Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Willow Piper · Nov 16, 2007, 09:04 PM

Great. Apple has force-fed Safari 3 to everyone that upgrades to Mac OS X 10.4.11. I'm kicking myself for not having read the release notes more closely.

The only difference between Safari 3 and Safari 2 seems to be that all your plug-ins suddenly don't work. At least, that's the only important difference. Who honestly cares if Safari 3 renders pages half a second faster? It's got to be the most over-rated release of a software product since Windows Vista. Bah, humbug.

Willow.

Curiosity · Nov 17, 2007, 02:41 AM

What plugins does it break? Flash and java work on mine, and mp3, wav, and .mid sound files as well.

Technicolor · Nov 17, 2007, 03:29 AM

I like the new Find feature, I also like the "Merge All Windows" command, improved rendering times are also nice. I'm curious which plug-ins broke for you. They all seem to work fine for me. I did find your reference as the "most over-rated release of a software product since Windows Vista" comedy though.

Kevin · Nov 17, 2007, 05:47 PM

Well like SafariBlock, and others. Ones that used the input manager. Most are fixed now.

Apple did this for security reasons. I don't care as long as their is a fix.

bballe336 · Nov 17, 2007, 08:35 PM

PithHelmet doesn't work, Safari 2 with PithHelmet was faster than Safari 3 without it is. I'm pretty disappointed at how much slower web pages load. I even tried PithHelmet 2.7 (which says it's for Safari 3 in 10.4) and it doesn't allow me to install it.

Eug · Nov 17, 2007, 08:48 PM

The number 1 reason I am not upgrading to 10.4.11 is because it has Safari 3.0.

I don't know if it's Safari 3.0 or if it's Leopard (or both), but Leopard's Safari 3.0 does not work properly with LogMeIn.com for controlling remote PCs and Macs.

Kevin · Nov 17, 2007, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by bballe336

PithHelmet doesn't work, Safari 2 with PithHelmet was faster than Safari 3 without it is. I'm pretty disappointed at how much slower web pages load. I even tried PithHelmet 2.7 (which says it's for Safari 3 in 10.4) and it doesn't allow me to install it.

Try Safariblock if you just want to block frames/images/sites.

brettcamp · Nov 19, 2007, 02:38 PM

Everything works much faster for me since I started using the Safari3 beta a few weeks ago, and now with the 10.4.11 update. I like the Find and Merge command, and also the restore last workspace option, which is really essential for the way I work. That enabled me to get rid of SafariStand, which probably was slowing down the system and causing occasional crashes under Safari 2. I've had no crashes yet with Safari 3. I imagine most plug ins will be updated soon but, I'm happy not to be using any input managers now; my system seems to be more stable.

Thinine · Nov 19, 2007, 04:58 PM

These aren't plugins, they're hacks. They will be supported as such.

Curiosity · Nov 20, 2007, 02:10 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Well like SafariBlock, and others. Ones that used the input manager. Most are fixed now.

Apple did this for security reasons. I don't care as long as their is a fix.

Those are extensions, not plugins.

DarkStarRed · Nov 20, 2007, 06:30 AM

Has I read all plug-ins are working fine ;Java, SWF, Real Player, DivX content, Adobe, Flip4Mac, Unity, Shockwave, Quartz & QT
but as mentioned above these are 3rd party extensions to Safari. I've never liked installing such things to a browser but understand many do! Just give it time for their developers to make it work.

Kevin · Nov 20, 2007, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by Curiosity

Those are extensions, not plugins.

Where did I say otherwise? And does it matter what they are called?

That's like saying "Those aren't widgets, they are gadgets"

Come on people.. Not that things like SafariBlock work like OS 9 extensions in that way anyhow.

Originally Posted by DarkStarRed

but as mentioned above these are 3rd party extensions to Safari. I've never liked installing such things to a browser but understand many do! Just give it time for their developers to make it work.

The only one I use, SafariBlock, doesn't change my browser stability or speed. So I don't care what they are. As long as they do what they say they will do, and nothing more.

The only problems I've ever had with SafariBlock is when OS X gets updated.

bballe336 · Nov 21, 2007, 11:08 PM

SafariBlock doesn't work at all. I find it pretty useless, AdBlock works great in firefox, safariblock however does nothing to ads that change every time the page reloads. I could sit and block ads for hours and it wouldn't do a thing, there is no subscription to block predefined ads like in adblock.

Kevin, I don't see why you are pushing this software to replace PithHelmet when this software doesn't do what you say it does.

King Bob On The Cob · Nov 21, 2007, 11:55 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Where did I say otherwise? And does it matter what they are called?

That's like saying "Those aren't widgets, they are gadgets"

Come on people.. Not that things like SafariBlock work like OS 9 extensions in that way anyhow.

The only one I use, SafariBlock, doesn't change my browser stability or speed. So I don't care what they are. As long as they do what they say they will do, and nothing more.

The only problems I've ever had with SafariBlock is when OS X gets updated.

