser integration with OS 10.3... but it can be pretty cool if its done right.

chibianh

May 22, 2003, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Sonofhaig
The "G" in GOD should be capitalized. (It's a sign of respect)
Otherwise, (My opinion) don't use the word....

depends whether he was referring to God or if he was just referring to a god.

Bozola

May 22, 2003, 01:26 PM

The real question is...

Will it cost money?

Jeff Harrell

May 22, 2003, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by Mineral
When you are uploading multiple documents, instead of taking you back to the folder you're uploading from it defaults back to the desktop. This is SO frustrating.
Check out the "From:" popup menu. See that down there at the bottom? "Recent Places." You'll find the last folder you used in that list.

Some HTML codes involving layers of scrolling text still don't work in Safari.
Sure. Every browser falls down on some combination of HTML or other. That's the nature of the beast. HTML is designed to be a "fail gracefully" scheme, such that a parser that doesn't recognize a combination of markup will simply try to render it as best it can anyway. Because there are no hard-and-fast rules for what must and what musn't work, you can break a browser's renderer with bad HTML.

The question is whether Safari's failures are significant or not. Everybody's entitled to an opinion on this, of course, but we all have to agree that they're getting less and less significant every day.

When logged in as an admin for a board I work on, I keep having to re-enter passwords to do anything because my session "times out".. I end up having to do it in Mozilla.
Sounds like a problem with the site to me. Session handling is all done at the server end. The only thing the browser does is send the right cookie at the right time.

Time-outs when trying to upload big files.
Okay, I'll give you that one. Certain operations should be cancellable but should never time out.

A few sites (such as my college's email website) don't let me use Safari, because they say they only accept IE and Netscape.
Which has, of course, nothing whatsoever to do with Safari.

If they can fix these minor glitches I'll be happy.
It sounds to me like there's one minor glitch: timeouts. You should be happy already.

celaurie

May 22, 2003, 01:29 PM

Wow, this latest seed is certainly difficult to pin down...

Hawthorne

May 22, 2003, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by chibianh
depends whether he was referring to God or if he was just referring to a god.

"Ray, if someone asks you if you're a god, SAY YES!" ;)

hazmat

May 22, 2003, 01:31 PM

Mineral: as for the timeouts, go to http://unsanity.com/haxies/ and get SafariNoTimeout.

Sonofhaig: Don't assume everyone has respect for that. Plus that phrase has become a commonplance expression in the English language.

senjaz

May 22, 2003, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Mineral
I don't see how it could be nearly ready.

There's still so many things it doesn't do right.

Given that anyone can check out Dave Hyatt's 'blog to see how Safari is progressing Think Secret's report is totally feasible.

Right now you can comment on what you want implemented next - all of them advanced stuff that really isn't supported well in any browser with the exception of XLST.

http://www.mozillazine.org/weblogs/hyatt/

Mineral

May 22, 2003, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Harrell
Check out the "From:" popup menu. See that down there at the bottom? "Recent Places." You'll find the last folder you used in that list.

Down there at the bottom of what? Why doesn't it default to the last folder I used like.. dare I say.. IE? My point is, it takes me 5 times as long to upload stuff from Safari because I have to dig through all my folders every single time I choose a file. :mad:

Originally posted by Jeff Harrell
Sounds like a problem with the site to me. Session handling is all done at the server end. The only thing the browser does is send the right cookie at the right time.

Uh.. then why does it work with every other browser on my Mac? :confused: :mad:

Originally posted by Jeff Harrell
It sounds to me like there's one minor glitch: timeouts. You should be happy already.

:rolleyes: I guess you can't read. I love Safari.

boskie

May 22, 2003, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Sonofhaig
The "G" in GOD should be capitalized. (It's a sign of respect)
Otherwise, (My opinion) don't use the word....

I really don't mind how you say/spell/burp my name (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23787&highlight=google), just as long as you do it with feeling and conviction - or to Hell with you!!

evilfunkgenius

May 22, 2003, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Bozola
The real question is...

Will it cost money?

I think the question is more acurately, when will it start costing money and how much will it cost?

AppleMatt

May 22, 2003, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Mineral
I don't see how it could be nearly ready.

Because Apple's timeline was to finish all developments on Panther by the end of May, then work on optimising it for until it goes GM. Safari is a part of Panther, therefore Safari hits GM at the same time as iChat 2, Mail 2 etc etc

Originally posted by celaurie
Wow, this latest seed is certainly difficult to pin down...

IF you find it, you jeapordise the new "micro seeding" program Apple has kindly brought back. This seeding program speeds up development time and brings ALL OF US a better browser, faster. Please consider this.

AppleMatt

Jeff Harrell

May 22, 2003, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Mineral
Down there at the bottom of what? Why doesn't it default to the last folder I used like.. dare I say.. IE?
Because then there would be somebody else on here complaining about how the dialog doesn't remember your documents folder. With things like this it's a crap shoot. The computer cannot read your mind. It has no particular reason to think that you'd want to pick a file from the same folder twice in a row, because as often as you do that others do the opposite thing. So the right answer is to pick one default or the other and then make it convenient for the user to choose the other option. I.e., the Recent Places feature. Try it.

My point is, it takes me 5 times as long to upload stuff from Safari because I have to dig through all my folders every single time I choose a file.
Yes. And my point is that you don't have to dig through anything. Use the dialog. That's what it's there for.

