Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Tee · May 24, 2006, 03:26 PM

Safari: 'not supported' by many sites. rendering issue, even with User-Agent spoofing.

Firefox: Poor OS integration... No services, No native spelling, No native keychain.

Camino: Poor OS integration. No native spelling, poor keychain support, drag n drop issues, plugin issues.

Opera: Poor OS integration, Non standard spelling implementation, no drag n drop of text, no native keychain, confusing interface.

OmniWeb: same rendering issues as Safari.

Ridiculous...

Chuckit · May 24, 2006, 03:28 PM

How is the fact that sites browser-sniff Safari actually a problem with Safari? Sounds like a problem with the sites you visit.

Mastrap · May 24, 2006, 03:34 PM

I have yet to come across a site not being supported by Safari - not saying of course that they don't exist. The only issue I ever had was with ebay some time back, but as far as I know that's been fixed.

production_coordinator · May 24, 2006, 03:34 PM

I use Safari for all my surfing... I've only noticed one or two places where it was "broken" and it's usually due to poor coding.

REMEMBER: Just because it isn't working DOES NOT mean Safari is broken.

Socially Awkward Solo · May 24, 2006, 03:34 PM

I found that not even I.E for PC is 100% compatible.

Eug Wanker · May 24, 2006, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

I have yet to come across a site not being supported by Safari - not saying of course that they don't exist. The only issue I ever had was with ebay some time back, but as far as I know that's been fixed.

Several airline/train ticket sites sometimes don't work properly in Safari. Firefox almost always works fine.

And... WHY MUST SAFARI USE UP TO 250+ MB RAM!?!?! I've seen the latest version hit over 500 MB actually, if I leave it open a few days.

Dr Reducto · May 24, 2006, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

I have yet to come across a site not being supported by Safari - not saying of course that they don't exist. The only issue I ever had was with ebay some time back, but as far as I know that's been fixed.

A lot of google apps, and gap.com....both not supportive of safari

Peter · May 24, 2006, 03:47 PM

http://webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html#top

Safari is fine.

Socially Awkward Solo · May 24, 2006, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

And... WHY MUST SAFARI USE UP TO 250+ MB RAM!?!?! I've seen the latest version hit over 500 MB actually, if I leave it open a few days.

I know I don't get that one either. I mean why does a web browser eat up as much RAM as photoshop?

euchomai · May 24, 2006, 04:24 PM

I think they are all so slow, I hate it when I'm on a pc and firefox feels so snappy. Why can't I have snappy?

Socially Awkward Solo · May 24, 2006, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by euchomai

I think they are all so slow, I hate it when I'm on a pc and firefox feels so snappy. Why can't I have snappy?

Actually safari on an intel Mac feels much much faster than on a PPC.

sek929 · May 24, 2006, 04:59 PM

Firefox runs worlds better than Safari for me. It seems to have the same problems as Safari, but doesn't crash nearly as often.

Tomchu · May 24, 2006, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

I use Safari for all my surfing... I've only noticed one or two places where it was "broken" and it's usually due to poor coding.

REMEMBER: Just because it isn't working DOES NOT mean Safari is broken.

Nor does it mean that Safari ISN'T broken.

Just last week I found a particular piece of art work on Deviant Art where, upon clicking the thumbnail, Safari would go "poof!" every single time. Guaranteed. I filled out the "Report a bug" form, but still ... the browser is far from perfect.

kmkkid · May 24, 2006, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

I know I don't get that one either. I mean why does a web browser eat up as much RAM as photoshop?

Just think of how many images it opens, and holds in cache, not to mention all the text, and history etc...

Brass · May 24, 2006, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by kmkkid

Just think of how many images it opens, and holds in cache, not to mention all the text, and history etc...

The cache is on disk, not in RAM

Chuckit · May 24, 2006, 08:44 PM

I thought it was both.

Eug Wanker · May 24, 2006, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by kmkkid

Just think of how many images it opens, and holds in cache, not to mention all the text, and history etc...

