digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Apple unleashes version 3.1 of Safari web browser

appleinsider.com — Safari 3.1 is the first browser to support the new video and audio tags in HTML 5 and the first to support CSS Animations, according to Apple. It also supports CSS Web Fonts, giving designers limitless choices of fonts to create stunning new web sites.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • barsans, on 03/18/2008, -36/+13The only thing i've noticed so far, it seems to break the 1password input manager.
    • ilgaz, on 03/18/2008, -3/+14You can update to beta version of 1passwd (enable beta updates in software update) or you can wait for Safari 3.1 final version supporting stable release in matter of hours.
    • brenthals, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2New version now out, 10 minutes old.
  • zwei, on 03/18/2008, -72/+38Safari 3.1 is so fast you can watch yourself get dugg down before your comment is posted!
    • timusca, on 03/18/2008, -26/+10Did you see that one coming?
      • madmac625, on 03/18/2008, -4/+22If you knew you were going to get dugg down, would you still comment?
      • MikeOSX, on 03/18/2008, -4/+3Discussions on Digg should not get this philosophical.
    • kipmartin, on 03/18/2008, -23/+2dugg down because...you asked for it!
      • MrViklund, on 03/18/2008, -10/+3Dugg down because you dugg down one asking for it.
        • clyde2801, on 03/18/2008, -9/+1Come on, you have to admit that was a little funny...
    • GunDownCCL, on 03/18/2008, -0/+7Wonder what would have happened if he'd said dugg up?
    • TWillz, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1the funny thing is he's right. it does seem damn fast!
    • hmunkey, on 03/19/2008, -2/+1FF is still better.
  • wonderwal, on 03/18/2008, -64/+5Dupe. Buried.
  • bilbot, on 03/18/2008, -52/+5AAAH!!! Safari 3.1 (PPC) Broke my Apache. 127.0.0.1 "Safari can’t open the page ..... because it could not connect to the server “localhost”.
    Any ideas?
    • timusca, on 03/18/2008, -32/+9Yes, go to the Apple Discussion Boards with your problems... we don't want to hear about them.
    • prophetpimp, on 03/18/2008, -22/+23Use firefox?
    • InorganicMatter, on 03/18/2008, -8/+5LAMP server page renders fine in my Safari.
      • Yodacola, on 03/18/2008, -1/+4He is talking about Safari on his PPC Mac, which is based off of Mach. That is not a LAMP setup.
      • allyant, on 03/18/2008, -1/+3I thought the L in LAMP stands for Linux.....
        • harbrut, on 03/19/2008, -1/+4It does, but Mac OS X uses XNU as it's kernel. There is no Linux in OS X.
          • Trat, on 03/19/2008, -2/+0"There is no Linux in OS X"

            Thank god for that, or else my WiFi would never have worked...
    • Barrie, on 03/18/2008, -0/+14How could a web browser possibly break a web server?? If that is true you would be able to crash any website that is running the same version of Apache as you...
      • morninglorii, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3I think he means the installation of Safari 3.1 broke his Apache installation, not accessing the server with Safari 3.1...
      • dannybull, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3At least he didn't type google into google.
  • sourc3, on 03/18/2008, -23/+5But... it's snappier!
  • shervin2, on 03/18/2008, -10/+61Now when is it coming to the iPod Touch and the iPhone?
    • esbi, on 03/18/2008, -0/+14It's included in Firmware 1.2 (or at least in Aspen Simulator it is)
      [ AppleWebKit/525.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1 Mobile/5A147p Safari/5525.7 ]
      • robnab, on 03/18/2008, -10/+1There are no negative responses to this article. Look for them there are none. Why? because this is a battlefield and you are not even participants, you are observers., every time I turn on my PC I'm asked to install an itunes update and now a new browser, I DON'T WANT IT where's that option?
        • luchid, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3Don't blame Apple. You didn't uncheck the Apple Updater option when you installed iTunes. Plus you can uninstall it. Buried for being clueless.
    • Meg2020, on 03/18/2008, -6/+10Just wait to hear this: iPhone users, it will be a free upgrade or you can have it for just $5 if you are an iPod Touch users, shipping free with all new iPods. Are we being punished for buying your product right away?
      • pak314, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2Yes. You are aware of the consequences of being an early adopter.
    • Wakuko, on 03/19/2008, -0/+0Version 3.1 and it doesn't have a "Open New Tab" button in the toolbar?
      What do you think my granny is, a clairvoyant?
    • Wakuko, on 03/19/2008, -0/+0Btw, how do I get the english version instead of this Kilimanjaro's afrikan version?
  • fudgebrown, on 03/18/2008, -84/+68Ironically, Using Safari 3.1, I cannot digg this article.
    • MuckSavage76, on 03/18/2008, -8/+96Then you are doing something wrong. Works just fine right here to digg you down.
    • badqat, on 03/18/2008, -5/+42Why is that? Works fine for me.
    • InorganicMatter, on 03/18/2008, -3/+26I just did...
    • diothar, on 03/18/2008, -4/+40So, take your mouse cursor, place it on "digg it" then click your mouse button. Seems to work for everybody else. Irony has nothing to do with it. Seems as if you just don't know how to digg. I hope I've assisted you today.
    • bjornski, on 03/18/2008, -24/+12Wow. Mac users shredding one of their own who is having technical issues.

