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 Beta Leaked, With Tabs

pudge posted more than 11 years ago | from the life-is-now-perfect dept.

Upgrades 275

ollie_ob writes "Seems a bit too good to be true: Apple listening to its community and implementing the features most requested? Apparently a build (v62) of Safari has been leaked into the wild, and has tabs -- though not fully implemented yet -- and primitive support for autocomplete in forms. The Think Secret rumor site has the scoop." It is not merely a rumor, I've confirmed it. It works nicely, too, in a brief test. Then I, uh, deleted the copy I looked at.

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

Tabs? of course (1, Funny)

djupedal (584558) | more than 11 years ago | (#5369745)

You mean when I said Safari would have tabs, and tons of people ran me down and others supposedly in the know said 'no way...not ever' mean to say that I was right all along?

Imagine that.

Re:Tabs? of course (1, Insightful)

sporty (27564) | more than 11 years ago | (#5369816)

Did you provide proof of some kind?

Did you use absolute statements? (Bush will definitely go to war vs most likely)

Unless you didn't do those two things, your opinion would be unpopular because you had no authority (proof) or no logical argument. Not that what you said waranted to be modded down, as if mod points were money, but if people don't find reason to agree, they won't agree or just not care :)

dopey me...thanks for the house rules (2, Funny)

djupedal (584558) | more than 11 years ago | (#5369879)

agree...not agree...what do I care...this is /. - not some cubscout meeting with rules. The day this place starts making sense is the day I move on.

You'd have more luck gettin popular agreement here by stapling your opinion to your ass.

Funny thing about my opinion...I never care whether anyone takes it or not. But when the back-chatter comes around as others talking out their little brown holes, it's kind of fun to be able to see them squirm.

Or was i absent the day they handed out ./ debate manuals...joke.

Ok, as for proof...NDAs tend to get in the way, you know? Makes being able to read between the lines more than just a dating skill.

Re:Tabs? of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5370204)

uhh... DMG [] as well as the explanation [] . Not mine of course ;-)

Re:Tabs? of course (1)

cymen (8178) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370244)

What exactly is wrong with using absolute statements? The whole "in my opinion", "most likely", yadda yadda just makes more dribble. Any rational person has to assume that the person they are talking to is full of BS and work UP from there using their judgement and information gathered. Why assume the person isn't full of BS and then work down when pushed?

Contrary to a lot of /. posts, I'm actually interested in a rational opposing view. I just don't see one (yeah, this is your cue to reply).

Re:Tabs? of course (3, Insightful)

sporty (27564) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370288)

What exactly is wrong with using absolute statements?

Well, because making absolute statements can be very harmful or just wrong. Like saying

Microsoft has done nothing good... or..
Bush will go to war... or..
This company will go bankrupt.

Do you have some fore-knowledge? Also by making absolute statements, you weaken your argument. Or can we now say,

All mp3 users are pirates...
All pregnant teens were irresponsible...
All linux users are zealots...
All geeks are fat and ugly with no social skills

Re:Tabs? of course (1)

pressman (182919) | more than 11 years ago | (#5371006)

All geeks are fat and ugly with no social skills

I don't think anyone is going to try and refute this one though!

Re:Tabs? of course (1)

iomud (241310) | more than 11 years ago | (#5369880)

To the tab naysayers, how do like them apples? When it comes out (officially) I'll glady switch to using safari as my default browser.

Next stop keychain support.

Re:Tabs? of course (0)

Alan Partridge (516639) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370460)

how do I like 'em? Not much. Still, much as with the other tabbed browsers, I won't have to use 'em (will I?). Just shows that Apple's critics won't satisfied until the MacOS is I-fucking-DENTICAL to Windows, with the flag replaced by a little grey Apple.

Oh well, Omniweb still has the best user experience anyway...

I have it and its blazen (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5371255)

Luv goes to the KDE developers for this beautiful browser.

Hooray! (5, Informative)

tamen (308656) | more than 11 years ago | (#5369746)

Tabs ho!

You need to activate the debug menu. While Safari is not running, write this in the terminal:
defaults write IncludeDebugMenu 1
Start Safari (Beta .62) and choose "Tabbed Browsing" in the debug menu.
Command-T will open a new tab as will right clicking on a link and choose "Open link in new tab". Command-W will close the tab you are currently using. Command-shift-right/leftarrow wil choose the prev/next tab.
One thing though, tabs slows down the gui, not page-load-time, but it takes longer to switch between tabs than to switch between windows. Also, if you have, say, 5 tabs in one window and are looking at the last (the one most to the right) command-shift-rightarrow will not cycle you back to the first tab. Another thing is that Safari sometimes closes the whole window instead of just the tab when you press command-W.
Ive got only small complaints, Im very impressed they got it working so well already. Cant wait for the final.

