Quantcast
You are not logged in, click here to log in.
6 Replies Last post: Jul 1, 2003 11:35 PM by go_oski  
Click to view go_oski's profile New Member 87 posts since
Jun 19, 2002
Reply

Jul 1, 2003 8:11 PM

Safari 1.0 problems

I recently upgraded to OS X.2.6 ( I have an old iMac, I mean old) and had the older version of Safari that worked fine. When I upgraded to Safari 1.0, the browser hangs upon launch after trying to load my homepage (espn.go.com). It hangs so fast that I can't even stop it and change the prefs to change the homepage to something else. I like Safari but IE works.

Has anyone had this problem? TIA
Reply
Click to view s's profile Member 558 posts since
Dec 1, 2001
1. Jul 1, 2003 8:19 PM in response to: go_oski
Re: Safari 1.0 problems
How much RAM?
Click to view Duke_Thomas's profile Member 757 posts since
May 25, 2001
3. Jul 1, 2003 8:42 PM in response to: go_oski
Re: Safari 1.0 problems
You might be able to change the homepage in system preferences, but that may or may not work in this case, depending on a few factors I don't know about it.

One method to solve this problem that will surely work is to execute the following command in the terminal:
<pre>code:<hr>defaults write com.apple.Safari NewWindowBehavior 1</pre><hr>
New windows in Safari will not load the homepage automatically. Launch Safari once more and make any adjustments you like.
Click to view Duke_Thomas's profile Member 757 posts since
May 25, 2001
5. Jul 1, 2003 10:40 PM in response to: go_oski
Re: Safari 1.0 problems
In reply to:<hr />
Now that I've changed the homepage to something other than ESPN's site, can you think of a reason that it would hang like it has? I can't load the page at all under any circumstance, which sucks, b/c I really like that page!

<hr />


It is strange -- this won't help you much, but I am able to load the site just fine in Safari 1.0 on my computer. Perhaps you could try turning off plugins, javascript, etc. in the preferences under "security?"

Failing that (or perhaps you feel a reluctance to take such a drastic step), perhaps the "lite" version of the page would suffice. Notice light misspelt as lite. The judgement that their audience learnt spelling from beer cans is a shrewd insult indeed.

This has nothing to do with anything, but check out this "non-standards-compliant" notice on that site. I discovered it while poking around the page's source. It's one of the more comical things I've read today, and not for its technical folly. They actually made a pie graph of "standards-compliant" versus "non-standards-compliant" browsers that visit their site to convince visitors to upgrade; the presumption that total homogeniety would resonate with their audience is yet another shrewd insult.

( Terribly sorry, but a lifetime of making fun of my father's obsession with sports has left me totally at the mercy of my trenchant passive-aggressive compulsions. I can't help myself. )