PDA

View Full Version : PC Mag Declares Leopard OS Wars Victor


MacBytes
Mar 10, 2008, 12:01 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Mac OS X
Link: PC Mag Declares Leopard OS Wars Victor (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20080310130111)
Description:: Now that the major OSs all run on Intel chips, the playing field is pretty leveled out. So PC Magazine compared the heavy hitters in an eight-point test. And look who came out on top.

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

BlackMax
Mar 10, 2008, 12:05 PM
That Mac users in the crowd have known this all along, but it is really nice to see PC Magazine declare it as well.

:) :apple: :) :apple: :)

Drumjim85
Mar 10, 2008, 12:22 PM
everything that XP beat OSX in was pretty much due to the fact that it has been out for 10(?) years and was (maybe even still is) the standard ...

BlackMax
Mar 10, 2008, 12:29 PM
everything that XP beat OSX in was pretty much due to the fact that it has been out for 10(?) years and was (maybe even still is) the standard ...


That is very true, but I would like to see OS X take a little bit stronger foothold in the gaming arena. More "made for OS X games" would be a plus. :D

killmoms
Mar 10, 2008, 12:29 PM
Wait, they say IE7 is "slick" but Safari is a "bad browser?!" Safari, the more standards-compliant browser? Safari, the browser that IE7 stole most of its interface cues from? Honestly. :rolleyes:

superleccy
Mar 10, 2008, 12:42 PM
Wait, they say IE7 is "slick" but Safari is a "bad browser?!" Safari, the more standards-compliant browser? Safari, the browser that IE7 stole most of its interface cues from? Honestly. :rolleyes:
IE7 is an explosion in a toolbar and button factory. I hate it.
SL

killmoms
Mar 10, 2008, 12:48 PM
IE7 is an explosion in a toolbar and button factory. I hate it.
SL

Well, I figure the "...and then ****ed everything up" at the end of that sentence was implied. ;) You're right, it's atrocious. Not "slick" at all.

Eraserhead
Mar 10, 2008, 12:50 PM
IE7 does have a phishing filter though.

benpatient
Mar 10, 2008, 12:52 PM
Firefox AND Opera open macrumors pages (and gamespy pages, gmail pages, yahoo pages, zillow pages, facebook pages and apple.com pages) faster and more accurately than safari 3.0.4.

I actually prefer safari's interface, but i can't use it for gmail without emptying out the cache every 24 hours, and it is just plain slow with page draws. I don't know what apple means when they say it is the fastest browser...do they mean it's the fastest-opening browser application? maybe, but i only turn on my browsers once per session unless they crash (which safari is prone to doing, i must say), and my sessions are usually a couple of weeks long or more...app boot time is irrelevant. As for IE7, I haven't used it enough to know if it is better than safari, but I am not sure if it could really be that much worse from my own experience. I'd say firefox gives the best over-all browsing experience on the mac, even though i want safari to be best.

i was holding out for safari 3, and then we got it, and it was if anything, worse than 2.

killmoms
Mar 10, 2008, 12:55 PM
I actually prefer safari's interface, but i can't use it for gmail without emptying out the cache every 24 hours, and it is just plain slow with page draws. I don't know what apple means when they say it is the fastest browser...do they mean it's the fastest-opening browser application? maybe, but i only turn on my browsers once per session unless they crash (which safari is prone to doing, i must say), and my sessions are usually a couple of weeks long or more...app boot time is irrelevant. As for IE7, I haven't used it enough to know if it is better than safari, but I am not sure if it could really be that much worse from my own experience. I'd say firefox gives the best over-all browsing experience on the mac, even though i want safari to be best.

i was holding out for safari 3, and then we got it, and it was if anything, worse than 2.

I've never been disappointed with Safari's speed, personally. 3 is blazing fast. I'm wondering if you have some other problem. In any event, Firefox is a straight-up second class citizen on OS X. It breaks all sorts of OS X interface conventions because it's not a native Cocoa app, and relies on XUL. Loathe it. Even Camino is better.

But to each their own I suppose.

