nobody thinks you came up with that. We would be giving you way too much credit if we thought so.

But that still doesn't make it not-childish, and it still undercuts any argument you make against Microsoft (of which there is a myriad of legitimate ones)

2/25/2009 11:30:22 AM

I fail to see how using M$ makes any difference? Is there something wrong with deep pockets or am i missing something here? This is about IE. Not everything M$ is bad...hell I love my xbox and Surface looks cool as shit. So what point are you trying to make?

2/25/2009 11:35:42 AM

The use of M$ instead of MS is generally used as slander against MS, often by OSS Linuxy type people, to indicate that Microsoft is just an evil, money-grubbing, monopolist, capitalist pig who tries to drown out and crush competition at any cost. M$ is not a term of endearment. If you are using it as such, then you are confused by the historical use of it. When you are trying to make a valid point against Microsoft, inserting "M$" into the argument immediately indicates that you have the reasoning capabilities of a 1st grader and instead of engaging in rational discussion, you're just going to stand back and stick out your tongue at the Evil Borg.

"is there anything wrong with deep pockets?" no, of course not. So.... why are you using M$? Do you make it a habit of inserting monetary signs into all company's with money?
Appl€ ?
Goog£e ?
$UN ?
¢isco ?

[Edited on February 25, 2009 at 11:54 AM. Reason : .]

2/25/2009 11:54:21 AM

I'd use MS but that is already taken.

since when did tech talk get over run by oversensitive women?

2/25/2009 11:59:07 AM

uhh, it's always been like this.

have you ever met a geek?

2/25/2009 12:25:16 PM

^^^ lololol

<3 agentlion

RSX bow out gracefully dude, because

2/25/2009 1:03:32 PM

*bow*

so back to Safari 4...

2/25/2009 1:15:53 PM

Can you click the middle mouse button and drag-scroll in Safari 4?

Nevermind, the answer is yes. http://www.apple.com/safari/features.html. Awesome! I also like how they list "Anti-aliased fonts" as one of their features, and "View Source" as a developer feature. I'm still not sure what they mean by saying they support XML 1.0

[Edited on February 25, 2009 at 1:30 PM. Reason : nevermind]

2/25/2009 1:24:27 PM

^nope, unless its an option some where. Although I don't see the benefit of middle mouse click to scroll. I didn't even know FF3 could do that. I have used the middle mouse close from time to time and see its benefit.

2/25/2009 1:30:29 PM

i don't think so no

ah, i see it. Windows only i guess. lame

Quote :

"Middle-Click Pan and Scroll In Windows, scroll vertically and horizontally through a web page by moving your mouse. Click the middle mouse button to enable the feature, then move the mouse in any direction to pan through the web content. Middle-click a second time to return to the normal mouse mode."

[Edited on February 25, 2009 at 1:32 PM. Reason : mac]

2/25/2009 1:31:41 PM

heh, already got it to freeze up on me working with the google maps api

2/25/2009 2:35:13 PM

i've been having problems with mail.app crashing. i rarely use mail.app so i didn't associate it with the safari beta but apparently if you use Growl with mail.app, safari 4 crashes it. neat. here's a fix i found though

http://www.safari4beta.com/2009/02/safari-4-beta-and-growl-mail.html

2/25/2009 2:39:33 PM

what ad block plugin should i use?

2/25/2009 7:10:23 PM

safari adblock seems to be working fine.

Check this out: http://pointum.com/safari-tweaks.html

2/25/2009 8:02:41 PM

Quote :

"^nope, unless its an option some where. Although I don't see the benefit of middle mouse click to scroll. I didn't even know FF3 could do that."

That's a pretty naive statement to make, even for you. Every version of Firefox has been able to do it, IE 3 could do it, and NS 4.7 could do it. In the beginning it was useful to emulate mouse-wheel scrolling for mice that didn't have wheels, but it stuck around and has always been useful for quickly panning large (more than 10 page) documents.

2/26/2009 5:50:32 AM

^I have a scroll ball. that does all the panning and scrolling I need. Nothing 'naive' about that. To each his own.

