Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.
Regardless of Lundy’s proclamation, no less a reliable source than MacFixit is reporting that Safari 3.1 is causing a lot of people problems and they lay out instructions for reverting to 3.0.4in itself a right PITA.
But, like Ann, I have Safari 3.1 running under Mac OS X 10.4.11 without any issues of note. I do routinely repair permissions and drives, etc.
It’s just that I take issue with Lundberg’s out-and-out dismissal of Safari just for a 7% speed difference. Frequent slowdowns and speedups from ISPs are considerably greater. If there are bigger issues with this software release, that’s another story.
"It’s just that I take issue with Lundberg’s out-and-out dismissal of Safari just for a 7% speed difference. Frequent slowdowns and speedups from ISPs are considerably greater. If there are bigger issues with this software release, that’s another story."
Prezactly. And that’s why I proffered an independent, corroborative link, from a highly respected source. Again, Lundy’s report notwithstanding.
Yup, done that a number of times (inadvertently closed window). Safari has had that for a while: -Reopen Last Closed Window -Reopen All Windows From Last Session.
Whoa! Does Safari recover a closed tab, including the text you had typed into a message box, if you accidentally close a tab before posting the message?
Let me see
No it does NOT. I just tested Safari 3.1 on this same thread.
The closed window does re-open, but the typed text is lost in Safari.
Serves me right. I should know better than to keep testing that POS.
Well, Ive never had the misfortune of losing text due to premature window/tab closure. For that you need Ghostwriter, a part of Spell Catcher… <http://www.rainmakerinc.com/>
-Ghostwriter records what you type to a text file, which can be opened and viewed by anyone with access to your computer and user account
That whole "being able to recover all the stuff from where you were before accidentally closing a window or crashing" might be the reason for Firefox currently being such a memory hog.
Dunno, just a guess. I’m looking forward to seeing how Firefox 3 behaves (I don’t bother trying out the betas or nightly builds).
But I’ve been really grateful for the full-on recovery feature quite a few times.
Safari 3.1 is exhibiting "features" that 3.0.4 didn’t have, such as spinning beachball when clicking on the Bookmarks bar double arrow the first time in a session. It is noticeably slower on all the slow sites as well. 3.0.4 fixed some issues I was having, but I have not gotten around to verifying them in 3.1 yet. One problem that 3.0.4 had and Firefox 2.0.0.n didn’t have has not been tested yet, either, involving streaming. Not happy with 3.1.
Nothing is wrong with either Safari (3.1) or Firefox (2.0.0.13) in my experience (Mac Os X 10.5.2 and 10.4.11 on my MacBook). Or any other browser for that matter (try Flock, that is a nice one).
And just dont believe everything that is on MacFixIt – those are mainly userreports and not scientific proof of anything.
Those who have problems usually also have other problems and also use haxies, system enhancers, bad fonts and the like and it is hard to say on distance what is the real problem.
Since CNET purchased MacFixit (and VersionTracker though that hasn’t changed appreciably) there has been a subtle shift in emphasis toward taking one anecdotal report and creating a universal warning based on it. It’s similar to ‘news’ becoming sensationalism with an occasional factoid added into the mix of emotionally reactive drivel.
About browsers, you get what you pay for. I use OmniWeb *<;o)
I have no doubt that those who report trouble with Safari 3.1 are experiencing the situations they describe. I just wonder why there is so much trouble across the board with this kind of thing for some, none for others.
I have Safari 3.1 on a G5 PPC 2Ghz DP and on a G4 IBook, both running OS X 10.4.11, without any problem.
I always bow to the Upgrade Gods, turn around 3 times, repair permissions before and after ANY upgrade or install, run Cocktail frequently.
I deal with about 30 local families for Mac tech support. About 1/2 had issues with Safari 3.1, many in Tiger but a few who use Leopard. In every case it was conflicting outdated software from Flash plugins to all sorts of InputManagers and Internet Plug-ins found in both volume and user libraries (nothing problematic in System Libraries). No one ever was aware of installing the conflicting software.
