Safari 4 (beta)

Discussion in 'Apple' started by Warren Oates, Feb 24, 2009.

  1. I got it to complete three times out of three. No problems at all.

    -- Michelle
     
    Michelle Steiner, Feb 26, 2009
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Warren Oates

    Davoud Guest

    Mike Rosenberg:
    Lord knows I'm not much at math, but

    One unwanted "add to bookmarks" button.

    One unwanted Google search area.

    Let me see... one plus one, carry the 17, apply the
    rule-of-threes-except-after-twos and Fermat's last thingie. Yep, two it
    is. Two too many for my taste -- and the post _was_ about _my_ taste,
    not about anyone else's taste, right?

    Davoud
     
    Davoud, Feb 26, 2009
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Warren Oates

    Prancer Guest

    The one that requires me to click it and make changes over and over
    again as other pages I do not want in "Top Sites" appear in "Top
    Sites?" The one that let me remove the MobileMe log-in page that
    appeared after just one visit and that enabled me to remove the
    mystery page, blank white except for the words "You can't log in
    yet?" That one? Yes, I noticed it. Thank you for asking.[/QUOTE]

    Did you see the step-by-step instructions that Michelle Steiner posted
    in response to your complaint? It shows exactly how to do what you want
    to do.
     
    Prancer, Feb 26, 2009
    #43
  4. Warren Oates

    Davoud Guest

    Davoud:
    Michelle has been the subject of considerable controversy in some
    venues, target of attacks and the like. I don't participate in that
    sort of thing and I don't read it, either. As a consequence I
    kill-filed Michelle and as many references to Michelle as my filters
    permit quite some time ago. There are consequences to kill-filing
    people, of course, and I accept the consequences of my action.

    Davoud
     
    Davoud, Feb 26, 2009
    #44
  5. Warren Oates

    Davoud Guest

    Davoud:
    OK, I looked it up. Michelle wrote:

    "Easy, but a bit complex, to do.
    1.  Open two windows in Safari.
    2.  In window 1, open Top Sites and click the Edit button.
    3.  In window 2, navigate to the site you want.
    4.  Drag the URL icon/button from window 2 to Window 1.
    That URL will remain in Top Sites, in the location you put it, until
    you move or remove it."

    No reflection on Michelle here, but this a description of a feature I'm
    going to use!? Get serious!

    Davoud
     
    Davoud, Feb 26, 2009
    #45
  6. No, they're using compression on rarely-used resources.
    None of these are true. It's called compression. Actually, it might not
    even be compression, but just using a tar file.


    Steve
     
    Steven Fisher, Feb 26, 2009
    #46
  7. Click Edit on the bottom left of the window.
    Then click the X on the site you don't like.


    Steve
     
    Steven Fisher, Feb 26, 2009
    #47
  8. Keep in mind I've been reading comp.sys.mac.system for years...

    This is the single stupidest thing I've ever read here. You have
    absolutely no idea how computers work.


    Steve
     
    Steven Fisher, Feb 26, 2009
    #48
  9. I tried Safari 4 for a while.

    Then I tried the Safari 3-style tabs.

    A half hour later I changed back to the Safari 4 tabs. Apple has done
    the right thing here.


    Steve
     
    Steven Fisher, Feb 26, 2009
    #49
  10. I am not hoping against it being re-added, but I have to admit I've
    *never* used it.


    Steve
     
    Steven Fisher, Feb 26, 2009
    #50
  11. Warren Oates

    Prancer Guest

    Michelle has been the target of attacks, so you kill-filed *her*? Isn't
    that akin to throwing out the baby with the bath water?

    Well, she showed you how to do exactly what you want Top Sites to do; if
    you would rather kill file someone who tried to help you, so be it. I
    wonder how many other people will bother to try to help you, with that
    attitude.
     
    Prancer, Feb 26, 2009
    #51
  12. I am not hoping against it being re-added, but I have to admit I've
    *never* used it.[/QUOTE]

    I use it extensively.
     
    Michelle Steiner, Feb 26, 2009
    #52
  13. Warren Oates

    Wes Groleau Guest

    Is it finally official that ppc support drops? Last I heard, it was
    speculation.

    I wonder _how_ they are dramatically reducing the footprint.

    I know a way to dramatically reduce the footprint of Tiger
    without changing ANY functionality:

    find / -name "*.app" -print | while read AppName; do
    ditto --arch i386 "$AppName" /tmp/Temp.app
    rm -rf "$AppName"
    mv /tmp/Temp/app "$AppName"
    done

    Don't forget the quotes or you'll get LOTS of errors.

