# Safari 3.1 released



## apoorva84 (Mar 19, 2008)

Experience the web, Apple style, with Safari: the fastest, easiest-to-use web browser in the world. With its simple, elegant interface, Safari gets out of your way and lets you enjoy the web, up to 2 times faster than Internet Explorer.

The fastest web browser on any platform, Safari loads pages up to 2 times faster than Internet Explorer 7 and up to 1.6 times faster than Firefox 2.

And it executes JavaScript up to 2.8 times faster than Internet Explorer 7 and up to 1.6 times faster than Firefox 2. What does all that mean for you? Less time loading pages and more time enjoying them. 

*www.filehippo.com/img/ex/942__safari1.png

Source,download link and change log:*www.filehippo.com/download_safari/


----------



## debsuvra (Mar 19, 2008)

Thanks for the info, BTW I got it via software update in Mac leopard already!


----------



## sakumar79 (Mar 19, 2008)

So, is it looks like the Windows version is finally out of Beta... Let me give it a try and compare it with my current favourite Opera...

Arun


----------



## parthbarot (Mar 19, 2008)

i have checked all of them...

FF 2.0.0.12, FF 3 beta 4, and safari 3.1 ...

i think now it will be competition between FF 3 and safari.... as FF 3 has increased compatibility with memory and speed ( speed means browsing).

FF 3

- takes less memory then FF 2
- browsing speed is very good
- also shows you typed urls from bookmarks+history
- UI changed somewhat...
- but still lack behind safari in the sense of total memory eating.
- slow loading time...

Safari 3.1
- great UI.
- great loading time...
- great surfing speed...
- very less memory usage...
- main prob. is, no addons like FF 
- imports bookmarks from ff/opera/IE etc...

so its now your choice.... i have installed all of them... 

---------update:-------

safari starts initially at very low memory..like say 7MB or 8MB...stays there at some time...
Then gradually its growing even if you are browsing only one site...

see my results:
started @ 7-8 MB
after 10 minutes @ 56 MB
after another 10-15 minutes @ 86 MB
after another 5 minutes with 2 tabs (when i am writing this one) @ 94 MB



i think FF 3 is better then . what you say?

---------------------------------------------------

Paarth.


----------



## ray|raven (Mar 19, 2008)

^With FF3 getting a native UI, I'd say the mac share might increase.


----------



## alsiladka (Mar 19, 2008)

I would have liked it more had they retained atleast the native windows button configs. Safari has the cancel button on the left and the OK button on the right!


----------



## ThinkFree (Mar 19, 2008)

Thanks for the news


----------



## desiibond (Mar 19, 2008)

Damn. My Thinkpad's scroll using trackpoint is not working in safari.


----------



## parthbarot (Mar 19, 2008)

ax3 said:


> am gonna check this browser out .....
> 
> @parthbarot .... nice review frd .....



thanks mate... its just a quick one.
we can figure out more once FF 3 final will be out.Then only we can compare them both.

I think opera missed. Anyone using it now a days? 

Paarth.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Mar 19, 2008)

looks rather ugly.


----------



## goobimama (Mar 19, 2008)

Been using it since 3.0.3 on PC. 3.1 seems to have fixed a lot of bugs and such. Extremely stable now.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Mar 19, 2008)

goobimama said:


> Been using it since 3.0.3 on PC. 3.1 seems to have fixed a lot of bugs and such. Extremely stable now.


is the html renderer still Similar to Konqueror's ?


----------



## parthbarot (Mar 19, 2008)

friends,
again i am still with FF 3 beta 4.
because... even you open more tabs ( say 5 to 8 ) in FF3, it will use some 50 mb memory...

and safari with 5 to 8 tabs reaches @ 90 MB  though surfing seems fast...

I hope FF 3 final will be very good regarding memory leaks and loads 

Paarth.


----------



## goobimama (Mar 19, 2008)

MetalheadGautham said:


> is the html renderer still Similar to Konqueror's ?


Absolutely no idea.


----------



## Krazy_About_Technology (Mar 19, 2008)

WTH, why they have not given any release notes for this release? What they have fixed?? There are no cosmetic changes i guess  Anyways, the experience is quiet smooth apart from the memory usage issue.


----------



## goobimama (Mar 19, 2008)

Release notes are there. Just check the post about this on MacUser and follow the link from there.


----------



## MiNiMaL_sAnItY (Mar 19, 2008)

You people need to experience opera. Fastest browser on earth, bar none!

Safari on windows is too damn buggy to use, guess i'll check out the latest builds.


----------



## ThinkFree (Mar 19, 2008)

^^Flock works fastest on my computer. Opera is unable to open new interface of rediff and hotmail. Orkut doesn't open at all


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Mar 19, 2008)

MiNiMaL_sAnItY said:


> You people need to experience opera. Fastest browser on earth, bar none!
> 
> Safari on windows is too damn buggy to use, guess i'll check out the latest builds.


when it comes to raw speed, nothing beats Konqueror


----------



## MiNiMaL_sAnItY (Mar 19, 2008)

MetalheadGautham said:


> when it comes to raw speed, nothing beats Konqueror



Nope, thats false info you've got there sir!

heres a comparison: *www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html

Its somewhat old, but the argument holds weight.