"No one ever was aware of installing the conflicting software. "
I use Linotype’s Font Explorer X as my font manager. It’s good enough for the work I’m doing lately. I try to stay on top of updates and files that get deposited by various installs.
It really annoys me that after some updates, there are wholesale font activations in Font Explorer and new fonts I have never authorized for download. I haven’t been diligent enough to track just when these additions occur, but I have to check Font Explorer from time to time just to turn things off I never turned on.
It seems Bitstream fonts are a constant annoyance and I have to eradicate Webdings and Wingdings constantly,
I don’t see how people who have little understanding of computers can ever keep their systems clean with the way that this kind of thing occurs in today’s "modern" operating systems.
Since I haven’t been vigilant enough to determine where my unwanted files are coming from, I shouldn’t point fingers at specific software vendors. But we shouldn’t have to guard the gates this way.
I may be wrong (memory is a terrible thing) but it seems that OS 9 installers never took these kinds of liberties and they gave one the option NOT to install extra garbage and honored one’s instructions.
Today, the use of an installer or just visiting a Web site apparently gives the vendor the right to put anything on your hard drive he wants.
I use Firefox 3 beta 5, and it feels like a native Mac application. A Mac Unified (!) theme, Cocoa areas, native form and text widgets, and crisp and reliable rendering. This should be out right now as a non-beta…literally!
I certainly take Welles and Richard for experts and I intend to see if some kind of crapola has been installed without my knowlege. I don’t do anything with fonts and never have because I think fonts are a useless affectation, but it is possible that someone’s app or website has added them , I suppose. I don’t want to have to buy some font manager I will never use otherwise, to find corrupted fonts. I never knowingly do anything with Flash either. How do you make sure you have the latest version?
BTW, 3.1 fixed the streaming issue. I can’t understand this beachball spinning thing the first time I use the bookmarks bar in a session. What the heck is it doing that it never used to do? Some kind of indexing that I don’t need ,or want?
I don’t do anything with fonts and never have because I think fonts are a useless affectation
Every email, every Website, every Forum post, every text note, every application, every operating system — every communication other than audio or graphic — uses fonts. So I’m not sure what you mean here, unless you mean you do not purchase or use any fonts other than what came with your system. And if so, forget about Comic Sans. <g>
I systematically deactivate and eradicate all Bitstream fonts from my machines because of their utter unsuitability for Spanish typography (already discussed exhaustively in the Adobe Typography forum and in correspondence with Bitstream).
I don’t do anything with fonts and never have because I think fonts are a useless affectation,
???
Lundberg02, you would obviously have starved to death as a typographer. :/
You must be a photographer, because as a designer you wouldn’t survive either.
I don’t see any benefit in unreadable cutesiness promulgated by font freaks. I don’t think I’ll miss any of the dingbats or messy 60s burnout fonts and especially not Comic Sans. I also hate dark backgrounds with light type anywhere, usually on the web. Just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you should.
Books have been black on white or yellowish for 500 years for the best of reasons, it’s readable. The only thing i want is is sans serif on a computer display, and serif in print. Oh yeah, never liked typewriter fonts either. Arial and Times New Roman forever!
First of all we’re talking about typefaces, not fonts. The word "font" became co-opted by the "desktop publishing" phenomenon starting in the mid 80s to mean the same thing as the word typeface. It does not.
A font is one particular collection of all the characters of a specific typeface at one specific size. There is a "font" of 36 pt Futura medium. There is another "font" of 36 pt Futura bold oblique. And one of 42 pt Futura medium, and of 12 pt Garamond book italic, and 18 pt Franklin Gothic heavy, and so on.
So much for the etymology lesson and the corruption of the language by the wonderful world of computers.
Graphic design with the use of typefaces is typography. It is bad typography that you are having a problem with. Not typefaces. And I completely agree with you. There is so much bad typography around. The unwashed have desecrated the temple.
I have been in love with type since, as a teenager, I set my first line of loose, cold type – Futura 36 medium – and locked it into a chase, locked the chase in my printing press and printed with it.
Make no mistake about it, John Warnock’s PostScript and the "desktop publishing" revolution contributed more to typography, in a few years, more than had happened since Gutenberg until that time.
