Mac upgrades

This weekend we’re updating our Macs to OS 10.4 Tiger. This means that (if all goes smoothly) by Monday we’ll be able to offer testing on Safari 2.0 rather than 1.3, a big improvement. If over the next couple of days you notice delays to Mac testing (Safari and IE 5 Mac), it’s probably because we’re in the process of upgrading. Thanks in advance for your understanding.
Here’s a question – how important to you is the ability to test on Safari 1.3 as well as Safari 2.0? If enough people ask for it we’ll keep a machine running OS 10.3.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Get all our best stuff in your inbox, just a few times a month. We'll never share your email address and you can opt out at any time.

  • http://www.oddlaa.com/ Dave Simon

    I’d like to have the option of 1.3, especially since I’m on Tiger, so testing in 2.0 is not a biggy.
    I know it takes a while for people to get upgraded.
    I’m getting a majority of my Safari hits from version 312, which is 1.3 I believe.

  • http://www.sitevista.com/ Paul

    Dave, thanks for your feedback. We’re going to reinstate Safari 1.3 shortly. I’d also personally like to test on Safari 1.3 as well, so that’s two votes to nil!

  • http://www.booizzy.com Jen

    Your service is great. Any word on when IE 5 Mac will be back up and running?

  • http://www.sitevista.com/ Paul

    It should be up shortly Jen, and at the same time we’ll be reinstating Safari 1.3 testing.

  • Nelly

    I’d like to have the option to test in Safari 1.3, too. Like Dave, I’m using Safari 2.0.

  • Paul D

    I was under the impression that Safari 1.3 and 2.0 rendered identically, and that 1.3 was simply the RSS-less version that Panther users get.

  • http://www.sitevista.com/ Paul

    Paul D – I’ve just looked into this and it seems that yes indeed, Safari 1.3 and 2.0 are almost identical, rendering-wise. Perhaps it would be better for us to use 1.2 and 2.0 instead?

  • http://artiswork.org matthew Smith

    Paul,
    Curious, what differences you expect to see between the two versions? I was under a (probably naive) assumption that safari was pretty consistent? Interesting.