|
Replies
:
11
-
Pages
:
1
-
Last Post
:
Mar 31, 2008 4:07 PM
by: mattpwill
|
|
|
Posts:
34
Registered:
Jan 30, 2008
|
|
|
|
What Safari should aspire to be
Posted:
Mar 28, 2008 12:32 PM
|
|
|
http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/
The latest Opera beta is superb, better than Firefox 3 will be, but not the same plugin support. It's a lot better than Safari IMO - leaner, meaner and a lot more customizable. WebKit deserves more respect than Safari gives it on Windows.
Windows XP
|
|
Posts:
199
From:
nine mile falls
Registered:
Mar 20, 2008
|
|
|
|
Re: What Safari should aspire to be
Posted:
Mar 28, 2008 3:01 PM
in response to: mattpwill
|
|
|
opera suck big time slows my pc to a screeching halt worse memory hog i ever used my friends have same problem they use safari and have no problems. i like safari and wil continue using it.
Aopen
Windows XP Pro
|
|
Posts:
34
Registered:
Jan 30, 2008
|
|
|
|
Re: What Safari should aspire to be
Posted:
Mar 28, 2008 3:49 PM
in response to: Aopen
|
|
|
I've just tested your theory out, and for me, Opera used 70MB whilst Safari used 100MB RAM opening the same tabs. Plus Opera releases memory when closing tabs, whereas Safari does not, for myself at least.
Under what circumstances does it bring your PC "to a screeching halt"? It's fine that you like Safari, but your vague attacks at Opera, "opera suck big time slows my pc", are just unfounded from my own experience at least.
Opera is so lightweight and quick that I can't understand why you could call it a memory hog, let alone not calling Safari a memory hog when used long term. Whatever floats your boat I guess.
I posted here to try to help others see what a good browser can achieve. I find this new incantation to be much better than all previous alphas and betas of Opera 9.5, but just to warn - it is slightly buggy in a few areas still.
Windows XP
|
|
Posts:
199
From:
nine mile falls
Registered:
Mar 20, 2008
|
|
|
|
Re: What Safari should aspire to be
Posted:
Mar 28, 2008 10:40 PM
in response to: mattpwill
|
|
|
interesting on my pc its the opposite opera is ram hog and safari isn't i wonder why on some pc safari uses more ram and on other pc it docent. same with opera what i meant by suck is not the browser i should have speculated more on this opera is a good browser. but not on my pc it is big ram hog here but no point in tended it is good browser. i see some people say safari uses allot ram and doesn't release any but here it dose when a new app opens it goes down in use. or when you close minimize it it releases it as well.
Message was edited by: Aopen
Aopen
Windows XP Pro
|
|
Posts:
34
Registered:
Jan 30, 2008
|
|
|
|
Re: What Safari should aspire to be
Posted:
Mar 29, 2008 3:47 AM
in response to: Aopen
|
|
|
It doesn't release memory, it shifts it into a swapfile (virtual memory on the hard drive).
Windows XP
|
|
Posts:
9
From:
South Africa
Registered:
Mar 29, 2008
|
|
|
|
Re: What Safari should aspire to be
Posted:
Mar 29, 2008 4:48 AM
in response to: mattpwill
|
|
|
I can only say that Safari 3.1 is the fastest and cleanest browser that I have ever come across. Opera simply doesn't do it for me and to me, personally, it is more of a memory hog than Safari. I have experienced this on both my Desktop and Laptop with XP Pro SP2.
Well done Apple with this latest release! Just make sure that it becomes compatible with more sites e.g.: www.vodacom4me.co.za and Yahoo! Mail.