Uh.. then why does it work with every other browser on my Mac?
Haven't the foggiest. This isn't really a troubleshooting session; if it were, I'd need a lot more information from you. I'm simply saying that at first pass it doesn't sound like that COULD be a Safari problem. Though of course if I don't have all the facts, my first blush opinion doesn't count for much.

I guess you can't read. I love Safari.
Hey, man, I was just responding to the part where you said that you would be happy IF Apple fixed a bunch of things that sounded like a combination of server problems and user error to me.

Jeff Harrell

May 22, 2003, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by AppleMatt
Safari is a part of Panther, therefore Safari hits GM at the same time as iChat 2, Mail 2 etc etc

Oooh. Oooh. Mail 2. Oooh.

Don't get me wrong. Mail is a fantastic program. I really have to say that I think it's one of the best OS X programs out there, especially considering it's remained largely unchanged on the surface since the early days. It's just that I can imagine a lot of nifty things, and I'm anxious to see what Apple has in store.

hazmat

May 22, 2003, 02:01 PM

The timeout is a Safari issue. See my link to Unsanity earlier in the thread.

Dont Hurt Me

May 22, 2003, 02:03 PM

Cant wait, really like safari except for 1 little thing. It cant seem to put my weather maps in motion, if Apple can fix that i will delete explorer and pretend it never was on my mac.

mactastic

May 22, 2003, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Bozola
The real question is...

Will it cost money?

I can't imagine it will. When was the last time anyone paid for a browser? But you will have to have at least 10.2, and that costs money, so it's not like it's totally free.

jelloshotsrule

May 22, 2003, 02:18 PM

not a sarcastic question... looking for people smarter than me to give some insight:

what does integrating a browser with the OS allow one to do? what type of features that wouldn't otherwise be possible? etc.

thanks

hazmat

May 22, 2003, 02:19 PM

When people say that Safari will be bundled with 10.3, I think it more the same way as IE has been. I don't think it's like Microsoft did with IE and Windows.

julzmon

May 22, 2003, 02:24 PM

Unless they fix tons of things in Safari. It will come out half done when they release it.
I love Safari and use it all the time. But there are way... to many things to fix and have working for it to be out in a month.

2 things top of my head
changing cursors + tons of little CCS stuff

java uploading like create your own iCards

A@ron

May 22, 2003, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule

what does integrating a browser with the OS allow one to do? what type of features that wouldn't otherwise be possible? etc.

Well for one the help app could use safari as the help files are html based already (IIRC) this would greatly speed up help as it is dog slow at the moment. In addition, it may be nice to have dock integration with web bookmarks. Store all your safari bookmarks in the dock, option click to open the bookmarks folder, and select the one you want (I bet this is already possible actually).

A@ron

mactastic

May 22, 2003, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
not a sarcastic question... looking for people smarter than me to give some insight:

what does integrating a browser with the OS allow one to do? what type of features that wouldn't otherwise be possible? etc.

thanks

It allows you to have a monopoly with your OS, forces everyone to use your software, and to take over the world! HAHAHAHAHA
Sorry, that was a sarcastic answer:D

hazmat

May 22, 2003, 02:28 PM

Oh, speed. I think Camino is still faster.

Bengt77

May 22, 2003, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Sonofhaig
The "G" in GOD should be capitalized. (It's a sign of respect)
Otherwise, (My opinion) don't use the word....

The capital M in 'My opinion' is a sign of respect towards yourself, or what?!

:rolleyes:

Bengt77

May 22, 2003, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
I can't imagine it will. When was the last time anyone paid for a browser? But you will have to have at least 10.2, and that costs money, so it's not like it's totally free.

I bought a license for OmniWeb when it was the only alternative to IE. I gladly did, and I'm still glad I did, for it (OmniWeb) is rapidly shaping up to again be the wonder of a browser it once was. Check out their so-called 'Sneaky Peeks (http://www.omnigroup.com/ftp/pub/software/MacOSX/.sneakypeek/)'.

:cool:

JohnHummel

May 22, 2003, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by hazmat
When people say that Safari will be bundled with 10.3, I think it more the same way as IE has been. I don't think it's like Microsoft did with IE and Windows.

Probably what's going to happen is that Safari will become the default browser, thereby "bundled" with the operating system.

After Safari, if you want IE, go download it yourself. It will be the next step in Apple throwing Microsoft off its back (the one after this will be iWork).

Bengt77

May 22, 2003, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Mineral
Down there at the bottom of what? Why doesn't it default to the last folder I used like.. dare I say.. IE?

Whow; something must have been changed in the Matrix. Definitely a Deja-Whatever!

:rolleyes:

redAPPLE

May 22, 2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Harrell
:rolleyes: For instance?

i use Zope for web revisions and Safari does not store the revisions as it should...

oh well, it does not mean, when Safari reaches 1.0, that i would stop using Camino, once the "Safari" goes wild... :o

Jaykay

May 22, 2003, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Wonder Boy
HOW! HOW! HOW!
Stop toying with me and please tell me how to disable the metal. I HATE it. god so i hate it.

If you tell me, Ill dance at your wedding.<-- What movie?

Thanks

How about this http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22663&highlight=safari+metal+look

coolfactor

May 22, 2003, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Mineral
Down there at the bottom of what? Why doesn't it default to the last folder I used like.. dare I say.. IE? My point is, it takes me 5 times as long to upload stuff from Safari because I have to dig through all my folders every single time I choose a file. :mad:

I agree that it should remember the last folder used, but for now, pull down the 'From' menu in the Choose File dialog box, and you'll see all the recent folders you've used. Definitely not 5 extra steps.