      You guys are dicks.
      • binaryghost, on 03/18/2008, -10/+4haha... awesome.
      • monkeyvoodoo, on 03/18/2008, -1/+10Some people start complaining before they've even stopped to figure out if there's really a problem, though. At least they were telling him it worked for them. Now he knows it's not his browser.
    • lepton, on 03/18/2008, -0/+10I had a similar problem, perhaps you were previously using a developer beta as I was. Go to Preferences, Security, Show Cookies, scroll down and remove all the digg cookies and you'll be fine with no data loss.
      • fudgebrown, on 03/18/2008, -0/+4Thank you! That solved my issue that has plagued my experience on digg for a few weeks - not sure how it broke, but removing the cookies fixed it - thanks.
    • wantknowledge, on 03/18/2008, -1/+4You might need to enable cookies under the security menu. That solved the problem for me.
      • rstarr, on 03/18/2008, -1/+6DID YOU CHECK YOUR TCP/IP SETTINGS?!
        Yes Ollie.
        RENABLE COOKIES?!
        Yes Ollie.
        DO YOU WANT THIS DOG?!
    • junkwheel, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3Your mouse is broken.
  • techresearcher, on 03/18/2008, -36/+16There you go.....Another graveyard. Man, these Apple fanboys have a serious problem.
  • christianbusch, on 03/18/2008, -34/+13"Safari 3.1 for Mac OS X requires built-in FireWire." uh? I'm sorry for the Macbook Air users =P
    • hypercrypt, on 03/18/2008, -3/+18"run on _any_ Intel-based Mac or a Mac with a PowerPC G5, G4 or G3 processor and built-in FireWire"

      STFU
      • monkeyvoodoo, on 03/18/2008, -3/+10Hey now - this is Digg. Digg users have a really, really hard time parsing English. Also, writing English.
  • digitallysick, on 03/18/2008, -23/+3When will it be released through the apple software update?
    • sourc3, on 03/18/2008, -0/+16It already is. I downloaded it this morning through ASU.
  • antipoet, on 03/18/2008, -15/+28This is ridiculous. The digg synopsis above says nearly as much as the actual article.
  • mark_in_bc, on 03/18/2008, -44/+9Firefox is already everything that Safari should be. Through in the towel Steve and ship with Firefox installed and save new users from having to discover it on their own.
    • wwwluckyro, on 03/18/2008, -19/+8Dude. You suck. A lot.
    • wearescience, on 03/18/2008, -12/+4People that live in glass houses shouldn't through stones.
      • hypercrypt, on 03/18/2008, -2/+1People that live in glass cribs shouldn't throw hard stuff....
    • UKsHaDoW, on 03/18/2008, -1/+14Safari feels much better on mac than firefox tbh.
      Its more integrated, uses webkit(Which currently better then gecko. They don't like using gecko on small devices since its so resource intensive)