But while the tools we now have made typography accessible to everyone, everyone has not bothered to learn how to use it. And the result has been a lot of ugliness in addition to the gems in the hands of good typographers, graphic designers.
Yes, if we had to, we could complete every graphic project conceivable, limited to the use of one serif face and one sans serif face. If forced to choose, my choice would be Minion (all available weights, variations) and Myriad (or Stone Sans which is very similar).
We could survive with just two. We could also survive if we had only two colors of ink. But how dull the world would be.
I set my first line of loose, cold type – Futura 36 medium – and locked it into a chase, locked the chase in my printing press and printed with it.
One minor point here…what you had was foundry type, cast metal type, probably sorted and stored in a California job case, and purchased in fonts from foundries such as ATF. Cold type is what we called original type produced by photomechanical means that came about in the late ’60s, bypassing the use of metal or wood in font creation. Cold type generally came in the form of paper (or film) proofs for paste-up mechanical production.
I wouldn’t lump Times and Arial together as in "Some people just want basic transportation". Arial works for basic transportation as far as a Sans Serif face will go. Times does not.
As a typeface designed specifically for narrow newspaper columns, where it works very well, Times is routinely abused in long lines of text, where it’s not so nice. Kind of like never shifting out of first gear for basic transportation.
I appreciate the point you’re making. But in the sense I intended, some folks use TNR as if it’s the only font in the world, and use it without any emotion or thought, solely for the purpose of archiving words. Actually, I could probably narrow that down to 12 pt NTR. <g>
You are right. I was referring to foundry type. And yes, cold type was the result of exposing photographic paper (usually a strip) to a light source either by contact printing from a negative or an enlarger (projection) method. I believe the original "super typewriter" Varityper machines predated that.
In Philadelphia and New York we often referred to foundry type as "cold" type in distinction to a Linotype slug fresh out of the machine. THAT was hot type!
So others understand a bit more, my New York experience, going back to the ’60s, used terms as appropriate to the medium: hot type or machine type (for keyboarded Linotype, Intertype or Monotype machine composition cast on the fly from liquid metal as single characters or complete lines of type), foundry or hand type (handset metal fonts of individual characters purchased in their final form in sets from foundries and stored in divided flat drawers or cases), wood type (similar to foundry, but as larger fonts of carved wooden letters), Ludlow (cast metal headline type from hand-assembled matrices).
All of the above was generally presented as reproduction ("repro") proofs, carefully printed out on Vandercook proof presses on clay coated ("Relyon") proofs for trimming out and paste-up with double-coated rubber cement on mechanicals. You generally sprayed the proofs first with Krylon Crystal Clear to prevent the ink from smearing.
At that time, the only cold type was strips of patented Photolettering in headline sizes and provided as ferrotyped (high-gloss) sharp photographic prints, composed manually from film negatives, but allowing for overlapping and distortion of letterforms. But we never called it "cold type". These too were rubbercemented onto mechanical boards.
If an error was made in metal composition (size; leading; font), you had to pay, sometimes dearly, to do it over. Or, if you were lucky, you could simply get a photostat (a photographic paper negative or positive print, created in a large copy camera) of the repro proof sized to fit, and it would work.
I believe the original "super typewriter" Varityper machines predated that.
They did.
But after that, Varityper manufactured a series of high-end phototypesetting machines which imaged the type onto photographic film or paper by flashing a xenon light source through a revolving font disk and a series of moving lenses.
Mine, (which I still happen to have because I have no idea of how to dispose of it!) is the size of a large refrigerator lying on it’s back.
I used to do full-page layouts on it (text, rules, image frames and captions all "in position" and ready for paste-up as a single unit!) working blind on a black screen that displayed only the text and code in green alpha-numeric characters.
I’m even more a geezer than any of you. I was setting type in 1946, watching the Linotype machine at night in 1956, and occasionally Varityping in 1966. Sorry about using "font" but it’s easier.
I was amazed the first time i went to the old Macromedia web site. How could a company like that have such a s—-y site design?
