The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Safari 4 beta
- Thread starter Terry
- Start date
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
No and there are some bugs from users on Mac rumors. Looks good though , hopefully it will be out soon but not going to beta test a browser myself.
simonclivehughes
Active member
I loaded it last night and so far it's behaving. It has some interesting features such as the most-viewed display and I like the tabs at the top of the menu bar. I'm not sure its any faster browsing-wise but I guess this is just a beta so we might expect better performance on the release version.
Cheers,
Cheers,
TRSmith
Subscriber Member
I've been using it since last night. It seems fine except for font conflicts. Some of the text appears garbled or as if it was in a strange alien symbol-font. This is not unusual. In fact, there have been garbled fonts since OSX first arrived. It's my single biggest complaint against Apple.
I don't understand how they can continue to release software that embeds Apple's dfonts that conflict with professionals who own (better) versions of the same fonts. I must have resolved this conflict 20 different times over the past 5 years, and every time requires hunting for the offending font. In the past it has been (to name a few) Helvetica, Helvetica Fractions, Bell Gothic, and now it seems to be Lucida Grande and Times that cause the problem. AAARRRGGHH! I fixed mine by removing the offending duplicate fonts (Times family) and now everything displays correctly.
Otherwise, I quite like the display of frequently visited pages which allows pretty fast access, maybe even faster than using a bookmark bar link. The only thing about it is, the pages show up for all to see and I have to be careful my wife doesn't walk by and see the "Sexy Seniors" page.
I don't understand how they can continue to release software that embeds Apple's dfonts that conflict with professionals who own (better) versions of the same fonts. I must have resolved this conflict 20 different times over the past 5 years, and every time requires hunting for the offending font. In the past it has been (to name a few) Helvetica, Helvetica Fractions, Bell Gothic, and now it seems to be Lucida Grande and Times that cause the problem. AAARRRGGHH! I fixed mine by removing the offending duplicate fonts (Times family) and now everything displays correctly.
Otherwise, I quite like the display of frequently visited pages which allows pretty fast access, maybe even faster than using a bookmark bar link. The only thing about it is, the pages show up for all to see and I have to be careful my wife doesn't walk by and see the "Sexy Seniors" page.
D
DougDolde
Guest
I upgraded. What I like best is that it scales the whole page not just the text. So you don't get weird effects when viewing larger. Go for it !
R
Ranger 9
Guest
I wouldn't install it on a production-intensive machine or on one that has any existing stability issues... SOP for any beta.
Other than that, I've been using it with no issues so far. Rendering of Javascript-intensive pages does seem a LOT faster.
It supposedly has passed compliance tests for all the latest standards... which means that commercial sites that have been hacked to work with dinosaur browsers (by which I mean the still-all-too-pervasive Internet Exploder 6) probably will be broken. Haven't hit any yet personally, though.
Most of the kvetch reviews I've seen so far complain mostly about the fact that it doesn't support Firefox's extension architecture... which means that they're dinging it for not being Firefox, which is like dinging the newest Canon DSLR for not being a Nikon or vice-versa.
Other than that, I've been using it with no issues so far. Rendering of Javascript-intensive pages does seem a LOT faster.
It supposedly has passed compliance tests for all the latest standards... which means that commercial sites that have been hacked to work with dinosaur browsers (by which I mean the still-all-too-pervasive Internet Exploder 6) probably will be broken. Haven't hit any yet personally, though.
Most of the kvetch reviews I've seen so far complain mostly about the fact that it doesn't support Firefox's extension architecture... which means that they're dinging it for not being Firefox, which is like dinging the newest Canon DSLR for not being a Nikon or vice-versa.
M
meilicke
Guest
Seems fine to me. I keep losing my tabs, though. It is taking me a bit of time to look *above* the address bar for them. The freq. used pages makes me cringe, thinking of all that network traffic, both for my Internet line and for the sites in my list, just to give me a pretty display.