Eraserhead
Mar 10, 2008, 01:04 PM
Firefox AND Opera open macrumors pages (and gamespy pages, gmail pages, yahoo pages, zillow pages, facebook pages and apple.com pages) faster and more accurately than safari 3.0.4.

What? Safari displays them all perfectly, what are you talking about?

kamm
Mar 10, 2008, 01:05 PM
Wait, they say IE7 is "slick" but Safari is a "bad browser?!" Safari, the more standards-compliant browser? Safari, the browser that IE7 stole most of its interface cues from? Honestly. :rolleyes:

Safari isn't standard at all, at least certainly not much more than IE7. It's true that both work fine with Apple's non-standard crappy webpage while even FF3 craps out - try downloading anything from Apple, pathetic - but that doesn't make any of it more or less standard.
Try Acid2 test - only FF3 passes it, nothing else.
Acid3 came out last week and every browser fails...

I've never been disappointed with Safari's speed, personally. 3 is blazing fast. I'm wondering if you have some other problem. In any event, Firefox is a straight-up second class citizen on OS X. It breaks all sorts of OS X interface conventions because it's not a native Cocoa app, and relies on XUL. Loathe it. Even Camino is better.

But to each their own I suppose.

Try FF3 - it mops the floor with *any* browser. And looks far better than Safari, I think.

killmoms
Mar 10, 2008, 01:12 PM
Safari isn't standard at all, at least certainly not much more than IE7. It's true that both work fine with Apple's non-standard crappy webpage while even FF3 craps out - try downloading anything from Apple, pathetic - but that doesn't make any of it more or less standard.
Try Acid2 test - only FF3 passes it, nothing else.
Acid3 came out last week and every browser fails...

Wait. What? Safari passed the acid2 test LONG before any other publically available browser did. Safari 2 passed the acid2 test. Like, a year ago. Check your facts.

EDIT: Here's Safari 2 passing acid2 on my desktop right now.

bobr1952
Mar 10, 2008, 01:16 PM
I like Safari and found it resolved most pages correctly but I found that on one of my own pages, it did not display the correct color--it was even a web safe color. A small thing but still--I've not seen that problem with IE, Firefox or Opera. After using Safari about 6 weeks, I decided to go back to using Firefox as my primary browser--mostly because I am very comfortable with how it works.

benpatient
Mar 10, 2008, 01:18 PM
I've never been disappointed with Safari's speed, personally. 3 is blazing fast. I'm wondering if you have some other problem. In any event, Firefox is a straight-up second class citizen on OS X. It breaks all sorts of OS X interface conventions because it's not a native Cocoa app, and relies on XUL. Loathe it. Even Camino is better.

But to each their own I suppose.

A Mac Pro with 10.4.11, a MacBook with 10.5.2 and a G3 PowerMac with 10.4.11 all disagree with you about "blazing fast."

This is from two completely different network locations (work and home) so it isn't my ISP giving safari a hard time, if that were even possible.

it is just play slower, no matter what the little graph on apple's page says. I can load that page and click on a link in firefox before safari is finished displaying the first page. even cached it's slower.

gamespy is terribly slow with safari...and like i said, gmail just isn't safari friendly at all...the G3 really shows the differences between the browsers because all pages load slowly, so it exaggerates the time differences...and safari is by far the slowest of the 3 (safari3, opera9 and FF3.)

edi
Mar 10, 2008, 01:18 PM
Even though it's cool that Leopard won there are still things in this review which make me scream:
"No OS can claim perfect networking, but experience again wins out. Windows XP spent the past six years getting networking among XP systems just right"

:confused:This has nothing to do with the Windows XP I know.

killmoms
Mar 10, 2008, 01:22 PM
and like i said, gmail just isn't safari friendly at all...the G3 really shows the differences between the browsers because all pages load slowly, so it exaggerates the time differences...and safari is by far the slowest of the 3 (safari3, opera9 and FF3.)

Well, I guess I wouldn't know with Gmail. I never use the web interface. Hate webmail with a passion. Thank god they implemented IMAP for real clients.

