Vanilla on an iPhone (Safari 3.0)

Minisweeper

"Backspace doesn't take me back a page" I was noticing that and it's pretty irritating. I hadn't noticed you cant ctrl+tab between tabs too which is pretty irritating. It does seem to be using less memory and CPU than firefox though and no crashes so far...we'll see.

Stash

Crashes seem entirely random. Haven't had any today even though I've been visiting pages that crashed it yesterday... tonnes less memory than my FX2 install though, oh yes. But then so does IE7 I'm currently using 183MB with FX2 But then that's what 30 open tabs with histories and 36 enabled extensions will do to you, hehe

Mind you, Safari's using 35MB with one tab, no history and no extensions...
IE7, 16MB for the same deal.
Minefield 3.0a7pre, 35MB with only 2 extensions enabled.

P.S. but can anyone else actually download iTunes from http://www.apple.com/itunes/download/ using Safari 3 for Windows?

Minisweeper

DUDE...it doesn't even have a session saver feature built in? That really is a show stopper for me...bloody mac users settling for mediocrity.

giginger

I uninstalled it because I couldn't get used to the text and the loss of functionality. Shame because I fancied a browser change. I don't like Windows text and I don't like Apple text but at least I'm used to the Windows one. The Safari text looks weird because Apple have coded it to use their own form of text rendering. It's completely independent of anything Windows does. I'm starting to get sick of Firefox though. I had to completely reinstall my whole profile because extensions weren't updating properly. The update failed and then they wouldn't work at all. Annoying but at least I managed to save all my greasemonkey scripts. Windows memory is released by the program, normally, so if a program is hogging a lot of memory (Firefox) it's because it won't release it when it's not being used. Nothing to do with Windows letting the program hold it. I know Firefox holds it's memory because of the page caching but I'm sure there's a better way than using RAM. Then again, I can't code for shit.

Wanderer

Again, none of these problems with Safari for me. You choose to live with Windows, I feel sorry for you.

I have to use Firefox for testing, it complains about EVERY bleeding site I visit (even their own site!) popping up a window with CSS issues and JavaScript errors and lord knows what else. I tried setting the preference (developer extension) to not hassle me but it won't stick.

I couldn't use Firefox for regular browsing, it feels kludgy, can't explain it really, it does not have the simple elegance of Safari. And again with the text, experts and pundits all agree, Safari text is the best rendered they've seen, at least with OSX.

And please don't give me lessons on Windows memory management!

Do yourself a favour and re-install Safari beta. Give it some real time, especially with a few more updates to fix the Windows security issues and some of the other problems.

The only thing that broke for me were a few Widgets which were coded badly because the update replaced the JavaScript interpreter. A quick update fixed that and it's a pleasure to use again.

Why do I feel like a missionary in the backwoods of the jungle?

Posted: Friday, 6 July 2007 at 8:18AM

giginger

I feel sorry for anyone who's a fanboy. Amusingly my girlfriend says I hate Microsoft. You say I hate Apple. I do hate Linux in general so I suppose I should just leave computers alone. I don't know what the hell you did to your Firefox but I've never even heard of that issue let alone seen it. Even had the developer extension and nothing ever popped up. Why should I not give you lessons on Windows memory management when you've made a statement that is incorrect? Mistakes need to be corrected or they'll be perpetuated. I'm not going to re-install Safari Beta. I have extensions on Firefox which I use daily and I wouldn't get those on Safari. Plus, the text thing would just annoy the fuck out of me. It's a browser. When I get a Mac I'll probably use it more then. Until that though I'll "suffer". Maybe you feel like the Missionary because in the same way God doesn't exist there's not perfect computing solution.

Wanderer

Correcting mistakes? Ditch Windblows and get a Mac!

When I get a Mac I'll probably use it more then. Until that though I'll "suffer".
Amen to that mate.

Wanna see perfect computing? You know what you need to do, it's within your reach my son, it exists, but you'll never see it if you've done a deal with the devil. Repent, repent and ye shall see the light.

Posted: Friday, 6 July 2007 at 5:53PM

Minisweeper

I'm afraid I now only have one response to this thread: 'lol' p.s. I'm getting used to the text rendering..

