Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!

Click here to return to the 'erm.. kowalski?' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
erm.. kowalski?
Authored by: Mac Berry on Feb 26, '09 11:17:33AM


What inconveniences? I've been playing with it for a while now, and it works a treat - I can't find a single inconvenience other than "it's not what I'm used to". Given that, 24 pixels is well worth having on my 15 inch screen.

Can't wait for Firefox to adopt this method.


[ Reply to This | # ]
erm.. kowalski?
Authored by: robg on Feb 26, '09 12:23:39PM

Try activating Safari when it's in the background without accidentally switching tabs. You'll need to first make sure you're not clicking on a non-active tab; you can no longer just click anywhere in the "title bar."

I consider that -- and the loss of the navigable site pop-up menu in the title bar -- to be two of the biggest issues with the current solution.


[ Reply to This | # ]
erm.. kowalski?
Authored by: ottonomy on Mar 08, '09 11:09:39PM

I'd much rather activate Safari when it's in the background by command-tabbing to it, or clicking on it in the dock. Besides, when Safari's in the background, I can't see it's title bar anyway. Sheesh. All you guys with gigantic screens must never maximize your windows. But I still think this should be an option. Configurability is the key to making everyone happy, and I can't understand what it would cost Apple to put a few more radio buttons in the Appearance pane of Safari prefs.

[ Reply to This | # ]