      The downer is the lack of plug ins
      • Septimus, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3But once you have Safari Adblock it makes it far more usable. Seriously, most users only use adblock plugins (not inc digg users who I am sure are l33t and have 20+... because more is better right?).
      • harbrut, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Lack of plugins? or lack of plugins you like? www.pimpmysafari.com
  • kenthorvath, on 03/18/2008, -2/+14Any word on whether this breaks PithHelmet compatibility?
    • ebony, on 03/18/2008, -1/+4Yes, it does seem to. It automatically disables it.
      • ferndave, on 03/18/2008, -0/+8It WILL work, I'm using it now on 10.4.11, Safari 3.1, & PH 2.8.2. You just have to change the MinBundleVersion in info.plist to 4525. Search Google for a how-to, or wait for Mike to update.
        • oOLiquidNightOo, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3dude, please hook me up with a link or something. i'm dying over here without pith helmet. i tried to google but had no luck.
          • Blubi, on 03/18/2008, -0/+4http://www.versiontracker.com/php/feedback/article ...
            you'll find these steps:
            1. Close Safari.
            2. Navigate to /Library/ApplicationSupport/SIMBL/PithHelmet.bundle.
            3. Open bundle and go to Contents.
            4. Open info.plist - You can use either Property List Editor or TextEdit.
            5. Locate Bundle Identifier for com.apple.Safari.
            6. Change BOTH MaxBundleVersion AND MinBundleVersion to (current version of Safari; usually the first three digits are sufficient)
            7. Save and relaunch Safari.  
            Concerning point 6, set the numbers 5525 and 552.
          • Blubi, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2sorry, broken link. trying again:
            http://www.versiontracker.com/php/feedback/article ...
          • oOLiquidNightOo, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2thanks blubi, appreciate your time.
    • JonLatane, on 03/18/2008, -1/+5I don't know about PithHelmet, but SafariBlock (http://code.google.com/p/safariblock/ ) still works perfectly (I've come to prefer it over PH, you might want to give it a try).
    • shanemichael, on 03/18/2008, -0/+6Safari Ad block works... I prefer that to pith helmet.
  • coit, on 03/18/2008, -33/+20No AdBlock Plus, no digg.
  • prophetpimp, on 03/18/2008, -33/+618MB for a ***** browser? Talk about being bloated.
    • InorganicMatter, on 03/18/2008, -0/+23It's an 18MB download. It consumed 134MB of disk space when it installed. :p
    • MuckSavage76, on 03/18/2008, -3/+54Wow. Seriously? 18 megs? Is that breaking your 60 meg drive?
    • tacojohn, on 03/18/2008, -1/+34It's by far the least bloated web browser- it barely has a UI for the user...
      • supermanred, on 03/18/2008, -0/+9It's fast and everything works as advertised. There is plenty of UI and keyboard shortcuts. Just not bloated. If you use XSLIMMER it goes down to around 8 megs and loads even faster.
      • MrSlumberjack, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2That's right, a user interface IS for the user.
    • TomKarpik, on 03/18/2008, -1/+12And Firefox 2 is 17 MB.

      Unfortunately, RAM usage of the two is a completely different story.
      • woojoo, on 03/18/2008, -1/+2Depends on which platform you're running it on.
        • TomKarpik, on 03/19/2008, -0/+0According to the last few stories about optimized memory usage in Firefox 3, you're wrong.
    • santaliqueur, on 03/18/2008, -0/+8Your operating system likely uses multiple GB of space. Stop whining.
  • freshyill, on 03/18/2008, -1/+34Just a heads up for those of you who are interested. You can always keep up with the type of changes that are included with this version of Safari by downloading the Webkit nightly builds at http://webkit.org. It's very useful if you want to see what sort of changes Apple will incorporate into Safari's rendering engine, and if you're designing something and you want to test out the latest and greatest techniques.
    • trogdoor, on 03/18/2008, -0/+4And they can be used in Konq and Epiphany in other *NIX's