----------



## goobimama (Mar 19, 2008)

MiNiMaL_sAnItY said:


> You people need to experience opera. Fastest browser on earth, bar none!
> 
> Safari on windows is too damn buggy to use, guess i'll check out the latest builds.


I haven't noticed any bugs since the 3.0.4 update. It's got most of the stuff I need. Power users will surely appreciate Firefox for it's extensions though.



MiNiMaL_sAnItY said:


> Nope, thats false info you've got there sir!
> 
> heres a comparison: *www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html
> 
> Its somewhat old, but the argument holds weight.


That list is outdated.


----------



## cooldudie3 (Mar 19, 2008)

I don't really think Safari is buggy and hard to use..
Though Safari can't open some of my working web sites, Opera isn't any better. 

I wonder what apple did to this version other than removing beta.. it would have been better if they showed it.


----------



## MiNiMaL_sAnItY (Mar 19, 2008)

Ok, heres a live lest:
*celtickane.com/webdesign/jsspeed.php

Post back results with your browsers, preferrably with screenshots of the result. I'll post back when I finish d'ling the new safari.


----------



## cooldudie3 (Mar 19, 2008)

this is pretty old too...
it talks about FF1.5 and IE6
Now Safari can load more faster than opera

MY REPORT

 Try/Catch with errors 90
 Layer movement 311
 Random number engine 260
 Math engine 270
 DOM speed 161
 Array functions 160
 String functions 20
 Ajax declaration 170
 Total Duration 1442


 This is Firefox 2.0.0.12


----------



## ThinkFree (Mar 19, 2008)

Safari


> Safari can’t open the page.
> Safari could not open the page “*celtickane.com/webdesign/jsspeed.php” because the server is not responding.



Flock 1.1beta


> *      The connection has timed out server at celtickane.com is taking too long to respond. should you do now?
> site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few.
> you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network  connection.
> *   If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure  Flock is permitted to access the Web.



Firefox


> The connection has timed out server at celtickane.com is taking too long to respond. site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few moments.
> 
> *   If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network
> connection.
> ...


----------



## cooldudie3 (Mar 19, 2008)

WHAT?????
How did you get that????
I got myself opening this web page about testing speed!!!


----------



## MiNiMaL_sAnItY (Mar 19, 2008)

Im surprised!

*i97.photobucket.com/albums/l226/Complete-Idiot/op2.jpg
*i97.photobucket.com/albums/l226/Complete-Idiot/saf.jpg
*i97.photobucket.com/albums/l226/Complete-Idiot/op1.jpg

I'll be using safari from now on!


----------



## ThinkFree (Mar 19, 2008)

Not only these statistics but the real experience of using Safari (on windows as well) backs it as the fastest browser



Krazy_About_Technology said:


> WTH, ............ What they have fixed?? .......................


Earlier when I opened digit forum with Safari, it didn't show any snippet of the content of thread when I hovered mouse over it, but now it does. Same is with some other sites


----------



## goobimama (Mar 19, 2008)

I can certainly say that Safari is not for the so called "Power users" who have extensions for almost everything and anything. Safari is an out of the box browser with little customising. Which is what many a computer user requires...


----------



## sakumar79 (Mar 20, 2008)

Is there any free extension/tool for configuring ad blocking in Safari? Something as easy to use as Opera's Block Content feature?

Arun


----------



## debsuvra (Mar 20, 2008)

sakumar79 said:


> Is there any free extension/tool for configuring ad blocking in Safari? Something as easy to use as Opera's Block Content feature?
> 
> Arun



Try pithhelmet @ *www.culater.net/software/PithHelmet/PithHelmet.php


----------



## axxo (Mar 20, 2008)

download today...much impressed with its rendering speed greated than ff and ie..as well as the inbuilt font smoothing adds value to browsing content

many essential feature still missing..
no undo close tab
most of the links when i click gets opened in new window instead of new tab
no adblock..not even blocking the basic google ads in digit forum 
download manager support?


----------



## sakumar79 (Mar 20, 2008)

From my post in an earlier thread *www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showthread.php?p=749460 which got no replies:



> I read on another website *www.howtocreate.co.uk/safaribenchmarks.html that Safari used to mess up its Javascript-based benchmarks by firing onload event returns before the page is fully loaded... This made it look like it is much faster than it actually was (which by itself is quite fast). Has this been fixed in the recent versions?
> 
> Arun



Hope I get reply in this thread at least...

Arun


----------



## desiibond (Mar 20, 2008)

safari is handing whenever I try to import bookmarks from HTML file.


----------



## aryayush (Mar 23, 2008)

axxo said:


> no undo close tab


FWIW, if you know which site the tab was from, then it's very easy to get it back. For instance, if you know that the site was the Digit forum, you just enter 'think' in the address bar and the pages you most recently opened (and thus are most likely to open again) will be near the top. I really like this feature of Safari. Other browsers seem to arrange this list alphabetically or something.



axxo said:


> most of the links when i click gets opened in new window instead of new tab


Press and hold Ctrl and then click on the links. They will open in background tabs instead.



sakumar79 said:


> From my post in an earlier thread *www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showthread.php?p=749460 which got no replies:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I haven't heard anything about this but I know that, at least on a Mac, Safari is noticeably faster than Firefox, OmniWeb and Opera. I have tried several websites on all these browsers and Safari always comes out faster than all of them The only exception, ironically enough, seems to be Safari's default homepage, which generally loads faster in Firefox than it does in Safari.