I'm as gung ho about using InputManagers and Application Enhancers as any. They add functionallity that we all wish would have been included by default, but you have to realize that they work by overwriting a specific method. They're hacks, and they will break every time Apple changes the method names. Being mad about it is silly, as is being a jerk on an internet forum. The software will be updated to support the newest Safari soon, give the developers time. That's how Windows ended up as bad as it did. Microsoft couldn't go back and clean up it's code because they didn't want to break backwards compatibility.

Kevin · Nov 24, 2007, 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by bballe336

SafariBlock doesn't work at all. I find it pretty useless

I'll tell that to all the ads I have blocked.

safariblock however does nothing to ads that change every time the page reloads.

That is why you read the documentation and use wildcards. After about a week you can track down most all spam banner hosts and you will eventually have most spam blocked before even going to a page you've never been to. It also .. get this.. blocks FRAMES. You know, frames that hold banners. You block the frame and it doesn't matter where the banner is from.

Kevin, I don't see why you are pushing this software to replace PithHelmet when this software doesn't do what you say it does.

It does what I say it does. I don't code the program so I have no allegiance to it. The problem with you and SafariBlock was not SafariBlock I assure you.

RTF.

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob

I'm as gung ho about using InputManagers and Application Enhancers as any........

I think you misunderstood my post...

bballe336 · Nov 25, 2007, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

I'll tell that to all the ads I have blocked.

That is why you read the documentation and use wildcards. After about a week you can track down most all spam banner hosts and you will eventually have most spam blocked before even going to a page you've never been to. It also .. get this.. blocks FRAMES. You know, frames that hold banners. You block the frame and it doesn't matter where the banner is from.

It does what I say it does. I don't code the program so I have no allegiance to it. The problem with you and SafariBlock was not SafariBlock I assure you.

RTF.

I think you misunderstood my post...

You have hyped it up as a replacement to pithhelmet, and it is no where close. It also is no where close to as good as adblock in firefox. I read how to use it, it hasn't worked worth a damn.

zerostar · Nov 25, 2007, 10:11 PM

Well I can attest to SafariBlock's greatness, got it running on Leopard and Safari 3.0.4 again, works wonderfully and I NEVER see ads anymore (took a few hours of surfing to fully configure), that and after blocking all the random intellitxt servers I now have a much more enjoyable web experience, SafariBlock is an awesome piece of software and its free.

Make sure you are using version 1.3 and have it enabled

- - e r i k - - · Nov 25, 2007, 11:56 PM

SAFT works great with Safari 3. It's the only plug-in/extension you need.

- - e r i k - - · Nov 25, 2007, 11:58 PM

By the way. For adblocking you should really start with a well-configured hosts file anyway:

Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File

It's a much times faster solution since you don't merely just hide the ads, but never load them in the first place.

macintologist · Nov 26, 2007, 01:15 AM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

By the way. For adblocking you should really start with a well-configured hosts file anyway:

Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File

It's a much times faster solution since you don't merely just hide the ads, but never load them in the first place.

Wow.. that works incredibly well. Even better than a CSS style sheet.

- - e r i k - - · Nov 26, 2007, 02:06 AM

Indeed. CSS blocking breaks too many sites for me (including my own) and still has the problem that it merely hides ads instead of not loading them.

besson3c · Nov 26, 2007, 02:25 AM

Originally Posted by Thinine

These aren't plugins, they're hacks. They will be supported as such.

Exactly, but since there are a great number of these hacks and they have become quite popular, I think it is time for Apple to make a developer API for writing plug-ins to prevent these sorts of problems.

Big Mac · Nov 26, 2007, 02:30 AM

Yeah, because defeating the revenue strategies of free sites we use is really in everyone's best interest.

If you don't like the ads on a site, you don't have to go to it.

Kevin · Nov 26, 2007, 05:22 AM

Originally Posted by bballe336

You have hyped it up as a replacement to pithhelmet, and it is no where close. It also is no where close to as good as adblock in firefox. I read how to use it, it hasn't worked worth a damn.

Well It worked with me, and zerostar below. I guess we are both lying? Either you didn't take the time to figure it out, or you are just being argumentative. Safariblock DOES work. And it works well. Do you know how to split up IPs using wildcards? Or block frames?

Originally Posted by zerostar

Well I can attest to SafariBlock's greatness, got it running on Leopard and Safari 3.0.4 again, works wonderfully and I NEVER see ads anymore (took a few hours of surfing to fully configure), that and after blocking all the random intellitxt servers I now have a much more enjoyable web experience, SafariBlock is an awesome piece of software and its free.

Make sure you are using version 1.3 and have it enabled

besson3c · Nov 26, 2007, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Yeah, because defeating the revenue strategies of free sites we use is really in everyone's best interest.

If you don't like the ads on a site, you don't have to go to it.

How does ad blocking defeat revenue streams for people that had no intention on clicking on the ad anyway? The way I see it, ad revenue is either based on product placement or clickthroughs - either of which are unaffected by ad blockers.

tkmd · Nov 26, 2007, 04:00 PM

I had the same problem - and if you read this thread that I posted you can install Pith helmet on tiger 10.4.11

here