    • LeonardNimrod, on 03/18/2008, -0/+5That is only an update to the WebKit engine. This Safari point update—while using a newer engine that scores 75/100 in Acid3—also adds some front end functionality that wasn't available in 3.04. Like double-tapping the Tab Bar to create a new tab. FF has had this feature and now Safari does.
      • freshyill, on 03/18/2008, -2/+3I just noticed those changes. Nice of Apple to do that without having to shell out for a new OS, for a change. The develop menu is particularly nice. I can't wait to disable styles! (no, seriously)
    • jordan314, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Only thing I don't like about it is webkit hasn't been compatible with new yahoo mail; I was using it for a while until I realized new yahoo mail does browser detection on safari 3 to make it work, and webkit has a different user agent.
      I'm REALLY liking safari 3.1 though, it's a LOT faster. Sometimes Safari 3.0 would take up most of my CPU, and now the pages I load just pop.
  • TheHogester, on 03/18/2008, -11/+7As long as it works, I'm happy.
  • AQUaDeX, on 03/18/2008, -2/+32Well at least it's the only released (stable) browser that gets 75/100 on ACID3... http://acid3.acidtests.org/
    • MuckSavage76, on 03/18/2008, -8/+6Oddly enough, the nightly from Webkit scores an 89.
    • alex7575, on 03/18/2008, -4/+11WTF, Firefox only gets 54/100??? Am I going nuts?
      • CATSCEO, on 03/18/2008, -4/+47Its a unknown fact that FF *isn't* the best web browser in some respects.
        • supermanred, on 03/18/2008, -1/+16I just tested the latest build of Safari (Webkit) and it scores 93. If I had the balls to run IE I bet it scores lower and firefox is somewhere in between. I however do not have the balls to run IE at work. It could cause the collapse of our business, and I'd be out of a job.
          • alex7575, on 03/18/2008, -0/+11I had the balls, and IE 7 froze my computer for about a minute and died a agonizing death (just crashed), I had it run under VMWare 1.1.1, don't know if that had anything to do with it.
          • SwampyUK, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2I managed to get it to render, but had to look at the original to get an idea of where the %age was I was supposed to be looking at.
            Pic here: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2405/2342798551_126 ...
          • macaddct1984, on 03/18/2008, -0/+5IE 6.0 got a 12/100...
          • jer2eydevil88, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3I'm surprised that IE 6 even got a 12 it does such a poor job.
        • uremomsnitemare, on 03/18/2008, -2/+1an*
      • skyshock1, on 03/18/2008, -1/+4Why are you surprised? The Gecko rendering engine isn't one of the best when it comes to these rendering tests.
      • gavintlgold, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3Firefox 3 Beta 4 under linux is also horrible at the acid test, but gets 68/100.
      • wonderchemist, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2To be fair, each point is a group of tests and you have to pass all the tests in a group to get that point.
      • slythfox, on 03/19/2008, -2/+2Latest Firefox Nightly gets 71/100. I've been watching rendering improve each day. It's the reason I live.
    • nandasunu, on 03/18/2008, -4/+10Acid3 is very new and not yet really relevant, its a measure of what is expected in the future, not now.
      • mhl12, on 03/18/2008, -3/+893/100 on latest build of Webkit
      • LeonardNimrod, on 03/18/2008, -0/+6Yet there is noting in Acid3 that was not designated an open web standard after 2004 so it's what we should be expecting today if compliant browsers ruled the land... but we know that IE is still the dominate force here.
    • SSUK, on 03/18/2008, -0/+28IE7: 14/100 (page is completely garbled, however)
      IE8 Beta 1 17/100 (close to reference)
      Firefox 2.0.0.10: 53/100 (Not displayed in proper format at all)
      Firefox 3 Beta 1: 58/100 (Like refrence, without colour)
      Firefox 3 Beta 4: 68/100 (Like refrence, without colour)
      Safari 3.1 (WIN32): 74/100 (Like reference, without colour)
      Opera 9.25: 46/100 (Worse than Firefox 2.x in presentation)

