Apple Releases Safari Technology Preview 52 With Bug Fixes and Feature Improvements

Discussion in 'Mac Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Mar 21, 2018.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
    Apple today released a new update for Safari Technology Preview, the experimental browser Apple first introduced two years ago in March of 2016. Apple designed the Safari Technology Preview to test features that may be introduced into future release versions of Safari.

    Safari Technology Preview release 52 includes bug fixes and feature improvements for Service Workers, Loading, JavaScript, CSS, Web API, Accessibility, Web Driver, Web Inspector, WebAssembly, and Media. Today's update also removes support for running legacy NPAPI plug-ins other than Adobe Flash.

    The Safari Technology Preview update is available through the Software Update mechanism in the Mac App Store to anyone who has downloaded the browser. Full release notes for the update are available on the Safari Technology Preview website.

    Apple's aim with Safari Technology Preview is to gather feedback from developers and users on its browser development process. Safari Technology Preview can run side-by-side with the existing Safari browser and while designed for developers, it does not require a developer account to download.

    Article Link: Apple Releases Safari Technology Preview 52 With Bug Fixes and Feature Improvements
     
  2. cmChimera macrumors 68040

    cmChimera

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    #2
    Does anyone else use this as their default browser?
     
  3. silvetti macrumors 6502a

    silvetti

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2011
    Location:
    Poland
    #3
    I will answer everyone's question, does it play 4K Youtube? No.
     

    Attached Files:

  4. csurfr macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2016
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #4
    And it never will until YouTube supports it (which they won’t).
     
  5. nvmls Suspended

    nvmls

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    #5
    We use it daily intensively, a lot of feedback they just don't care to fix, we always have to end up on Chrome for professional dev use, pretty sad.

    EDIT: if you are a casual user it may be ok.
     
  6. csurfr macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2016
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #6
    It’s horribily unfortunate since chrome is a battery hog on the MacBook line. If safari’s dev tools weren’t so bad it would make things a lot nicer.
     
  7. nvmls Suspended

    nvmls

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    #7
    Tell me about it my friend, we have reported so much stuff we just gave up. To give an example, this has been reported since v49

    https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...d-feature-improvements.2104939/#post-25792767

    As much as I hate Google's data mining, performance-wise they are miles ahead of Apple sadly.
     
  8. iOSBry macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2013
  9. csurfr macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2016
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #9
    I had never noticed that before, as I don’t run full screen that often. Just one of the “little things” that have fallen away as of late.
     
  10. emdub macrumors newbie

    emdub

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Sintra, Portugal
    #10
  11. iOSBry macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2013
    #11
    474, really? I get 480 on my iPhone. Did you go to the https site?

    iOSBry
     
  12. chucker23n1 macrumors 65816

    chucker23n1

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2014
    #12
    Yup.
     
  13. Vashetti macrumors regular

    Vashetti

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    #13
    It's 482, as always. Use the https version of the site and ensure you have all experimental features enabled.
     
  14. ikir macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    #14
    I work on Safari, use dev/web features like inspector on Safari, never feel the need to switch to Chrome and its non-Apple interface, preferences and also Safari is much more lighter than Chrome!
     
  15. chucker23n1 macrumors 65816

    chucker23n1

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2014
    #15
    YouTube still doesn’t support the standard codec, so no.
     
  16. smithrh macrumors 68020

    smithrh

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    #16
    It's much worse than that.

    If you submit a 4K file to YouTube that's already H.26x, they transcode it to their format and delete the original.

    It's a dick move.
     
  17. silvetti macrumors 6502a

    silvetti

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2011
    Location:
    Poland
    #17
    Yeah, really dickish to convert from a royalty prone codec to a free one. How dare they! Right?

    FYI, I hate Chrome.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 21, 2018 ---
    Since when is HEVC the standard codec?


    Here's some info for both:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding#Patent_license_terms
     
  18. verpeiler macrumors 6502a

    verpeiler

    Joined:
    May 11, 2013
    Location:
    Munich, Germany
    #18
    IIRC google improved the battery "drain" with version 57 or 58.. were at 65 now. I really can't tell a difference since quite some time.
     
  19. chucker23n1 macrumors 65816

    chucker23n1

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2014
    #19
  20. isomorphic macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    #20
    I'm all for free codecs. But don't think Google is doing that out of the goodness of their heart--they're doing it to save money. I also wouldn't call the codec truly "free" if it was primarily developed solely by Google, even if rights are spun into a shell holding company. Finally, Google's "free" codec is of inferior quality, and transcoding between any two non-lossless codecs involves loss no matter how good the codecs.

    However, the Alliance for Open Media may have some traction if it has more than just one or two tech giants in it. (I'm not saying Apple's recent membership makes or breaks it. I'm saying that you need consensus.) Hopefully together the giants can develop a high-quality, truly free codec that compares well with proprietary codecs both in quality, and in memory/CPU usage for decoding and encoding.
     
  21. bielekas macrumors newbie

    bielekas

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2015
  22. chucker23n1 macrumors 65816

    chucker23n1

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2014
    #22
    Hopefully. But widespread adoption is likely many years off.
     
  23. gplusplus macrumors newbie

    gplusplus

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    #23
    I didn’t know that anyone actually used Safari, other than on iOS where we’re forced to against our will.
     
  24. isomorphic macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    #24
    I use Firefox. I'd like to use Chrome, but it's way too expensive.
     
  25. chucker23n1 macrumors 65816

    chucker23n1

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2014
    #25
    I use Safari. Chrome is ugly and uses more battery.
     

Share This Page