musingsfrommars.org — Here are three reasons why some Mac users want Leopard NOW! Safari 3.0 extends the browsing experience in fun, useful ways. Not only tabs, but also simple page searching and text forms are improved over anything else now available to web surfers. The article has three short screencasts as well as text descriptions.
Oct 4, 2006 View in Crawl 4
schlaeferOct 5, 2006
OmniWeb allready has this tab behaviour and zoom out text boxes. As long as you don't need the text to dimmed out when searching (something I don't like anyway), no need to switch from OW.
llscottsOct 5, 2006Submitter
Adblock is easy in Safari... you just need to know about the right plugin.? A lot of people swear by PithHelmet, but I sometimes have trouble with SIMBL plugins, and the last I saw, PithHelmet wasn't free.? Instead, try SafariBlock at?<a class="user" href="http://fsbsoftware.com/SafariBlock.html?">http://fsbsoftware.com/SafariBlock.html?</a> It puts a preference section in Safari and adds a "block image" contextual menu item... you can block using wildcards, of course.? You can also opt to block Flash movies.? It's always worked great for me and is free.
llscottsOct 5, 2006Submitter
Right. My bad.
llscottsOct 5, 2006Submitter
All browsers are memory hogs, and they always have been. The only ones that aren't are "lite" browsers that don't try to do as much. Safari's biggest fault is in handling its cache... Over time, if you have it tracking all your history and form info and page caches, it can really bog down. Clearing the cache and/or restarting Safari clears that up, but it can be a pain.
babakshiraziOct 5, 2006
Get a real browser and stop using Camino.
smhillOct 5, 2006
"They need to get rid of the awful and irritating Aqua scrollbar and dropdown usage on webpages. They work in the operating system but they don't belong on websites. They render horribly in many instances and stick out like sore thumbs even when they render properly.Apple should implement standard scrollbars so that web creators don't have to bother specifically manipulating their form fields for Safari. After all, websites aren't Mac applications - they are universal to all OS systems and should be treated that way."Those two comments seem at odds with one another. First you don't want them standard, then you do want them? Doesn't make sense.The deal is this, form/ui elements (buttons, etc...) are supposed to be the standard OS widgets. FF and IE allow you to edit the appearance, which is part of the CSS3 and Webkit will have that soon enough, and far better than other browsers:<a class="user" href="http://webkit.org/blog/?p=51">http://webkit.org/blog/?p=51</a>People keep mentioning "rich text editing" as a fault of Safari. This simply isn't the case. The fault lies with the developers. Rich text editing as presented by those sites are done through javascript. That's it. However, Safari has supported true wysiwyg editing for quite a while:<a class="user" href="http://allforces.com/2005/04/19/wysiwyg-comes-to-safari-13/">http://allforces.com/2005/04/19/wysiwyg-comes-to-safari-13/</a>IE has it. Safari has it. And all with just an attribute, not a ton of javascript.Don't confuse a application's abilities with developer's knowledge.
chealionOct 5, 2006
Am I the only one who the entire site has gone 403 for? Did Apple send a C&D for breaking an NDA (these features weren't talked about in the keynote and thus are under NDA)?
delmonteOct 6, 2006
I found the addition of a commentary to be interesting even if it may have been a little redundant, it makes things like that more "human" to me.simX: You're a little harsh, you could have used the mute feature on your computer.
mxclOct 12, 2006
You're wrong, you can drag tabs from one window to another in Opera. You can do all the things you said you couldn't. I prefer Safari's implementation though.