      My own personal findings from the browsers I have installed, to curve idiotic replies to this comment.
      • GrantTLC, on 03/18/2008, -1/+8Opera 9.5 (Build 9841): 77/100 (Like reference, but only 1 box coloured)
        • KMartSheriff, on 03/18/2008, -3/+12That's awesome for all 2 of its users.
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/18/2008, -2/+13100/100 But I had to draw and color it all in on a sheet of blank paper.
      • slythfox, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3
        ^
        |
        Has the current scores for many development rendering engines. FF Nightly is at 71/100, for example.
    • newbill123, on 03/18/2008, -0/+7Here are some of the gritty, nitty details about the Acid3 results passing & failing. Simple summary: It looks like there's quite a bit more to come in the nightlies that hasn't gestated long enough to make it out to the release version.

      Safari 3.1 released 3/18/2008 - Failed 25 of 100 tests.
      Webkit Nightly version 311114 - Failed 7 of 100 tests.
      Webkit Acid3 meta tracking bug: http://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17064

      Tests Safari 3.1 failed which Webkit Nightly passed: 01,04,06,11,13,18,26,27,38,42,44,46,59,70,71,72,77,86,92
      Tests which still fail for both: 02 (but for different reasons), 23,25,70,75,76,79

      Test#: #00 | #26 | #39 | #40 | #46 | #65 | Total
      Webk: 21ms | 582ms | 19ms | 31ms | 26ms | 42ms | 4.72s
      Safari: ----- | fails | 19ms | 41ms | failed | 40ms | 3:22s
  • jhourcle, on 03/18/2008, -10/+7"stunning new web sites" ... that look like crap in every browser that doesn't have this feature?
    (or am I just jaded from Netscape and IE's non-standard HTML extensions and differing CSS implementations?)
    • Numfar28, on 03/18/2008, -1/+20Actually they've submitted it to the W3C to become a standard. Right now they're following the appropriate procedures using the -webkit- prefix, just like what mozilla does with its -moz- prefix.
    • Elranzer, on 03/18/2008, -6/+7"First supported by Safari" means a feature that won't be touched by any web developer until it's supported by IE and Mozilla-based browsers.
      • WiseWeasel, on 03/18/2008, -0/+8Except iPhone web developers (along with Nokia, Android, and anyone else who uses webkit)... Some nice new capabilities here when they finally release the mobile Safari update.
    • skidooer, on 03/18/2008, -1/+15The whole idea behind CSS is that it degrades gracefully. Who cares if it looks like crap in other browsers as long as they can still access the content?
      • Defuser, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2Professionals. That's "who cares".
        • skidooer, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1So what you're saying is that end users don't care. Therefore "professionals" shouldn't care either because they are just providing what the end user wants anyway.
  • alex7575, on 03/18/2008, -20/+6I haz firefocks
    • supermanred, on 03/18/2008, -4/+9lol catz speak is probably the lamest thing you can do with your keyboard.
      • alex7575, on 03/18/2008, -6/+2lamer than trying to belittle other people with trollish comments?
  • cmuwriter, on 03/18/2008, -26/+7I don't care if Apple releases free apple pie, I'm sticking with good old Firefox.
    • MrViklund, on 03/18/2008, -2/+14That's ok. But I think most people don't care that you don't care. So why post.
    • stoppedcode12, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1I'll take 3
  • TheFinaleofSeem, on 03/18/2008, -9/+16And animated GIFs still play at a fraction of the intended speed. Thanks for getting that one fixed, Apple!

    Other than that, it seems very snappy and slick.
    • postalblowfish7, on 03/18/2008, -4/+16i agree that it's ***** that tech as ancient as animated gifs is still broken in safari. i guess no one at apple frequents ytmnd...
    • UKsHaDoW, on 03/18/2008, -1/+19You have to wait for them to load, then they play normal speed. ;)
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 03/18/2008, -7/+1No, actually, they don't. They still play slowly the second time around. I tried Firefox and they play fine first time, every time.
        • sleepwalkers, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2I'm not sure what's wrong, then. I've never had a gif run slow once it was completely loaded.
          • TheFinaleofSeem, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1It's always been like that for me, from the early days of 10.4 on up, from what I remember.
    • MyNameIsJoe, on 03/18/2008, -3/+7 How many websites actually still use animated GIF's that you would actually care?

      Went to hamsterdance.com to check this out (only site I could think of that would have animated GiF's) and the speed seemed just fine to me.
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3Ever heard of YTMND? And fire up Hamsterdance in Firefox or in IE in Windows. You'll see the difference. Or check the little animated GIF that's always on Aint it Cool. Huge difference.
    • WiseWeasel, on 03/18/2008, -1/+10You should be thanking Apple for killing animated gifs. No good ever came of those...
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 03/18/2008, -1/+1And yet they're still around, so don't you think Apple should support them properly? Apple's not going to "kill" them when they don't have anywhere near the proper marketshare.
    • jesstech, on 03/18/2008, -2/+6Who cares? ***** animated GIFs. Safari supports animated PNGs now.
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 03/18/2008, -2/+3Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that animated GIFs are never used anymore. Silly me.
  • iRoy, on 03/18/2008, -16/+89I've made the switch from Firefox back to Safari since Safari 3 came out and it's pretty well worth it. It really is a lot faster.
    • chrisgeleven, on 03/18/2008, -8/+14Try Firefox 3 Beta 4. It is believe it or not faster then Safari 3.1
      • iRoy, on 03/18/2008, -5/+16I forgot to mention stability. That factors into my decision to use Safari 3.

        I'll look into the beta though. Firefox 2 sucks on OS X, I was using BonEcho for a while but even that was unstable.
        • comrade693, on 03/18/2008, -2/+7BonEcho was actually the codename for Firefox 2 before it was released...
          • sleepwalkers, on 03/18/2008, -0/+5Also the name of platform-specific, optimized builds of Firefox (but using the codename, to avoid confusion with the release versions of Firefox 2.x).
      • stellarceltic, on 03/18/2008, -3/+5I don't know why, but I've been having issues with FF Beta 3 on Leopard (both version 3 and 4). It takes like 30 seconds for it to actually open, and is constantly slow to respond to button presses.