If that's the case, there should be a cache limit. eg. 100 MB.

tooki · May 24, 2006, 09:31 PM

Well, and don't forget that a UNIX system's memory reporting is NOT comparable to that of Mac OS 9, for example. Seeing Safari "use" tons of virtual memory is utterly irrelevant. My Safari is using right around 200MB of real memory with several windows open, after being open a while. It's also shown as using 1.5GB of virtual memory -- but it's not, because that's not how UNIX virtual memory works. It's truly nothing to worry about.

tooki

ink · May 24, 2006, 11:58 PM

Camino is my browser of choice for OSX. There are a few braindead sites that "don't support" it, but they work fine with Firefox (go figure....) -- most of the time Camino works great. I don't even have Safari on my dock anymore, because I would only ever hit it by mistake. I've also seen IE totally mess up websites under Windows, so...

Severed Hand of Skywalker · May 25, 2006, 12:04 AM

I remember surfing the web with 30 megs and the net doesn't look that much different today.

Salty · May 25, 2006, 12:57 AM

Yah I've never gotten why Safari needs so much RAM either. Fortunately with 768 I rarely run into a problem.

That said, I think Safari's a great little browser, no idea why you're complaining.

Kr0nos · May 25, 2006, 01:15 AM

Originally Posted by ink

Camino is my browser of choice for OSX. There are a few braindead sites that "don't support" it, but they work fine with Firefox (go figure....) -- most of the time Camino works great.

Same here. Camino renders most sites faster than Safari and deals a little bit better with 'quirky' and shitty coded webpages.

If developers make their sites exclusively IE on Windows compliant, they haven't done their job and simply get ignored. This only happens about 2% of the time for me.

Brien · May 25, 2006, 01:44 AM

The nasty days of GeoCities are over, though.

And the only sites that don't like Safari are the ones my school shove down my throat, such as "You MUST have I.E. 5.5+ to browse this site".

Angus_D · May 25, 2006, 04:23 AM

Cyberdog!!!!!

Obi Wan's Ghost · May 25, 2006, 06:20 AM

Browster!!!!!! (not)

Eug Wanker · May 25, 2006, 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by tooki

Well, and don't forget that a UNIX system's memory reporting is NOT comparable to that of Mac OS 9, for example. Seeing Safari "use" tons of virtual memory is utterly irrelevant. My Safari is using right around 200MB of real memory with several windows open, after being open a while. It's also shown as using 1.5GB of virtual memory -- but it's not, because that's not how UNIX virtual memory works. It's truly nothing to worry about.

tooki

I've seen it use 500 MB of REAL memory, with the latest version of Safari. That's unusual, but 300 MB is very common. But part of the reason 500 MB is unusual is because I restart it once it goes above 250 MB.

It's just stupid that you can't limit Safari's memory usage to something much lower.

Angus_D · May 25, 2006, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

It's just stupid that you can't limit Safari's memory usage to something much lower.

And how would that work, exactly?

Eug Wanker · May 25, 2006, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by Angus_D

And how would that work, exactly?

I dunno. Limit the cache size I guess.

If it's not a memory leak, and caching truly is the problem here like everyone says it is, then why not just limit that?

All I know is that others NEVER hit 300 MB memory usage, and they work perfectly fine. I mean, right now I've got Safari at 100 MB, and it's not having problems. Why must it use 3 times that amount just because I've kept Safari open for a couple of days?

Or is Safari still suffering from major memory leaks?

davesimondotcom · May 25, 2006, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by Tee

Safari: 'not supported' by many sites. rendering issue, even with User-Agent spoofing.

Usually, they start supporting Safari pretty quickly. Gmail did, etc.

I don't know what you mean about "rendering issue" since Safari is probably the most complete CSS support on the market.

Originally Posted by Tee

Firefox: Poor OS integration... No services, No native spelling, No native keychain.

Yes, but Firefox is also accurate in rendering most pages and has wonderful things like the Web Developer extension.

Originally Posted by Tee

Camino: Poor OS integration. No native spelling, poor keychain support, drag n drop issues, plugin issues.

I really don't use Camino that often. So I'll reserve comment.