2/26/2009 12:56:42 PM

looks like most of the major add-ons (including Saft) have been updated
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/02/safari-4-add-on-roundup-updates-are-here.ars

2/26/2009 2:33:12 PM

Also, Safari 4 is pretty dope. Love the tab structure, its actually a much better implementation than Chrome.

2/26/2009 8:59:35 PM

1) it doesnt appear to me after a full day of use to be faster than firefox
2) every single other browser ever made takes me to a webpage when i type "www.espn.com" .there are countless other examples but safari does not want to take me anywhere and gives me an error, i understand that is not the address but like i said every other browser finds the right one easy


[Edited on February 26, 2009 at 9:04 PM. Reason : f]

[Edited on February 26, 2009 at 9:05 PM. Reason : f]

2/26/2009 9:03:59 PM

Quote :

"it doesnt appear to me after a full day of use to be faster than firefox"

not at all what I'm seeing (at least on a Mac)....

Quote :

"every single other browser ever made takes me to a webpage when i type "www.espn.com""

do you ahve another example, maybe? both http://www.espn.com and just espn.com work fine for me.

Quote :

"Love the tab structure, its actually a much better implementation than Chrome."

yeah, check out this discussion. It would be very, very interesting if maybe with Snow Leopard, Mac introduced the idea of "Docking windows together" across the platform. That is basically what Safari 4 is doing - they're not tabs inside a window like all other programs use tabs, but it's more like separate windows that are being docked together via the Title Bar.
http://ignorethecode.net/blog/2009/02/26/on-tabs-and-docking-and-title-bars/
technically, instead of the implementation now, a single tab should look something like this:


here's the conclusion (more discussion at the link)

Quote :

"Let’s generalize! First, If tabs in Safari 4 essentially represent docked windows, then this kind of feature should not belong to Safari; it should belong to the operating system. Safari is redefining how window title bars work. Window title bars are a property of the OS. Safari has no business messing with title bars. Changes to such a fundamental user interface element should be part of the operating system, not part of an individual application. Also, I’m looking in your general direction, Adobe. Second, there’s no reason why individual windows should have title bars which look different from the tabbed version. Let’s go Be on the title bars.1 Third, kill clickthrough. We’ve tried it. It’s not doing any good. Clickthrough is only acceptable when it is clearly indicated by a visual change when the mouse hovers over the interface element accepting clickthrough. It’s the rare exception, not the rule. Fourth, fix Exposé. Since this window docking would work on the operating system level, it could be integrated into Exposé. Activating Exposé would temporarily break up the tabs and show each individual window. Fifth, as Chris Clark demands, let me move windows using multitouch. I move windows a lot. Moving windows using the title bar is not very efficient. If three- or four-finger gestures moved windows, Fitt would be happy, and the decreased size of the window’s title bar wouldn’t matter as much. What does it all mean? Using dockable windows, we’d be able to get rid of application-specific tab implementations. Every application would get tabs for free. We’d solve Exposé’s hidden windows problem. We’d get back the 20 pixels of vertical space which applications use to display tabs. We’d prevent other apps from poorly aping Safari, introducing their own kind of clutter into their own title bars. I’m still not sure if I like Safari’s tabs. I actually like the general idea, but the implementation is currently quite broken, mainly due to the fact that clickthrough turns the simple act of moving windows into a game of russian roulette. Safari 4’s tabs have some very obvious advantages and some painful disadvantages. But I do believe that implementing dockable windows on the operating system level would solve a ton of problems and offer tremendous advantages, from a better tab implementation to more consistency between applications. I do not know whether all of this would be a good idea. But it would certainly be an interesting idea."

and someone else on the same track
http://manton.org/2009/02/defending.html

Quote :