        I don't get it.
    • Elranzer, on 03/18/2008, -5/+7I hope you don't mean Safari-for-Windows. That *****'s slower than compiling Gentoo from scratch.
    • mizike, on 03/18/2008, -1/+10yeah, me too, when I got my first mac, installing firefox was the first thing I did.....It wasn't until later that I noticed safari:
      1. is noticeably MUCH faster
      2. doesn't hog all my ram
      3. looks better in general (the search function in particular is a clear example of how "looking good" can add functionality)

      I realized the only reason i was keeping firefox around was due to its potential to be customized....which I never really took advantage of for fear of it ending up like this:
      http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/images/firefox-ma ...
    • digjam, on 03/18/2008, -3/+1Sounds a commercial??? YOU BET!
  • suntereo, on 03/18/2008, -11/+5Nice: "Safari cannot open a browser window and may be missing important resources. Try installing Safari again." Exactly what the previous version told me.
    • supermanred, on 03/18/2008, -3/+3Windows I assume? So basically it works as well as IE does for you? For Windows, try Firefox.
    • asskicker32, on 03/18/2008, -2/+5you screwed something up. Delete the registry entries and reinstall...
    • fanboydcs, on 03/18/2008, -0/+6this means you had something wrong with your system before installing safari...
    • lovecss, on 03/18/2008, -0/+8You're doing it wrong.
      • skeletorcares, on 03/18/2008, -2/+1you can't do Apple products wrong. haven't you seen the commercials? "so simple even mentally handicapped douches can do it"
  • MrViklund, on 03/18/2008, -6/+2375/100 in the new ACID 3 test. Amazing. http://acid3.acidtests.org/
  • fungifred, on 03/18/2008, -4/+59I think webkit nightlys are up to 93 on Acid3
    • MrViklund, on 03/18/2008, -7/+6That's totally amazing.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/18/2008, -4/+1Lol Firefox finally passes Acid2 and people are already talking about Acid3.
      • Papajohn56, on 03/18/2008, -0/+5Firefox stable doesn't pass it, only 3 beta does.
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Nobody said anything about stable.
          A beta release is still a release.
  • smoger, on 03/18/2008, -10/+22It also supports CSS Web Fonts, giving designers limitless choices of fonts to create stunning new web sites.. that work in the one major browser with the smallest user base.
    • supermanred, on 03/18/2008, -1/+22The CSS Web Font is a standard that will hopefully be adopted by most major browsers, its about time I saw something other than ***** helvetica and verdana! BTW, also the fastest major browser.
      • jchennav, on 03/18/2008, -0/+6I'd rather see Helvetica than Arial...
      • Defuser, on 03/18/2008, -6/+3Seriously, who gives a flying ***** if it's "the fastest"? I'm a professional, pal. I design websites for a living. Anything I create has to be I.E. Compatible. Anyone who tries to tell you that I.E. Compatibility doesn't matter is an idiot. Safari could poop gold bricks directly into my martini, and it still wouldn't matter even one tiny bit, because web sites MUST BE DESIGNED TO BE I.E. COMPATIBLE.
        • p0tent1al, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Browsers like Firefox and Safari set the stage for what the new standard will be in a couple of years.

          Also, I think it's a fair assumption that people still using IE6 don't really all that care about their browsing experience. I have no problems convincing some of my clients that certain features be left out based on that. What you don't understand, is that the more designers cater to the better browsers, the more those browsers gain in popularity, and influence other browsers to be better. While we are talking about IE, IE8 is supporting more newer standards than ever.

          When you eventually start developing websites as a "professional" for IE8, remember that said browser wouldn't be anywhere it is without Firefox/Opera/Safari....
      • Syphon8, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Verdana + Trebuchet ftw.
  • CATSCEO, on 03/18/2008, -13/+6I wish Safari would handle a lot of tabs better, after 10 tabs the ***** hits the fan and Safari slows to turtle slow.
    • bjornski, on 03/18/2008, -3/+2You surf like I do.
    • s0ny, on 03/18/2008, -1/+5I cant seem to get under 30 tabs. :-( Safari still runs fine though!
    • monospaced, on 03/18/2008, -1/+6Yeah, about as slow as Firefox.
    • Twee, on 03/18/2008, -0/+6Safari handles tabs for me just fine. Opening lots of tabs in Firefox, however, made my MacBook Pro's fan turn on full blast -- something that rarely ever happens to me.
  • JasonCox, on 03/18/2008, -16/+3'CSS Web Fonts' - Oh god, not this again... Couldn't this idea have died with IE4?
    • Numfar28, on 03/18/2008, -0/+16Actually this is part of the CSS specification and support is required to pass Acid3. Why would you have a problem with it?
    • Bamborzled, on 03/18/2008, -0/+9Why is this bad? Is giving more flexibility to designers bad? Is allowing designers to use typefaces other than Times New Roman, Arial, or Verdana bad?
      • bjornski, on 03/18/2008, -1/+2But you know damn well that once it hits MySpace, it will be abused worse than blink ever was.

        It's good, but...
        • WiseWeasel, on 03/18/2008, -0/+5Solution: don't go to Myspace if bad design bothers you.

