Safari 1.2 in software update. - Page 10

Ripcord · #73 February 10th, 2004, 10:37 PM

Mozilla engine? Safari is based on the Konqueror (KDE) rendering engine, not Gecko (Mozilla rendering engine). I'm torn as to which is/would have been better, Gecko is quite a bit more mature and masterfully designed (even if it's "bloated"), though Konqueror's engine is lighter and nimbler.

Either way, Safari seems to be coming along reasonably well, in another year it should be a very good browser. I put it in the "fair to good" category now.

I just wish more people on the Windows platforms were using non-IE browsers...

Randman · #74 February 11th, 2004, 01:50 AM

Quote:

I just wish more people on the Windows platforms were using non-IE browsers...

I just wish more people on the Windows platform weren't on the Windows platform.

Ripcord · #75 February 11th, 2004, 08:06 AM

Well, yeah, that too, but one step at a time I suppose =)

**fryke** · #76 February 11th, 2004, 10:35 AM

'moving towards a yearly...'? Apple's been releasing Mac OS X upgrades in a yearly fashion since 10.1. - And it's been quite clear that it would move on that way. Also _before_ Mac OS X, the big updates came along in a yearly fashion, with a .1 or .6 update between them. Also: You're _not_ in fact paying full price. 129$ is the upgrade price, since there are no 'full' versions. You've already _got_ a Mac OS license because you've bought a Mac, which doesn't come without one.

Ah, this is really upsetting me right now. After we've finally put the whiners down a bit about the 129$ price tag (remember that ever-recurring question about how much 10.2 and 10.3 would cost and that it was almost _unpossible_ that it would cost 129$?), now there's the same argument because of a simple browser update? :/ Hmm... When Jaguar came out, neither Safari nor iChat AV were around. You did _not_ buy a license for Safari or iChat AV. And Apple never promised to deliver updates to newer software for older operating system versions. If you want to use Safari, use the latest version around for your OS version. If that's not good enough, use OmniWeb, Camino or Firefox. They're all really good, you know...
And come September, you'll be thinking about buying 10.4, which will probably be one BIG upgrade for 10.2 users (and 'just another one' with 150 new features for 10.3 users).

If you're still using Jaguar, btw.: There are many, many things you're missing. Safari 1.2 is probably the LEAST important thing I could think of.

Arden · #77 February 11th, 2004, 06:07 PM

[sarcastic rant] While we're complaining, I wish Apple and other companies would still support OS 9. Sure, OS X is here-and-now, and it's awesome, but some of us can't afford to upgrade to a computer that can actually take full advantage of all that. I mean, what about the other (estimated) 15 million Mac users who haven't switched to OS X? [/sarcastic rant]

I'm sure there are plenty who make this case, but there's not a lot that's going to happen with them. A few companies still make OS 9-compatible software, but not very many anymore. Either deal with it and move on, or deal with it and stay where you are, basically.