| |
Messages 33-32 deleted by topic administrator between 07-23-2006 02:03 AM and 07-22-2006 02:04 AM |
|
muon
09-27-2003
11:04 AM ET (US)
|
New Safari (85.5) crashes about every 30 minutes, doesn't really matter what site is visited. That's more than Camino... I value uptime in a browser above all else - I hate losing my place when browsing. Any suggestions?
|
Rob McNair-Huff  07-28-2003
01:28 AM ET (US)
|
Al, you are right on the money about the poor programming of many Web sites and that it is amazing that they render in any browser, in some cases. In fact, some of the companies I have worked with have created real monstrosities, and that is why they can only be used with IE. IE was created to work with everything, so it offers access but it also enables people to keep spawning terrible, non-standard Web pages. I guess in a lot of ways it was a winning strategy for the IE programmers though, because they won the browser battle in the short run, since everyone thinks that it is the most versatile and thereby the best browser...
|
|
Al Willis
07-28-2003
12:31 AM ET (US)
|
Rob, I believe that it's true that there isn't one browser that that can be used for every site that you a user may encounter.
I personally run Safari for general browsing, IE for a couple of sites and Firebird for work, since it supports personal certificates.
Lets not forget that Safari has made tremendous progress since it was released to the public in January. Safari isn't perfect, but I've been impressed how far it's come in a short period of time. Remember, it's only a 1.0. I'm sure there are lots of goodies on the drawing board for future versions.
I think one of the things that doesn't get mentioned nearly enough is that many websites are coded so poorly that it's no wonder that even cutting edge browsers such as Safari, Mozilla, etc. have problems rendering these sites. As web standards become more widely used, these browsers will get better because they'll be rendering properly coded sites.
In the meanwhile, the Mac OS using community should continue to provide feedback to the browser vendors to get the bugs fixed. I'm confident the right things will happen.
|
Rob McNair-Huff 07-25-2003
06:45 PM ET (US)
|
Stan, Yes, I know that it is hard to have it both ways. But as I noted in my most recent post on the MNJ site, the problem with the stable builds of the current Mac OS X browsers is that they are hobbled when it comes to handling many Web sites. I ran into another example with Safari 1.0 - the stable release, I note - when trying to log into an account at http://www.schedulesource.com. I can log in and do fine on that site with Mozilla and Camino, but Safari and any browser based on Safari (OmniWeb) choke on the page.
I get the same kind of mixed results working with a Web based email account I use in my work on Matchmaker.com - it is accessing a Lotus Notes account over the Net and the only Mac OS X browser I can use that can handle the Java on the site is OmniWeb. I can read my mail with other browsers, but only OW, when it is set to emulate IE, can actually let me manipulate my mail. Ironically, IE itself cannot handle accessing this particular page at all, because it cannot deal with the expired or flaky security certificate.
One of the biggest frustrations is that many of the most critical bugs in Mac OS X browsers are not the kinds of things that I can fully report, since I am accessing private, password protected sites in my work. And so I run a wide range of browsers to accomplish what should be possible in one fully capable Mac OS X browser...
|
|
|
Deleted by author 07-27-2003 02:47 PM
|
|
Thad Hoffman
07-25-2003
06:10 PM ET (US)
|
I rely on the latest stable build to get work done. I do pull a nightly Moz build every day to test to make sure that things coming down the pike don't break my stuff. I have test files created so I can easily smoke test a nightly and post bugs with test cases when found. Also use them to close bugs (well mark as WFM). I also maintain several nightlies so I can track back to which exact build I first notice a bug in.
I feel it is the least I can do to contribute since my time for aiding coding has been slowly sucked away by other responsibilities. If others helped test and give test files, Moz's bugs would get resolved quicker. As I have stated before, usually most bugs I've logged are fixed within the next milestone, and usually a nightly or 2 away, when including specific test case examples in bugzilla.
|
|
Stan
07-25-2003
03:49 PM ET (US)
|
OK Rob - so which do you want? Stable or contribution to the community? It ain't going to be both. Your last post bemoaned the current state of beta browsers - this one praises them. I spent a great deal of time contributing to the Linux world and know what it is like to 'take one for the team' but I don't see why anyone would complain about crashing if they chose to use beta software. If it crashes you make a bug report and hope for the best on the next release.
If you can complain about anything I think it would be the slowness of releases of these browsers (including the open source ones who are not following the open source mantra of 'release early, release often')
|
|
Thad Hoffman
07-24-2003
11:22 PM ET (US)
|
I hate that when you drag and drop or copy/paste images from Safari they flip upside down.