Uh.. then why does it work with every other browser on my Mac? :confused: :mad:

Is your Safari configured to accept cookies properly? All session-based sites have worked flawlessly for me... even my bank!

:rolleyes: I guess you can't read. I love Safari.

Me too! :cool:

AppleMatt

May 22, 2003, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by hazmat
When people say that Safari will be bundled with 10.3, I think it more the same way as IE has been. I don't think it's like Microsoft did with IE and Windows.

I'm not disagreeing with you, however the ThinkSecret article seems to, it suggests that 10.2 and 10.3 will have different versions of Safari, with it being tied into 10.3

AppleMatt

coolfactor

May 22, 2003, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by julzmon
Unless they fix tons of things in Safari. It will come out half done when they release it.
I love Safari and use it all the time. But there are way... to many things to fix and have working for it to be out in a month.

2 things top of my head
changing cursors + tons of little CCS stuff

java uploading like create your own iCards

huh, those are definitely important. :p

Safari was designed to be a small and fast browser. There are lots of alternative beasts out there, so if you want "all" the features, use them.

btw, this is a general answer for everyone saying they want Feature X, Y, and Z. It wasn't a direct response to your post.

MarkCollette

May 22, 2003, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Sonofhaig
The "G" in GOD should be capitalized. (It's a sign of respect)
Otherwise, (My opinion) don't use the word....

Only in monotheistic relgions does it make sense to capitalize the G, following the belief that their is a single entity whose name is "God".

To a polytheist, there may be multiple gods that the person is appealing to, and of which might be respectfully referred to as god, which is not the name, but the type. Think of me calling you Mister, instead of Bob. In many circles Mister is _more_ respectful than Bob.

Finally, to anyone who believes in a higher power, but does not know it that higher power is a God, several gods, aliens, a "force", or our imaginations, they might use a generic term like god merely to expediate communication with others who may have differing belief systems. Wittingly or not, the underlying that mode of communication is an attempt to give respect to others.

Your assumption that there is only one God, and an insistance on others moulding their beliefs to yours is actually not respectfull, to the people, and to this god concept.

coolfactor

May 22, 2003, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by AppleMatt
I'm not disagreeing with you, however the ThinkSecret article seems to, it suggests that 10.2 and 10.3 will have different versions of Safari, with it being tied into 10.3

AppleMatt

I guess there are certain advantages to integrating everyday software into the OS. Think about QuickTime technology and now many apps wouldn't function if you removed it. I think Safari [technology] will be integrated, but the application itself can be added and removed at your will.

RHutch

May 22, 2003, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by AppleMatt
I'm not disagreeing with you, however the ThinkSecret article seems to, it suggests that 10.2 and 10.3 will have different versions of Safari, with it being tied into 10.3

AppleMatt

I think it does more than suggest that 10.2 and 10.3 will have different versions. It says that the Panther version of Safari won't run on Jaguar.

Anyone have a clue what might be different about the versions that would keep the Panther version from running on Jaguar?

Kid Red

May 22, 2003, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by Sonofhaig
The "G" in GOD should be capitalized. (It's a sign of respect)
Otherwise, (My opinion) don't use the word....

Not everyone respects something that someone else believes in. He's your god not mine.

MarkCollette

May 22, 2003, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by coolfactor
I guess there are certain advantages to integrating everyday software into the OS. Think about QuickTime technology and now many apps wouldn't function if you removed it. I think Safari [technology] will be integrated, but the application itself can be added and removed at your will.

I agree with you. As a programmer and a user, I think that web browsing needs to be integrated into the OS. But, I think it should be done in a pluggable way so that the user can replace it with a different browser.

On Win95, it came with IE 3, which was invaluable as a tool for downloading Netscape :) The only problem was that when browsing help files, it still used IE, even after I made Netscape my "default" browser. Let's hope that OS X 1.3 does not make the same mistake.

Sonofhaig

May 22, 2003, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by Bengt77
The capital M in 'My opinion' is a sign of respect towards yourself, or what?!

:rolleyes:

In a word? Yes.
Also, It wasn't my intention to upset anyone.
I was just stating an "opinion" about how the word "God" "G-D" "god
" was referrenced. Lets move on okay?

This is still a "Forum", yes? People have different opinions...

iSmell

May 22, 2003, 03:52 PM

I'm a little confused about this issue, also. I don't use windows much (I'm blessed, I know) but IE doesn't seem that integrated to me. You still have to open explorer to browse the web and you can still run netscape or whatever else.
Also, isn't Safari already kind of integrated because other applications (iTMS) seem to use its rendering engine? Or does the new version of iTunes just have all the rendering code included?

I hope Apple doesn't do anything too microsoftian. Remember the rumor that they were going to integrate some sort of one-click purchasing into the OS? I think that would be a bad move.

Sounds like we'll get a lot of answers at WWDC though...

waitingmonkey

RHutch

May 22, 2003, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by Kid Red
Not everyone respects something that someone else believes in. He's your god not mine.

It seems that people are already losing interest in the discussion on Safari, as this has turned into as much a discussion of God/god.

Maybe there's a way to combine the two discussions:

Which browser do you think God/god would use?

I say he/she/(gender neutral term) already has Safari 1.0 running on a Dual PPC970 @ 2.5 GHz. :D

nuckinfutz

May 22, 2003, 04:01 PM

http://www.guitarport.com/updates.html

MACINTOSH

At this time, there is no version of GuitarPort for the Macintosh. In addition, GuitarPort will not run on Virtual PC because of the nature of the cutting edge technology utilized in GuitarPort.