----------



## goobimama (Mar 23, 2008)

True. For some reason, Safari can't handle the Apple web page properly. Ever since they got that new look, it's been like that. The Windows version takes a few seconds to restore any form of control once it gets to apple.com.

As for tabs opening in new windows, you can always merge all windows "Window > Merge all Windows".


----------



## Ankur Gupta (Mar 23, 2008)

aryayush said:


> FWIW, if you know which site the tab was from, then it's very easy to get it back. For instance, if you know that the site was the Digit forum, you just enter 'think' in the address bar and the pages you most recently opened (and thus are most likely to open again) will be near the top. I really like this feature of Safari. Other browsers seem to arrange this list alphabetically or something.
> 
> Press and hold Ctrl and then click on the links. They will open in background tabs instead.



Both features are available in Firefox 3. It made its way somewhere around Beta2. 
That sorting according to frequency of visits is cool, makes me wonder how have we been living without it


----------



## gxsaurav (Mar 23, 2008)

aryayush said:


> FWIW, if you know which site the tab was from, then it's very easy to get it back. For instance, if you know that the site was the Digit forum, you just enter 'think' in the address bar and the pages you most recently opened (and thus are most likely to open again) will be near the top. I really like this feature of Safari. Other browsers seem to arrange this list alphabetically or something.


 
With IE 8 + IE 7 Pro, right click on the Icon in status bar, select "Tab history", then select the tab i closed.



> Press and hold Ctrl and then click on the links. They will open in background tabs instead.


 
Right click -> Open in new tab or middle click.


----------



## axxo (Mar 23, 2008)

aryayush said:


> FWIW, if you know which site the tab was from, then it's very easy to get it back. For instance, if you know that the site was the Digit forum, you just enter 'think' in the address bar and the pages you most recently opened (and thus are most likely to open again) will be near the top. I really like this feature of Safari. Other browsers seem to arrange this list alphabetically or something.



quite complex...but what I desire is basic undo function..& what if i don't remember the link that i closed? 



aryayush said:


> Press and hold Ctrl and then click on the links. They will open in background tabs instead.



handful tip..again most of the time I don't use keyboard..I prefer mouse click(s) than using both the hands - one on keyboard & the other on mouse


----------



## mad1231moody (Mar 23, 2008)

Is there anyway I can get a new tab button on the toolbar, just like Firefox.
Even the customization options were less for the toolbar in Safari, but overall it loads pages faster


----------



## aryayush (Mar 23, 2008)

axxo said:


> quite complex...but what I desire is basic undo function..& what if i don't remember the link that i closed?


I just suggested the alternate method that we use. I want an undo feature myself. 



axxo said:


> handful tip..again most of the time I don't use keyboard..I prefer mouse click(s) than using both the hands - one on keyboard & the other on mouse


Right click >> Open Link in New Tab

(If you were on Mac OS X, it would open all links in tabs unless specifically told not to, but sadly, that option is not available on Windows.)



mad1231moody said:


> Is there anyway I can get a new tab button on the toolbar, just like Firefox.


Double click on any empty space on the tab bar to open a new tab. 



mad1231moody said:


> Even the customization options were less for the toolbar in Safari, but overall it loads pages faster


In any Apple application, you'll always have minimal customisation options. I know that sounds bad on paper but it's actually a feature. Less is more.


----------



## ring_wraith (Mar 23, 2008)

About the undo thing, I gotta say that it totally sucks that Safari doesn't have anything like that. The History--> Recently Closed Tabs feature in FF has saved my rear more times than I will admit.


----------



## goobimama (Mar 23, 2008)

Weird that it has a "Open recently closed Window" option though. It also has the "All windows from last session".


----------



## mad1231moody (Mar 23, 2008)

> Double click on any empty space on the tab bar to open a new tab.
> 
> In any Apple application, you'll always have minimal customisation options. I know that sounds bad on paper but it's actually a feature. Less is more.


Thanks for the trick arya. But it does gets sometimes frustrating wheb u r searching for a specific function and it is hiddes. Anyways uncluttered interfaces are always welcome


----------



## ring_wraith (Mar 23, 2008)

goobimama said:


> Weird that it has a "Open recently closed Window" option though. It also has the "All windows from last session".



I didn't get that going through the thread. Perhaps a bit of niceness before going all guns out on the sarcasm? It hurts you know, and I can do it too. 

Besides, I'm sure even _you'll_ agree a list of _all _recently closed tabs works better.


----------



## legolas (Mar 23, 2008)

goobimama said:


> Weird that it has a "Open recently closed Window" option though. It also has the "All windows from last session".


hey goobimama,
i read your blog and tried safari. I just have a couple questions if you could answer them. It sure is fast and looks good
1) does it have "add this keyword" option?? like in firefox you can set "g" for google, "d" for dictionary.com and so...
2) is it skinnable?
3) does it have Ad block Plus or similar addons for removing ads
4) how can i remove the autocomplete feature in the address bar


----------



## goobimama (Mar 23, 2008)

ring_wraith said:


> I didn't get that going through the thread. Perhaps a bit of niceness before going all guns out on the sarcasm? It hurts you know, and I can do it too.
> 
> Besides, I'm sure even _you'll_ agree a list of _all _recently closed tabs works better.