Tabbing is a nice feature, but Ive kinda got used to not using tabs after shifting to Safari. well, Ive just got to get used to tabbing again ;)

Re:Hooray! (5, Informative)

sapporo (552550) | more than 11 years ago | (#5369805)

Cmd-click will open a link in a new tab
Cmd-Shift-click will open a link in a new tab in the background
Cmd-Option-click will open a link in a new window
Cmd-Option-Shift-click will open a link in a new window in the background

How did I find out? When you hover over a link, Safari shows you what it would do if you clicked that link in the status bar. Very convenient.

Re:Hooray! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5370882)

Fuck, it works.

Where's that Twirlip guy?

Re:Hooray! (2, Funny)

Ponty (15710) | more than 11 years ago | (#5371003)

Somewhere in the mists?

Not yet, mate... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5369747)

"Then I, uh, deleted the copy I looked at. "


This is fake, mate.

Re:Not yet, mate... (2, Insightful)

Erik K. Veland (574016) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370197)

Now let me just put you back in a tabbed window here in v62 of Safari.

The comment was in case Apple should care that he was using the leaked beta, which they don't. Well, not much anyways. The "uh" was to hint at that he wasn't really telling the truth.

Oh? (5, Funny)

ptaff (165113) | more than 11 years ago | (#5369773)

So, Galeon, Konqueror, Mozilla, Netscape, Opera, Safari, (...!) all have tabbed browsing?

Who's missing? oh! sorry, I remember, they don't care about usability anymore, they have 95% of the market.

"People don't use tabs, look, mommy, 95% of people live without."

Innovation: don't ever use bright ideas from others.

Re:Oh? (1)

HaloZero (610207) | more than 11 years ago | (#5369898)

CrazyBrowser [] - These guys have it, too. It's a decent browser. *shrug* Works well, doesn't crash, fast-ish browsing, little slow though.

Re:Oh? (1)

cymen (8178) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370274)

Just to point out CrazyBrowser is a new web browser in the same way as Galeon or the browser-formerly-known-as-phoenix-yet-not-renamed- yet. They use the IE engine.

From the FAQ page:
Crazy Browser is not IE plug-in or add-on, it just uses IE rendering engine to render the Web pages. Programming is not so easy, I have been developing Crazy Browser for two years.

I tried CrazyBrowser in the lab at school and it was pretty sweet. I did find the multiple close buttons a little odd, non-intuitive, and put in a poor location.

obligatory doh! (Re:Oh?) (1)

cymen (8178) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370293)

The first part was supposed to mention that Galeon & Phoenix embed or reuse Mozilla stuff, not the IE engine as it reads now... I'm on my 3rd cup of joe too so no excuse!

Re:Oh? (5, Funny)

Consul (119169) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370123)

So, Galeon, Konqueror, Mozilla, Netscape, Opera, Safari, (...!) all have tabbed browsing?

Who's missing?

Well, I don't remember using tabbed browsing in Lynx (or Links). ;-)

Re:Oh? (4, Funny)

c13v3rm0nk3y (189767) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370350)

Well, I don't remember using tabbed browsing in Lynx

Wasn't that called emacs or screen?

Re:Oh? (0, Flamebait)

questamor (653018) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370159)

You might like to take safari out of there. I downloaded the most recent, and see no tabs. I suspect has been up to some photoshopping to get a bit of traffic

Re:Oh? (3, Informative)

troc (3606) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370257)

They are using a leaked "internal" build of Safari, not the public beta you can download from Apple.



Re:Oh? (5, Insightful)

mgaiman (151782) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370357)

The difference, though, is that on Windows you have the Taskbar at the bottom of the screen that allows you to switch back and forth between windows easily. You only really need to have tabs when there isn't an easy way to switch between windows. Tabs allow you to easily have a running list of all open browser windows and to switch back and forth, something that the MacOS window cascade has difficulty with.

Please don't get me wrong, I love OSX with a passion, but this is just an area where the windows taskbar shines over the dock. It doesn't happen often.

Tabs are essential to the mac browsing experience in my mind.

Re:Oh? (3, Informative)

prinzip (603175) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370441)

Just to point out:

- Mozilla run on windows, many people use it and it have tabs

and more important:

Apple didn't create tabs idea, it came from Mozilla, then from Linux And Windoz...

origin of tabbed browsing? (2, Informative)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 11 years ago | (#5371085)

I thought it came from Opera first?

Re:origin of tabbed browsing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5371222)

opera had it before mozilla.. in fact, sometimes it feels like all mozilla does is copy opera..