Originally Posted by Tee

Opera: Poor OS integration, Non standard spelling implementation, no drag n drop of text, no native keychain, confusing interface.

I've always found Opera to be a piece of crap even on Windows. Sorry to any of the Opera fans out there...

Originally Posted by Tee

OmniWeb: same rendering issues as Safari.

You mean the same great CSS support as Safari. Great innovative features.

Originally Posted by Tee

Ridiculous...

Yep, it is rediculous that you would think that things are problems with Mac browsers and not with idiots who think that IE 6 Windows is the best browser out there.

IE 6 (Windows) - No tabbed browsing. Non-standard CSS support. Too tightly integrated with the OS. No spell checking. Bloated.

::maroma:: · May 25, 2006, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Dr Reducto

A lot of google apps, and gap.com....both not supportive of safari

Gap.com? Damn, Steve needs go over there and bust some heads. He's still a board member, right?

besson3c · May 25, 2006, 11:12 AM

Firefox - the most compatible browser, the gold standard that designers (who wants to support modern web technologies) use as a litmus test.

Safari - the most Mac-like browser

We're starting to see some sites that want to support some modern web technologies leave IE 6 behind, but it's really dragging its heels.

As long as Mac users have access to Firefox, I don't think we are in bad shape.

©öñFü$íóÑ · May 25, 2006, 11:18 AM

hey, i still use iCab on my 6100 on here....

which by the way, -IS- the true Mac OS web browser for OS 9.2.2 and lower. I mean, I tried iCab on a System 7.5 partition and it just SCREAMS... it blows away it's own performance on my 9.1 partition!

olePigeon · May 25, 2006, 11:36 AM

Oh, don't forget Explorer's awesome PNG support.

(Was my sarcasm too much? Didn't want to break any sarcasmotrons.)

torsoboy · May 25, 2006, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Firefox - the most compatible browser, the gold standard that designers (who wants to support modern web technologies) use as a litmus test.

Safari - the most Mac-like browser

...

As long as Mac users have access to Firefox, I don't think we are in bad shape.

Agreed. I develop web-apps and I don't even think about Safari. If it works in IE and Firefox I call it good. Spending double the time to make a site work on 2% more sites is not worth the time.

angelmb · May 25, 2006, 12:20 PM

hey, i still use iCab on my 6100 on here....

which by the way, -IS- the true Mac OS web browser for OS 9.2.2 and lower. I mean, I tried iCab on a System 7.5 partition and it just SCREAMS... it blows away it's own performance on my 9.1 partition!

besson3c · May 25, 2006, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by torsoboy

Agreed. I develop web-apps and I don't even think about Safari. If it works in IE and Firefox I call it good. Spending double the time to make a site work on 2% more sites is not worth the time.

Safari does have a few quirks (the now resolved problem with layers over embedded Flash files is an example, and one of the reasons why the MacNN design was designed with the rather creative use of menus is a good example), but it is constantly changing. I think it has a ways to go before it matches Firefox, but you might be surprised that pages of yours that didn't work in Safari x months ago now work fine).

Speaking of the Flash movie menu thing on the MacNN front page, now that Safari has fixed that problem, do you think we could get more traditional pull-down menus that don't have to be carefully targetted?

I'm assuming the original designer split, as I don't know if any revisions were made since the original rollout.

P.S. whatever happened with the new forum skin?

production_coordinator · May 25, 2006, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by Tomchu

Nor does it mean that Safari ISN'T broken.

Just last week I found a particular piece of art work on Deviant Art where, upon clicking the thumbnail, Safari would go "poof!" every single time. Guaranteed. I filled out the "Report a bug" form, but still ... the browser is far from perfect.

I never said Safari was perfect. I simply indicated that it's not always the fault of Safari. Many sites are poorly coded. Safari has some rough edges, but for the most part, I find is to be solid.

production_coordinator · May 25, 2006, 02:47 PM

Anyone not using Cyberdog 2.1 isn't using a REAL Mac OS web browser!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CyberDog

angelmb · May 25, 2006, 03:32 PM

eWorld !