What the **** is wrong with you?



legolas said:


> hey goobimama,
> i read your blog and tried safari. I just have a couple questions if you could answer them. It sure is fast and looks good
> 1) does it have "add this keyword" option?? like in firefox you can set "g" for google, "d" for dictionary.com and so...
> 2) is it skinnable?
> ...


1. Usually the autocomplete feature does the job for this... but otherwise no. 
2. Nope
3. Not that I'm aware of for Windows at least.
4. Don't think so. What exactly is the problem with this one?


----------



## drgrudge (Mar 23, 2008)

legolas - 
Dunno in Windows version, but what I post below holds true for Safari Mac version. 

1. Yeah. The last 9 bookmarked sites are assigned Cmd + 1, Cmd + 2, etc.. 
2. No. Anyway in a Mac, you won't want it. Even when I used FX, I never skinned it. 
3. Yeah. Safari Blocker and Safari AdBlock. Both are freeware. Pithhelmet is also there which is not free. 
4. Not sure, but it's Safari > Preferences > Auto Fill and then deselect 'Other Forms'. 


Initially I had issues with Safari but now it's good browser. Only issue is that when I download something, the manager window doesn't closes.


----------



## legolas (Mar 23, 2008)

drgrudge, goobimama, thanks for the replies. It has some very different cool features which i think i have to try out. will see. I dont know if you guys see this, but it loads much quicker than firefox 3 beta 4...
I usually find the autocomplete feature annoying. however, this seems to be a little intelligent and less annoying than firefox 3 beta 4. However there are still some things I wish Safari had, but may be I have to explore more first!! Thanks for the intimation reg. Safari  I always wanted to try. The environment looks damn clean and strikingly attractive with the blue fading box and the always-cool apple buttons 
let me give it a try.

EDIT: Just found this site *pimpmysafari.com/ which has the "add keyword for this search" option!! Awesome


----------



## goobimama (Mar 23, 2008)

The trick to liking Safari is just to use it for a while. Miss out on a few features or extensions which you otherwise 'can't live without'. Once you get used to Safari, it's very hard to change. And yeah, Safari is currently the fastest browser out there. And it scores 75 on the ACID3 test...


----------



## legolas (Mar 23, 2008)

yeah its true, but its a little difficult to find addons for windows as drgrudge also mentioned otherwise... I found the addon i downloaded for "add this keyword" is a dmg file and have no idea how to use it in safari for windows. Nevertheless, its different and would like to give it a try. Either ways, firefox 3 is still in beta phase  right time to try something equally potent


----------



## goobimama (Mar 23, 2008)

DMG is a disk image in mac terms. I don't think there are many plugins for the Windows version apart from the usual Flash/quicktime thingies.


----------



## aryayush (Mar 23, 2008)

ring_wraith said:


> I didn't get that going through the thread. Perhaps a bit of niceness before going all guns out on the sarcasm? It hurts you know, and I can do it too.
> 
> Besides, I'm sure even _you'll_ agree a list of _all _recently closed tabs works better.


WOW, that was uncalled for. He wasn't being sarcastic. It really is weird that Safari has those more advanced options and even the Undo option but it does not work (while those others work like charms).

He was absolutely not being sarcastic. Read his reply again and you'll see. 



legolas said:


> 1) does it have "add this keyword" option?? like in firefox you can set "g" for google, "d" for dictionary.com and so...


goobimama and drgrudge didn't quite understand which feature you're talking about. No, there is no such feature in Safari. Being an Opera user, even I missed this feature when I'd just switched, but then I stuck with it and realised the simplicity works out better in the end. To each his own though. 



legolas said:


> 2) is it skinnable?


No. Remember this rule: No software made by Apple will ever support themes by default. Never ever.



legolas said:


> 3) does it have Ad block Plus or similar addons for removing ads


No idea about the Windows version. Personally, I don't mess with the ads because removing them generally messes with the design of the page.



legolas said:


> 4) how can i remove the autocomplete feature in the address bar


Why do you want to? Just keep typing and it'll stop auto-completing the URL if you type something that you haven't visited before. If you intend to visit something from the history, you can just hit enter when it auto-completes the URL for you.


----------



## Voldy (Mar 23, 2008)

thanks for the info
d/l it right now


----------



## drgrudge (Mar 23, 2008)

aryayush said:


> goobimama and drgrudge didn't quite understand which feature you're talking about. No, there is no such feature in Safari.


I understood what he meant. I also had something like that when I was using FX. 

Now do you guys understand what I wanted to say? Say I visit *ashwinr.com/ a lot. I bookmark it. 
1. In Safari, I press Cmd (or Ctrl) + 1 (the number depends on the last 9 sites you've bookmarked). 
2. In FX, I assign "a" for *ashwinr.com/, "g' for *gmail.com/ etc. 

*In Safari, I hit cmd + 1; in FX, I hit "a" and enter. *

Either way, it involves hitting 2 keys and works as a shortcut which legolas wanted.


----------



## legolas (Mar 23, 2008)

Drgrudge, yeap, you got exactly. however, the equivalent windows+1 or windows+2 dint work. I also tried fn+1, fn+2.. still searching. will find it 
aryayush, thank you for your input too, and I will keep the rule in mind


----------



## aryayush (Mar 23, 2008)

Oh, well. In Opera, you could also search for anything in any site from the browser by using search keywords.