Re:origin of tabbed browsing? (1)

prinzip (603175) | more than 11 years ago | (#5371264)

Yeah but Mozilla have something that opera do not have:

It can parse webpage in respect to the W3C standard...

and more important:

we don't whant to know who had the first the ida of tabs.. no?

Re:Oh? (2, Informative)

ptaff (165113) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370458)

If you could open more than 4 windows without making the OS crash, the taskbar would become so cluttered that it would make it unusable.

I also despise the XP-way of putting all IE windows on the same taskbar 'button': 2 steps that could be made into 1 with a tab.

My 0,02$

Re:Oh? (1)

martingunnarsson (590268) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370837)

I don't know what resolution you run on your machine but 10-15 buttons fits easily on the taskbar here. Also, I've had over 20 IE-windows at the same time, it doesn't even slow down Windows. You have exactly the same cluttering-problem with tabs. In Word 97 you could open several documents in the same Window (only one taskbar button) but that was removed in favour of one button per document which is really a better option.

Re:Oh? (1)

awl (468490) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370908)

Am I missing something?

On OS X I right click on the icon (or control click if you are still running a one button mouse) for a running app in the dock and I get a menu including an item for each open window.

I use windows a lot, and I always end up with more icons that fit in the bar and end up having to page through them. The dock way feels easier to me...

Re:Oh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5370582)

what's so important about having tabs?

did you ever stop to consider that maybe 95% of people don't need them?

Not the first time (5, Insightful)

CottonEyedJoe (177704) | more than 11 years ago | (#5369777)

Apple has been doing alot of listening lately. The Apple menu was replaced in 10.0 (it was an ornament in the Public Beta), spring loaded folders reappeared in Jaguar to much fanfare. They even listened on the unix side... bash replaced zsh as the default "bourne" shell around the jaguar release (possibly a bit sooner I use ksh and didnt pay that close attention). Now if they would only listen release the "G5"... In whatever form it takes.

Now, if only they would follow standards... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5370819)

And replace BASH (Bloated Again SHell) with ksh as the standard bourne-type shell, and then fix that ridiculous netinfo system to allow the use of other *standards* like /etc/hosts and /etc/group, etc....

hint (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5369813)

hints for +5 funny posts

a) me me me me me me me me me me me! want my ftp servers' address?

b) busted, your ip address has been retrieved from /. editors, you will be procecuted under the 1997/4342 act.

Argument for tabs (5, Informative)

elliotj (519297) | more than 11 years ago | (#5369814)

According to an off-the-cuff test I performed a few days ago, tabbed browsing can cut your RAM requirements in half and greatly speed up your system.

On my Mac I opened Chimera and filled up the window with as many tabs as it would allow (16 in a single window). All windows displayed the Slashdot mainpage. My Slashdot prefs are set to show all stories from all sections.

I checked the system usage in the Process Viewer app:

Navigator %CPU 9.00 %Memory 11.20

I then closed all the windows and did the same thing, this time opening 16 SEPARATE windows. Again with Slashdot's mainpage loaded in each.

Process Viewer showed:

Navigator %CPU 9.20 %Memory 22.40

So, according to this unscientific off-the-cuff test, you cut your RAM requirements in half by using tabs. YMMV.

I noticed this the other day when I opened over 50 different images in different windows. My Mac almost ground to a halt. I then opened the same images in tabs (in only a few windows ... again Chimera limits you to 16 tabs per window), and my performance was great.

So, to all those who think tabbed browsing is purely a matter of personal preference, I suggest that there is at least a reasonable performance based argument for it.

Re:Argument for tabs (2, Interesting)

rufo (126104) | more than 11 years ago | (#5369899)

Yeah, but that might be something related to Chimera itself, not anything that Safari would take advantage of. Remember, the two browsers aren't anything like each other, so just because something works, doesn't work, or acts one way in one browser doesn't mean it will work anything like it in another.

Re:Argument for tabs (4, Informative)

moof1138 (215921) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370246)

No. This is not guesswork. A window is inherently a much more heavyweight entity than a view inside a window, and will necessarily consume more RAM. Take a look at the cocoa docs for all the components of a NSWindow. Assuming that the tabs are subclassed NSView, take a look at what is involved there. Beyond that, windows are double buffered, have border transparencies/shadows and other RAM-hogging aspects not associated with a view. In OS X, more windows inherently means more RAM. If a window with three tabs ate as much RAM as three separate windows in Safari, that would indicate extremely crappy coding, and I guarantee you I would not use the browser based on that fact.

Re:Argument for tabs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5369927)

I'd thought I'd seen an explanation for this in an earlier discussion about tabbed browsing on the mac.