UltraNEO*
Mar 10, 2008, 01:35 PM
Try FF3 - it mops the floor with *any* browser. And looks far better than Safari, I think.

I 2econd that! FF3 = <3

Safari is nice if only it supported more..
it doesn't work with sites that incorporate TinyMCE,
or should I say it has limited support for TinyMCE. :mad:

Eraserhead
Mar 10, 2008, 01:37 PM
Wait. What? Safari passed the acid2 test LONG before any other publically available browser did. Safari 2 passed the acid2 test. Like, a year ago. Check your facts.

It was two years ago in fact (source (http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/11/02/safari-wins-the-acid2-race/)), and its on track to be the first to Acid3 as well, as it already scores 90/100.

ogee
Mar 10, 2008, 01:46 PM
With Apple, users pay every year (or so) to get a major upgrade. Microsoft provides its major Windows upgrades, called Service Packs, free of charge.

Huh????

I would say MS major upgrades are not free. Xp -> Vista for example.
Service packs are not a major upgrade, no more so than 10.4.6 -> 10.4.7 for OS X was.

elppa
Mar 10, 2008, 01:51 PM
Safari isn't standard at all, at least certainly not much more than IE7. It's true that both work fine with Apple's non-standard crappy webpage while even FF3 craps out - try downloading anything from Apple, pathetic - but that doesn't make any of it more or less standard.
Try Acid2 test - only FF3 passes it, nothing else.
Acid3 came out last week and every browser fails...

:D

I'm really going to call you out on this, because it sounds like uniformed nonsense to me.

Webkit was through the Acid 2 test in April 2005. Safari 2 was the first browser officially released (as in not in beta) to pass Acid 2.

WebKit is ~90% of the way to passing Acid 3 as well (further progress has been made since this article (http://ajaxian.com/archives/acid-3-ships-webkit-praised)).

Also Ian Hixie who helped write the Acid 3 test had the following to say (http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1204593554&count=1) about WebKit:

“Also, I have to say, it was quite difficult to find standards compliance bugs in WebKit to use in the test. I had to go the extra mile to get WebKit to score low! This was not the case with most of the other browsers”


Don't tell lies about WebKit, it's a better, faster, more efficient and standards compliant engine than Gecko.

If you don't the UI or have had issues with memory leaks or stability in Safari then say so, but check your facts a bit more carefully. Or at the minimum take a quick glance at the Wikipedia entry for Acid 2.

ltldrummerboy
Mar 10, 2008, 02:07 PM
Ha! This has turned into a browser-wars thread. I agree that Safari is bad, but IE7 is horrible. Hooray for Firefox! On topic: Leopard won. But Macs are more expensive. You pay for quality. If you only need email and a word processor, it's just not worth it.

zzcoop
Mar 10, 2008, 02:12 PM
Firefox 3 can't even render a basic iWeb page correctly.

Analog Kid
Mar 10, 2008, 02:14 PM
I don't think Safari is responsible for how bad the PC Mag website is... You can barely find the content among the clutter. Maybe I'm just feeling particularly claustrophobic today, but I can't get myself to read it.

Eraserhead
Mar 10, 2008, 02:30 PM
Firefox 3 can't even render a basic iWeb page correctly.

Yes it can. Show an example

Roadstar
Mar 10, 2008, 02:42 PM
Huh????

I would say MS major upgrades are not free. Xp -> Vista for example.
Service packs are not a major upgrade, no more so than 10.4.6 -> 10.4.7 for OS X was.

You're right, they're not free and the method for determining whether it's free or not is quite similar, too. For example, Windows 2000 is NT 5.0 (you can see the version number when you fire up the command prompt) and Windows XP is NT 5.1, so regarding version numbers there wasn't any larger leap than between the OS X versions we've seen so far. And unless you've forgotten, 2000 users did indeed have to pay for XP. Vista, on the other hand, is NT 6.0 and it costs quite a hefty sum of money for any decent version, at least before the recently announced price cut. This whole "Apple users have to pay for service packs" nonsense is mostly due to Apple keeping their version numbers more clearly visible and having a much faster development cycle (which is nice).

gerardrj
Mar 10, 2008, 02:55 PM
IE7 does have a phishing filter though.

