Apple Safari web browser
-
biographie
- Advanced
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 7:41 am
Apple Safari web browser
I know this is probably too early, but has anyone noticed any problems with the new browser? Granted, I understand it is only a public beta, but I have seen what looks to be some appearance problems. I just tried the home page for this site on Safari, and the horizontal menu was all bunched-up. So I can't say if it is Safari, or the menu code needs specific tweaking for the new browser.
Here's a copy of an email I sent to someone asking the same question.
So as you can see I'm none to pleased with the way Apple have worked their minor upgrade procedure. And yes, "Apple" if you're watching. "You can quote me on this"
-- Andy
We are going to try and support Safari once we get it installed.
I'm currently very unhappy with the way Apple have treated it's OS X customers. After trying to install Safari I learnt that I needed OS X 10.2 we currently had 10.1.5. After a VERY long search on their site we discovered that we needed to purchase another FULL copy of the OS as an upgrade was not available and I think that this is disgusting, it's not the money it's the principle. Although we have now learned how NOT to treat our customers
So, our copy of 10.2 is in the post. Once it arrives I'll get it installed and let you know
So as you can see I'm none to pleased with the way Apple have worked their minor upgrade procedure. And yes, "Apple" if you're watching. "You can quote me on this"
-- Andy
There's no question, of course, that Apple has changed over the years (I used to work for them), but then, who hasn't? I think most of us got used to the 'everyting for free' realm, and now having to pay for things is a bit of a shock. OTOH, some of their upgrade prices are out of line (e.g., $129 for 10.2), IMHO.
So - do you pay for something you know works well, and is a damn-site better than you-know-what, or do you just fold and go with the 'other guys'? I'll pay, although somewhat
As for...
Safari itself is pretty nice, but still lacks many features I've gotten used to. Of course, there are some problems (to be expected, but it's only on the second release). Prefs are about 10% of the number you see on other browsers. Apple has taken the position (for some time, now) that folks will do things the way they decide - period - rather than allowing for the user to make that decision ("Do you really want to restart", etc.). Please - give me the option to turn that stupid message off.
Eventually I think they will have a winner with Safari. IE 5.2.2 still has serious problems, and M$ just dosen't seem to care about fixing them.
So - do you pay for something you know works well, and is a damn-site better than you-know-what, or do you just fold and go with the 'other guys'? I'll pay, although somewhat
As for...
Everything I saw clearly indicated Safari was for 10.2 only. Somebody didn't read closely enoughAfter trying to install Safari I learnt that I needed OS X 10.2 we currently had 10.1.5.
Safari itself is pretty nice, but still lacks many features I've gotten used to. Of course, there are some problems (to be expected, but it's only on the second release). Prefs are about 10% of the number you see on other browsers. Apple has taken the position (for some time, now) that folks will do things the way they decide - period - rather than allowing for the user to make that decision ("Do you really want to restart", etc.). Please - give me the option to turn that stupid message off.
Eventually I think they will have a winner with Safari. IE 5.2.2 still has serious problems, and M$ just dosen't seem to care about fixing them.
John
As far as I can tell version 10.2 is mostly bug fixes.
So what I'm saying is: Why should I pay once for buggy software and than pay again for the version that should have been released in the first place?
Don't get me wrong, I'm more than happy to pay for the upgrade if the upgrade was available but it's either stick with what you've got or cough up again for the full amount of the software.
I really think Apple has made a mistake with their pricing on this and I for one feel very indignant about it all, which will ultimately have an impact on purchasing future products.
Another question is: Why did Apple release Darwin under GNU?
The only answer I can see is that it would give Darwin more exposure to developers around the world working on their project free of charge.
Another thing that angers me about all this is that the core of OS X is based on FreeBSD an Open Source Unix based operating system. So in essence I appear to be buying Open Source software. Although this in itself is not in breach of GNU licensing what might be is this:
I used to test Beta releases on the Mac for the PHP Development team. As part of the GNU license you are NOT permitted to sell Open Source software for use with other Open Source products. As I was using the Mac solely for the purpose of improving other Open Source products could they be in breach of the GNU license?
I think Apple need to tread very carefully with OS X. When it was first released, and we realised that we could run things like Apache, PHP, MySQL etc etc, it was amazing and I for one was excited about the whole aspect. Once I actually had the software installed I was disappointed. I looked forward to the updates as each one was getting better and better but now I need to pay for these updates and I really don't think it's fair.
The bottom line is that Apple now have a dissatisfied customer and that as a marketing stand point is very, very bad for business.
So what I'm saying is: Why should I pay once for buggy software and than pay again for the version that should have been released in the first place?
Don't get me wrong, I'm more than happy to pay for the upgrade if the upgrade was available but it's either stick with what you've got or cough up again for the full amount of the software.
I really think Apple has made a mistake with their pricing on this and I for one feel very indignant about it all, which will ultimately have an impact on purchasing future products.
Another question is: Why did Apple release Darwin under GNU?
The only answer I can see is that it would give Darwin more exposure to developers around the world working on their project free of charge.
Another thing that angers me about all this is that the core of OS X is based on FreeBSD an Open Source Unix based operating system. So in essence I appear to be buying Open Source software. Although this in itself is not in breach of GNU licensing what might be is this:
I used to test Beta releases on the Mac for the PHP Development team. As part of the GNU license you are NOT permitted to sell Open Source software for use with other Open Source products. As I was using the Mac solely for the purpose of improving other Open Source products could they be in breach of the GNU license?