          Doctor, it hurts when I do this... : P
          • bjornski, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2I'm not saying I"d go there and see it. Just sayin....
        • daGUY, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3Anything can be abused. I can make a MySpace page with blue and yellow text on a hot pink background, too. Does that mean we shouldn't be allowed to use certain font or background colors just because they might not go well together?
          • bjornski, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1I'm not saying that at all. Christ, quit getting so defensive. I'm just saying that when it gets implemented, that MySpace will be even more unreadable than it is now. So will hundreds of other sites.

            Go ahead and use it. I really don't give a *****. I'll just avoid going to any site that does abuse it.
  • silkyd, on 03/18/2008, -3/+11It still needs Firebug. The web inspector alone just wont cut it.
  • scoutmasterEd, on 03/18/2008, -18/+2Seems a little cumbersome. Firefox is better
  • Extraneous, on 03/18/2008, -18/+4Can I use the new Safari to download firefox?
  • Sharkee, on 03/18/2008, -25/+9"unleashes"? Seriously? You stupid Apple fanboys make everything Apple does into a big deal.
    Lock up your children, a Safari has been UNLEASHED ON SOCIETY!
  • korniszon, on 03/18/2008, -5/+11I ran Acid3 test on Safari 3.1 and FF 3 beta. As for now, Safari beats FF and gets 74/100, while FF 68/100.
  • rowlodge, on 03/18/2008, -9/+2this is slower..
  • Numfar28, on 03/18/2008, -2/+18Here are some nifty demos for the new video element supported by Safari 3.1 (scroll to bottom) :
    http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/a-call-for-vide ...

    Note how these are .ogg files, by the way. I'm sure that should make a lot of people happy.
    • jordan314, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Lol and I just tried it and it doesn't work. The controls show but no video or audio sounds, and when I look at the source it says "Theora decoder not found."
  • choppergirl, on 03/18/2008, -19/+14And I want an Apple browser with a non-standard Window appearance on my Vista box... why?

    For real, when porting apps, use the native theme widgets. The control boxes are way too small, the font is too small, the background is silver grey with dark grey text (hard to read), and while I'm sure this may be the right size and pretty inside Mac OS whatever, on Vista or XP it just looks like the odd ugly duckling app who just refused to play nice. Sort of like a kid who goes to a school with a uniform dress code, and is the only one dressed up in bright freaky colors like Bozo the Clown. And apparently there is no way to change it in the preferences.

    Did you check out the progress bar? Apple invented the progress bar, and yet, it shows the progress of nothing... you have no idea when the app is going to finish installing... much like a Windows Xp install, the progress bar goes to 100%, tells you there are X minutes left, and then loops back to zero, and you got a whole new batch of minutes to wait, many times over before the install is done...
    • Elranzer, on 03/18/2008, -12/+10"And apparently there is no way to change it in the preferences. "

      It's a little taste of OS X in your Windows box. The whole OS is like that. Well, you do get to choose between Blue and Graphite. But you don't have to worry about customizing anything else. Steve has already picked the best look for you.
      • UKsHaDoW, on 03/18/2008, -0/+11I actually like the way they stop you customizing, on Linux i keep playing with it, and waste hours upon hours trying to get it perfect ^_^
      • jasmus, on 03/18/2008, -1/+5Because windows xp has like THREE options. And vista has a whole rainbow of nausea to chose from.
  • Freps, on 03/18/2008, -8/+3Is this analogous to Webkit? I've been really happy with that browser so far.
    • switchman401, on 03/18/2008, -8/+3ITS REALLY QUICK! LIKE REALLY QUICK!
    • Numfar28, on 03/18/2008, -0/+6Webkit is the engine that runs Safari, so yes, it's basically the same thing. The Webkit nightlies are likely to be less stable, however.
    • slippytoad, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2The WebKit nightlies have been very stable since I started using them (~2 months ago). The latest nightly I have (3/16) is actually a tad faster than 3.1 on the slickspeed tests
  • FyberOptic, on 03/18/2008, -6/+7Opera has had a test build of the browser available with those video tags and such for months.
    • skyshock1, on 03/18/2008, -1/+3Why's he being dugg down? Opera's a damn good browser. And FWIW the latest Opera build on OSX (4716) scores 77/100 on Acid3 - which is slightly better than this new version of Safari at least.
    • ThreeDee912, on 03/18/2008, -1/+2Compare nightlies to nightlies, and stables to stables. The Safari nightlies are already up to something like 93/100.
  • sark666, on 03/18/2008, -1/+17I don't even use safari, but I'm most excited to hear about a standard for video. The quicker we can get rid of flash for video, the better. But with firefox 3 almost out, I've heard no word on support for this, so until firefox 4?!
  • InnerBlueAbyss, on 03/18/2008, -15/+10Firefox FTW!!
  • zmigliozzi, on 03/18/2008, -9/+1Georgeous and beautiful wasn't not in the title to describe it, buried.
  • sonicularulus, on 03/18/2008, -3/+30"Apple UNLEASHES version 3.1"

    the update sounds like a weapon...

