Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Releases Safari 3.1
- Thread starter retroneo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
has nothing to do with Safari its using the Flip4Mac internet plug-in. even when watching flash videos the flash internet plug-in is the culprit as Adobe havent optimised it properly for OS X.
Font rendering is far superior to the Windows method, which looks blocky and primitive. Also Safari is the only browser I have found on Windows that resamples resized images. I'll get an example in a minute.
the attitude of "windows users don't have good taste", IMHO, is the classic example of apple's culture.
Its not about one being superior to other necessarily - although most unbiased people will like Windows Font rendering for on-screen reading. It is about following the platform look and feel. Imagine if Word for Mac looked like it was running on Vista - that would irk almost everyone. Check this out for more info.
i am going to speculate that apple branched safari 3.1 for mac couple weeks before branching for windows version.
when mac version was branched. webkit was still in the middle of javascript revision. while when windows version branched. the revision was pretty much done.
i think there is some "not on the same page" going on between webkit and apple.
when mac version was branched. webkit was still in the middle of javascript revision. while when windows version branched. the revision was pretty much done.
i think there is some "not on the same page" going on between webkit and apple.
Now that I have used both I prefer Safari 3.1 on my 2.4Ghz SR MBP (4GB RAM) and FF on my work laptop 1.xGhz Pentium M 1.5GB RAM running XP.
Speedwise I find them very similar. No noticable winner. Both are much faster then FF2 and Safari 3.0.
Resource usage goes to FF on both platforms. (however on my MBP im not worried about the 100-200MB difference)
Interface wise I find Safari under OSX with Safari Adblock is better then FF with adblock+ and flash block. Scrolling is much smoother in Safari and it ties in better with the OSX user interface. The reverse is true in XP where FF has the better interface experience.
Speedwise I find them very similar. No noticable winner. Both are much faster then FF2 and Safari 3.0.
Resource usage goes to FF on both platforms. (however on my MBP im not worried about the 100-200MB difference)
Interface wise I find Safari under OSX with Safari Adblock is better then FF with adblock+ and flash block. Scrolling is much smoother in Safari and it ties in better with the OSX user interface. The reverse is true in XP where FF has the better interface experience.
Ok, thanks. I still don't know why it's there in the first place.
If I try to quit Terminal when many tabs are open, it doesn't
ask for confirmation. That's how it should be. Let us at least
maintain the illusion the user occasionally knows what they
are doing.
Now the other one: How can I turn off the confirmation dialog
that appears if I change my home page?
And why is it there at all? Safari could ask for confirmation
whenever I change any setting in the prefs. What's so special
about the home page? It's not like the world would crumble to
dust if it got changed accidentally.
Do they not like you changing it from the default Apple page?
To be slightly fair to Safari, FF does a similarish thing (I don't know
about IE). However, it only warns you if are trying to close a window
with multiple tabs, not if you're quitting the whole application.
I wonder if this Safari dialog came about because Q is next to W
on many keyboards.
Hmm.. yes. It's not just a local cache delay thing either, as some have
suggested before. I experimented by turning off my internet connection
and then it couldn't load the previously visited page at all (at the site
you mentioned).
It's not like this for all pages though. Is it something to do with dynamically
generated content?
IDK, but it shouldn't matter, opera reads cache blazing fast since version 7 or 8, dynamic content or not. firefox 2, and 3 does the same speed. Why safari has to be slow on this? There are significant proportion of pages that safari has a problem displaying from history.
I think by dynamic content, they mean content that is re-served from the other end, therefore no caches are used. I know I've written web-apps that specifically turned off caching. The upside was that the pages would always contain the latest information. The downside is that they always took longer to load. It was a trade-off that the client was willing to live with.
i understand, and agree with what you said, but todays' web, there are too many dynamic content everywhere (worst of them being those stupid flash ads, or dynamic ads). if opera and firefox can do this for 2 years without ppl complaining, safari should be able to do it to satisfy most people as well. Since in most cases, it is faster. Its about which side of trade off does apple think is more important..
Hello,
I've been using Safari Version 3.0.4 (5523.10) and have downloaded 3.1, rebooted, and when I open Safari, the version is still 3.0.4. I've tried this process 3 times with no change in results.
Going into the "Preferences" and selecting 3.1 as the default still does not activate 3.1
Is there any way to get 3.1 up and running from 3.0.4?
Thanks.
I've been using Safari Version 3.0.4 (5523.10) and have downloaded 3.1, rebooted, and when I open Safari, the version is still 3.0.4. I've tried this process 3 times with no change in results.
Going into the "Preferences" and selecting 3.1 as the default still does not activate 3.1
Is there any way to get 3.1 up and running from 3.0.4?
Thanks.
Yes, and when that did not work, I tried installing it from the Apple Downloads page.
Speed is negligible on both browsers so it really doesn't matter which one is faster at this point and they both run on the Mac and that's all that really matters.
For me it's about features (the little things) and this is where Safari wins. I can mail an entire webpage as well as the link to a web page in Safari.
Also Safari's toolbar has buttons to resize the font, I don't always want to reach to the keyboard to do this as it requires 2 hands.
May not be the most used feature but Safari does have the webclip widgets and I love the private browsing feature for when friends come over I will set it and their browsing history doesn't get mixed up with mine nor will their passwords to websites get locked into keychain.
None of this is available on Firefox.
Also support from Apple will always be better on Safari. Firefox is good but it won't be my primary browser.
For me it's about features (the little things) and this is where Safari wins. I can mail an entire webpage as well as the link to a web page in Safari.
Also Safari's toolbar has buttons to resize the font, I don't always want to reach to the keyboard to do this as it requires 2 hands.
May not be the most used feature but Safari does have the webclip widgets and I love the private browsing feature for when friends come over I will set it and their browsing history doesn't get mixed up with mine nor will their passwords to websites get locked into keychain.
None of this is available on Firefox.
Also support from Apple will always be better on Safari. Firefox is good but it won't be my primary browser.
I am not going to list one by one what firefox can do thats handy for users while safari can't, trust me, there are alot, and out of box. functionality is not a priority compare to speed, thats exactly what webkit project itself proclaimed.
for what you suggested, I understand you probably aren't interested for extensions, but here are some that do some of what you listed.
http://wiki.mozilla.org/PrivateBrowsing
support from apple never is any good, they patch slow, they update slow, they don't let you know whats behind the door, etc, not my style.....
Safari 3.1 for Windows (Vista) and Memory
I must confess, I'm very impressed with Safari 3.1 - it just works; everything that I've thrown at it works. There are a few pages that I'm having difficulty printing in Firefox 3 Beta 4 that prints properly with Safari. This is a good thing. Some pages even display better with Safari.
I have noted however that the memory usage is somewhat high - 238MB. Is this normal for the Windows version? I had two or three tabs open at the time.
I must confess, I'm very impressed with Safari 3.1 - it just works; everything that I've thrown at it works. There are a few pages that I'm having difficulty printing in Firefox 3 Beta 4 that prints properly with Safari. This is a good thing. Some pages even display better with Safari.
I have noted however that the memory usage is somewhat high - 238MB. Is this normal for the Windows version? I had two or three tabs open at the time.
238MB is a moderate number, consider apple packed its own environment to that thing. you can pay more attention and report back after longer period of time using it.
Bah... no more middle click on the home button to open your homepage in a new tab. You now have to hold :command:.