I believe it had something to do with the system keeping bitmaps of active windows in memory. With tabbed browsing, it only keeps one (the active tab) whereas with different windows it needs to keep one for each.

Re:Argument for tabs (1)

NaugaHunter (639364) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370113)

I think you should close Chimera and reopen it between tests. You may just have found memory leaks or even an active memory cache which goes up with each site, tabbed or not. And yes, it could exist for each even if the same site - you'd need a seperate history for each, wouldn't you? I assume Back on each tab would take you to the last page on that tab. In order to do that the browser needs a seperate list per page, whether tabbed or not.

I'm not saying that that is the only source for the difference, I just wanted to point out that without quitting the results are even less accurate than you think. I will admit your other test does support your argument, I just think the 50% you saw at first could have been inflated.

Mods: Parent whoring for karma (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5370134)

To use a familiar metaphor to explain:

Step 1) Copy and paste my old articles [] as if they're new
Step 2) ???
Step 3) Karma!

Re:Argument for tabs (1)

GutBomb (541585) | more than 11 years ago | (#5371059)

I opened 7 instances of non-tabbed safari to the same page ( ) Safari's memory usage was 21.70 I completely exited safari and started it back up, this time i opened in 7 tabs in one window. this time the memory usage was 10.70. it cut memory usage in this informal test by more than 50% One thing I noticed is that if you have tabbed browsing enabled, but open 8 new windows (not tabs) starting with the 8th it will just create new tabs on the 7th window instead of creating more windows.

Tabs and MDI (5, Interesting)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 11 years ago | (#5369821)

The wide success of "Tabbed browsing", heralded in by Opera seems to indicate Microsoft was wrong to call MDI "depricated" and attempt to force users to a "document centric" rather than "application centric" view of the computer.

Microsoft's implementation of MDI could easily be called confusing, with multiple sets of window control decorations so close together, however, I don't think that points as much to a fatal flaw in the idea of MDI, as it does to a flawed implementation. MDI has real life analogies too.

Imagine your computer is a large shop, each application is a machine that does a certain function. It is perfectly natural to think in terms of "I need to lathe this piece of metal, so I'll to take it to the lathe. I can set other pieces I am going to lathe on the lathe table."

Document centric is like, "OK I have metal, I need to run it through the lathe, so I will feed it into this huge machine that will try to guess what I want to do with it, and hopefully it will wind up on the lathe." It's very unnatural.

Re:Tabs and MDI (1)

sporty (27564) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370307)

The wide success of "Tabbed browsing", heralded in by Opera seems to indicate Microsoft was wrong to call MDI "depricated" and attempt to force users to a "document centric" rather than "application centric" view of the computer.

It's funny how excel uses MDI. Then again, all technologies aren't bad. Just using them everywhere isn't always great.


The web is ONE big document, not multiple. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5370336)

I hate this argument.

I hate MDI as well.

But the web is NOT multiple documents. IMHO, it is one (albiet very large) document that I flip and cross-reference between pages of on a very regular basis.

I do not think of it in the same way that I view Word documents on my HD.

I meant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5370354)

I meant that I hate it when people state that tabbed browsing is MDI.

Re:Tabs and MDI (1)

cymen (8178) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370344)

Well I for one sometimes forget I'm using tabs and hit Ctrl-Tab in X/KDE to switch between pages. If I were able to choose to switch between all applications and all tabs of applications using Ctrl-Tab I would probably choose to do so(*). Those shrill screams you just heard was the UI guys having a nervous breakdown after reading that last sentence ;).

* to spell it out in detail:
Hitting Ctrl-Tab in X/KDE would have a choice for all the open applications (if the application has tabs, then the first one would be the first tab) and all tabs of those applications (besides the first tab of course). In KDE maybe the current scheme of program icons could be copied with a bunch of icons of the same application below each main program icon if the program has tabs. Yes, I realize that tabs are created in aps so there is no universal way of getting what windows have tabs and making that application switch to the tab you want but...

Re:Tabs and MDI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5370756)

it's not MDI.. you can't see multiple windows (views) at once.

Remember, tabbed browsing is not MDI. (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 11 years ago | (#5371238)

Check out Dave Hyatt's weblog [] on this issue.

Windows Ho! (-1, Troll)

samael (12612) | more than 11 years ago | (#5369823)

Now, if they'd just produce a Windows version, I could switch to that.

(I'd be using Mozilla if it wasn't for this bug [] )

Re:Windows Ho! (1)

Apaturia (155233) | more than 11 years ago | (#5369904)

Now why would Apple port Safari to Windows? What's next, you're going to ask them to port iPhoto, iDVD, etc, because they're great apps?

