Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Safari 5 Released

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the new-and-improved dept.

The Internet 308

pknoll writes "Apple has released the fifth version of the Safari web browser, which adds several new features. Reader mode detects multiple-page articles and displays them in their entirety at the click of a button, and most importantly, there is now an official extension API."

cancel ×

308 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It's fully functional. (3, Funny)

JustinRLynn (831164) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495396)

Yes, but will it block porn? I wouldn't want my Apple(TM) experience ruined.
-- Begin program section
Sarcasm++

Re:It's fully functional. (1, Troll)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495432)

Here's the official site to test it on: www.goat.se

Re:It's fully functional. (1)

JustinRLynn (831164) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495488)

Nice try, but I see what you did there.

Re:It's fully functional. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32495450)

Opera is the best porn browser.

Re:It's fully functional. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32495608)

+1

Re:It's fully functional. (3, Funny)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495648)

Opera is the best porn browser.

I dunno, that singing fat lady kind of turns me off.

Re:It's fully functional. (4, Funny)

jayspec462 (609781) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495830)

That's how you know it's over...

Re:It's fully functional. (1, Offtopic)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32496042)

Opera is the best porn browser.

I dunno, that singing fat lady kind of turns me off.

Speak for yourself. A lot of us like the fat-singing-hairy-milfs!

Re:It's fully functional. (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495458)

No, just the bad words [google.hu] .

i an crack that feature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32495632)

and make it work ...er um better

Re:It's fully functional. (0, Flamebait)

aliquis (678370) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495926)

I to want Apple to decide what webpages I may want to see (or put up on display for others.)

Haha (0, Offtopic)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495416)

Instead of manually entering your scripts, menu items, stylesheets, and commands in a complicated text file

Comedy gold :)

Re:Haha (0, Offtopic)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495438)

What are you doing here? You have to finish writing that OS and network driver in Assembler using vi.

Re:Haha (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495554)

Oh that's what I was doing, but I accidentally built a Slashdot client into the network driver, that's what happens when the source text file gets too complicated.

Re:Haha (3, Funny)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495674)

No, that's what happens when you suffer from feature creep.

Re:Haha (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32495710)

Any sufficiently advanced program is indistinguishable from Emacs.

Re:Haha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32495888)

That means Slashcode isn't "sufficiently advanced"?

Re:Haha (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495906)

The driver cant send email or twitter yet.... It is lacking in features.

Re:Haha (3, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495668)

I think emacs has a macro for that.

Re:Haha (2, Informative)

LaminatorX (410794) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495720)

ctl+meta+shift+/+.

Re:Haha (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495740)

That's cheating!

Next thing you know you're going to start using things like object oriented programming and SDKs.

Re:Haha (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 4 years ago | (#32496110)

Yeah because writing assembler code in vi will make it so much harder!!

Or maybe that to was a joke? Joke^2?

Re:Haha (1, Interesting)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495446)

Instead of manually entering your scripts, menu items, stylesheets, and commands in a complicated text file

Comedy gold :)

Exactly how dumb does Apple think its users are that a text file is now considered 'complicated'?

Re:Haha (1)

timster (32400) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495526)

Can't a text file be as complicated or simple as it is?

sendmail (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32495606)

Have you ever seen a sendmail config file?

Re:sendmail (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495754)

That's why they wrote postfix and qmail. Well, okay, that's why they wrote postfix. djb wrote qmail because it helps to inflate his already overinflated ego. ;)

Re:Haha (-1, Troll)

chronoss2010 (1825454) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495654)

yu mean you think apple users know what text files are after ll they buy ipads that wont need them

Re:Haha (4, Insightful)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495716)

Text files aren't 'complicated'. Writing the Javascript and CSS to make them work the way you want is.

I've written a few GreaseMoney scripts, but I know how to program. To the lay user, I doubt they even know what 'GreaseMonkey' or Javascript is.

I know people that would like to customize their 'browser experience' but would get lost at UserScripts.

Knowing Apple, its most likely a pretty GUI around some basic text files. I know it may come as a shock to the Slashdot crowd, but Linux, GUI, config files, etc are pretty intimidating to a newbie.

If it wasn't for OS X, I wouldn't have ever gotten into Linux, OpenSolaris, PHP, C, etc.