Kaon

If you guys are bitching about the anti-aliased text, you're being stupid. How can you possibly prefer blocky, pixelated crap compared to smooth lines and... well, beauty? But then again, I have no idea what you guys mean when you say the text rendering. Could be anything. Screenshots?

bjrn

Here are two links to comparison between how Windows usually does it, and how Safari does it. The whole discussion has some more posts about the anti-aliasing.

fnostro

IMO - text is too small to receive the benefits of anti-aliasing - it comes across as blurry - to me anyway. IE7 came with that enabled - I quickly turned it off - give me crisp clear pixel based text over THAT anyday.

If you want text to have the same dpi resolution a printer then they need to figure out a way to get better than 75dpi on a monitor.

Minisweeper

Kaon, please understand that we're not 'bitching' as such, more just that we're observing it as different to normal - whether that's better or worse it's still different, and that takes some getting used to. Fnostro - Most monitors these days are 100dpi+ (you can actually get laptop screens pushing 130dpi) but yeah, that's still lower than the 300dpi average print. I dont really care though.

Wanderer

"...we're observing it as different to normal..."

Hmmm, now what's normal to you is abject to me!

As for better or worse, you may say it is worse in the light of your "normal" experience, I, on the other hand say it's much better, not only because it's my "normal" but people who should know also agree.

Posted: Saturday, 7 July 2007 at 11:07AM

giginger

For the love of God.

Wanderer

Don't go getting all religious, it's simple, I am right, you are wrong!

Posted: Saturday, 7 July 2007 at 1:05PM

Minisweeper

It's not 'normal' to ANY windows users, and since that's the 'we' I'm talking about I'm pretty sure it was perfectly acceptable of me not to define that at the time. I feel like I already use too many bracketed statements in a lot of my posts without having to explain 'simple' things like that. I honestly have absolutely no idea what you were even trying to achieve with that post. It's like you came along and thought 'yeah, I'll completely agree with what Minisweeper just said but if I word it right it might sound like I'm being argumentative and then I might be able to win because what I'm saying is right, regardless of the fact that it's also exactly what he's saying'. Seriously. I didn't even state whether I personally thought it was better or worse, I said that regardless of whether ANYONE (yeah, dude, that includes you) THOUGHT (i.e. in their personal opinion) it was better or worse, it was still DIFFERENT to what WINDOWS users were USED TO which is why we all picked up on it and commented on it. I think you'll find (I might be wrong here, since I only read it myself, I didn't read it from your perspective which seems to make things come across differently) that earlier on in this thread I also pointed out that I was getting used to the text rendering, meaning it was starting to look more normal to me, and I didn't mind it so much. I'm still not PERSONALLY (you know, that's the great thing about 'freedom' of speech - we can voice our own opinions) sure whether I do prefer it or not, but I can view the differences from a more objective standpoint because it no longer looks foreign to me. If supposed experts say it's better, then fine. Frankly I don't really mind.

blizeH

I hear maximising windows is the new right click

Stash

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3018&p=5 I think they're right you know.

Wanderer

I think they are wrong, surprised?

It's Safari, a Mac approach to web browsing, as such, its Mac-ness must not be compromised and must be there for all to see. If you don't like the differences in the interface, stick with your Exploder and Firefox, they'll go well with the head-in-sand attitude.

"hard to use" ... Please, there are millions of people using Safari without a second though because the interface is intuitive. If you can't adapt, stick with the inferior alternative.

I really do thing you guys are in the minority here because you actually create and make with your web browser and use it as a tool. People who make the web experience a priority, and take the interface at face value don't mind the differences.

My sister and brother-in-law, typical PC %$#@ users for many years love the new iMac they bought for their daughter, my niece, and have a schedule for time on it around her homework timetable. When I told them Safari is now available for Windows they freaked!

It's futile to second-guess the Steve man's intentions for Safari on the dark side, he knows what he's doing, if the Safari strategy does not work, he'll come up with something else. I think it's remarkable that he's got two very Mac applications running on the opposition's platform true to their roots and not compromised by all the Windows quirkiness.

Posted: Tuesday, 10 July 2007 at 7:44AM

Minisweeper

I really don't see what there is to be so 'intuitive' about a browser interface...you need a place to type the URL, and I guess a button to refresh the page and go forward and back..what more? If your family really got excited because of a browser release they need to get out more.