Okay, CSS web fonts and HTML 5...... what does this mean in real life?

i don't think it will mean anything for a while ...

So a couple of things:
1) They did, as I recall, one public beta of Safari for Windows and it was terrible. Now they are releasing it and it's the best and fastest? I can't help but be a bit skeptical...

2) Why would built-in firewire be a req on a Mac?

3) Bravo on some of the new features.

@Geisrud:

1) the beta was totally crappy. I just downloaded 3.1 for windows and while i have no idea if its THE BEST EVAH it feels good, is fast and doest crash

2)cause all Macs have it and it just looks good on the spec list ? no idea.

3)yups same here.

Build number?

@homerjay: Nothing, since unless someone is writing a site specifically targeted at Safari, they're very unlikely to use them.

1)there was many beta releases becoming more and more stabl, it was fast from the beginning though

2) apple knows the spec off all macs with firewire

Is there still a Windows version, and is it worth it?
I'm always down for trying a different browser.

Not that I don't loves me some Firefox, but I'm not married to it or anything. ;)

I sure wish they would have made Safari less crashtastic before adding new features. Ah well, here goes nothing...

I think they mean a G3 with built in Firewire, otherwise, they would be cutting out the MacBook Air.

I just downloaded the version for Windows and this version of Safari actually runs! (In a VMWare virtualization version). I tried Safari before and it would crash all day long or take 48 minutes to download Apple's Start Page. So far it works well and I can't wait to use it in my Windows partition alongside my Firefox.

@CntryDoe: LOL! Brilliant!

And yeah, the only G3 computers with firewire were the faster ones, so they will run Safari 3.1, the older ones will not (without haxx). 10.2 (iirc) was the same way.

Can someone that's installed it post a solid review of whether it's

1. Worth the effort installing
2. Any better than Firefox 2.0 or 3 beta
3. Easier on memory than FireFox or Opera using tabs

Whoopee-doo, HTML 5. See this? :| It's my excited face. Does it have any kind of anti-phishing features at all? Even a plug-in?

It's nice to see support for features that no one else supports yet... but, unfortunately no self respecting Web Developer would incorporate technology that IE or Firefox don't support. Where I work, supporting Safari is an afterthought- we have enough to worry about between IE 6 & 7 and Firefox. Oh well, someone had to be the first. It might be fun to play around with. I'm more interested in standards-complaint IE8 and Firefox 3.

@Geisrud: As there were Macs made at some point in the past without FireWire built in - and some of which are still in use [for whatever reason] this is a "change-point" in hardware specs on the Mac side [almost akin to PCC vs Intel but not as extreme]_

Safari being the fastest browser on the Mac and PC - they have been saying this from the beginning and it all depends on what you are doing_

@homerjay: @smith186: Seeing as how the W3C has released the specs fro the next versions of Internet coding all standards compliant browsers will be migrating this direction_ So Smith186 No not unless someone is specifically targeting Safari does this mean it won't be used_ HTML is a very limited architecture that leans on other technologies like CSS and JavaScript for more verstility and functionality_ HTML 5 adds more functionality and streamlined coding into the mix to better integrate wth these other technologies_

And HomerJay what this means in real life is that if a web designer wants to use the fonts "Lemonade" or "Marker Felt" or "Stencil" or "CopperPlate" as the font on their website - they can_ And it will be live text instead of having to convert this to an image first_

Safari sux - Firefox or Opera FTW!

@legacye

After playing around with Firefox 2 and Safari on Vista i opened 5 tabs in each then closed them then opened them again and Firefox was taking up 120MB and Safari was taking up 265MB. However Safari was loading things much faster then Firefox was.

Here's one very good reason to use the new Safari: I just loaded a particular page (www.dagbladet.no), which usually makes the CPU resources for Firefox in the Activity Monitor hit between 40-50%.

In Safari it uses between 4-6%. Impressive.

Also, javascript is bloody fast (our publishing system at work is CONSIDERABLY faster).

Not sure if page load is "world's fastest", though, at least not categorically so.

How about some speed tests, diaz? Some often used but big sites? Cnn.com?

@Geisrud:

I'm sure that it's not that it actually requires built in firewire but if it's a G3 Mac then built in firewire designates a specific group of G3s that were produced later than ones without.

Apple has in the past designated G3 processor Macs with firewire for versions of OS X.

@Maksimir:

I can see how you might say Firefox FTW but Opera? Opera sucks horribly. It may be fast but is horribly non standards compliant.

@jwrose: agreed. i still curse IE6 like a run-away daughter that turned to the poll instead of asking for help...

Safari is screaming fast on my MacBook Pro, but unfortunately it doesn't have plugins like Firefox. I can't give up Adblock with automatic filterset.g updates or the gmail notifier. Sorry Safari.

@lilkeith7:

Just re-tested after restarting and Safari was at about 100MB and Firefox was at 85MB

The "built in firewire" requirement is more of a way to date your mac than it is an actual requirement. Instead of listing 5 different metrics (cpu, ram, hdd, etc) they can just say "yeah anything newer than machines from around the time we started putting onboard firewire on our new computers should be sufficient".

I see that has already been halfway explained a couple times, but why the hell not throw my hat in the ring too

Glad that people are starting to give a shit about web standards. I always tested my pages in safari/mac first when I was doing web design-- if it's broken in Safari, you've probably coded something wrong. I always tested in ie7/win last, because it behaved like a brat and always required special treatment.

Does Safari have add ons like Firefox does? Because until then I don't care if it's a bit faster or not.

New Safari is good, some nice updates, but the shift key gmail issue is a real bind.

Safari has so little web presense that this announcement doesn't mean much. Still cool though, just meaniningless.

where's the flash?

