From: Steve Hix on 6 Feb 2010 20:48 In article <nealreid-BCA0DE.20261706022010(a)news.magma.ca>, Neal Reid <nealreid(a)magma.ca> wrote: > In article <00e9a196$0$23795$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> wrote: > > > Neal Reid wrote: > > > > > Now I can't use the iTunes Store - popup says it requires Safari 4. > > > > The store appears to be an HTTP/HTML based content with Itunes using > > HTML rendering engine that is in Safari. > > You me Apple now has a proprietary rendering engine? They've declared > their own standard? I though M$FT was pompous! Google WebKit. All the cool kids are using it.
From: Wes Groleau on 7 Feb 2010 01:28 Neal Reid wrote: > I don't use Safari at all. I CAN'T upgrade to Safari 4 (unless I'm > willing to update to 10.5.8 - I'm not, see above quote). While I agree with most of your rant, this part is bogus. My Safari identifies itself as Version 4.0.4 (4531.21.10), and my O.S. as Version 10.4.11, Build 85165. And I don't use Safari either. "Upgrade" does not equal "use." -- Wes Groleau "In the field of language teaching, Method A is the logical contradiction of Method B: if the assumptions from which A claims to be derived are correct, then B cannot work, and vice versa. Yet one colleague is getting excellent results with A and another is getting comparable results with B. How is this possible?" -- Earl W. Stevick
From: nospam on 7 Feb 2010 02:12 In article <hklmib$oc0$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Wes Groleau <Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote: > Neal Reid wrote: > > I don't use Safari at all. I CAN'T upgrade to Safari 4 (unless I'm > > willing to update to 10.5.8 - I'm not, see above quote). > > While I agree with most of your rant, this part is bogus. actually, it isn't. > My Safari identifies itself as Version 4.0.4 (4531.21.10), > and my O.S. as Version 10.4.11, Build 85165. And I don't > use Safari either. "Upgrade" does not equal "use." safari 4 requires 10.4.11+security update 2009-002 or later, 10.5.8 or 10.6.1 or later. he said he's on 10.5.6, so he needs to upgrade to 10.5.8. <http://www.apple.com/safari/download/>
From: Steven Fisher on 7 Feb 2010 02:24 On 2010-02-06 11:48:53 -0800, Neal Reid said: > I am extremely frustrated in this area. I'm very happily running 10.5.6. > I'm a firm believer in, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" but somehow a > system update got past me and 'upgraded' me to iTunes 9. x (from 8.x). The only reason you should continue to run 10.5.6 is if: - you don't use MobileMe. - you don't use BlueTooth. - you don't use a Mac with nVidia graphics. - you never use Spotlight - you don't print - you don't use iCal - you don't use a wireless keyboard or mouse - you never use BCC in Mail - you don't use AFP - you don't use wireless networks - you don't use Safari and, thanks to various fixes that haven't been ported to 10.5.6: - you don't connect to the Internet Computer system software is not a place where you can say if it isn't broke it shouldn't be fixed. The ONLY reason there's an update is that it was broken. It sucks that this is how computers are, but it's reality. You should step into it.
From: JF Mezei on 7 Feb 2010 02:35 Neal Reid wrote: > You me Apple now has a proprietary rendering engine? They've declared > their own standard? I though M$FT was pompous! No. Apple has its HTML rendering "framework" which comes with Safari and is usable by any application that needs to display HTML code. Itunes uses it. So if the framework that comes with safari isn't available, Itunes can't load the OS-X equivalent of a Windows DLL to acctess the HTML rendering routines.
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: Will a keyboard and mouse work with a PCI USB board? Next: slower usenet DLs |