DON'T CLICK ON LINKS IN EMAIL!! (or other untrusted sources)

There's your phishing filter, and the only one guaranteed to be 100% accurate.
Phishing is a social problem and technology can not fix it. Training is the only way to eliminate phishing attacks.

Saying a browser is insecure or lacking because it doesn't have a phishing filter is like saying your checkbook is insecure because it lets you write checks to people who knock on your door claiming to be officials of some sort.

Marky_Mark
Mar 10, 2008, 03:25 PM
I switched the phishing filter off on my PC - it slows down page load times to unacceptable levels. It might be doing smart stuff in the background, but frankly I don't care if it takes 30 seconds for a page to display after you click on a link. I think it's pants.

Eraserhead
Mar 10, 2008, 03:34 PM
DON'T CLICK ON LINKS IN EMAIL!! (or other untrusted sources)

There's your phishing filter, and the only one guaranteed to be 100% accurate.
Phishing is a social problem and technology can not fix it. Training is the only way to eliminate phishing attacks.

Sure, but in general the user is incapable of realizing that. (And there are the moronic legit companies that DO send links in email).

I switched the phishing filter off on my PC

I also don't run Anti-virus on Vista, but that is only because I know what I'm doing.

AlphaBob
Mar 10, 2008, 04:04 PM
...I would like to see OS X take a little bit stronger foothold in the gaming arena.... :D

A "little stronger" ??? It would be hard to have less of a foothold unless there were no foothold at all. :D

Even if there were more "Built-for-OS-X Games" it wouldn't work unless people bought the more expensive Mac models with better performing graphic options. I've seen the overall % share that Apple has, but nowhere have I seen it broken out by Macbook vs. Macbook Pro, or the various desktop models.

Steve Jobs is very proud of the things he has chosen NOT to do, and I suspect that Apple chooses NOT to participate in the ever changing game model to avoid wasting resources that could be better spent elsewhere and have figured that either consoles will kill the PC game market, or that the high-end PC gamer is just too specialized a market.

Tallest Skil
Mar 10, 2008, 04:14 PM
Way to post old news; I knew that the Mac OS was better in 1996... :rolleyes:

Heck, I prefer using my Apple ][ to the shameful excuse for XP computers at school.

Aside: Okay, we live in Small Town, Indiana, just north of Nowhere and 30ish miles south of Fort Wayne. Our high school is paying our former "tech" administrator to monitor our browsing all day long. She receives everything that everyone types into any search engine LIVE and reports things that she doesn't like to our vice principal. What has brought on this Orwellian madness? We have just over 600 kids at our school; who is necessitating this breach of privacy?!

I'm all for blocking inappropriate sites. Absolutely. It's just... I was under the impression that we lived in America; not Oceania.

BongoBanger
Mar 10, 2008, 05:35 PM
No surprises there. OSX Leopard has a slight lead over XP and Vista and is the better OS just now, certainly for casual users.

I wonder if Vista will ever really be any good - I remember XP was horrible until SP2 - or if it's just a lost cause?

zzcoop
Mar 10, 2008, 06:38 PM
Yes it can. Show an example

Nothing fancy here. Just a "My Albums" page and one of its associated albums. Obviously something missing here. No drop shadows on the Firefox version either.

Safari:

http://homepage.mac.com/aaroncooper/iWeb-Safari.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/aaroncooper/iWeb-Safari2.jpg

Firefox 3 beta 3:

http://homepage.mac.com/aaroncooper/iWeb-Firefox3b3.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/aaroncooper/iWeb-Firefox3b32.jpg

Hopefully it's just one of those IT'S BETA N00B kind of things.