Of course we know that the Mac is the computer of choice for many musicians. It has never been (and still is not) our intention to make GuitarPort a Windows-only application. We are still architecting the GuitarPort system in a cross-platform manner so that when Mac development becomes possible, we can pursue it at full speed.

There are, however, a few barriers in the Mac OS that we will have to overcome before we can develop GuitarPort for the Macintosh:

- Apple no longer supports software development for OS9, so our only option is to develop an OSX app.

- GuitarPort requires both real-time audio over USB and an embedded browser. Unfortunately, issues that Apple is aware of make both of these impossible for us to accomplish in OSX.

We are working directly with Apple in an attempt to resolve these issues, but we simply can't promise any kind of timeline. Whenever the situation changes, we will definitely publicize this on this page and the Line 6 website.

Kid Red

May 22, 2003, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by RHutch
It seems that people are already losing interest in the discussion on Safari, as this has turned into as much a discussion of God/god.

Maybe there's a way to combine the two discussions:

Which browser do you think God/god would use?

I say he/she/(gender neutral term) already has Safari 1.0 running on a Dual PPC970 @ 2.5 GHz. :D

Thats the bad thing about reading a thread 2 pages deep from the beginning. I see a post that I must reply to and it ends up hijacking the thread. I didn't know at the time the a few others voiced a similar response.

Since there is no god, it's a trick question. If there was one or more, he/she/they would use Safari.

mustang_dvs

May 22, 2003, 04:21 PM

Two things annoy me about Safari.

1. There is no function by which the user can manage MIME settings -- so right now, I have a Quicktime plug-in that will not play embedded MPEG video (and yes, the quicktime pref pane is set to play it). Safari results in a MIME error.

2. The user has no control over the size or location of the cache and when you have downloaded a large image in the browser, choosing to Save it to disk means Safari reconnects to the server and tries to access it directly. This means slow downloads and an inability to retrieve images that lie behind scripts, methods of authentication and the like that prohibit direct browsing access to files. Most every other browser on the planet pulls page and image downloads from the disk cache.

Oh, and there is a nasty memory leak -- Safari Beta 2 v74 bloats from ~32MB to 120+MB of RAM in just a couple of hours.

Sonofhaig

May 22, 2003, 04:21 PM

..blowing things out of proportion. Sheesh.

I think the Gold Master Safari will blow many browsers out of the water.
I'm sure everyone will agree with that statement.

coolfactor

May 22, 2003, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by iSmell
I'm a little confused about this issue, also. I don't use windows much (I'm blessed, I know) but IE doesn't seem that integrated to me. You still have to open explorer to browse the web and you can still run netscape or whatever else.
Also, isn't Safari already kind of integrated because other applications (iTMS) seem to use its rendering engine? Or does the new version of iTunes just have all the rendering code included?

iTunes is a self-contained application and doesn't require that Safari is installed. I don't believe Apple would create any application that is dependent on another. Without QuickTime 6.2 installed, for example, iTMS still operates, but some features won't be available. This is different than integration.

I hope Apple doesn't do anything too microsoftian. Remember the rumor that they were going to integrate some sort of one-click purchasing into the OS? I think that would be a bad move.

This wouldn't necessarily be a bad move if executed properly. Apple is currently using Amazon's One-Click technology in the online Apple Store and in the iTMS. When two companies work together like this, it's impossible to call it a monolopy.

moronhater

May 22, 2003, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by Sonofhaig
The "G" in GOD should be capitalized. (It's a sign of respect)
Otherwise, (My opinion) don't use the word....

Give me a break. There is obviously no god anyways, and u can't make me have even the slightest bit of respect for u or ur crazy beliefs. Anyways nobody asked for your opinion and I'll spell anyway I want... jesus:rolleyes:

tychay

May 22, 2003, 04:33 PM

There are a number of reasons why Safari could be failing with a session timeout while other browsers are not that are not bugs in Safari. I would guess most likely there is a problem with your cookie settings or popup blocking.

For instance, if the session is maintained on a remote site via a web bug (single pixel gif) referencing between two servers (an auth and login server) and Safari is blocking cookies of that nature (normally a good thing because web bugs are used by advertisers to track user browsing habits and show GET queries to a remote site) then the login will fail to stick. If the session is created by redirecting to a page which then redirects out (a "waiting for" page which is very common) and that redirect is set with a window.open call instead of a window.location.replace() as is proper, then Safari's popup blocking will break this (again, this is a good thing because this is how advertisers do popover and popunder ads). In the latter case, it would have been nice if it made some popping sound when it blocked a popup (a la Netscape/Mozilla).

As for advantages in OS/Browser integration: look to Windows 98+. For the user, there will be no advantage really, but for the developer, you'd get consistent rendering between applications (like the previously mentioned Help). Also applications such as CSS and HTML editors will be able to incorporate Safari's rendering for free. For instance, the preview pane in GoLive might no longer need an internal rendering tool, but instead just use Safari to do the rendering. Also, you can use it to automate browsing tasks (this really isn't a big deal because MacOS already has cURL and AppleScript, but in Windows, the Win Browser component is very useful). Other places: Apple Mail (or third party mail), RSS Newsreaders, personal organizers and journals, etc. These and more could now handle hyperlinking and rendering in a consistant manner.

Also consider XML and stylesheets (XSLT and CSS). Remembering that XML is the native file format for Mac OS X preferences, KeyNote, the next Final Cut Pro and ostensbly most new Apple Software and updates. Safari has an XML DOM component and something that handles stylesheets. These components can be accessed to reduce the codebase and bugs when creating/managing/rendering files.