    • bigsteve, on 03/18/2008, -0/+11Or a puppy.
    • dimanorcal, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1In other news:

      3/19: BREAKING: Apple **REVEALS** Safari 3.1.01 Security Update
      3/20: BREAKING: Apple **DROPS THE BOMB** Safari for Windows .MSI installation file CRC changed due to typo in EULA.
  • wzpgsr, on 03/18/2008, -3/+32"Unleashes"? Does this mean Safari is going to crap on my lawn?
  • crugg, on 03/18/2008, -9/+4But Rirefox 3 Beta 4 uses less energy.
    • gfxl, on 03/18/2008, -6/+1That's great if your computer is 15 years old and has 64MB of RAM
  • mwomorris, on 03/18/2008, -1/+4Firefox 3b4 vs. Safari 3.1

    Which is faster?
    • gfxl, on 03/18/2008, -3/+18I find Safari faster. But I'm sure many would beg to differ.
    • mwomorris, on 03/18/2008, -2/+4Looks like you're right.
    • xXMetalJesusXx, on 03/18/2008, -5/+1No clue...but Leafs Suck!!!!
      3 Years with no Playoffs...God damn they blow ass.
    • Paranoidmarvin, on 03/18/2008, -1/+5On my Powerbook, which is rather slow nowadays, Safari is fast, Firefox 3.0b4 is usable and Firefox 2.0 is too slow
    • skeletorcares, on 03/18/2008, -8/+2Firefox runs slower because Apple runs secret APIs that are not documented for outside developers.

      So safari, with an asterisk.

      But the suck factor in safari is way higher, despite it's speed. (awful css handling, despite them screaming compliant)
      • gfxl, on 03/18/2008, -1/+2I wouldn't say it is awful. There's just room for improvement :)
        • skeletorcares, on 03/18/2008, -2/+1its IE quality css handling. I do this for a living. its Opera, FF, tie for third, Safari(3)-IE(7), for who gets CSS right.
        • ThreeDee912, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1"IE-quality" isn't "standards-compliant"
          • skeletorcares, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1and just because safari is 'standards-compliant' doesn't mean it 'works'
      • coder_cotton, on 03/18/2008, -2/+3you obviously have no clue what you're talking about. thanks for sharing.
      • skyshock1, on 03/18/2008, -2/+3Wrong. One of the lead developers of Webkit (on which Safari is based) has already debunked this claim.
        • skeletorcares, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1In the real world we need a thing called 'proof'....
    • skyshock1, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1Depends what you want it to do. If script rendering, CSS rendering, and table rendering are what you're after, Safari. If you want it to be slightly more sluggish but extensible, then FF is what you want.
    • Karzyn, on 03/19/2008, -1/+0Webkit
  • slippytoad, on 03/18/2008, -2/+4Latest WebKit nightly still performs better on the slickspeed tests at http://webkit.org/perf/slickspeed/
    • LeonardNimrod, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1We should be comparing this to other stable browser releases as a new engine build should be faster. Judging by the Acid3 rendering, the engine Safari 3.1 uses is from Late December.

      Here is another test that shows how heavy JS pages are rendered much faster with a newer WebKit-based browser.
  • UKsHaDoW, on 03/18/2008, -9/+6on a mac safari has become my first browser, This new version loads pages snappier, on windows it sucks.
  • PaganHeathen, on 03/18/2008, -11/+3Wow, according to Steve, it is 1000-200-50-million times faster than a PC browser (based on an obscure metric). And adds HTML support and is the best ever browser for your "internet communications device"!

    • monospaced, on 03/18/2008, -1/+11000-200-50=750. What obscure metric? And by the way, a Mac is pretty much a PC.
      • Syphon8, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2Except *****, with proprietary hardware.
        • Trat, on 03/19/2008, -0/+0There is nothing proprietary about Windows, it's all bought up crap.
  • janedogood, on 03/18/2008, -6/+3I've been using Webkit but I suppose I will give this a shot
    • UKsHaDoW, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4Since webkit is just the dev branch of whats used in safari you won't see much difference. Safari is just a stable slightly older build of webkit. While webkit is cutting edge but not stable.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 95 of 95 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.