Zwhaler
Mar 10, 2008, 06:41 PM
Wow, out of 9 categories, Vista didn't win a single one! Go Mac. It is pretty strange to see PC magazine suddenly go so pro Mac lately.

chris200x9
Mar 10, 2008, 07:29 PM
udder drivel....."its open source which means anyone can download and install it for free"....yes ubuntu is free, but that is just stupid anyone knows open source != 0 cost anyway.....mac os x being easier to upgrade suuuuuuuuuuure "you have extra journaling", interface LOL ubuntu loses because of command line ha! you don't *need* the command line to do *anything* except sudo stuff and if you're that computer illiterate you should not be root anyway.......anyway I'm to busy to read the rest of this drivel

-Alan-
Mar 10, 2008, 07:39 PM
Wait, they say IE7 is "slick" but Safari is a "bad browser?!" Safari, the more standards-compliant browser? Safari, the browser that IE7 stole most of its interface cues from? Honestly. :rolleyes:

IE7 was one of the reasons I switched to the Mac. Looking for something better, I found Safari. Go figure.

Eraserhead
Mar 10, 2008, 07:50 PM
Hopefully it's just one of those IT'S BETA N00B kind of things.

Well it looks OK in Firefox 2.0. Is the design build into iWeb or is it designed by someone else? I can't see it in the default collection, and if so its more likely to be their fault than Firefox's.

zzcoop
Mar 10, 2008, 08:10 PM
Well it looks OK in Firefox 2.0. Is the design build into iWeb or is it designed by someone else? I can't see it in the default collection, and if so its more likely to be their fault than Firefox's.

It looks fine in Firefox 2 for me too. Other than the lack of drop shadows, which isn't that big a deal. And the only differences to those pages from any of the iWeb templates are cosmetic in nature. All the scripted content is untouched. I see the same behavior on sites that fully adhere to the default templates as well.

Eraserhead
Mar 10, 2008, 08:11 PM
Well I just read the article:


PHOTOGRAPHER
Windows. All cameras work with it, and the imaging tools are plentiful.


Now that is a pile of rubbish.

Pippen Man
Mar 10, 2008, 10:38 PM
Well I just read the article:



Now that is a pile of rubbish.

Yeah, I like all of your Memory Stick Ports and SD Ports inside of your Mac...:rolleyes:

I enjoy Vista AND Firefox 3, even though I do use Safari on occasion. ;)

Quillz
Mar 10, 2008, 11:19 PM
Huh????

I would say MS major upgrades are not free. Xp -> Vista for example.
Service packs are not a major upgrade, no more so than 10.4.6 -> 10.4.7 for OS X was.
XP SP2 was a drastic upgrade, free or not. Even the M$ haters can't deny this.

Quillz
Mar 10, 2008, 11:29 PM
No surprises there. OSX Leopard has a slight lead over XP and Vista and is the better OS just now, certainly for casual users.

I wonder if Vista will ever really be any good - I remember XP was horrible until SP2 - or if it's just a lost cause?
I wonder if Mac OS will ever really be any good - I remember the classic Mac OS was horrible until Mac OS X - or if it's just a lost cause.

See? I can have an opinion, too. Opinions are not facts.
Wow, out of 9 categories, Vista didn't win a single one! Go Mac. It is pretty strange to see PC magazine suddenly go so pro Mac lately.
I'd like to introduce you to a new word... It's called "bias." Just because a "PC MAGAZINE" says that Leopard is better than Vista does not make it concrete fact. I guarantee you that you can find an equal number of magazines proclaiming Vista to the best OS. Or Amiga. Or NeXTstep. Different OS for different people, I know it's a difficult concept for you to understand, but it exists.
Well I just read the article:



Now that is a pile of rubbish.
It's not rubbish when it's fact. Plug 'n play works on all major OS, and Windows has hundreds, if not thousands, of available photo managing software. Perhaps the article was vague in the sense that it included run-of-the-mill software, but perhaps other than Aperture 2, all the most popular photo editing software for Mac OS X has an equivalent Windows port.

kamm
Mar 11, 2008, 12:32 AM
:D

I'm really going to call you out on this, because it sounds like uniformed nonsense to me.