Terminal was always there, just never opened. I opened it a few times to move files around. Used some hints from Mac OS X Hints [macosxhints.com] . Enabled SSH, learned PHP and C through copy and paste coding until I understood how to write it on my own. Years later I run a SheevaPlug (do you honestly think a complete newbie would figure out uBoot and such?), OpenSolaris server, XBMC. Installed Ubuntu on my Girlfriend's laptop all because of Terminal.app and some natural curiosity.

If this "Simple GUI" gets some middle/high schooler or college student going "I wonder what this Plugin builder does" opening the auto-generated text and tinkering. Good for them.

Re:Haha (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495796)

Agreed. There's nothing simpler than a text file.

Re:Haha (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495904)

What about empty files? Or setting up an iMac?

Re:Haha (1)

oztiks (921504) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495974)

A few things worth noting -

Thanks to HTML5 offline support, designers can build web applications that store themselves on your computer, where you have immediate access to them. Along with the application, web developers can also choose to store the application’s data on your system, so you always have the information you need. Applications and data can be stored in a traditional SQL-like database serving as an application cache or as a “super cookie,” which stores data in the familiar cookie format.

When is Microsoft going to come crashing down with their patient infringement on this ...

Safari gives you even more search options with built-in Bing search, in addition to Google and Yahoo! Search. Just choose Bing in the Smart Search Field, start typing, and get search suggestions that help you find what you’re looking for fast.

Its about time someone built a browser that complies with Bing's shoddy development standards but if I was Apple wouldn't be bragging about it though :)

"The worlds fastest browser" (2, Funny)

dsavi (1540343) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495424)

Just like Opera [opera.com] ! I think that I'll stick with Firefox and Chrome.

ya really (1)

chronoss2010 (1825454) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495664)

so if we cut out all the stuff one can do and see and say in the browser of course it will be fast cause your conversations and visits will be short

Same as Readable App (2, Interesting)

magister159 (993682) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495426)

The content extraction feature sounds a lot like the Readable Bookmarlet [appspot.com] that I've been running across browsers for the last year.

Re:Same as Readable App (4, Informative)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495468)

The content extraction feature sounds a lot like the Readable Bookmarlet [appspot.com] that I've been running across browsers for the last year.

With the addition of being able to extract data from a multi-page article.

Re:Same as Readable App (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32495562)

Maybe an idea floating around [makeuseof.com] for sometime now?
I know it's also a Chrome extension.

Re:Same as Readable App (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32496032)

And how soon do websites start poking around trying to disable this feature because it lowers ad views and revenue?

Apparently it's even faster than Chrome 5 (5, Insightful)

AdmiralXyz (1378985) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495430)

And Chrome 5 is a speed demon itself. The difference is only 3 percent, and those are Apple's numbers.

Man I love this relentless focus on browser speed over the past few years. If it keeps up for a little longer, I might even be able to browse Slashdot.

Re:Apparently it's even faster than Chrome 5 (0, Offtopic)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495518)

Don't be crazy, man cannot live at that speed!

Re:Apparently it's even faster than Chrome 5 (0, Offtopic)

JustOK (667959) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495680)

the boy will be okay then

Re:Apparently it's even faster than Chrome 5 (1, Offtopic)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495642)

If it keeps up for a little longer, I might even be able to browse Slashdot.

That's almost what she said!

sorry no wndows or linux users will use safari (-1, Flamebait)

chronoss2010 (1825454) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495676)

apple has a stupid syndrome attached to it......

Re:Apparently it's even faster than Chrome 5 (1, Flamebait)

dave420 (699308) | more than 4 years ago | (#32496052)

I just tried Safari 5 on Windows, and it's sooo slow. It's slower than IE. Chrome on the same machine (however) runs like shit of a shovel.

Way to be on top of things /. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32495436)

While other sites are already providing fixes to problems with Safari 5 (like Netflix streaming not working and the config change to restore usability), /. is announcing it's been released. Bravo.

Safari Speed & Chrome Speed (0, Troll)

neoshroom (324937) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495442)

I just installed it and went to a website. I then opened Chrome, went to the same website, clicked and additional link and went back to the main page all in the time it took Safari to load up it's one page. That said, it does seem a little faster than Safari 4.