I'm not trying to be a flamebait here, but let's be realistic.

Re:Windows Ho! (2, Interesting)

tdemark (512406) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370143)

Actually, it _might_ be worth it for Apple to port the apps over and sell them (maybe $99 for all but iDVD, $149 for all)

Probably could generate a good revenue stream, get PC users "used" to Apple's interface, making them more apt to switch (plus, the fact the iLife apps are "free" with new Macs, and, except iDVD, free to existing Mac users doesn't hurt either).

- Tony

Re:Windows Ho! (5, Insightful)

NaugaHunter (639364) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370981)

Umm... no. They wrote a Windows interface for the iPod because a) it is a relatively simple, specialized file manager and b) it sold iPods. Apple is a hardware company. The iLife apps exist as a bonus to Mac users, an incentive to upgrade or switch to new Macs. It costs money and time to port software, and you know that iPhoto and iMovie are heavily invested in Cocoa, Quartz and other Mac-exclusive properties. Porting even just iPhoto would involve porting all the exporting/publishing options, plus support hundreds of camera/hardware combinations. They do not have the software engineers to do any of these ports, which would in the end on deter people from buying Macs since the price difference with PC's is much more than the $100 or even $150 you suggest.

Given the overall progress on the iApps, not to mention Safari and OS X in general, I personally think they are managing their development projects pretty well. They are riding out the recession better than most companies, and the more distinct software solutions they develop will make their products look even better when the recession ending combines with Windows DRM backlash. OK, that last was an unprovoked slam, but it is something to be aware of when looking at the big picture. Apple has said and acted in varying degrees that they want to give customers tools, not restrictions, and I think they just keep subtly positioning themselves to jump when the axe falls.

Of course, that's just my hop^H^H^Hopinion. I could be wrong.

Re:Windows Ho! (2, Funny)

joebp (528430) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370167)

Now why would Microsoft port IE to Mac? What's next, you're going to ask them to port Office, and, uh, uh, wait... damn.

Re:Windows Ho! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5370519)

MS is a software company. They don't make thier software for a particular platfor exlusively, because the hardware is not thiers. Apple is a hardware company (everyone repeat that 50 times), and is interested in selling you thier hardware. They create thier apps to make thier hardware more attractive. In a few cases (like the iPod, Darwin, etc..) they make thing available to x86 users to give them a taste os the apple 'way', but only in the hope that it may make them consider a Mac.
Safari was created to solve a problem, and that was this - IE for the Mac blew chunks. It is terrible and slow compared to the PC version. Apple wants thier customers to have a decent browser, and they have the people to make one, so they did.
There is NO reason for them to make a Windows version, other than the fact you want one.
Now please commence complaining about how much Macs cost. ;-)

That's really funny! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5370161)

Especially when you look at who the bug has been assigned to!
Hint: check out

Re:Windows Ho! (-1, Troll)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370211)

Lame excuse.
There is a workaround or 2 if really needed.
There's also this thing called a...wait for it...Back Button! (Holy shit ehh!)

Re:Windows Ho! (1)

samael (12612) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370243)

How would a back button work?

And the workarounds don't actually work either, as various people have commented in the thread.

Not to nitpick but... (3, Insightful)

ubiquitin (28396) | more than 11 years ago | (#5369859)

...can the new Safari beta be able to bookmark a set of tabs all at once? Chimera/Navigator does this, so that in the morning I can load about ten top news pages (including slashdot of course) all at once which saves a LOT of time. I'll be sticking with Chimera until Safari gets multi-tab-bookmarks.

Re:Not to nitpick but... (4, Informative)

tamen (308656) | more than 11 years ago | (#5369917)

No, notyet. But as you say yourself, this is a beta, and not even a public (though it might seem like it) beta at that.
Im sure there will be bookmark-groups when it is publicly released.

Re:Not to nitpick but... (1)

Erik K. Veland (574016) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370220)

This is probably the first or second iteration of tabs in Safari altogether. It's surprising that they work so well already. There definitly will be this functionality, as hinted by ThinkSecret.

Re:Not to nitpick but... (1)

Madjeurtam (101190) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370537)

Also in the Cool-Chimera-Feature-I-d-Like-To-See-In-Safari Dept.: Chimera has a "open this link in a new tab behind this one" accessible using the middle mouse button (that is its scrollwheel).