For example, typing "g aayush" in the address bar would search Google for "aayush" and "w aayush" would search Wikipedia. You could add your own search engines too.

I thought you were talking about that feature...


----------



## legolas (Mar 23, 2008)

Ok now, I just found a problem. In firefox, with arnd 25 addons running, I have firefox taking 75 MB. 
Safari which came with the default package and without installing anything else takes 140 MB on windows vista. I am not blaming windows or safari here. I dont want to go down that road. I realize there is a separate thread.
but, I think this may be a little too much for a browser with just 1 tab opened?


----------



## narangz (Mar 23, 2008)

Well guys I am having a problem with Safari. The text on websites appear smudged. I couldn't find any option to switch to some other font rendering mode. I want them to look crisp as well as smoothened.


----------



## goobimama (Mar 23, 2008)

Safari > Edit > Appearance. In there there is the font smoothening option.


----------



## legolas (Mar 23, 2008)

Edit -> Preferences -> Appearance -> Font Smoothing -> choose standard (for CRT) or light. (default is medium).


----------



## narangz (Mar 23, 2008)

Oops I checked those Appearance options thrice but still missed the option. Thanks Milind & legolas. But it's still not clear  I am using 17" CRT.


----------



## legolas (Mar 23, 2008)

could you post a screen shot here?


----------



## narangz (Mar 23, 2008)

Safari:
*img370.imageshack.us/img370/9042/safariof9.th.jpg


----------



## legolas (Mar 23, 2008)

does this happen even after choosing font smoothing as STANDARD "best for CRT", and NOT LIGHT?? Then its strange. Even in my LCD, the default looked more smoothed and strange, when changed to light, its acceptable...


----------



## narangz (Mar 23, 2008)

I tried all the options. Didn't help. That's the way it appears on Firefox in Ubuntu too. 

*EDIT- I've NVIDIA onboard 6150 graphics*


----------



## legolas (Mar 23, 2008)

*www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=disable+font+smoothing+safari&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Seems you are not the only one who is having problems between Windows clearfont smoothing and Safari's inbuilt smoothing. All you can do is btich and wait


----------



## narangz (Mar 23, 2008)

Oh! Thank God! No problems at my end


----------



## ring_wraith (Mar 23, 2008)

goobimama said:


> What the **** is wrong with you?



What the **** is wrong with _me? _Who the **** do you think you are to talk to me in that manner? What gives you that right? That was sarcasm, and you're shi**** me if you claim so otherwise. It's _weird _that Safari has that feature? Oh, yeah, it's totally, genuinely and non-sarcastically weird, let's call Ripley and ask him to include that. The only way you could have been more ******* obvious is if you would have said ,"Oh yeah, I'm going to be sarcastic now". 


aryayush said:


> WOW, that was uncalled for. He wasn't being sarcastic. It really is weird that Safari has those more advanced options and even the Undo option but it does not work (while those others work like charms).
> 
> He was absolutely not being sarcastic. Read his reply again and you'll see.



I realize he is your friend Aayush, but blindly supporting someone is something I would _not _expect of you. Either that, or either you have lost all fluency over English that I assume you possess. 

And pray tell me, what was uncalled for? My reply sounded far more polite than the post that incited it.


----------



## aryayush (Mar 23, 2008)

LOL! This is funny. That _was_ sarcasm, dude. LOL! 

Isn't it weird that a browser can restore entire sessions if it crashes but cannot restore a tab you just accidentally closed?

Ha! Ha! Your reply is hilarious (though I wouldn't blame Milind if he's pissed–you were nonsensically rude and for no reason at all).

As for his being my friend, well, that isn't going to change even if I say that he is wrong (which I do, more times than he'd care to admit). But I'm not about to say he's wrong just because someone else will conclude that I have poor language skills if I don't.



legolas said:


> Ok now, I just found a problem. In firefox, with arnd 25 addons running, I have firefox taking 75 MB.
> Safari which came with the default package and without installing anything else takes 140 MB on windows vista. I am not blaming windows or safari here. I dont want to go down that road. I realize there is a separate thread.
> but, I think this may be a little too much for a browser with just 1 tab opened?


Safari does use a lot of RAM. No doubt about that. (But I have 2GB to throw around, so I don't really care as long as it is slick and fast.)


----------



## narangz (Mar 23, 2008)

IMO Milind wasn't sarcastic there. I thought exactly the same what Aayush wrote in the post above. 



> Isn't it weird that a browser can restore entire sessions if it crashes but cannot restore a tab you just accidentally closed?



So please chill  & enjoy this wonderful forum


----------



## goobimama (Mar 23, 2008)

ring_wraith said:


> What the **** is wrong with _me? _Who the **** do you think you are to talk to me in that manner? What gives you that right? That was sarcasm, and you're shi**** me if you claim so otherwise. It's _weird _that Safari has that feature? Oh, yeah, it's totally, genuinely and non-sarcastically weird, let's call Ripley and ask him to include that. The only way you could have been more ******* obvious is if you would have said ,"Oh yeah, I'm going to be sarcastic now".
> 
> 
> I realize he is your friend Aayush, but blindly supporting someone is something I would _not _expect of you. Either that, or either you have lost all fluency over English that I assume you possess.
> ...