Windows also uses the browser component to render the navigation in their desktop. I doubt Apple will go so far since (IMHO) browsing the file system on the mac is much easier and this opens it up for customization (and thus breaks a lot of usability).

Apple doesn't need to put it in the core OS. Already a lot of these features are available right now in the Safari you have installed. This is because of the way the OS catalogs internal frameworks just by the presence of the application in your "Applications" folder (and the reason why some people obsessively "update prebindings"). That's so that you don't need messy installers/deinstallers like Windows. The issue with that right now is that those libraries in Safari beta are undocumented and also subject to change. David Hyatt specifically recommends against using them.

Take care,

terry

Freg3000

May 22, 2003, 04:34 PM

Isn't there already some integration with the Safari and the iTMS included in iTunes 4? Anyway, I don't really NEED an integrated browser, but it would be nice to see it as an option.

Sublime

May 22, 2003, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by moronhater
Give me a break. There is obviously no god anyways, and u can't make me have even the slightest bit of respect for u or ur crazy beliefs. Anyways nobody asked for your opinion and I'll spell anyway I want... jesus:rolleyes:

Welcome to Macrumors, Moron!

:D

Jeff Harrell

May 22, 2003, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by RHutch
Anyone have a clue what might be different about the versions that would keep the Panther version from running on Jaguar?

Oh, sure, any number of things, really. Changes of the non-backwards-compatible variety in any of the major frameworks, such as Carbon.framework or Cocoa.framework. The same thing happened when we went from 10.0 to 10.1 and 10.1 to 10.2.

MacKid

May 22, 2003, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by iSmell
I hope Apple doesn't do anything too microsoftian. Remember the rumor that they were going to integrate some sort of one-click purchasing into the OS? I think that would be a bad move.

Sounds like we'll get a lot of answers at WWDC though...

waitingmonkey

"One-Click Purchasing" in the OS? I'm not trying to debate you, I just don't understand what you mean. . .could you explain a bit? Sounds strange yet interesting. . .

wwworry

May 22, 2003, 05:03 PM

a contextual "back" menu item would be nice. Also the way the bookmarks organizing is set up seems hard to fathom for some. A built in way to import bookmarks from netscape would be good (I know about the non-built in way).

these are just minor quibbles

MacKid

May 22, 2003, 05:08 PM

Two things.

One, people keep saying that iTunes requires Safari's engine to function in the iTunes music store. If I'm correct (and common sense serves me), iTunes has the same code, it doesn't run off of Safari. First of all, Apple would not be that stupid, because what if 5% of the Mac users didn't download Safari? Where would the iTMS be?

Two, I'm not trying to be a b****, but can someone explain to me how a browser can be "integrated into an operating system"? I'm sure you're imagining me saying all this with a loud, cranky, voice, but I'm not trying to point out faults or call people stupid, just clearing a misconception and wondering how a browser can be integrated. Just a simple question :) .

Flowbee

May 22, 2003, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Sonofhaig

Also, It wasn't my intention to upset anyone.
I was just stating an "opinion" about how the word "God" "G-D" "god
" was referrenced. Lets move on okay?

This is still a "Forum", yes? People have different opinions...

It's so easy to create a new thread if you want to discuss religion, politics, sexual orientation, or any other topic that's sure to derail a perfectly good Mac thread. Please consider it next time. Thanks.

PS - I, for one, do not look forward to further integration of Safari into my OS. I love the fact that Apple's apps are becoming so well integrated with eachother, but if I choose not to use them, I don't want them always butting in and reminding me that they're there (a la MS).

areyouwishing

May 22, 2003, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by MacKid

Two, I'm not trying to be a b****, but can someone explain to me how a browser can be "integrated into an operating system"? I'm sure you're imagining me saying all this with a loud, cranky, voice, but I'm not trying to point out faults or call people stupid, just clearing a misconception and wondering how a browser can be integrated. Just a simple question :) .
If you have access to a PC, open up "my computer" and in the address bar, type "www.macrumors.com" THAT my friend is browser integration, you went directly from your computer to the internet without having to open the browser.

If you really mean "how can" i am sure someone with a little more software engineering skills could answer that one, but in a nutshell, the backbone of the os is built out of the browser.

macquariumguy

May 22, 2003, 05:30 PM

I'd be happy if I could just make the spell check preference stick.

Dephex Twin

May 22, 2003, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Sonofhaig
In a word? Yes.
Also, It wasn't my intention to upset anyone.
I was just stating an "opinion" about how the word "God" "G-D" "god
" was referrenced. Lets move on okay?

This is still a "Forum", yes? People have different opinions... Well, if you're going down that road, you should know that it is generally considered poor Netiquette to post offtopic comments into a forum-- particularly one which takes a decidedly controversial religious stance.

macquariumguy

May 22, 2003, 05:42 PM

Isn't Safari built around something called "Webcore"? I could see Webcore being part of the OS. Then, if you use mail.app, Webcore renders your html mails. If you use iTunes, it does the Music Store stuff.

A common codebase for html rendering could make application development easier. This could be why some future version of Safari (or iTunes or mail.app) could require some future version of OS X to run.

Windows has been like this since Win98. Outlook, Windows Explorer, the Help system, and Internet Explorer are all built on the same chunk of code. This by itself isn't evil. So long as Apple doesn't leverage this integration to cripple competition, it would be a very good thing.