And for anyone else reading this, wondering what some of us are talking about, here’s a taste of "real" printing. There is nothing like the sound of a pressroom running letterpress machines.
Just a little disclaimer about that video clip. The amount of "bite" of the type impression is really done to an extreme there. Almost an affectation in that shop. That only happens with heavy, soft cover stock, greeting cards and the like. When letterpress was the primary printing method, magazine and book printing showed the barest hint of bite, if any at all. The force behind the type is enormous as it comes in contact with the paper, but the face of the type kissed the paper and literally caused a compression the thickness of the film of ink on the typeface.
Also, the blended color effect near the end of the clip is called a split (ink) fountain technique. The first time I saw it used, I thought it was the crudest, ugliest graphic technique imaginable. Bush league stuff. On an offset press, using halftone techniques it got better, but it really required the modern era of computer generated imaging to make it work. It came into its own with Postscript as a "graduated blend" with all the rules of output device resolution, halftone screen lpi and percent change of tint, all within parameters to avoid banding.
Eventually, I got a cylinder Heidelberg letterpress,
BTW, all these machines when new, or maintained the way they were meant to be, in pristine condition, as my shop did, were gorgeous pieces of equipment.
That’s a great post, Rich, with all the links to printer vids. I used a platen press in Jr. High School print shop and never did any printing thereafter except a little linoleum block cut artsy stuff until the digital age. Those machines which you and your shop evolved through were fabulous.
I am drawn most to the artistry inherent in the letterpress. Out here in California we only see that sort of work occasionally used by poets and by folks who make books by hand. It is beautiful. Actually there is the potential for artistry in every one of the technologies you’ve presented but the more automated the machine the more production is required just to afford ownership and maintenance so the printer must increasingly become more of a technician and less of an artist. Perhaps I’m wrong?
Richard, these clips are arresting. The second in particular is beguiling documentary at its finest. Let it be known that they exculpate you in full for your unimaginative submission of substitutes for "uninstall."
I absolutely could smell the blanket wash and ink as I watched and listened to those clips. And the clip of the Heidelberg KORD beautifully captured the sound of that press slowly starting from standstill. It’s a sound so unique to Heidelberg and unlike any other press in existence. It is incredibly smooth and sounds like a subway train. There are a series of mechanical/electrical relays which switch in and out in the large electrical cabinet on the operator’s side as the 7 hp motor comes up to speed that add to the music. Once a pressman operates a KORD, he or she never forgets that sound!
In true Germanic fashion, like a Mercedes-Benz, the naming of those machines was purely functional.
KORD was shorthand for:
K = the chassis type (the general shape and layout which was unchanged from the cylinder letterpress days.)
O = Offset -reversed plate image transferred [offset] to the intermediate carrier, the rubber "blanket", then to the sheet.
R = "Rund" or "round" in German, referring to the rotary aspect of the printing via cylinders
D = Deutschland – The KORD was designed to be used in Germany where the maximum sheet size (19" x 25") was slightly smaller than that used in the US. A slightly larger KORA (A for America) was also manufactured but for some reason never sold well. The Kord was one of the most successful machines in the world and certainly in America.
Well, in 19"x25" configuration, you can still run 4-up 8.5"x11" pretty efficiently (on 1/2 25"x38" sheets) — even squeezing 9"x12" pages out and have room for gripper and narrow proofing bars.
I never had a proof press. I proofed on a platen press. Oh, the freedom when I could pull all my own repro proofs!
It was a press much like this:
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEEKmUHkZBA&feature=relat ed> And for anyone else reading this, wondering what some of us are talking about, here’s a taste of "real" printing. There is nothing like the sound of a pressroom running letterpress machines.
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv69kB_e9KY&feature=relat ed> Just a little disclaimer about that video clip. The amount of "bite" of the type impression is really done to an extreme there. Almost an affectation in that shop. That only happens with heavy, soft cover stock, greeting cards and the like. When letterpress was the primary printing method, magazine and book printing showed the barest hint of bite, if any at all. The force behind the type is enormous as it comes in contact with the paper, but the face of the type kissed the paper and literally caused a compression the thickness of the film of ink on the typeface.