"So why do I like what Apple is doing here? Because I'm hopeful that this is the first experiment to bringing system-provided tabs to applications. Here's what I wrote about this issue in 2005: "Instead, Apple should have built upon Exposé to offer system-wide window grouping state, so that in any document-based application the user is in control of how windows are tabbed. Actions like dragging to rearrange tabs could be implemented once and work consistently across all applications." In the last 4 years the problem has only gotten worse. Developers are rolling their own tab solutions and there is no consistent behavior or keyboard shortcuts that I have seen. Worse, coding fully-featured tabs with the ability to drag windows in and out of a tab group is very difficult, and most apps don't go that far. The Safari 4 tabs are conceptually the right way to go. It's not "tabs" at all. Instead, think of it as an efficient way to dock multiple windows together. Getting the tabs out of the content area of the window is also the first real step to making this available to other developers. While I don't think you should stamp this on to all applications, certain classes of document-based applications could "opt-in" to this new system and get it mostly for free, with consistent UI and behavior provided by the system. Developers who had special requirements or wanted a custom tab look-and-feel could continue to build their own tabs without worry that their UI would be interfered with. I have no idea if this is the direction Apple is going in, but the Safari 4 design makes me think that at least someone at Apple has this in the back of their head."

[Edited on February 26, 2009 at 9:25 PM. Reason : .]

2/26/2009 9:24:24 PM

interesting

2/26/2009 9:43:51 PM

try "www.goallineblitz.com"

i cant get that to work either

2/26/2009 10:06:43 PM

Quote :

"http://ignorethecode.net/blog/2009/02/26/on-tabs-and-docking-and-title-bars/"

Dude makes some pretty big, and very incorrect assumptions. While it's an interesting discussion of making title-tabs an OS feature, the idea (and this was the focus of the 2nd article) of this being a universal solution is a REALL BAD idea. There's plenty of historical evidence that "one size fits all" window management solutions break down (MDI, MacOS classic, BeOS), which has led to the multiple approaches used today. Context should (and mostly does) drive the organizational construct, not the features or limitations of the OS Shell.

Global container tabs simply don't work for a lot of application types, and it's absolutely silly to say "dont do it if the OS doesn't allow it". There can be consistency in extending a visual language, without having to define every possible extension.

The clickthrough quibble is proven wrong by research done years and years ago. It's significantly slower and more aggravating to have to explicitly window switch by activation.

2/26/2009 10:11:59 PM

Maybe I just don't browse the web enough, but could someone point me to a site that takes such a long time to load that a speed improvement would be a selling feature for a browser? Any sites I've been to in the past number of years load practically instantly (after they finish downloading, at least).... Unless safari speeds up my roadrunner lite I'm not sure why they're touting this as some awesome feature...

but then again, maybe i'm just a interweb n00b and don't go to the cool-people slow sites

2/27/2009 12:00:49 AM

try visiting some javascript heavy sites then you'll see.

2/27/2009 1:11:47 AM

the difference in gmail is noticeable.
and I wouldn't be so sure that your pages appear "instantly" after downloading. There's probably some overlap in rendering time that you think is still download time.

the main point is, though, that the faster and "snappier" the browser feels, the more the more it feels like you're using a native applications. If gmail can create a new message in the instant I hit "compose mail", instead if lagging 0.5s, then it gives the illusion that I'm not working in a webapp, but more like a desktop client like Outlook.

2/27/2009 9:35:49 AM

i tried safari4 in gmail and i didn't see much difference. i didn't measure it, but i didn't discern any great improvement over FF3. i have 4 multiple inboxes, chat, gcalendar, gdocs and gmail tasks gadget enabled so my gmail setup uses a LOT of javascript and is a couple seconds to load

2/27/2009 9:39:50 AM

yeah, but after it loads the first time (which I will use Solinari's excuse here - Gmail has to download a lot of JS first) are the actions inside gmail not faster?

2/27/2009 9:56:00 AM

The only thing that I am a bit frustrated about is that safari isn't "learning" I visit my Igoogle site a a lot so it is not showing up in Top Sites. Also it fails to keep me logged into gmail. But other than that I feel it is faster, on a mac, and I love the tab structure.

2/27/2009 10:46:53 AM

^do you have any of your top sites anchored with the pin? (it would be blue) in which case no new top sites would show up. I've also had to go through and 'x' out a lot of the top sites in order for the ones I wanted to appear.