Aeolius

May 22, 2003, 05:45 PM

According to Volano, I get "font conflict errors" when attempting to use their Java chat room interface. IE loads the room just fine. Safari needs to learn how to either handle or ignore these errors, before I can use it 100% of the time.

AppleMatt

May 22, 2003, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by wwworry
a contextual "back" menu item would be nice.

I'm not sure if this is what you mean, but click and hold on the back button and a list comes up?

Originally posted by iSmell
I'm a little confused about this issue, also. I don't use windows much (I'm blessed, I know) but IE doesn't seem that integrated to me. You still have to open explorer to browse the web and you can still run netscape or whatever else.

IE is (now) completely integrated into Windows, what you see in Windows explorer is actually *.htt pages, which are rendered by IE. Those pages contain commands that IE executes via JScript (Microsofts version of Javascript)

If you type a web address into the explorer bar, it will change into the browser and navigate the web, simarily, all the buttons in explorer are the same controls as used by IE.

This was done because M$ were taken to court for forcing IE onto users, monopolising the market, so they made it an integral part of the OS basically to screw the legal system.

GUYS PLEASE STOP TALKING ABOUT THE God/god/GOD THING. THIS HAS GONE TOO FAR, AND I'M SURPRISED ARN HASN'T KILLED THOSE POSTS OR EVEN THE WHOLE THREAD..

AppleMatt

Deestar

May 22, 2003, 05:49 PM

ThinkSecret also describes the most recent seed - v78, and reports Panther will gain some Safari integration.

I assume there just talking about webcore being integrated into the system.

AppleMatt

May 22, 2003, 05:49 PM

wow in the time it took me to type the above post about 5 more posts appeared, this thread is alive!

AppleMatt

macquariumguy

May 22, 2003, 05:57 PM

One other thing. My wife plays Java games on pogo.com, and her favorite (Turbo 21) has redraw problems in Safari. At that, it's better than IE or Mozilla in the same game, although none of them runs it 100% correctly.

To be fair, that same game would toast her old Win98/IE combo, forcing frequent reboots.

crassusad44

May 22, 2003, 06:06 PM

Now, if the Help application could get to use the Safari code I would be quite happy. I certainly do not hope Safari and OS integration is equal to a new IE/Windoze thing...

That scares me... much...

Originally posted by Sonofhaig
The "G" in GOD should be capitalized. (It's a sign of respect)
Otherwise, (My opinion) don't use the word....

It's not an uppercase "G", it's an uppercase "O" as in the One. It's only one the One. Oh no, wait, it's the sixth incarnation.... OMG... sorry... oh my the one....

Darn, think I'm going crazy...

richard_uk

May 22, 2003, 06:17 PM

Okay first off, there is a presumption that the iTunes Music Store uses Safari/WebCore code (internally -- as Safari does not need to be installed to use iTMS) to render the pages which is wrong.

If you examine the XML returned by the iTMS requests, you'll see that it's actually an XML representation of the object hierarchy of Carbon HIView objects. It's a very clever serialization of the carbon interface objects (scroll panes, buttons etc.) in an XML document generated by WebObjects, and I'm really excited with what Apple might do with it. But it is not related to Safari. We are not talking HTML or CSS here.

Apart from that, Apple has clearly stated to developers that WebCore (the Safari HTML/XML/CSS rendering engine) and JavaScriptCore will be provided as public frameworks for Apple and third-party use at some point in the future (from which you can definitely presume Panther, and possible also Jaguar with the 1.0 release of Safari).

Richard

tychay

May 22, 2003, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by MacKid
TTwo, I'm not trying to be a b****, but can someone explain to me how a browser can be "integrated into an operating system"? I'm sure you're imagining me saying all this with a loud, cranky, voice, but I'm not trying to point out faults or call people stupid, just clearing a misconception and wondering how a browser can be integrated. Just a simple question :) .

Go to "Apple > About this Mac", click on "More Info…" and Apple System Profiler should come up. In that, click on the "Frameworks" tab.

These are libraries of software code that, because of the object orientation of Cocoa, are easy to use in any of your application. This is how, without AppleScript, software can be written in, say a small business accounting package or FAX system, that tightly integrates your personal address book (AddressBook.framework). If you scroll to the right, you'll notice that all these frameworks are located somewhere in /System/*.

There is a framework WebCore.framework(?) that is in Safari's app (it would appear as /Applications/Safari/..., if ASP showed it). The assumption of "tighter integration of Safari in Panther" would mean that this framework would be moved to /System/* and multiple applications would then take advantage of it for rendering HTML/CSS and handling XML DOM as well as other things (like integrating an internet browser inside a pane in your own application). Right now, for safety, Apple has to bundle the framework with any application that takes advantage of it (because Safari may or may not be installed in your computer). Also, right now, that framework's calls have not been documented or finalized.

I hope that explains what people are talking about: simply moving a set of files from one area to another.

Windows takes advantage of this heavily. This is why, if you look at Explorer.exe, you'll find that it's <200 kilobytes. Because all the real meat has been put directly into the operating system. Doing this makes it easy for programmers and reduces the total codebase (no duplicate copies of the same library need to be stored in hard drive or in memory when running) and eases a bit the upgrade process (no need to replace and re-release so much software if a bug is found). The price is security (single point of vulnerability, doing this too much makes the system homogeonous) and speed (library needs to be loaded).

Re: Microsoft's lawsuit. The problem wasn't just the integration of the browser into the OS. There was an added problem where Microsoft claimed removing the browser would break the OS, despite the obvious evidence that removing Explorer.exe and some associated icons doesn't interfere with the normal operation of the system at all.