Also, the blended color effect near the end of the clip is called a split (ink) fountain technique. The first time I saw it used, I thought it was the crudest, ugliest graphic technique imaginable. Bush league stuff. On an offset press, using halftone techniques it got better, but it really required the modern era of computer generated imaging to make it work. It came into its own with Postscript as a "graduated blend" with all the rules of output device resolution, halftone screen lpi and percent change of tint, all within parameters to avoid banding.
Eventually, I got a cylinder Heidelberg letterpress,
Hi, Great movies. I was and still a little bit involved with the Monsters… Hot Metal Spitting, clanking, clicking, assembling, distribution and ejection. How neat it was. It’s still happening in Denmark, IA. Check some links: cut/paste into browser: http://gochipmunk.com/html/contents.html ; I have adjusted a few machines as of late. Baltimore, ZEE Wah, MX, Peshtigo, WI. Aren’t too many of us Linotype Machinists left. Regards, jer
I used to run a Miehle vertical letterpress. Loved printing, hated the company I worked for. I’ve heard that they are still used for embossing and foil
It appears that FireFox 3 is even worse. Freezing, crashing, dies after 30 minutes, can’t have many tabs open, can’t have more than one Flash page running etc. Since you only criticize me and not the other 50% for posting OT, Phos, have at it.
All I will say is that the problems you’re having with Firefox are all about your management of your system and the way you interact with your software. There are apparently millions of people loving it and working with it just fine. If these problems were rampant and being experienced by an exhorbitant number of users who have started using FF3, the news would be bloody EVERYWHERE. But it’s not.
And I don’t mean to pile on and point fingers, but you just seem to be one of those guys who have these bizarre problems with your OS and apps that nobody else has, and that seem impossible to solve. As often as I’ve seen you post about them, I can only assume PEBKAC.
And don’t feel so special about the criticism, Lundy. Given the proper mood, I’d pretty much take anyone to task for starting a thread in this forum that had NOTHING to do with Photoshop, or tangentially how one’s other apps and system works with Photoshop. I’m not sure which 12 topics you’re talking about but nearly ALL of them at least mention Photoshop.
Firefox 3 is a lean clean machine for me, pretty much. No crashes, no freezing, no dieing, no problems, EXCEPT for a little character rendering issue that seems to be hitting a lot of folks. But I have it mostly handled. The only characters that give me trouble are the some of the UTF double-byte stuff that rarely gets used online anyway. And some of the problems there seem to have to do with a discrepancy between the way the page is encoded and the display method being asked for.
What I can’t understand is why you’d post a Firefox problem here, rather than go to a site/forum that’s dedicated to it. Seems like a waste of good time & energy to me. If I have a bad Honda, I’m sure as heck not gonna take it to a Harley shop to get worked on. Sure it’s a motorcycle, and yeah, somebody there might be able to fix it, but it’s not the first, best place to take it, n’est-ce pas?
Bottom line is you can do what you will, post wherever you want, wherever you care to, and be complacent about any dashed expectations, but it just seems like a foolish pursuit. The smart surfer would seek out a more focused source for knowledge, help and troubleshooting advice.
But that’s just me. If I could help you, I would, and I wouldn’t waste time with a thrashing like this. I’d tell you what to do and hope that the solution works. But even with your posting here, you’ve offered no substantial information about the problems you’re having, what you’ve tried to do in order to fix it, nor anything else for potential helpers to go on.
Your impression is dead wrong, and always has been. I have very few problems and always eventually solve them except when the app itself is hosed, like Safari. I am not using FF 3 because I got the reports that it was doing exactly what I said, on a machine far more modern than mine, and on Leopard, which may in fact be the problem. My computer is clean, stays clean, and has no current difficulty except for Safari weirdness that began with 3.1.
You NEVER take anyone else to task for OT, Phos, you seem to be antagonistic to me personally, and I ignore it, except that we’re supposed to be making this forum more civil.
Please examine all the threads on the opening page and tell me if more than 60% are CS or PS.