2/27/2009 11:49:17 AM

Yeah I dropped a bunch of sites i never visit like monster.com. tww popped up after visiting it about 3 times, same as facebook. And I still cannot get my igoogle or gmail to stay logged in.

2/27/2009 1:27:09 PM

to manually add sites to Top Sites, go in to Edit mode, then type a new URL in the Address Bar, but instead of pressing Enter, drag the favicon (the icon to the left of the URL) into the Top Sites window where you want it.

it would be nice if there was an "Add Site" button or something. Maybe in the final version there will be

2/27/2009 2:12:56 PM

yeh the top sites thing isn't working too hot for me either. i've already gone back to just typing the name or url in the address bar, letting it auto complete, and hitting enter. much faster.

also havng to search in the separate google bar instead of the url bar is kind of annoying.

I want FF 3.1b with the tabs "up top" please.

2/27/2009 2:36:56 PM

Quote :

"also havng to search in the separate google bar instead of the url bar is kind of annoying. "

wait what? How is that different then FF3? (haven't tried 3.1b) You are referring to the google search field to the right of the address bar right?

2/27/2009 2:38:44 PM

also something I noticed after putting Safari 4 on my wife's laptop - you may have to set Top Sites to be the default page for new tabs/windows. It was set like that automatically for me for some reason, but my wife's Safari kept her old home page.

If Top Sites is set to your default home page, it works very fast when you open a new tab. If you have to manually go to Top Sites, it would definitely be faster to just type a URL.

2/27/2009 2:42:06 PM

FF 3's url will google search if its not a url and isnt a title of something it already knows. sometimes its annoying in that it'll go to go a top hit's page instead of giving you google's list, but at least it tries. yeh there is a google bar there too, but i dont really use it much.

Safari 4 is retarded if you type anything other than a url in the url bar. this forces you to always use the google bar to search which i don't normally do.

The top hits thing is ok, but it is not faster (trying to find the pic of the damn site you're looking for, etc), than simple typing TWW for example. typing is faster that looking and clicking. a new tab which opens google is far more useful to me than this top sites thing. I'm already CMD/ALT-Ting to get a new tab, i might as well type a few characters and hit enter to finish it off.

2/27/2009 2:50:29 PM

i've found so far that Top Sites is best for me in this user case:
1) I use the "large" setting so only 6 thumbnails are showing
2) I edited and ordered them so they are all fixed and I know which site is where in the grid
3) my right hand is already on the mouse

in that case, i just CMD (which in my case is my Caps Lock key)+T with my left hand, and i can go straight to the thumbnail I want with the mouse.

2/27/2009 3:22:01 PM

wtf did you map your CMD key to caps lock?

Yeh i guess that works if they're all pinned in place so you memorize where they are. but since i can remember more than six sites, its better to stick with a single plan that works for them all

2/27/2009 6:15:52 PM

wtf did you map your CMD key to caps lock?

Yeh i guess that works if they're all pinned in place so you memorize where they are. but since i can remember more than six sites, its better to stick with a single plan that works for them all

2/27/2009 6:15:52 PM

wtf did you map your CMD key to caps lock?

Yeh i guess that works if they're all pinned in place so you memorize where they are. but since i can remember more than six sites, its better to stick with a single plan that works for them all

2/27/2009 6:15:52 PM

wtf did you map your CMD key to caps lock?

Yeh i guess that works if they're all pinned in place so you memorize where they are. but since i can remember more than six sites, its better to stick with a single plan that works for them all

2/27/2009 6:25:39 PM

one more time?


no - i mapped Caps Lock to CMD, not CMD to Caps Lock. Kind of like a UNIX keyboard, except I just have 2 CMDs and no Caps Lock because it's unnecessary. CMD (or Ctrl) over there right beside the A is just so much more convenient for the pinky finger.
check out the Keyboard Preference Pane and look at Modifier Keys

2/27/2009 6:32:02 PM

wtf.

2/28/2009 12:54:53 AM

wtf, i've been double/triple posting like a bastard with safari 4.

back to FF i go.

2/28/2009 11:22:51 AM

bump

6/23/2009 10:55:59 PM