Re:Safari Speed & Chrome Speed (4, Insightful)

Thinine (869482) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495496)

Gee, I wonder if Chrome had the site in cache, since you've used it before. Reset both browsers to a clean state and then you may have a valid comparison.

Okay, so Cached vs Cached (2, Interesting)

neoshroom (324937) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495672)

Possibly, but here is an even better comparison with two cached pages. When you click "back" in Safari it loads the page layout and text first and then loads the images. Chrome loads the entire page at once, which is a lot less visually jarring. You can also notice this in the scrollbar which in Safari will keep changing sizes and in Chrome will stay the same same size upon hitting "back."

Additionally, activity monitor consistently shows Safari takes up more virtual memory and percentage usage of the CPU than Safari does. Don't get me wrong, they are both great, speedy browsers and I'm not exactly anti-Apple, being that I'm on a Macintosh, but Chrome 5 really is fast.

Re:Okay, so Cached vs Cached (1)

insufflate10mg (1711356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495802)

Additionally, activity monitor consistently shows Safari takes up more virtual memory and percentage usage of the CPU than Safari does.

Really?

Re:Okay, so Cached vs Cached (0, Troll)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495850)

Additionally, activity monitor consistently shows Safari takes up more virtual memory and percentage usage of the CPU than Safari does.

o_O Oh, noes! It's a CPU and memory eating monster! It consistently takes more virtual memory and CPU % than itself!

Re:Safari Speed & Chrome Speed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32495508)

lol, yea sure, the render time for a webpage in Safari is slow enough for you to switch to another browser and back.... do you know anything about anything?

Re:Safari Speed & Chrome Speed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32495766)

bah, I installed safari 5 and loaded up hotgayporn.com. Then I started up chrome, went to the same website, browsed, found a nice twink, loaded up his pic, and jacked off -- twice -- before safari was finished loading that one page with hundreds of embedded pics and videos.

Bye bye input managers (1)

m0s3m8n (1335861) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495444)

The extensions will be very nice. This is the only reason I would not use safari in the past. Apple was not supporting the use of input managers so this change is welcome.

Re:Bye bye input managers (1)

am 2k (217885) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495592)

Input Managers can just mess around willy-nilly in your application (in any Cocoa application), how do you suppose that this could be "supported"?

Re:Bye bye input managers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32495940)

Input Managers can just mess around willy-nilly in your application (in any Cocoa application), how do you suppose that this could be "supported"?

+1 for the use of willy-nilly

Re:Bye bye input managers (3, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495622)

The extensions will be very nice

But only if they get approved for publication in the App Store.

OK, so extensions... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32495462)

Are these like IE extensions, that don't actually work, or like Chrome extensions, which don't work very well?

IE doesn't have a functional adblock or flashblock addon.
Chrome has both, but the adblock and flashblock both download the ad/flash content and then don't display it. If I wanted that crap downloaded, I'd probably not be running the adblock and flash block in the first place.

Re:OK, so extensions... (4, Interesting)

armanox (826486) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495502)

I've found that just blocking sites in my hosts file works much better.

Re:OK, so extensions... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32495776)

That takes out some of them (it's what I do on my Android phone and it's better than nothing) but it can't block ads that are on the same host as the page you want to view.

Re:OK, so extensions... (1)

leifking (1269908) | more than 4 years ago | (#32496000)

Glimmerblocker [glimmerblocker.org] is great, saves looking for extensions and covers any browser (it's an http proxy, and has auto filter lists for extra goodness).

Re:OK, so extensions... (1)

baka_toroi (1194359) | more than 4 years ago | (#32496090)

Score:5, Interesting for this comment? What's next?

"If you use dial up you can listen to the bits coming through your line and you can render web pages on your head -- omitting the ads!"

WebM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32495464)

Does it play WebM?

Re:WebM (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32495624)

Who cares? There's a real codec, H.264, that works great, everyone uses, including nerds who like to rage about whether or not it's "free," like that matters.

Re:WebM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32495728)

And there's a real codec, WebM, that works great as well - and Google(read:everyone) uses.

Re:WebM (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495838)

Really? They use it? That's news to me.

Re:WebM (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495952)

Nope. It's juat another stillborn google project. Throw a lot of shit at a wall and some of it sticks. The rest just smells like shit. Because it is shit.