Webkit was through the Acid 2 test in April 2005. Safari 2 was the first browser officially released (as in not in beta) to pass Acid 2.

WebKit is ~90% of the way to passing Acid 3 as well


Ummm, "it sounds like uniformed nonsense" - how about trying it before making false claims? TRY IT!
IT's 60/100 on FF3 va 39/100 on my Safari.


Ahh FYI: it's not a race. You either PASS or FAIL. There's no such thing as X% - SAFARI FAILS, just like every other browser out there and it's behind some, period.


(further progress has been made since this article (http://ajaxian.com/archives/acid-3-ships-webkit-praised)).
Also Ian Hixie who helped write the Acid 3 test had the following to say (http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1204593554&count=1) about WebKit:

Don't tell lies about WebKit, it's a better, faster, more efficient and standards compliant engine than Gecko.


THis is the part when I call in the word 'BS'. :cool: If you can do that I can too - did this guy actually tried it?Oh wait he did - perhaps you didnt read your link/his comment? :) Look at the graphics: Safari fails so miserably it doesn't even have any reminiscent of the reference gfx... FF3 at least looks like that sans lack of colors. :D


If you don't the UI or have had issues with memory leaks or stability in Safari then say so, but check your facts a bit more carefully. Or at the minimum take a quick glance at the Wikipedia entry for Acid 2.

Ummm probably you don't check these never-heard news sites like Anadtech but I do, that's all and past weekend they had something about it.. :P

However Safari - besides being FAR behind FF3 in Acid3 :P - offers roughly 1/5th of the functionality of FF3 yet it's still slower - how is that, the GREAT WebKit is SLOWER? :) Even when I have at least 6-8 addons loaded all the time on this latest Blackbook, 4 gig memory... tsk, tsk, tsk.:cool:

Too bad Opera's devs have some weird, idiotic, twisted world view about customer requests and themselves so they simply refuse to support long-requested features - can you believe Opera Mail is still plain text only? - thus it will never become a mainstream browser...

No offense, just passing back the ball.:cool:

kamm
Mar 11, 2008, 12:36 AM
Nothing fancy here. Just a "My Albums" page and one of its associated albums. Obviously something missing here. No drop shadows on the Firefox version either.

Safari:



Firefox 3 beta 3:


Hopefully it's just one of those IT'S BETA N00B kind of things.

Is this something similar crap like Apple's pages? Where download links only work in certain, less-standard-ready browsers e.g. IE or Safari? :P

Seriously though we don't know anything about your test code so it's hardly an evidence, I think.

kamm
Mar 11, 2008, 12:41 AM
However Leopard is far better than Vista, I second this after ~12-14 months of Vista use - but best choice for the masses is still XP SP2 due to the sheer amount of applications available. Unfortunately OS X is still pathetic when it comes to app support but you have to know how to set it (XP) up though Leopard also needs a little tweaking, I think. After all if app support would be at XP level Leopard would be the best, no question about it (sans linux for some).

kuwisdelu
Mar 11, 2008, 01:31 AM
Ummm, "it sounds like uniformed nonsense" - how about trying it before making false claims? TRY IT!
IT's 60/100 on FF3 va 39/100 on my Safari.


Ahh FYI: it's not a race. You either PASS or FAIL. There's no such thing as X% - SAFARI FAILS, just like every other browser out there and it's behind some, period.

Umm Safari != Webkit. Safari uses Webkit, but until the next Safari release, they're different beasts.

Yes, the current official release of Safari, 3.0.4, fails miserably, just like the current official release of Firefox, 2.0.0.12, fails miserably.

Go download a Webkit nightly build. That's the golden compass, not the silver one. Then try the Acid3 test. It's 90/100.

Wow, and I didn't even know what the Acid3 test was until just now when I looked it up and tried it out on Safari, Webkit, FF2, AND FF3... Safari and Firefox are both good browsers, IMO. They're just for different people. There will always be valid arguments for one or the other being better. There is no better, there's just preference. And interestingly, I've never had a problem with websites in either Safari or Firefox, and I've used both a lot. Apple's websites display perfectly right for me in both... so I'm kind of confused on that.

