[G4] safari questions

[Richard ramsowr]

John

That a little hard to answer... but hold up for a
while on buying anything Safari related!

First if you upgraded to OS X (10.3.9) - there is a
built in upgrade for Safari called 1.3 - that the good
news. 

But Safari 1.3 has a few bug's in it to say the least
- and that the bad news.

I know - I have tried to load OS X (10.3.9) more than
once in the last month - only to have to go back and
reload Safari 1.2 (v125) more than once. My
QuickSilver 733 MHz does take Safari 1.3 - it just
will not open it - all I get is a bouncing Safari
Icon! To say that I’ve been a little pissed is saying
a lot!

But this issue is really very much unlike Apple and I
think the problem was that Safari 10.3 and maybe even
OS X (10.3.9) was rushed to market - complete with a
handful bugs - and I'm sure (or at least i hope) this
will not become the new norm for Apple.

BUT THE REALLY GOOD NEWS IS THAT APPLE HAS JUST -
dropped new seeds of Safari 1.3 and Safari 2.0 on
developers Thursday night, wrapping together numerous
bugs and incompatibilities. The majority of the fixes
in Safari 2.0 Update 1 for Mac OS X 10.4.x and Safari
1.3 Update 6 for Mac OS X 10.3.9 are identical.

SO HOPEFULLY ALL OF US CAN GET BACK TO FULLY ENJOYING
SAFARI FOR WHAT IT IS - REALLY GREAT SOFTWARE THAT
WORKS!

To answer your other question Safari 10.3 work with OS
X (10.3.9) only - and Safari 2 works with OS X (10.4)
only - and that’s a really good thing!

Also Safari 1.3 and Safari 2 offer generally the
functions - there faster and offers some more user
interfaces - that we’re all look for.

You can find the full story at “Think Secret”
(www.thinksecret.com)
------------------------------------------------------------

--- John Baltutis <baltwo at san.rr.com> wrote:

> On 07/22/05, Tony Johansen <tjoh7019 at bigpond.net.au>
> wrote:
> >
> > A question: does anyone know if the latest Safari
> works with 10.3.9 and if I
> > can down load it easily? I won't go to 'Tiger'
> yet, but would like the RSS
> > of the new Safari.
------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> No. AFAIK, Safari 2.0 requires Tiger, but you could
> always give it a go.
> _______________________________________________