What a freaky bug.
|
Rob M 07-24-2003
10:13 PM ET (US)
|
I have really high hopes as well for Safari and I want it to work, but it is a little buggy. I found that if you reinstall Safari 1.0 on top of the previous 1.0 install it may help with some of the troubles.
I previously had problems with www.espn.com losing the scroll bar. I have Safari Enhancer loaded and the user agent set to different browsers and until I reinstalled Safari, Espn would not render. Also, some the text scrolling becomes jumbled together. Reinstalling helped, but did not fix the text problem. The text problem occurs on a lot of CSS heavy sites.
Some of the sites my wife visits will not render. I think these are java heavy sites. It is pretty annoying to her, because I will not let her use IE. She uses Mozilla.
Mozilla does not have the problems. I was using Phoenix on the PC since 0.1 and it a good browser. It is being called Firebird now and will be the future of the Mozilla team. It has some catching up to do on the Mac side, but shows promise.
Overall, I will continue to use both Mozilla and Safari and rarely Omni Page. No way, I pay for Omni Page though. I will just continue to use the demo version.
Some of the things that Apple are doing with the bookmarks will make Safari the clear winner and also having the browser, OS and hardware linked should help. Sounds like MS, but we are the good guys.
|
|
Damman Sludgely
07-24-2003
04:21 PM ET (US)
|
Climbing, since none of my other apps quit, I think most of the problems are with development level browsers, rather than bad memory. (wouldn't my whole computer crash occasionally?) Surfari is Beta level software as far as I'm concerned and they had to push out the 1.0 release to be ready when Microsoft lowered the IE boom. I run fsck in single user mode quite often, haven't seen a disk problem in quite a long time (10.2.4). I will be check out Mozilla again. I since tried OmniWeb 4.5 (Beta), and immediatly went back to Safari, which is more stable at this point, sadly. At least with Safari... does a neverending spinning beachball mean a crash... exactly? Edited 07-24-2003 04:24 PM
|
Rob McNair-Huff 07-24-2003
03:12 PM ET (US)
|
Climbing, I don't think I have a bad memory problem, but after finally receiving DiskWarrior (more than four weeks after ordering it...) yesterday and running it on my 12-inch PowerBook G4, it did find a few disk problems that have now been fixed. Those definitely could be contributing to the crashing problems I have been seeing. More later...
|
|
ClimbingTheLog
07-24-2003
02:48 PM ET (US)
|
Mozilla is really quite stable these days. I'd bet a quarter you have some bad memory in your computer.
|
|
Damman Sludgely
07-24-2003
11:31 AM ET (US)
|
Macintosh browsers: speed, standards compatability, and stability... the forgotten dream. I have a lot of hope for Safari, it has the potential. It has tons of features. It's handling of downloads, I've noticed most Java stuff works great. 1.0 has crashing bugs. It also has a hair trigger auto-complete function that tends to finish URL's incoveniently wrong. If Apple has slacked off in developing it after the 1.0 release, there are numerous bugs, and I don't think they should have released it as is. They should not have released it as 1.0 (more like .98). If it is going to fail it should give a meaningful message about why it failed. Camino- I am afraid Camino is suffering from feature creep. At one time I had a lot of hope for it, but since the name change, I haven't tried it. Standards Complience. Firebird- sorry to say I haven't tried it on a Mac, worked nicely as a replacement for an ancient Netscape on my friends computer to solve a problem they where having accessign certain webpages. Mozilla- I haven't tried a build for a while, but there must have been a reason I stopped using it. ? Netscape- slow as heck AOL bloatware Omniweb- From day one Omniweb was a good little browser. Perhaps after a few releases using the WebCore engine they will be able to fix some of the Apple bugs, and make a better Safari than Safari. I hate brushed metal... I hope there is some global skin that can be applied to Panther <:) Rather than complaining, we should become computer programers and work on the open source browser of our choosing ;) Edited 07-24-2003 11:33 AM
|
Rob McNair-Huff 07-24-2003
08:59 AM ET (US)
|
Woody, I am willing to bet that anyone who really does work with their Mac under Mac OS X is running more than one browser at a time. I know that I run two or three browsers at a time, because Safari can't handle some things, because Mozilla can't handle some things, and because IE is slow as an old dog...
|
New Topic
My Topics
Views:
2898
(Unique:
1561
) / Subscribers:
0 | What's this?