Okay peace time. Chill it. Have some lime juice or roasted peanuts. The last thing we want is a certain dr coming in here and giving us a 2 day shameful misery thing (hint! hint!) 

I seriously don't understand how you think it was sarcasm. It really is weird that safari can undo a 'close window' but not a 'close tab'.


----------



## ring_wraith (Mar 23, 2008)

Now that you put it that way, it is weird. 

Let this be a lesson to us all, communicating properly is essential on the forums!  

But I still don't see where I was rude!

nm... let peace prevail *sips lime juice*


----------



## narangz (Mar 23, 2008)

Great! It's peace again in here  

@Milind- Live and let live. Your wally just came in front of my eyes


----------



## goobimama (Mar 23, 2008)

> Your *wally* just came in front of my eyes.


Nooooo! I don't remember ever posing nude on the net!


----------



## ring_wraith (Mar 23, 2008)

BTW, for me, Safari taking 75MB of RAM with this page open in one tab.



goobimama said:


> Nooooo! I don't remember ever posing nude on the net!



Is one not supposed to do that??? 

*calls web host*

P.S. That is so sigged.


----------



## narangz (Mar 23, 2008)

goobimama said:


> Nooooo! I don't remember ever posing nude on the net!




LOL!  Oh God kill me before I see a _guy_ like _that_ on the net.

I meant your wallpaper creation.


----------



## aryayush (Mar 23, 2008)

ring_wraith said:


> Now that you put it that way, it is weird.


Thank you!



ring_wraith said:


> Let this be a lesson to us all, communicating properly is essential on the forums!


Exactly. And when you misinterpret a clearly worded post (which no one else has a problem with, mind you) and then ignore other people when they try to clear out the confusion for you, it's you who isn't "communicating properly". 



ring_wraith said:


> But I still don't see where I was rude!


How's this, for instance:





ring_wraith said:


> What the **** is wrong with _me? _Who the **** do you think you are to talk to me in that manner? What gives you that right? That was sarcasm, and you're shi**** me if you claim so otherwise. It's _weird _that Safari has that feature? Oh, yeah, it's totally, genuinely and non-sarcastically weird, let's call Ripley and ask him to include that. The only way you could have been more ******* obvious is if you would have said ,"Oh yeah, I'm going to be sarcastic now".


Don't say Milind started it, because he was within his rights to be annoyed when you started a tirade about a harmless post (in which he was actually accepting weird behaviour of his favourite browser).



ring_wraith said:


> nm... let peace prevail *sips lime juice*


I'm all for it, but I think you should have apologised for your mistake. Or, at the very least, accepted it. Instead, you chose to end it with a cautionary note to everyone that we should all communicate properly. Guess what, everyone else was.

I know this whole thing does not concern me much but I just had to set the record straight.

Sorry!

(I hope ring_wraith does not have any hard feelings. My reaction would've been exactly the same had it been gx_saurav in Milind's place. Frankness is better than pretension.)


----------



## legolas (Mar 23, 2008)

aryayush said:


> Don't say Milind started it, because *he was within his rights to be annoyed* when you started a tirade about a harmless post (in which he was actually accepting weird behaviour of his favourite browser).


This is really funny. Everyone is annoyed coz he thinks he is right and the other one just doesn't understand and is cribbing. And to most of them, asking "what the **** is your problem" for a genuine misunderstanding (on ring_wrath's part) with carefully laid words (even though he has misinterpreted what goobimama has told) need not have such a reply. 
So quit saying, he had a genuine reason for telling "what the ****", where as you dint... Its not frankness, its being childish and adding gasoline to flame.
Frankness doesn't consist of speaking what you think, its thinking what you speak.


----------



## goobimama (Mar 23, 2008)

Anyway, PMs have been passed and the whole thing has settled. Let's get back to our dear friend, Safari.


----------



## legolas (Mar 23, 2008)

coolllllll, Gentleman(ish). gladdddd
@ring_wrath,
Initially Safari takes abt 75 MB only for me too. Does it always stays abt 75 for you? after abt 10 minutes, it shoots to 110 MB and goes all the way to 155 MB. It doesn't increase beyond that so far.


----------



## goobimama (Mar 24, 2008)

For me on the mac it is always been 140MB to 180MB no matter how many tabs are open or what is happening. Might shoot up with a youtube video, but otherwise it's always below 200MB. Will check in Windows...


----------



## aryayush (Mar 24, 2008)

305MB for me right now (and it hasn't been quit even once for the past two days or more). But that's just the way applications work on Mac OS X. It does not necessarily mean that there is something wrong.

When I launch some other RAM intensive applications, Safari's usage declines but it still performs just as well.


----------



## slugger (Mar 24, 2008)

btw does it have a flash blocker/ad blocker/selective image blocking?

i had installed 3.0.4 but i couldnt find those so did not use safari [win ver]


----------



## goobimama (Mar 24, 2008)

Don't think so. There's very little plugin development for the Windows version...


----------



## slugger (Mar 24, 2008)

so i guess i am better off sticking to opera+ff, so that i can view butchred versions of frequently visited sites

so does that mean all safari user would have to endure all the flash ads/unnecessary images, ugly avataars that one comes across?


----------



## goobimama (Mar 24, 2008)

Well the windows users of Safari at least.