I think Apple need to tread very carefully with OS X. When it was first released, and we realised that we could run things like Apache, PHP, MySQL etc etc, it was amazing and I for one was excited about the whole aspect. Once I actually had the software installed I was disappointed. I looked forward to the updates as each one was getting better and better but now I need to pay for these updates and I really don't think it's fair.
The bottom line is that Apple now have a dissatisfied customer and that as a marketing stand point is very, very bad for business.
OK, one more try with a different browser (IE keeps blowing up on me in the forum and a few other places - yet another reason I hate Windoze).
First off I am NOT defending Apple. You and I are on the same bench when it comes to being unhappy customers. The OS is good (despite many remaining holes), but their pricing policy leaves a lot to be desired.
According to Apple, "Mac OS X v10.2 contains over 150 new features and provides significant enhancements to its modern, UNIX-based foundation." I suspect it would take both of us, and maybe the rest of the forum as well, to find all 150.
Initially I couldn't get 10.0 off my drive fast enough. Buggy to the point of not working, and not (IMHO) worth the effort, despite having paid a bunch for it. It was some time before I tried again. Obviously it was released far too early, but I guess that's marketing.
10.2.3 works very well for me (still holes, but 2 free updates since paying again), but I have dropped 9 entirely and everything is working as I need it to.
I don't like paying twice, either, and unfortunately Apple is not the only company that does this. I can get around using most of the others, but here I'm pretty well stuck. For me it comes down to using something I hate, is confusing and difficult to maintain (Windoze), or biting the bullet and paying more for something I'm comfortable with. Over a barrel we are, but I see no way out, so we sit here
As for paying for a 'free' system, I suppose their position would be the added GUI. I'm not saying that's justification, but your point is well taken. While many of the updates have been free, this 'upgrade' is considered major by them (it was originally supposed to be 10.5), but, as mentioned, we're still paying for what should have been there in the first place.
First off I am NOT defending Apple. You and I are on the same bench when it comes to being unhappy customers. The OS is good (despite many remaining holes), but their pricing policy leaves a lot to be desired.
According to Apple, "Mac OS X v10.2 contains over 150 new features and provides significant enhancements to its modern, UNIX-based foundation." I suspect it would take both of us, and maybe the rest of the forum as well, to find all 150.
Initially I couldn't get 10.0 off my drive fast enough. Buggy to the point of not working, and not (IMHO) worth the effort, despite having paid a bunch for it. It was some time before I tried again. Obviously it was released far too early, but I guess that's marketing.
10.2.3 works very well for me (still holes, but 2 free updates since paying again), but I have dropped 9 entirely and everything is working as I need it to.
I don't like paying twice, either, and unfortunately Apple is not the only company that does this. I can get around using most of the others, but here I'm pretty well stuck. For me it comes down to using something I hate, is confusing and difficult to maintain (Windoze), or biting the bullet and paying more for something I'm comfortable with. Over a barrel we are, but I see no way out, so we sit here
As for paying for a 'free' system, I suppose their position would be the added GUI. I'm not saying that's justification, but your point is well taken. While many of the updates have been free, this 'upgrade' is considered major by them (it was originally supposed to be 10.5), but, as mentioned, we're still paying for what should have been there in the first place.
John
Still with a slight grudge - yes. Still don't like IE, still don't like Safari (but I think soon it will beat IE hands down), full feature printer support is still missing, etc., etc. But - I'll keep it.
Make sure you update to 10.2.3 when you get it (if that's not what comes). Software update will tell you.
Make sure you update to 10.2.3 when you get it (if that's not what comes). Software update will tell you.
John
I've already downloaded it, thinking it would upgrade 10.1.5Make sure you update to 10.2.3 when you get it (if that's not what comes). Software update will tell you.
You never know, the postman might be bringing me my very own copy tomorrow
But then again the postman has been late every day this week. And by late I mean he turns up at lunch time 
Sheesh, I sound like a right old moody cow in these last few messages don't I
-- Andy
That's nothin'. Mine doesn't get there until after I get home from workYou never know, the postman might be bringing me my very own copy tomorrow But then again the postman has been late every day this week. And by late I mean he turns up at lunch time
No more than I do. Guess that's what happens when ya get old and gray (speaking solely for me, of courseSheesh, I sound like a right old moody cow in these last few messages don't I
).John
Apple Safari Browser
I'm using latest release version of DHTML Menu under MacOS 10.2.3.
Under IE my menus and those menus of other sites using DHTML Menu seem to work fine.
Using the latest beta relese of Safari, my top menus are reduced drastically in size to small rectangles, but do work. The secondary level menus appear and work fine.
My site is at http://www.timeoutofmind.com/
TIA
Don
Under IE my menus and those menus of other sites using DHTML Menu seem to work fine.
Using the latest beta relese of Safari, my top menus are reduced drastically in size to small rectangles, but do work. The secondary level menus appear and work fine.
My site is at http://www.timeoutofmind.com/
TIA
Don
Hi,
We have Safari working well in version 4.0 of the menu.
We hope to have a release date real soon.
Safari is after all still a beta and we hope the final release will be similar to the Beta so that we wont have to keep changing things.
Regards
Andy
We have Safari working well in version 4.0 of the menu.
We hope to have a release date real soon.
Safari is after all still a beta and we hope the final release will be similar to the Beta so that we wont have to keep changing things.
Regards
Andy
Last edited by Andy on Mon Feb 10, 2003 2:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.