

Safari 5 - Ghost_Noname
http://apple.com/safari

======
friism
I work for a large newspaper, and we're not very amused by the built-in
"Reader" (removes ads and crud, like Readability):
<http://www.apple.com/safari/whats-new.html> ... for users, it looks like a
good feature though.

~~~
jwr
I'm afraid people will have to deal with the fact that it's the user who
controls the browser. You can't just shove stuff down your users' throats —
it's their browser.

~~~
sandGorgon
I also want to present the counter viewppoint -
[http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-
blocking...](http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-
devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars)

Newspapers were dying because nobody wanted to pay for news, which they could
get for free at Google News. Newspapers were told to suck it up and instead
move online - to an ad supported model. No more ads.

I dont think the newspapers are the bad guy here.

~~~
ThomPete
Newspapers are dying because they are staffed to heavily, not because people
don't pay.

Now look at smaller publications such as Gawker, hyper local news. They are
doing just fine.

Wired sold almost as many iPad versions (75.000 at 5USD a pop) as they did
paper version since they launched it. Thats excluding advertising.

Clearly there is a market for news. It's just not going to be of the NYT kind.

~~~
dhotson
Yeah, good journalism costs money.

To have a staff of correspondents reporting around the world isn't cheap. But
I think it's worth it.

I think in order for newspapers to survive, people have to learn that they
need to pay. Advertising alone isn't going to pay the bills.

I personally think that charging people money for things on the internet isn't
such a crazy idea. ;-)

~~~
ThomPete
I don't think it's good journalism that cost money but the infrastructure to
maintain so many journalists being situated around the world. The question is
if this is really necessary. My guess is more and more, no it isn't

Obviously you don't really need a journalist for every newspaper being
situated in different parts of the world. I understand why they do it, but the
problem is that they are often forced to compete with local citizens with
cellphones, twitter, citizen journalism etc.

Most people don't really read news for the good journalism, they read it for
the value of reading news.

How well this news is being written is in my mind secondary from that point of
view.

But obviously it's not so simple. I just don't buy the argument about good
journalism.

~~~
dhotson
I agree that twitter and citizen journalism have shown themselves to be quite
capable of disseminating information and news.

It's still not quite the same as reading a well written, unbiased, in-depth
analysis of a story in The Economist or The New York Times (or even Al
Jazeera).

Sure, there's a large market for "news-tainment". But I think there's also a
market for high quality journalism.

I'm also tipping that people are more likely to pay (and pay more) for the
latter too.

~~~
ThomPete
I too love well written articles. But it is unlikely a big enough market to
entertain that many newspapers.

I do however have quibbles with the idea of unbiased journalism.

Personally I prefer highly opinionated pieces, but that's another discussion
:)

~~~
chc
This is a distressingly common sentiment these days. I can't think of any good
reason to prefer opinionated screeds to well-balanced factual analysis. Very
often it boils down to "I don't have confidence in news stories to have a 100%
optimal distribution and analysis of the facts, so I've decided it's not even
worth pursuing the truth."

~~~
ThomPete
Opinionated does not mean that it's not balanced or factual.

Everything is at the end of the day interpretation. I would rather know what
peoples stance are whether I agree or disagree than to read something that is
stated as the truth.

~~~
chc
Something opinionated is by definition not balanced (in the sense of giving
everything an equal shake) or factual. "Fact" and "opinion" are antonyms. And
I can't imagine what it would look like for an article to be opinionated but
not explicitly favor any particular view over another.

Are we using different definitions here or do you genuinely believe somebody
arguing that Steve Jobs is a worthless sonovabitch is being evenhanded?

~~~
ThomPete
We are perhaps using different definitions.

------
iaskwhy
I find it odd I had to restart after upgrading a browser in OSX, reminds me of
that old time. In Windows the upgrade went without a restart.

Edit: Yes, talking about Safari only.