Lets all try to play fair, okay?

Eraserhead
Mar 11, 2008, 05:40 AM
Yeah, I like all of your Memory Stick Ports and SD Ports inside of your Mac...

I don't think anyone actually cares about that. Certainly no-one who does real photography.


It's not rubbish when it's fact. Plug 'n play works on all major OS, and Windows has hundreds, if not thousands, of available photo managing software. Perhaps the article was vague in the sense that it included run-of-the-mill software, but perhaps other than Aperture 2, all the most popular photo editing software for Mac OS X has an equivalent Windows port.

For beginners the Mac has iPhoto.

And if you at least a semi-pro, i.e. own an SLR, and the people I know who do this say Mac is the best, even when they use Windows. This is due to Aperture, and that Photoshop performs better (http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/photoshop-cs3.ars/8), and the colour proofing is better. Also all the cameras work, out the box, with good RAW support.

Go download a Webkit nightly build. That's the golden compass, not the silver one. Then try the Acid3 test. It's 90/100.

All the renderings are on my website (matthewhutton.com/acid3.html) if you're curious.

Eraserhead
Mar 11, 2008, 05:47 AM
Is this something similar crap like Apple's pages? Where download links only work in certain, less-standard-ready browsers e.g. IE or Safari? :P

Take a look at this (http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1204593554&count=1), its written by one of the guys who wrote the Acid3 test, and talks about Safari (Webkit).


I have to say straight up that I've been really impressed with the WebKit team. Even before the test was finished, they were actively following up every single bug the test showed.



Now barely a month later the nightly builds are already up to 87/100 and most of the rendering errors are fixed. That's a serious testament to their commitment to standards.



Also, I have to say, it was quite difficult to find standards compliance bugs in WebKit to use in the test. I had to go the extra mile to get WebKit to score low! This was not the case with most of the other browsers.

elppa
Mar 11, 2008, 06:51 AM
Take a look at this (http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1204593554&count=1), its written by one of the guys who wrote the Acid3 test, and talks about Safari (Webkit).

I have already pointed this article out and in particular the last comment you have quoted. I think we are fighting a losing battle! :)

zzcoop
Mar 11, 2008, 09:20 AM
Is this something similar crap like Apple's pages? Where download links only work in certain, less-standard-ready browsers e.g. IE or Safari? :P

Seriously though we don't know anything about your test code so it's hardly an evidence, I think.

'Test code?' It's just a dinky little personal site (http://www.aaroncooper.org) built in iWeb. The only deviations from the default templates are, as I said, merely cosmetic in nature. No code tweaks, etc. For what it's worth, I'm talking about the current version of iWeb.

Here's another (http://web.mac.com/placebo1969) that adheres strictly to the template, though. All the photo album features are broken in FF3b3 here, too. Looks like a Javascript issue to me.

DUCKofD3ATH
Mar 11, 2008, 10:29 AM
"most agree that the Mac OS, while not perfect—dragging CDs to the Trash to eject? Huh?—is the easiest to master."

What is he talking about? It's impossible in Leopard to drag a CD to the Trash. The only options are to add it to the Dock or drop it on the Dock's Eject button to eject the disc. They must be talking about an obsolete version of OS X.

Way to be accurate PC Mag!

On the other hand, based on the author's previous comment, you'd think the following:

"the XP Start menu seems primitive in comparison with the Vista Start menu."

Would elicit a "You go to the Start menu to stop the PC? Huh?"

But no.

ColonelSmith
Mar 11, 2008, 11:24 AM
Wait, they say IE7 is "slick" but Safari is a "bad browser?!" Safari, the more standards-compliant browser? Safari, the browser that IE7 stole most of its interface cues from? Honestly. :rolleyes:

I agree. While I appreciate PC Mag giving top honors to our beloved Mac OS.... I disagree with many things in the article.

"Microsoft provides its major Windows upgrades, called Service Packs, free of charge. Paying more for Mac OS upgrades is a bit galling when you've already paid a premium for the hardware."