I don't think Apple will implement it (it would mean that they actually acknowledge that mice have more than one button), but it is a killer feature.

to activate the Safari debug menu, do this: (4, Informative)

ubiquitin (28396) | more than 11 years ago | (#5369892)

1. Quit Safari.
2. Open a terminal and type:
defaults write IncludeDebugMenu 1
3. Relaunch Safari.

Re:to activate the Safari debug menu, do this: (1)

MoneyT (548795) | more than 11 years ago | (#5369986)

out of curiosity, are there any other programs that have a debug menu

...or use Safari Enhancer (1)

TomatoMan (93630) | more than 11 years ago | (#5371012)

Safari Enhancer [] does this and a few other things, and also allows you to import bookmarks from browsers other than IE (I just imported my Moz/Chimera bookmarks with it).

Upside Down Tabs??? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5369914)

Maybe it's nit-picking, but the tabs look like they are hanging from the top edge, not attached to the window below it like Chimera does. Of course, if I wasn't nit-picking, I wouldn't be on /..

Re:Upside Down Tabs??? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5370060)

Yes, that's because "Safari's tabs are attractively designed and fit with the platinum interface motif." The article then describes what you noticed: "The highlighted tab has the appearance of hanging down from the toolbar above it." Not exactly intuitive or logical, but damn, doesn't it look great? Gotta love when companies put expensive shiny brushed metal front plates on their products.

attention: Apple bashers (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5369958)

time to start aplogizing. post below

Everyone? (4, Funny)

Otter (3800) | more than 11 years ago | (#5369965)

Geez, is everyone here running unreleased pre-betas of Safari?

I'm reminded of when some ZDNet columnist wrote a column on OS X DR3 based on Apple's press releases. He got an avalanche of emails saying, "Are you an IDIOT? Have you even SEEN DR3?" which, of course, he hadn't, being that it was a developer-only release. DR3 was warezed so widely, though, that just about every Rhapsody-starved Mac user was running it (myself included).

I guess I'd better reinstall Hotline and start clicking porn banners to get a nick/pass...

Re:Everyone? (2, Interesting)

tamen (308656) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370025)

Im also suprised about the availabillity of the new Safari Betas. It might be connected to the low file-size. The newest beta is only 2.5mb. Even people in modem-land will gladly download that. Compared to the multi-gig downloads real warez-hogs do every day this is peanuts.

Re:Everyone? (5, Informative)

ollie_ob (580756) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370054)

To prevent massive Slashdotting I'm not going to link directly to the beta from here, but if you go to Dave Hyatt's weblog and have a look at the comments for the most recent story, there's apparently a working link there. Ollie

Re:Everyone? (3, Informative)

transient (232842) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370187)

He speaks the truth. I just downloaded it from there.

Re:Everyone? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5370500)

as of 10:00am central time today (monday), the link works. I have tabs in safari baby! yeah!

Re:Everyone? (2, Interesting)

CompVisGuy (587118) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370763)

Thanks for the "link".

The location of the beta is indeed as almost specified above.

I now have tabs in Safari -- thanks.

I was using Chimera, but it would crash after running for about a week (OK, so pretty reliable compared to some browsers...); although Chimera has tabs, it doesn't have many other features one expects from a browser (being all minimalist and stuff...). The Chimera team haven't released in a while due to legal issue with the Chimera name, but they say that version 0.7 is just around the corner, and I guess we can expect some significant changes. I'll certainly keep a copy of Chimera on my iBook (taking the total to ... 4 browsers now):

* Safari v62
* Chimera
* Opera
* IE (yeugh!)

It'll be nice when Apple have completed Safari (it certainly won't be complete without tabs!), as 4 browsers is ridiculous!

So, here's wishing luck to the Chimera and Safari projects!

force Open New Window to Open New Tab (4, Interesting)

X_Caffeine (451624) | more than 11 years ago | (#5369995)

I hope that Apple is bright enough to have an option that forces all "open in new window" javascripts to "open in new tab." This is possible in Mozilla and Phoenix (but not Chimera), but requires a plug-in installation.

I've seen many new users of tabbed browsing become baffled by new windows popping up all over the place. If tabbed browsing is to be integrated, it needs to be done right. This seems like the sort of humane interface element that Apple used to have a real knack for, but since OS X you never can quite be sure.

Re:force Open New Window to Open New Tab (1)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370163)

What do tabs and new windows popping up have to do with each other?
You seem to be saying that windows only start popping up once you start using a tabbed browser, which is just not the case.

Sorry, I just don't get your point, other than if you are requesting a pop-up killer ala mozilla which is obviously a good thing, but again totally unrelated to tabs.

clarificiation (2, Informative)

X_Caffeine (451624) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370478)

In Mozilla browsers, when a link is defined like [a href="blah" target="_new" ], clicking on this link opens the new page in a new window.

