Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Safari 5 and Xcode 4 Coming at WWDC

aarond12 said:
What extensions do you "need"? I have Ad Block and FlashBlock on Safari. Are you not looking hard enough?
-Aaron-
Click to expand...

@Aaron--
How about DownLoadThemAll to capture videos off the pages? There are a lot of extensions I use on FireFox that don't exist for Safari.
 
FinderUser213 said:
Already said inb4 to each his own. Even so, who said extensions make or break a browser? You brought it up.
Click to expand...
When you use Safari's third-party adblocker, you are still downloading ads, but just hiding them. The advertiser still thinks you are looking at it (since you downloaded the content), plus you have used up some of the bandwidth that you are paying for.

True adblock prevents the ads from being downloaded locally. For me, I do this at the router, with a DNS cache-poisoning script (automatically updated thrice daily) that protects all devices on my network.

It's better to have router adblocking, plus selective adblocking at the browser level.

DownloadThemAll is a site sucker. The most common use would be to grab all the content from an image gallery.
 
FinderUser213 said:
Already said inb4 to each his own. Even so, who said extensions make or break a browser? You brought it up.

Adblock for Chrome is on-par with Firefox. Not sure what information you were looking at with the "pseudo-blocking"; it's not the case. Greasemonkey for chrome, noscript for chrome all work great, same as in FF. I don't know what download them all is.
Click to expand...

adblock plus blocks http requests, which stops the ads from downloading. chrome hides ads after they download.

the process is not the same.

pseudo blocking is a good word for it.
 
cvaldes said:
When you use Safari's third-party adblocker, you are still downloading ads, but just hiding them. The advertiser still thinks you are looking at it (since you downloaded the content), plus you have used up some of the bandwidth that you are paying for.

True adblock prevents the ads from being downloaded locally. For me, I do this at the router, with a DNS cache-poisoning script (automatically updated thrice daily) that protects all devices on my network.

It's better to have router adblocking, plus selective adblocking at the browser level.

DownloadThemAll is a site sucker. The most common use would be to grab all the content from an image gallery.
Click to expand...

Woahwoahwoahwoah.

SAFARI? We're talking about CHROME here.

jmj said:
adblock plus blocks http requests, which stops the ads from downloading. chrome hides ads after they download.

the process is not the same.

pseudo blocking is a good word for it.
Click to expand...

Sure, except that the AdBlocking that i'm referring to, for Chrome, IS AdBlock Plus.



https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom

1 million people use it.
 
rtn5000 said:
Is there any chance that Safari 5 will be coming to the PPC as well? (fingers crossed)

I know 10.6.x has a Safari that is a few steps ahead of 10.5.x for the PPC. Which I was reminded of when looking at the HTML demo site apple built (Virtual demo would not work).

Any insight/thoughts?
Click to expand...

Since I'm running WebKit Nightlies on PowerPC the answer is Yes.
 
GlimmerBlocker: System wide OSX adblocker for any browser you may have. Couple it with a CSS filter and you have yourself a winner. Why deal with multiple pesky plugins that usually compromise performance when you can have one solution that always works?
 
wizard said:
Garbage collection has nothing to do with the IDE use to develop for a platform. On the otherhand YES garbage collection should come to the iPhone devices. I'm actually leaning towards that happening soon as the new A4 processor should be fast enough to handle garbage collection. There seem to be other hints that this will happen.


This is the interesting question and I'd have to say no. For one thing no IDE fits everybody. For example I like Eclipse for some things but for other things it is troublesome. Besides who has just one text editor installed?

From Apples standpoint it is probably important to sail ones own ship here. Especially considering the integration of interface builder. The bias to XCode likely goes even deeper as they have had the rug pulled out from under them a couple of time with third party tools. XCode in this regard is a security blanket and a base line development environment.

It might be better if Apple simply supported Objective C on Eclipse.

Finally there is the issue with Eclipse running on Java. I don't personally think that is bad but I'm left with the impression that Apple would rather limit it's support of Java.

In any event I think it is a very good thing that Apple has XCode and continues to support it as the primary development tool for Apple products. For the developer it provides continuity and adds to the choice of editors. Personally I just wish they would focus more talent on it to do two things.

What two things you may ask. Well number one is the bugs in XCode itself, it is pretty bad if you ask me. The other is a need for an alternative to interface builder which causes me to wretch at times. I often call it the Anti Rapid Development System. Sometimes the only thing that matters is getting the app done quickly, IB is often a hinderence here.



Dave
Click to expand...

Personally, I can't stomach Eclipse and all the tools associated with the project.
 
FinderUser213 said:
Woahwoahwoahwoah.

SAFARI? We're talking about CHROME here.
Click to expand...
Sorry, sloppiness on my part. It's Saturday night and I'm drinking beer.