Like I said in my blog post, this is not for those who like to customise stuff. Most people I know don't use any customisations or plugins or anything (partly why I like to hang out here). Safari gives an amazing out of the box experience. If you want more, Firefox or Opera would be better...


----------



## ring_wraith (Mar 24, 2008)

Actually, safari stays at 75MB even after an hour. 

@Aayush, how is that possible? If it can use less RAM and perform the same, then why doesn't it do that in the same place. 

@Everyone else, now that I read the thread in retrospect, I see what you all mean. I do apologize, and I for one am completely for giving up all use of flames!


----------



## aryayush (Mar 24, 2008)

ring_wraith said:


> @Aayush, how is that possible? If it can use less RAM and perform the same, then why doesn't it do that in the same place.


Seriously, I wish I could explain this to you, but my geek quotient just isn't that high. But I do know that every single Mac developer (type) I've ever talked to has had the same thing to say. When I'd just switched, I used to get pretty frustrated by the fact that even after having 2 GB of RAM, my Mac used to gobble them all up within fifteen minutes of my booting it up.

I enquired about this on Apple centric forums and not one person ever told me that this was something to be worried about. They told me that even people who had 16GB of RAM installed would find their Macs using it all with just a few applications running. That's the way it's supposed to work, apparently. Mac OS X uses the entire RAM available to it but if some other application launched that needs it, it immediately frees some for it.

Again, I have no idea why this is better but I sure know that my Mac almost never slows down.

Since I was worried that it might be a problem with the third-party RAM module I'd installed (I'd initially toyed with the idea of blaming the OS but no sooner had I suggested it on those forums that everyone closed in on me, backed me into a corner and said, "Mac OS X ain't something to joke about, kid. It's perfect."), I did what they suggested and took it out of the machine. To my surprise, and like they'd told me, Mac OS X was just as happy with 1GB of RAM as it was with two, as long as I didn't run any virtual machine.

Does any of it make sense? 



ring_wraith said:


> @Everyone else, now that I read the thread in retrospect, I see what you all mean. I do apologize, and I for one am completely for giving up all use of flames!


Thank you!


----------



## ring_wraith (Mar 24, 2008)

aryayush said:


> Does any of it make sense?



Yes, actually. But I don't see how it could possibly speed up performance. In fact, it should technically deteriorate the performance a bit, considering the fact that some CPU cycles will be wasted in freeing up RAM. 

It's kinda like blowing up balloons to store them, and when you get more balloons, reducing the size of the ones you already have in order to make room for the others.


----------



## goobimama (Mar 24, 2008)

^^ He still don't understand


----------



## aryayush (Mar 24, 2008)

He still _don't_ understand? *DON'T?!*

Duuude...


----------



## goobimama (Mar 24, 2008)

-------------
And that balloon example doesn't really apply to computers. To the best of my knowledge, and *I could be waaaaay off*, RAM is not like the hard drive. It has to be updated every Hz with power. Like a basket ball being bounced (of course, in this case, the basket ball goes flat the moment you stop tapping it). A '1' is a RAM 'thing' with 5 volts of power, while a '0' is a RAM 'thing' with no power. So the machine goes on filling the required '1s' with power and the '0s' with no power.

Now you might say, every time a new application is launched, the earlier application has to lose some power over RAM and must be written on to the hard drive. OS X compensates this by keeping a double copy of the running app on the pagefile. Each app (even one that is 2MB in size) has a minimum virtual memory size of around 200MB with apps like Photoshop having virtual memory going up into GBs. The entire page file can sometimes be like 60GB or so.

Not sure what else happens in there, but this pretty much explains for the use of extra RAM by OS X. Hope that explains it.



aryayush said:


> He still _don't_ understand? *DON'T?!*
> 
> Duuude...


It was purposely written like that btw, you know, one of those things.


----------



## legolas (Mar 24, 2008)

Doesn't it have something to do with your RAM size and paging file system? For me, I have a 1 GB ram and my system affords to give about 170 MB for safari even when there is only 1 tab open. I remember reading this way back in the operating systems course. And, aryayush has a 2GB ram and it allocates arnd 300 MB (even though, I dint expect and wouldn't expect it to take more than this). I would bet that ring_wrath is < 1GB of ram, 512 may be?? and when the memory allocation is exceeded, it goes to the paging file?? and whether you can see it or not, the performance will be relatively diminished.

you can see this distinctively in adobe illustrator CS3.


----------



## din (Mar 24, 2008)

Downloaded and tested, seems lil faster now. Still prefer to stick with FF as I am addict ! I mean with lot of add-ons I am using, not easy to switch.

Goobi N Arya - Does Safari provide add-ons / extensions like FF ? Or it is use-it-as-it-is ?

Hmm, I see some sites like this but only for mac I guess ?


----------



## legolas (Mar 24, 2008)

@din, I asked the same questions for which drgrudge explained, there are some for mac safari. but i couldn't find any for windows safari.
also, what addons do you use for firefox (on off topic) (i think this is a separate topic on chitchat.


----------



## goobimama (Mar 24, 2008)

To one and all, Safari is NOT for customisers. Even on the mac, there aren't many plugins (compared to the millions that firefox has). Windows currently has nil. 

Memory usage is not a problem on my end. I go by how fast a browser performs. I never noticed any lags or hangups while using Safari so I use it on the PC. On the mac I use Inquisitor (check this one out!) and an adblock thing though I don't really care about blocking ads.