When a user is using tabbed browsing, they are aggregating all of their windows into a single window. Clicking on "_new" links in tabbed browsing mode should open documents into new tabs, not new windows.*

"Right-clicking" and selecting "open in a new tab" is not an acceptable solution because it is unintuitive, not all users even have right-buttons (don't tell me to explain keyboard shortcuts to my grandma), and if a user in unsure of which links open into new windows and which ones are normal links, they need to adjust to a habit of right-click/open-new-tabbing EVERY link they encounter. I think you can agree that's pretty absurd behavior.

*an exception might be made for links that trigger new windows with specified sizes (like those small comments windows many blogs use)

Re:force Open New Window to Open New Tab (4, Insightful)

klui (457783) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370193)

I hope not. Open in New Window should do as it says rather than doing something else.

You're right. Tabbed browsing should be integrated properly and what you've suggested is not what I would consider "done right"; in fact, it would baffle new users even more.

Re:force Open New Window to Open New Tab (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5370221)

I hope that Apple is bright enough to have an option that forces all "open in new window" javascripts to "open in new tab."


Nope, not yet.

Download here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5370015)

#macfilez []


NewNet [] .

That's where I got it. Enjoy!

This is Great News (1)

6R1MM (532936) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370165)

I know a lot of people (including myself) who are clinging to Chimera because of the tabbed browsing interface. At its current (non-leaked) state, Safari is just not economical in regard to RAM when you're browsing multiple sites simultaneously. I'd imagine most people set their browser windows to be fairly large. And when you have 2 or 3 of these double-buffered partially transparent windows taking up roughly 75% of your screen estate, I feel like I've gone back to the pre-OSX days when I'd manually cascade several browser's titlebars down my screen. Apple might as well just make Quartz Extreme a pre-requisite to use Safari if that's the direction they want to take. So 'up yours' to all the tab naysayers (Twirlip of the Mists in particular) and hopefully they'll follow through with tabs in Safari.

Re:This is Great News (4, Informative)

entrox (266621) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370380)

Care to back up your claims with a few facts/numbers instead of pulling things out of your back?
Here are some numbers from my machine (768MB RAM/128MB VRAM):

New Safari opened: ~9MB.
Slashdot loaded: ~13MB.
New window opened: ~16MB.
Apple page opened: ~18MB.
New window opened: ~21MB.

So what do we see? A new window takes up around 3MB. Is this "uneconomical", like you say? No, I rarely have more than 4-5 windows open so this is merely a drop in the water. Memory is cheap these days you know...

Apple should make up their mind.... (5, Funny)

masq (316580) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370175)

It's hard being a mindless Apple zealot with Apple changing their minds so much. Our job as zealots is to screamingly defend whatever Apple does without thinking or considering what's best for the user or common sense. We defend Apple Corporation's interests over the users' desires at all costs. Our job is to claim tabs suck when they don't have tabs, the G4 1Ghz is as fast as the Pentium4 3.0Ghz, RISC is better than CISC, slower memory and busspeed is a GOOD thing, proprietary software is freer than open source, Safari Beta is more stable than established and mature browsers, paying for .Mac is a privilege, Steve didn't lie when he said "Free Forever .Mac", using the DMCA is justified when Apple does it but not anyone else, etc etc.

Originally, all us zealots had to violently attack everyone who said tabs were a good idea, saying they were crude and unintuitive. Now, we have to do a complete reversal and furiously attack anyone who is against tabs. It just never ends.

The life of a spin doctor is a tough one, but immensely satisfying.

Re:Apple should make up their mind.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5371195)

Steve didn't lie when he said "Free Forever .Mac"
There is no way he said "Free Forever .Mac" or anything like it, because .Mac was never free from its very inception.

You are thinking of iTools.

Also, WTF is wrong with tabs? They are bad when overused, but of course they are used plenty on Macs where appropriate. And the Mac does have a document centric design... well, tabbed browsing is working with one document. The Web.

I know you're kidding around, but you're still making a commentary that is misguided.

Re:Apple should make up their mind.... (4, Funny)

masq (316580) | more than 11 years ago | (#5371302)

Dude, this is Slashdot. If I wasn't misguided, I wouldn't *be* here.

Touch my tabs (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5370256)

Dear Apple,

I am a homosexual. I bought an Apple computer because of its well earned reputation for being "the" gay computer. Since I have become an Apple owner, I have been exposed to a whole new world of gay friends. It is really a pleasure to meet and compute with other homos such as myself. I plan on using my new Apple computer as a way to entice and recruit young schoolboys into the homosexual lifestyle; it would be so helpful if you could produce more software which would appeal to young boys. Thanks in advance.

with much gayness,

Father Randy "Pudge" O'Day, S.J.