I want two, is that ok?

Media HTML tags and CSS animation... so this is why Apple forwent Flash and Silverlight on iPhone/Ipod touch. With more and more sites and Web apps written for the iPhone/Ipod touch platform, this media-without-plugin model may (just may) take off.

btw, it's STILL not possible with selective pop up blocking.

How difficult is that?

What are CSS animations and how can I start coding them?

well, to be honest just installed the update, visited some heavy duty sites, cnn, bbc, others....and i have to be honest: this thing is blisteringly fast, REALLY fast....love my firefox but will consider switching to safari...........try it out folks

@MacBandit: you really should go do some more research_ Actually Opera is one of the most standards compliant browsers out there_ More than Safari - FireFox and IE_

And that is usually why it makes Sites look bad and breaks functionality - because usually the web designer doesn't adhere to coding standards and Opera tends to be too strict_ this last version [what ever is currently available has loosened up a bit [it stills adhere's to the standards] but the developers have realized that coders don't follow the standards as mucha s the Opera crew would like them to_

That 93/100 Acid3 result was with the latest webkit nightly build ( [webkit.org] ), not with Safari 3.0. Personally I'm running webkit nightly, but it's nice to have an official release newer than what was already out there.

@sisedi: here you go:[www.cssplay.co.uk]

roll your cursor over the 2 doors at the top of the page:
[www.cssplay.co.uk]

All these do is use a series of CSS based rollovers to animate_ Almost like the old style animated GIFs - except manually_

Except the funny thing is that this works in Safari 3.0.4_ So I'm not sure what the deal is with the specific CSS Animation either_ Maybe just better ingetration/support_

I'll have to go read up on the CSS animation some more_

@uberfu: An underscore is not a period.

Safari is my main browser, in conjunction with Safari Adblock it's unstoppable.

@Canadian Impostor: Why not put you gmail account into Apple Mail? Duh.

@sisedi: Also - just goto Google or Yahoo and search for

"CSS animation"

including the quotes!

and all sorts of info comes up_

Regarding blocking popups, check out SafariBlock - [www.macupdate.com]

Regarding plugins, yes, Safari has them. Check out [pimpmysafari.com] for one example. Does it have as many as Firefox? No.

And if you're on the Mac, you can use AppleScript to do all kinds of customizations. [pimpmysafari.com] and AppleScript is pretty easy to write yourself.

Do I think this browser will be better than Firefox? Better here, worse there. It'll be a mixed bag. I tend to prefer Safari on my Mac at home but Firefox at work.

Currently running this new update to Safari on a Windows XP SP2 machine.

Holy cow this is fast!!! Pages just instantly appear. I was just browsing with Safari 3 for an hour right before installing this update and I can tell there is a bit of a difference.

Also wanted to point out they fixed a glitch with the favorites bookmark bar. In the past if you had too many bookmarks to fit on the size of your browser window, an arrow leading to an expandable list of bookmarks would appear on the right. Problem is, this arrow would not appear until you grabbed the window and slightly resized it. And even after making it appear, if you clicked on the arrow, it would automatically choose the first bookmark in the expandable window. VERY ANNOYING!! BUT THEY FIXED IT!! SO YAY!

Text rendering and text in alert boxes has seemed to have been updated and improved a bit. It definitely looks different.

Checked the system resources. Running at about 80,212K with one page open. Seems ok..

Also wanted to mention that highlighting with the mouse has been fixed and is more responsive.

In the past if you went to click your mouse to drag and highlight text, it would not start highlighting until you had passed almost an entire word.

Now when you click and drag to highlight, it works right away!

Another new small update seems that if you click in the address bar it's first action is to automatically highlight the entire address bar. (which is nice) Then if you click once again, it deselects all. Then if you double click from there you can choose specific words.

Overall very happy with this update.

I think a lot of you who are saying "Ah, What's the point! It's Safari, only a small number of people use it so who cares!" are missing the point a bit... All you have to do is look at the video being played in the example above and you'll see why apple are pushing for these new standards in their browsers... So that the iPhone/iPod doesn't have to have flash!!! These updates will eventually be pushed to the iPhone when they've been tested on macs/pcs for a while and then steve jobs will proclaim the death of flash video on the internet, which will probably be followed by a cheshire cat grin that stretches from ear to ear, hmmmm, maybe also a cackle.

I'm pretty sure safari on the iPhone accounts for the largest web browser footprint for mobile devices, so this news does make quite a big difference, even if you're a blind inbred chimp who actually likes using internet explorer.

"But why does it make a difference if I hate the iPhone with a bloody vengeance and would never buy one ever???" Well, it's simple. With the popularity of the iPhone, these "good" standards will be followed by other software developers for browsers on both desktops and mobile devices because you'll get people saying "ah! firefox is shit! This page works on my iPhone but doesn't on firefox!" Think of it in the same way that Microsoft squandered their position with IE. Microsoft basically had the web in their greasy hands, so they decided to say "f**k you" to the W3C standards and hobble together a stinking piece of crap that'll show pages which will only work properly if you're running their other hobbled together piece of crap (windows that is) by using activex controls etc. This has not only gained them much hatred from web developers, but it has also allowed other browsers, which aren't bundled with OS's, like firefox, to gain some ground by not being buggy and following the standards.

I'm going to stop my ranting now as I could talk way too long about the crapness of internet explorer, but I have better things to do, like cutting my toe nails.

Cheerio

@rfaulder:
regarding gmail, i always wonder the same thing. i just don't understand the use of mail notifiers, unless maybe they don't use a mail client and instead just use the web interface, but if that's the case, why? i used a gmail notifier a while back and after a week or so was like "well, that's useless". i dunno, maybe i'm missing something.