Windows PC Pentium4 2GB RAM 3GHz Processor
Windows XP Pro
|
|
Posts:
199
From:
nine mile falls
Registered:
Mar 20, 2008
|
|
|
|
Re: What Safari should aspire to be
Posted:
Mar 29, 2008 9:08 AM
in response to: dex_10
|
|
|
yes apple make sure it is compatible with yahoo mail i second that,
Aopen
Windows XP Pro
|
|
Posts:
411
Registered:
Oct 8, 2005
|
|
|
|
Re: What Safari should aspire to be
Posted:
Mar 31, 2008 3:48 AM
in response to: mattpwill
|
|
|
My two cents worth is that Opera is too bloated trying to be to much. I do like Opera's UI better then Safari. I just don't like the Safari UI for Windows.
Dell 530S
Windows Vista
|
|
Posts:
525
From:
England
Registered:
Jul 17, 2001
|
|
|
|
Re: What Safari should aspire to be
Posted:
Mar 31, 2008 7:08 AM
in response to: Aopen
|
|
|
It's not always Apple's responsibility to make Safari compatible with certain sites.
A while ago Yahoo! made their email service compatible with Safari for Mac. I assumed it would be the same for the Windows version of Safari. If you're saying it's not then you may need to address your support request to Yahoo!
Does Yahoo! Mail actually prevent you from using Safari or does it simply not work well? If it blocks Safari then you could try changing Safari's User Agent (via the Develop menu) to IE or Firefox and see if you can use the service then. Safari should be perfectly capable of working with Yahoo! Mail.
Message was edited by: Flynn
MacBook (Santa Rosa) 2.2 GHz 4GB plus eMac 1GHz 1GB
Mac OS X (10.5.2)
A few Firewire HDs and a Lacie DVD burner. iPod nano
|
|
Posts:
525
From:
England
Registered:
Jul 17, 2001
|
|
|
|
Re: What Safari should aspire to be
Posted:
Mar 31, 2008 8:04 AM
in response to: mattpwill
|
|
|
One person will value features over performance and another, like myself, will value simplicity and performance over features. You can't say one browser is better than another because each has its merits (maybe even IE) and users have different needs and preferences.
Take the iPod, Apple didn't cram all the features you could think of (such as radio) into the iPod but they kept it simple and made it the best at what it did. With Safari, Apple isn't going to load (bloat) it with all the features the other browsers have but they are making it fast, efficient and standards-compliant. It's a browser that gets out of the way and lets you enjoy the web pages. That's the way I see it anyway. The great thing is we're all getting more choices and people are realising that a web browser does not have to mean IE. The web and its surfers all benefit from that.
We should all be grateful for the two main alternatives to IE, namely Firefox and Safari, as well as the smaller ones like Opera snapping at their heals.
MacBook (Santa Rosa) 2.2 GHz 4GB plus eMac 1GHz 1GB
Mac OS X (10.5.2)
A few Firewire HDs and a Lacie DVD burner. iPod nano
|
|
Posts:
327
Registered:
Aug 3, 2004
|
|
|
|
Re: What Safari should aspire to be
Posted:
Mar 31, 2008 10:21 AM
in response to: mattpwill
|
|
|
When the Opera beta becomes PUBLIC then you can brag. Safari's WebKit got the Acid 3 test perfect score publicly first, not in a stupid closed lab beta and by a press release.
Rev A. Dual 1.8 G5, MacBook Pro 2.16
Mac OS X (10.5.2)
|
|
Posts:
34
Registered:
Jan 30, 2008
|
|
|
|
Re: What Safari should aspire to be
Posted:
Mar 31, 2008 4:07 PM
in response to: satcomer
|
|
|
Firstly, I'd like to question why you think I'd be sad enough to want to brag about a web browser! If I felt Safari was a perfect browser I'd be quick to use it but the memory issues it has are beyond a joke, and god only knows why it isn't considered beta still because of this major problem.
Secondly, exactly how does passing Acid3 quickly affect any internet user at this point in time?
Thirdly, if Opera is more bloated than Safari is, why does it start up faster, browse at almost the same speed (the newest alpha) and use a lot less RAM on startup as well, let alone after a good deal of use?
I'm comparing an alpha browser with a "final" browser, so my point is fairly null and void, and depends on what they now do to Safari to get the problems sorted out. I wish them all the best.
Windows XP
|
|
|