Fantastic! (1)

JansenVT (1235638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495484)

Browsers have come a long way, and as a web designer/dev, it is really great for the industry.

safari is good for the what? (-1, Flamebait)

chronoss2010 (1825454) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495698)

lets support n industry that panders to morons , YUP then devs can make more money right , until one day that caveman wakes up and realizes chrome and firefox are both far more "configurable" and open the source

It also adds an "option" for searching using Bing (3, Insightful)

I'm Not There (1956) (1823304) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495490)

Such a shame for a browser in 2010 that it needs an update for adding a search engine to the available search options.

For your safety (4, Funny)

Trufagus (1803250) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495492)

You can only view pages that have been pre-approved by Apple - and Apple gets 30% cut of anything revenue generated by the page.

As an added bonus, any media gets re-routed to iTunes - where Apple will take their 30% cut and wrap it in a container that prevents you from mistakenly trying to use it on a non-Apple device.

But this is all just to protect you and preserve the user experience (patent pending), of course.

Re:For your safety (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32495538)

pretty much every device supports AAC you retard.

"Several new features" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32495532)

Seriously, I must be spoiled by Chrome and its crazy update progressions. That was one of the worst major-version update changelogs I have ever read.

Refuse to test it (3, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495548)

Since Apple decided to push Safari out via an iTunes update without asking people, I've refused to ever install it on my box.

If I really want a Webkit browser, I'll run Chrome and/or Rekonq. Chrome already has tons of extensions, is FOSS, and runs amazingly fast.

If Chrome supported a proper adblocking solution, I'd never need another browser. And yes, I know they had an Adblock extension, but it still renders ads in the background. I want to stop the ads from being downloaded or rendered at all.

Re:Refuse to test it (2, Informative)

SassyDave (557868) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495660)

Chrome does have adblocking now. Does it not work for you?

Re:Refuse to test it (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32495758)

>And yes, I know they had an Adblock extension, but it still renders ads in the background. I want to stop the ads from being downloaded or rendered at all.

Re:Refuse to test it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32495834)

No it doesn't. That adblocking is ad-hiding. It still loads all the crap from all the ad and junk sites, then hides the divs they're in. You may not see them, but your page viewing is still slow compared to FF with a real blocker. Chrome pages will hang while it waits for slug servers spewing ads, FF doesn't make requests from them, and up comes the page.

Re:Refuse to test it (4, Informative)

Phroggy (441) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495884)

Chrome does have adblocking now. Does it not work for you?

Another poster explained that Chrome's ad-blocking still downloads the ad, but doesn't display it. This is a problem for anybody on a metered or low-bandwidth connection (e.g. tethering through a cell phone, as I'm doing now) who don't want to download the ads, regardless of whether or not they get displayed. Of course, most people have broadband connections and don't care what gets downloaded in the background, as long as they don't have to see it.

In theory, web sites could try to detect whether an ad was downloaded or not, and refuse to display content unless you've also downloaded the ads. In practice, this isn't normally done, but if it were, with Chrome the web site would still work.

Re:Refuse to test it (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495998)

Parent quote:

Chrome does have adblocking now. Does it not work for you?

But the GP and I have a different belief:

If Chrome supported a proper adblocking solution, I'd never need another browser. And yes, I know they had an Adblock extension, but it still renders ads in the background. I want to stop the ads from being downloaded or rendered at all.

It seems your post contradicts our belief about the state of chrome adblocking.
I have Chrome and Safari ready to mess around with --could you please give us the non-incomplete adblocking link?

Thanks
--vlueboy

Re:Refuse to test it (2)

baka_toroi (1194359) | more than 4 years ago | (#32496106)

Way to be an idiot.

Re:Refuse to test it (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32495692)

... And no-one except you gives a shit about that...

Re:Refuse to test it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32495870)

Two ways to adblock in Chrome: First, the extension. Second, you can install a Privoxy server on your local machine and have Chrome go through that. Both work, although I prefer the extension.

Re:Refuse to test it (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32495956)

Use a hosts file

Extensions and Mobile Safari (1)

SpottedKuh (855161) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495670)

Personally, I'm hopeful that the extension API is a unified API that appears in both Safari and Mobile Safari. My only complaint with my iPhone is the lack of an AdBlock extension. The web looks so ugly and loads so slowly without one!