    Only do it on Intel or you'll destroy your system.
    (unless you change the "i386")

    Be prepared for it to run for hours if not days.

    Removes the non-Intel part of every app.
    For example, makes Quicktime Player 40 MB instead of 29.

    Can do it on other "fat" files, too: bundles, frameworks, command line
    programs, ...


    --
    Wes Groleau

    "A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, and as a
    firm and unalterable experience has established these laws,
    the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact,
    is as entire as could possibly be imagined."
    -- David Hume, age 37
    "There's no such thing of that, 'cause I never heard of it."
    -- Becky Groleau, age 4
     
    Wes Groleau, Feb 26, 2009
    #53
  14. Warren Oates

    Wes Groleau Guest

    NOT necessarily. In my thirty years in software engineering, I have
    more than once improved performance, fixed bugs, or added features
    while making the code smaller.

    Besides, they could easily knock off gigabytes merely by
    removing the code for any processor you don't have.
     
    Wes Groleau, Feb 26, 2009
    #54
  15. Warren Oates

    Wes Groleau Guest

    Really? How did you manage that?

    Time-traveling industrial rockers told you who to killfile before
    they even posted?
     
    Wes Groleau, Feb 26, 2009
    #55
  16. Warren Oates

    Wes Groleau Guest

    If it's called "Top Sites" when it's really "all visited sites"
    then it is pretty stupid. Especially if (as someone else
    hinted) it is storing sites that embed ads in other sites.

    But I suspect it really is "Top Sites" but that it takes a while
    for it to figure out which sites you visit often and which only once.

    Like a Bayesian spam filter--sloppy at first, but after a couple of
    weeks, nearly 100% accurate.

    --
    Wes Groleau

    "In the field of language teaching, Method A is the logical
    contradiction of Method B: if the assumptions from which
    A claims to be derived are correct, then B cannot work,
    and vice versa. Yet one colleague is getting excellent
    results with A and another is getting comparable results
    with B. How is this possible?"
    -- Earl W. Stevick
     
    Wes Groleau, Feb 26, 2009
    #56
  17. Warren Oates

    Davoud Guest

    Davoud:
    Wes Groleau:
    My only argument is that if Apple would just trust _me_ to decide which
    are my top sites it would be 100% accurate from the start. And if it
    weren't, that would be my fault and I wouldn't complain publicly about
    my error.

    Let others be the guinea pigs for AI; I want it to work my way _now_ .

    Davoud
     
    Davoud, Feb 26, 2009
    #57
  18. Warren Oates

    Wes Groleau Guest

    I can see that, but I don't object to the Junk filter in Mail at all.
    At first I had to often tell it, NO, this is junk or No, this is not
    junk. But now, it "knows" what I don't like and takes care of it with
    no effort on my part.

    Similarly the address completion. It's irritating when it picks the
    wrong one, but on the average it "guesses" correctly way more often
    than not.
     
    Wes Groleau, Feb 26, 2009
    #58
  19. Warren Oates

    Heli Guest

    I hope you're right, but recent developments make me very suspicious.
    iLife09, in particular iWeb3 is very bugged and wacky. There is
    potential, but it is not implemented with accuracy and security. The
    new Safari looks like bling. Many people are already trying to get some
    old Safari3 stuff back. That is a worrying development. Apple does not
    care about customers wishes. They just plunge forward.
    And if they will remove some support for 'older' hardware in Snow
    Leopard, well that does mean that many of us will have to buy new
    hardware. It's as simple as that. I know, because I had to buy a new
    modem some years ago as a result of installing an OS X update.
    Who really needs Faces and Places in iPhoto, but the small amateur? For
    most of us it is bling.
    Apple is being bling-ified. And that worries me. I expect more from
    Apple.
     
    Heli, Feb 26, 2009
    #59
  20. Warren Oates

    Heli Guest

    Well, actually I do. And at this moment I know that iWeb3 is very buggy
    and that Apple hasn't done anything to remedy the problems. Apple
    develops for people who start with a new computer and they have no
    consideration for people who update. That is why my experience with
    Apple tells me that it would be asking for trouble to install Snow
    Leopard on my one-year iMac. Wait and see. Of course, then you'll deny
    any trouble; those experiencing trouble will 'have absolutely no idea
    how computers work' etc. etc.
     
    Heli, Feb 26, 2009
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.