This idea isn't new. Emacs started out as a text editor but became much more. Windows started out as a navigator on DOS and took that over. Netscape Communicator was targetted to do the same to Windows (and stupidly was their overt busines plan). It was that last thing, that caused Netscape stock to skyrocket and start the dotCom boom; it was the realization that this might work that cause Microsoft to react so swiftly by starting up an internet divison, purchasing Mosaic, introducing IE, and integrating it in the OS with Windows 98.

Now that the barn door is open, I see no reason to try and close it now. A little tighter integration is a good thing.

terry

Archangel

May 22, 2003, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Bozola
The real question is...

Will it cost money?

Somehow I think not. Apple may be in business to make money, but charging for Safari wouldn't be a good idea, especially as long as IE is free. I could see Apple adding Safari to some other software pack, giving it an extra feature, and calling it "Safari PRO", but I think there will always be a free version of Safari around.

...

As to the offtopic "god/God" discussion, the real solution has more to do with grammar than respect.

'god' is a noun while 'God' is a proper noun, that is, a name.

For example, you could say, "Mother, come here!" OR, "Mother is always prudent." However, when speaking of mothers in general you don't capitalize it or when you take the possessive form you leave it uncapitalized. The same is true of using 'god'/'God'.

"my god is a bull" would be correct
"gods are bulls" would also be correct
"God, hear me!" is correct as it is clearly a name
"God is a good person." is correct because you are using it as a name
then again, "the god is a good person" is merely a noun

It all depends if you are using it as a proper noun or not. If you mean 'god' in general, then don't capitalize, otherwise do, since in English we always capitalize names and titles when they are used as names.

pinks

May 22, 2003, 06:34 PM

there is an academic in the US who rejects the use of capital letters in her name and is published as 'belle hooks'.

Edit: Have never used Safari but I look forward to deleting another piece M$ in the near future!

-p

shadowfax

May 22, 2003, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Sonofhaig
The "G" in GOD should be capitalized. (It's a sign of respect)
Otherwise, (My opinion) don't use the word.... dude, don't be so arrogant. (a) this is an online forum where people can choose not to capitalize, much the same way as i choose not to in most cases. (b) furthermore, capitalizing "god" is thoroughly unnecessary. were you raised in some authoritarian denomination or something? capitalizing god doesn't make you respect him more, and i certainly see a hell of a lot of people who have no respect for god going around capitalizing "His" name.

moreover, you passed over what you, i am sure, would consider the greater sin, taking the lord's name in vain, to bug me about not capitalizing it? i'm sorry dude, that's just too stupid for words. please, this is not a religious forum. this is the news discussion. back on topic.

Apple needs to hurry and get keyword links to bookmarks implemented, plus an "open link from other app in new tab" option. that last one bothers me like none other.

AppleMatt

May 22, 2003, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by Shadowfax
"open link from other app in new tab" option. that last one bothers me like none other.

Definately, this gets on my nerves no end aswell.

AppleMatt

Vonnie

May 22, 2003, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by Shadowfax

Apple needs to hurry and get keyword links to bookmarks implemented, plus an "open link from other app in new tab" option. that last one bothers me like none other.

Just enable tabbed browsing, and select Open links from other app in current window. It will actually do what you describe, not replace the current active tab.

shadowfax

May 22, 2003, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Vonnie
Just enable tabbed browsing, and select Open links from other app in current window. It will actually do what you describe, not replace the current active tab. cool. thanks. nevertheless, with so many years of that option using the same window and just going over the current page, this setting is extremely misleading. they need to fix that. it should be three options.

noel4r

May 22, 2003, 08:35 PM

what will be the new features of the GM?

Sonofhaig

May 22, 2003, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by Shadowfax
dude, don't be so arrogant. (a) this is an online forum where people can choose not to capitalize, much the same way as i choose not to in most cases. (b) furthermore, capitalizing "god" is thoroughly unnecessary. were you raised in some authoritarian denomination or something? capitalizing god doesn't make you respect him more, and i certainly see a hell of a lot of people who have no respect for god going around capitalizing "His" name.

moreover, you passed over what you, i am sure, would consider the greater sin, taking the lord's name in vain, to bug me about not capitalizing it? i'm sorry dude, that's just too stupid for words. please, this is not a religious forum. this is the news discussion. back on topic.

Apple needs to hurry and get keyword links to bookmarks implemented, plus an "open link from other app in new tab" option. that last one bothers me like none other.

Thanks for putting me in my place, dude.

kumichou

May 23, 2003, 11:14 AM

great job tychay...that's about what I was going to say.

Now, I don't know if anyone has bothered to just take a gander at the WWDC schedules. Tuesday, from 2:00pm - 3:30pm there's a session on Safari...and it's an Application Framework session. On Thursday at 3:30, there's another session specifically for "Advanced Foundation URL APIs" which I figure is a more indepth look at the guts of what makes Safari work. Lastly, on Friday at 9:00am there's another framework talk on "Advanced WebKit APIs". Considering that "WebKit" doesn't exists in 10.2, I'll bet this is the "intergrated" part that everyone seems so worried about.

I paid my own way to go to WWDC last year, and damn do I *really* want to go this year...but can't afford it. I'm gunning for next year though.

Worst part about attending WWDC though, is you can't tell anyone about what you learned there :( unless of course, they signed an NDA too :D

MacKid

May 23, 2003, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by areyouwishing
If you have access to a PC, open up "my computer" and in the address bar, type "www.macrumors.com" THAT my friend is browser integration, you went directly from your computer to the internet without having to open the browser.