Multi-page articles (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495714)

Reader mode detects multiple-page articles and displays them in their entirety at the click of a button

That's an awesome feature, but can it reduce entire slashdot comment threads into a single comment? That would save a lot of time.

Re:Multi-page articles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32495810)

I bet they all simply read: "FRIST POST in the year of Dying BSD on Cowboy Neal's Desktop!"

Re:Multi-page articles (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495946)

And that comment would be: "lame"

Because it is so short, it would be scored -1, and thus not be viewable by default.

And productivity at geeky workplaces around the world would thusly increase.

Apple, take your proprietary browser and stuffit (-1, Troll)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495718)

I don't want your "html 5" or to tinker on your webkit engine. Just put it in a nice .sit file so I can use it when I need to do browser testing. Thanks.

Re:Apple, take your proprietary browser and stuffi (2, Informative)

AdmiralXyz (1378985) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495792)

This is a joke, right? HTML5 is a W3C standard, and WebKit is an open-source rendering engine with Apple contributing the most development. Get a clue.

Here we go again... (1, Offtopic)

holiggan (522846) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495760)

You know how you can have the fastest browsing experience ever?

Browse with pictures and javascript turned off. In Opera, it's really easy to do it, and I use that "barebones mode" when I'm searching for info or doing "work-related browsing".

Still no volume control (4, Interesting)

line-bundle (235965) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495782)

I still want a volume control to shut the web up. But still want to be able to listen to my music.

Re:Still no volume control (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32495944)

I still want a volume control to shut the web up. But still want to be able to listen to my music.

Amen!

I requested this feature years ago with no luck so far. The new extensions allow developers to add an extension that adds a button to the toolbar, but I'm not sure if their API is going to be sufficient to allow you to make a usable mute button, especially one that works on things other than the "audio" tag.

Re:Still no volume control (4, Informative)

TheCycoONE (913189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32496012)

Per-application volume control is typically a sound system option; supported through Vista, Windows 7, Pulse Audio, OSS, and I assume OSX. Putting a volume control in the application itself would be redundant at this point.

Re:Still no volume control (0, Offtopic)

Fackamato (913248) | more than 4 years ago | (#32496062)

Per-application volume control is typically a sound system option; supported through Vista, Windows 7, Pulse Audio, OSS, and I assume OSX. Putting a volume control in the application itself would be redundant at this point.

+1

Re:Still no volume control (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32496078)

Disable plug-ins. No more fucking annoying Flash ads. Problem solved.

I can click through again! (1)

Jay Maynard (54798) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495784)

I'd all but given up on going to articles from here because I hate those annoying multipage articles that have maybe one screenful of text and five screenfuls of ads. If Safari Reader works as advertised, I can go back to reading again.

In the imortal words of Homer Simpson (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32495786)

Boring

Crashes a lot ? (1)

BlackFingolfin (517139) | more than 4 years ago | (#32495862)

I was quite excited when I saw this and went to get it. Now I have it for half an hour and already regret it -- it already crashes over a dozen times on me -- albeit always on the same page, just at different points (and with different crash stack backtraces, too). Specifically, http://terrytao.wordpress.com/ [wordpress.com] is where I see those. Anybody else having similar problems?

Re:Crashes a lot ? (3, Interesting)

cbackas (324088) | more than 4 years ago | (#32496034)

I skimmed the entire page with Safari 5 (cause the math content made no sense to me!) up and down several times, and reloaded a bunch of times without any issues. Obviously I haven't had it for long, but I've observed no stability problems at all. Is it possible that page is using a special font for the math symbols that may be corrupt on your system? (Wild guess) Did/do you have any Safari "enhancers" installed? Those probably aren't compatible between releases.

Reader mode is great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32496094)

I'm wondering if Apple are the only ones working at all in the tech and software industry. I personally don't own a single apple product (but my GF's ibook runs my webserver ;) but Apple is constantly improving stuff in a useful and well made way.

The lack of design skill and user experience checking from *all* other producers is appaling. I'll personally still be using my n900 and my Thinkpad running Debian though.

Reader mode is an excellent idea and the implementation is really good. Just installed it on my work computer.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?