Chrome is downloading ads, but not displaying them. Safari adblockers used to do the same thing (with PithHelmet originally). In any case, your first defense should be at the router.
 
aiqw9182 said:
GlimmerBlocker: System wide OSX adblocker for any browser you may have. Couple it with a CSS filter and you have yourself a winner. Why deal with multiple pesky plugins that usually compromise performance when you can have one solution that always works?
Click to expand...

glimmerblocker is great, but i ran into some performance issues running it with clicktoflash, specifically on youtube.
 
jmj said:
glimmerblocker is great, but i ran into some performance issues running it with clicktoflash, specifically on youtube.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Click2Flash and GlimmerBlocker are known to have problems when they are both working. I gave up on Click2Flash, it slowed down Safari way too much even without GlimmerBlocker. All I really wanted to block was the random flash ads anyway, so no harm done.
 
FinderUser213 said:
Adblock for Chrome is on-par with Firefox. Not sure what information you were looking at with the "pseudo-blocking";
Click to expand...

He is prob looking at the kind of info generally not discussed on forums, even less so on mac forums. Ya know, factual information.
 
rols said:
That would rock. I would love to be able to see the documentation on my iPad, both for reading and to have the 'manual' open beside me when I'm working.
Click to expand...

I'm doing that now with developer.apple.com on my iPad and Xcode 3.2 on my iMac. It's actually rather startrekish, somewhat different from having a second (or third) monitor, since you can pick up the iPad and lean back in your chair.

Or did I miss your point?
 
Safari 5? Browser version numbering is a joke these days, isn't it. And DNS pre-fetching is a stupid idea... for as long it can't be disabled in Safari; still traveling in the dust of Mozilla.
 
That's almost everything that I've complained about Safari lacking. It'll be a good update if all of those features come to pass. :D
 
Master Chief said:
Safari 5? Browser version numbering is a joke these days, isn't it. And DNS pre-fetching is a stupid idea... for as long it can't be disabled in Safari; still traveling in the dust of Mozilla.
Click to expand...

By now you should know Apple is traveling it's own way. If the main goal was to implement all the features of Firefox, Opera or any other browser they would be doing that, right?
 
the best addon would be a way to permanently disable "top sites", or at least make it stop taking a photo of every site i go to and having it build up to 3-5 gb's.

having a static image ala chrome would be great
 
Master Chief said:
Safari 5? Browser version numbering is a joke these days, isn't it. And DNS pre-fetching is a stupid idea... for as long it can't be disabled in Safari; still traveling in the dust of Mozilla.
Click to expand...

Wake me up when Firefox realizes much of it's code base has to be revamped to duplicate what is being finished up in WebKit2 and when they get off their rears and actually get decent HTML 5 support.
 
HTML5 Status of Opera 10.60, Epiphany 2.30.2 and Chrome 5.0

FinderUser213 said:
I can't argue with you there. Opera basically creates everything, and then everyone else copies it. I, personally dont use it, but I could never understand why more folks don't use it.



Well, I was unaware of the issue with notebooks. I have a macbook pro and an imac and scrolling is perfectly fine.

As for the extensions not being in the same "stratosphere", could you please elaborate? I've always hated Firefox's add-on implementation (slow, modifying them or installing requires restart, etc.).

Chrome doesn't have as many extensions, but there are still thousands..



Back at you.

Firefox, of all the major Mac browsers (Camino, Stainless, Flock, Safari, Chrome, iCab, etc) is the slowest to start. It is also one of the slowest to load pages, certainly much slower than any of the WebKit based browsers.

What exactly unimpressed you about Chrome? I do remember my first time with Chrome:Mac, about a year ago, and I was disappointed. Didn't feel polished. However, since then, it has become my primary, if not sole browser.
Click to expand...

Opera has a following. I find it's email/widgets/browser/more in one to be one of the reasons it's behind in HTML 5. I use it for testing only.

Here is the current HTML 5 status of Opera 10.60 against the latest Chrome Beta and GNOME Epiphany 2.30.2.

The difference between Epiphany and Chrome deals solely with Geolocation not currently ready for Epiphany. Otherwise, it's actually more compliant than Chrome.

Opera10.60.Epiphany2.30.2.Chrome5.0.375.70.jpg
 
cvaldes said:
My guess is that the chance of Safari 5 shipping for PowerPC architecture is around 0.3%, especially if it's using libraries and APIs only available on Snow Leopard 10.6.
Click to expand...

My guess is that you are wrong on this.

Leopard is still a supported OS by Apple (as in it receives updates), so unless 10.7 is released to the public (not gonna happen as Snow was released last year) There will be a Leopard version. (I use as evidence that there is a Tiger version of Safari 4)

Therefore I'm pretty sure that the Leopard version of Safari 5 will be a universal app.

After 10.7 comes out, then I suspect the universal apps will disappear very quickly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back