----------



## aryayush (Mar 24, 2008)

I think _every_ Safari (Mac) user in the world uses Inquisitor.


----------



## goobimama (Mar 25, 2008)

I know, just wanted to show off to the Din


----------



## goobimama (Mar 25, 2008)

Safari Speed tests and Memory tests by PCmag.com.



> Safari started up lickety-split: It took under 2 seconds on my 2.4-MHz Athlon 64 system with 1GB of RAM running Vista Ultimate. On the same system, IE7 also took less than 2 seconds, but Firefox took 4 and Opera 9 took 3. On a CSS test page, Safari required 139ms on first run when the browser started up and 30ms on subsequent runs. This compared considerably well with Opera's 310ms the on start-up and 250 on subsequent runs, IE7's 420ms for both start-up and subsequent runs, and Firefox 2's 309ms and 260ms.
> 
> For testing JavaScript performance, I ran SunSpider, which takes browsers through a comprehensive battery of scripts that its makers claim addresses real-world Web-development tasks, ranging from screen drawing to encryption to text manipulation. Here Safari scored 5,835.6ms, compared with Opera's 13,874.8, Firefox's 22,277.4, and IE7's startlingly bad 151,782.6. I should note that the test is hosted by WebKit, the the open-source site that is the home of Safari's engine developers, but SunSpider is well recognized in the field and a number of testing sites use it. Finally, on the DOM 1 test from QuirksMode.org, Safari scored 33ms over 10 runs, against Firefox's 145ms, IE7's 929, and Opera's 162.
> 
> ...


Read the full article


----------



## narangz (Apr 6, 2008)

Why isn't Safari showing Quick Links on the top? Also there's no drop down menu for search. 

Screen shots:

Safari:
*img366.imageshack.us/img366/8858/safarijd4.th.jpg

IE 8 Beta(It's similar in IE 6, 7 & Opera):
*img260.imageshack.us/img260/3752/iekd6.th.jpg


----------



## sakumar79 (Apr 6, 2008)

After trying Safari for a while, I have given up on it... It is just not powerful enough for me... And performance wise, it is comparable to Opera only - not that much faster - When I tried over many times, sometimes Opera loaded faster and sometimes Safari loaded faster, but usually difference was like a couple of seconds only... And the fact that there is no ad-blocking currently in the Windows version is another minus... Also, in GMail, when I scroll down to the last entry in one page of inbox and then click to go for the next page, it doesnt take me to the top of the page but displays the bottom portion of the new page...

Arun


----------



## slugger (Apr 6, 2008)

@sakumar79

d00d only an insane Win user will even consider makin Safari as his/her primary browser

FF and Opera simply whup up Safari's backside in non Mac OSes
[cant comment on FF and Opera's performance in Mac tho. not used it]


----------



## sakumar79 (Apr 7, 2008)

Just trying it out with an open mind before rejecting it... I tried Firefox too but gave it up too because it did not suit me... Currently using Opera as main browser, and occasionaly IE for sites that dont render well in Opera...

Arun


----------



## aryayush (Apr 7, 2008)

Opera is the polar opposite of Safari, so people who use the former have a pretty slim chance of taking a liking to Safari on Windows anyway.


----------



## slugger (Apr 7, 2008)

aryayush said:


> Opera is the polar opposite of Safari, so people who use the former have a pretty slim chance of taking a liking to Safari on Windows anyway.



we seem to agree with each other on this point 

Opera/FF and Safari are as like as Mrs. Kiran Bedi and Paris Hilton/Lindsay Lohan

We need 1 to ensure good performance, whereas the others are there to give us our hard0ns 

Anybody who idolizes the latter won't be able to appreciate the work of the former


----------



## aryayush (Apr 7, 2008)

_[off-topic]_

I love your signature! 

_[/off-topic]_


----------



## slugger (Apr 7, 2008)

aryayush said:


> _[off-topic]_
> 
> I love your signature!
> 
> _[/off-topic]_



a lesson learnt through a recent experiance


----------



## goobimama (Apr 7, 2008)

Safari is not meant for geeks. Its a simple browser that does most of the stuff an average user needs and it does it better than the others. Techies will not notice the better cause our minds are trained to understand technology. Average people on the other hand gave a hard time figuring out what tabs are. Most of my friends are now using safari and are liking it. 

Besides, one must appreciate it for what it is rather than put it down for what its not. I can never forgive firefox for exposing all my passwords.


----------



## chesss (Apr 7, 2008)

> And performance wise, it is comparable to Opera only - not that much faster -


Between any modern browsers there would hardly be any speed difference in rendering. An obvious exception is IE, which is a joke even on a 128kbps connection. 
Look for speed in features - like snapback(safari), mouse gestures,fast forward,nicknames, M2, single key shortcuts,wand(Opera)


----------



## mail2and (Apr 8, 2008)

sakumar79 said:


> And the fact that there is no ad-blocking currently in the Windows version is another minus
> 
> Arun



www.floppymoose.com for Safari and Firefox makes the world a better place to live in. Saves you a couple of MBs of RAM, too.


----------



## ThinkFree (Apr 8, 2008)

^^absolutely right. Floppymoose.com has solution for ads in safari for windows


----------