If you really mean "how can" i am sure someone with a little more software engineering skills could answer that one, but in a nutshell, the backbone of the os is built out of the browser.

OOOOH! I never thought about it like that. That'd be cool, to be able to type in something in a Finder window and be able to browse the internet through the Finder. I'm definitely never going to be in marketing/product design. . . Je suis tres bête!

MacKid

May 23, 2003, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by tychay
Go to "Apple > About this Mac", click on "More Info?" and Apple System Profiler should come up. In that, click on the "Frameworks" tab.

These are libraries of software code that, because of the object orientation of Cocoa, are easy to use in any of your application. This is how, without AppleScript, software can be written in, say a small business accounting package or FAX system, that tightly integrates your personal address book (AddressBook.framework). If you scroll to the right, you'll notice that all these frameworks are located somewhere in /System/*.

There is a framework WebCore.framework(?) that is in Safari's app (it would appear as /Applications/Safari/..., if ASP showed it). The assumption of "tighter integration of Safari in Panther" would mean that this framework would be moved to /System/* and multiple applications would then take advantage of it for rendering HTML/CSS and handling XML DOM as well as other things (like integrating an internet browser inside a pane in your own application). Right now, for safety, Apple has to bundle the framework with any application that takes advantage of it (because Safari may or may not be installed in your computer). Also, right now, that framework's calls have not been documented or finalized.

I hope that explains what people are talking about: simply moving a set of files from one area to another.

Windows takes advantage of this heavily. This is why, if you look at Explorer.exe, you'll find that it's <200 kilobytes. Because all the real meat has been put directly into the operating system. Doing this makes it easy for programmers and reduces the total codebase (no duplicate copies of the same library need to be stored in hard drive or in memory when running) and eases a bit the upgrade process (no need to replace and re-release so much software if a bug is found). The price is security (single point of vulnerability, doing this too much makes the system homogeonous) and speed (library needs to be loaded).

Re: Microsoft's lawsuit. The problem wasn't just the integration of the browser into the OS. There was an added problem where Microsoft claimed removing the browser would break the OS, despite the obvious evidence that removing Explorer.exe and some associated icons doesn't interfere with the normal operation of the system at all.

This idea isn't new. Emacs started out as a text editor but became much more. Windows started out as a navigator on DOS and took that over. Netscape Communicator was targetted to do the same to Windows (and stupidly was their overt busines plan). It was that last thing, that caused Netscape stock to skyrocket and start the dotCom boom; it was the realization that this might work that cause Microsoft to react so swiftly by starting up an internet divison, purchasing Mosaic, introducing IE, and integrating it in the OS with Windows 98.

Now that the barn door is open, I see no reason to try and close it now. A little tighter integration is a good thing.

terry

I didn't really mean "how" as in the technical programming aspects, but hey, even though I didn't read anything past the "open Frameworks", thanks. . .!

RIP

May 23, 2003, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Harrell
:rolleyes: For instance?

I still cannot search the contents of the checking register displayed by my credit union's home banking product. I don't have this problem with any other browser I have tried. It even works as it should in Konquerer (sic?).

tychay

May 23, 2003, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by RIP
I still cannot search the contents of the checking register displayed by my credit union's home banking product. I don't have this problem with any other browser I have tried. It even works as it should in Konquerer (sic?).

The fact that the site works Konquer implies it's not a broken Browser Detect script. However, As I said earlier:
[list=1]
Did you try turning off Block pop-up windows? (Cool Tip: Hit Command-K)
Did you try Accepting Cookies Always (Preferences… Security… Accept Cookies: Always
[/list=1]

If that fixes the problem, then the problem with moronic web programmers. Odds are, even if that doesn't fix the problem, the problem is probably still the fault of a bad web programmer.

Take care,

kjwebb

May 24, 2003, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by Bozola
The real question is...

Will it cost money?

I would love to see Apple try. As Safari uses OpenSource technology released under the GPL, it cannot be sold(unless it was in a commercial package eg. Mac OS X).

Also, if apple sold it, Safari will probely be in the iLife package

Vonnie

May 24, 2003, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by kjwebb
I would love to see Apple try. As Safari uses OpenSource technology released under the GPL, it cannot be sold(unless it was in a commercial package eg. Mac OS X).

Woow, hold on there. Two things to note:

Webcore (KHTML) is LGPL. Apple isn't forced to make Safari OpenSource, or release it under the GPL. And indeed, Apple releases Safari as a closed source piece of software.

But, if Apple makes improvements to KHTML/Webcore, they have to contribute it back to the KDE project. (or to anyone else who asks for it) They don't have to give the source of Safari to KDE.

The second thing is that GPL/LGPL allows you to charge money for software. You cannot restrict further distribution though. So Apple can charge you 10$ for Webcore for example, eventhough it is under the LGPL. Apple cannot prevent though that you put Webcore on the internet for everyone to download.

A more obvious example is OmniWeb. Omni announced that they will use WebCore for their future browser. This doesn't mean that OmniWeb will cost 0$. Omni will not have to release the source of omniweb either. But, if Omni makes a change to Webcore, they have to contribute that change back to Apple/KDE.

If apple makes a change to webcore, so it displays a certain webpage correctly, that change will also end up in konqueror and omniweb. If kde fixes a bug in khtml/webcore that prevented someone to do online-banking, that fix will also end up in omniweb and safari.