~~~
mahmud
In what Windows did the upgrading go without a restart? Firefox, maybe. But
upgrading the MS COM component responsible for drawing shadows on a drop down
menu in some obscure MS library for accessing DAO databases ALWAYS requires a
restart.

I uninstalled ZoneAlarm a few days ago and clicked "OK" as I went through the
motions .. great, now the machine is rebooting and I lost whatever the fuck I
was doing.

Compare that to Linux where I was developing custom file system drivers.
modprobe foo, and I had a foo driver looking at an intricate piece of chipod,
rmmod and it's gone ..

Wax poetic all you want about OS stability, but Windows is the wrong muse to
sing to wrt stability, and I say that typing on XP.

~~~
MWinther
I assume the comment referred to Safari 5 for Windows.

~~~
jasonlotito
The original comment was referring to Safari 5 on Mac. Safari 5 on windows
does not require a restart.

~~~
iaskwhy
I can't edit my first comment again but I was talking about updating Safari in
both operating systems. In OSX you are required to restart, in Windows you
don't need to.

------
ck2
_ARGH !!! It DELETED my Safari 4 even when I put it into another directory
??!!_

Who deletes something automatically without a warning/permission these days?

Any sign of a portable/virtualized version yet? Or too soon?

~~~
masklinn
> Who deletes something without a warning/permission in this age?

Without warning or permission? You asked it to upgrade your Safari
installation, it upgraded from 4 to 5, what were you expecting exactly?

~~~
ck2
No, I told it to install into another directory.

I specifically changed the folder and it confirmed it.

Son-of-a-bee that makes me mad.

~~~
Terretta
Nice thing is you click the clock logo in your menu bar, "Enter Time Machine",
and drag your Safari 4 icon from an hour ago right back where you want it.

// EDIT: I see below you mention MSIEXEC. So never mind.

------
joshuamarch
I love how fast Safari 5 is (faster than Chrome for me) - but the UI of Chrome
just makes browsing and navigation much, much better (auto hiding everything
you don't need, combining URL and search bar etc). Apple should have learned
from Chrome, it's superior.

~~~
al_james
Yes, the first thing I did when trying Safari 5 was try to type a google
search in the main address bar.

Its funny how quickly Chrome has reprogrammed me.

------
tvon
There are a few extensions here: <http://safariextensions.tumblr.com/>

~~~
WiseWeasel
I'm loving the 'BuiltWith' extension, to explore the technology stacks used by
websites. That will certainly come in handy.

[http://blog.builtwith.com/index.php/2010/06/08/builtwith-
saf...](http://blog.builtwith.com/index.php/2010/06/08/builtwith-safari-
extension/)

~~~
tvon
Yeah, it could use some prettification but it's interesting, I had never heard
of it before.

------
olegk
Sunspider benchmark (Win XP, dual core machine):

Opera (v10.53): 299.8ms +/- 1.0%

Safari (v5): 314.2ms +/- 1.7%

Chrome (v5.0.375.55): 326.6ms +/- 7.9%

Firefox (v3.6.3): 716.4ms +/- 1.7%

------
protomyth
I am having some problems with different sites: outlook.com (admin for
organization screens) and my bank. It manifests as blank frames or pages.

------
dbreunig
I'm wondering why the "Export to iBooks" option is missing...

~~~
WiseWeasel
On a Mac, you just print to a PDF, and use that in iBooks.

------
IgorPartola
So the default search engine is Bing. Interesting...

~~~
ugh
The default search engine is still Google – it’s just that you now can also
switch search engines and also pick Yahoo as well as Bing (that’s the order in
which they appear in the list).

They just heavily advertise this new option with a huge image [1], ordinarily
a feature like that would get a line or two of text or maybe not even be
mentioned. I guess that’s supposed to send a message to Google, something like
“We have a good relationship with your competitor so you better not fuck with
us!” (i.e. stop us from using Maps or something like that).

[1] <http://www.apple.com/safari/whats-new.html>

~~~
bobbyi
They already offered Yahoo as an option. It's specifically Bing that's new.