What about Keychain integration? (5, Interesting)

The Bum (597124) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370302)

Now that Safari will presumably be getting tabs, the next feature that's needed is Keychain integration similar to that in Chimera. In fact, Keychain integration was #1 on my list (just ahead of tabs at #2) of new features I'd really like to see in Safari. Yeah, I know the Keychain will work for login dialogs and web sites that have been written to support it, but what makes Chimera really nice is that it'll use the Keychain for sites that don't explicitly support it.

Re:What about Keychain integration? (3, Informative)

brarrr (99867) | more than 11 years ago | (#5371186)

i started using safari v62 w/ tabs on saturday... and it has keychain integration in its infancy - it asks for permission to decrypt the correct passwords when entering sites, but does not place them in the fields as required. so its coming, but slowly.

v62 is the first i've started using safari, and am liking it about the same as chimera for now. once there are prefs to open tabs in teh background, and a way to open up multiple sites in different tabs at the same time, i'll switch for good.

another benefit of the debug menu is being able to specify which browser you are represented as - so going to i can say i am MSIE and they let me use the site.

Seriously impressed... (1)

tandem_repeat (602655) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370325)

Downloaded running it and loving it...tabbed browsing with that certain Apple "I don't what"...

Safari 4 All (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5370554)

Get your Safari Beta (with tabs!) HERE: .d mg

Tabs ... next Bookmarks? (3, Interesting)

krray (605395) | more than 11 years ago | (#5370862)

Wow. Apple listens. Day 1 I sent a bug report to them for their own website. I could see tabs on the site, but not in my browser?

I wonder if they'll do one of my other requests. Sync'ing the bookmarks across .Mac connected systems. One bookmark file. Always managed. Always the same.

Re:Tabs ... next Bookmarks? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5371016)

I could see tabs on the site, but not in my browser?

Oh, my dear sweet Lord. I didn't know they made people as dumb as you.

If you can't understand the difference between (1) tabs as a grouping UI control, (2) tabs as an MDI interface, and (3) pictures of tabs on a web site, then you need to get the fuck away from your computer right now. It contains sharp, pointy things, and you're likely to hurt yourself if you're not careful.

Re:Tabs ... next Bookmarks? (1)

krray (605395) | more than 11 years ago | (#5371253)

Oh my goodness ... and there are people as stupid as you.

I fully understand the differences you nit-wit. The original point of topic still stands...

Dumb ass.

Couldn't they think of anything better? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5370942)

Well the site is hosed, but while we're on the subject, is there any better solution than tabs?

When you think about tabs, the history list, SnapBack, and bookmarks, you can see they are all a bit similar. They all take you to different pages. Tabs are treated specially. Maybe they shouldn't be?

Different ways to think about tabs:

* Per-window, per-session Bookmarks that retain form entries and other state.

* "SnapForward" .. pages you want to jump to in the future, rather than the past.

* nonlinear per-window history list .. again, tabbed windows are sites you want to add to the list, so you can visit them in the future.

I guess what I'm saying is, I wish Apple or someone would think about the "essence" of tabbed browsing, and come up with something *better*.

And the "tabbed browsing is MDI is evil" folks might even like it. Hint: think about each browser window representing a *browsing session* rather than a *web page*, and it will go down easier. (As if web browsers are poster children for GUI design in the first place).

Maybe Apple thought about it, and decided that tabs were best because they were familiar to people. But that's not Apple's style.

Now I'm not complaining about Safari specifically, in fact when the official Safari with tabs comes out, I will have little reason to use any other web browser, but I can't help thinking the tabbed browsing interface can be made even better.

Re:Couldn't they think of anything better? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5371040)

Hint: think about each browser window representing a *browsing session* rather than a *web page*, and it will go down easier.
Hint: breathe through your nose while you're sucking my cock, and it will go down easier.


Thinksecret down? (1)

b3uk (651210) | more than 11 years ago | (#5371063)

Hey is Thinksecret down, or is it just me? Do I smell a 'cease and desist'?

Re:Thinksecret down? (2, Insightful)

b3uk (651210) | more than 11 years ago | (#5371148)

or simply /.ed?

Re:Thinksecret down? (1)

EggZact (629182) | more than 11 years ago | (#5371179)

That was my first thought. Kinda seems unlikely for a site to be /.'ed by an Apple section post.

Anyway it is down on my end too.

My feature (2, Interesting)

papasui (567265) | more than 11 years ago | (#5371104)

This would be something I'd like to see implemented (and many web masters probably would like to see not implemented). The ability to set a timer for a webpage to refresh, on an individual page basis. So on sites that I frequently view, I don't have to refresh constantly, I already know that the page has been reloaded recently. Web admins would probably hate this as it would put additional load on the server as the pages refresh, but I know it would make me happier. :)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?