I can't stand this misunderstanding. The Mac equivalent of Windows SP's would be the 10.5.x upgrades.... which are free of charge. The only time we pay is when they do major overhauls of the OS (like XP or Vista for MS) such as 10.x

killmoms
Mar 11, 2008, 11:41 AM
On the other hand, based on the author's previous comment, you'd think the following:

"the XP Start menu seems primitive in comparison with the Vista Start menu."

Would elicit a "You go to the Start menu to to stop the PC? Huh?"

But no.

Oh God, if only it was that easy. In Vista, the shut down option has been replaced with the monstrosity I've attached below. Just look at that.

So, we've got a power symbol, a lock, and then a little sideways pointing arrow. The lock seems obvious enough, I guess that'll "lock" the workstation so I need a password to get back in. The power symbol's obvious too, right? That'll turn off my computer!

No, no it won't. It will hibernate your computer, writing the contents of your RAM to disk and then turning it off, whether you want it to or not. No, to shut down your computer entirely and NOT save the OS's state to disk first, you have to hit that sideways pointing arrow, which will give you a pop-up menu of all the system sleep/shutdown options.

Atrocious.

MikeTheC
Mar 11, 2008, 12:23 PM
I don't think anyone actually cares about that. Certainly no-one who does real photography.
Whoa!

Isn't that a bit like saying photography isn't art because you use a device to do the work instead of doing it yourself? (i.e.: paint, paintbrush and canvas)

kuwisdelu
Mar 11, 2008, 02:15 PM
I can't stand this misunderstanding. The Mac equivalent of Windows SP's would be the 10.5.x upgrades.... which are free of charge. The only time we pay is when they do major overhauls of the OS (like XP or Vista for MS) such as 10.x

I completely agree. I don't quite see how they can't understand that, except maybe because OS X sees major updates (Tiger => Leopard, etc.) more frequently than Windows does (XP => Vista...). I suppose someone might say it's because it's been on OS X (OS "10") for a long time, so the real "point updates" are "10.1, 10.2, etc..." but that's as dumb as saying Microsoft's operating system hasn't been updated since "DOS" => "Windows." Leopard:Vista::Tiger:XP. Silly PC Mag.

No, no it won't. It will hibernate your computer, writing the contents of your RAM to disk and then turning it off, whether you want it to or not. No, to shut down your computer entirely and NOT save the OS's state to disk first, you have to hit that sideways pointing arrow, which will give you a pop-up menu of all the system sleep/shutdown options.

Atrocious.

A testament to the intuitive nature of Windows :D ;) :confused:

GradientMac
Mar 11, 2008, 03:09 PM
About FireFox 3 and Safari 3.

What's the better browser?

http://img.skitch.com/20080311-9ycakewuqmjnkbxc598ima59s.jpg

kuwisdelu
Mar 11, 2008, 03:26 PM
About FireFox 3 and Safari 3.

What's the better browser?

Unless you have an earlier beta (FF3 is currently on beta 4) that looks like FF2 to me. Both Safari 3 and FF3 Beta 4 pass Acid2 just fine. Right now Webkit nightly is ahead of FF3 in passing Acid3.

G4R2
Mar 11, 2008, 04:41 PM
Wow, out of 9 categories, Vista didn't win a single one! Go Mac. It is pretty strange to see PC magazine suddenly go so pro Mac lately.


PC Mag has been fairly consistent in their reviews for many years and unlike other sites generally don't exhibit an anti-Mac bias.

I don't agree with them that Safari is a "bad browser," particularly when compared to IE7 which is simply atrocious and has possibly the worst, half-baked UI on the market. But I do hope that Apple takes the critique to heart and directs some greater attention to developing and innovating the browser.

rychencop
Mar 11, 2008, 06:28 PM
Firefox AND Opera open macrumors pages (and gamespy pages, gmail pages, yahoo pages, zillow pages, facebook pages and apple.com pages) faster and more accurately than safari 3.0.4.

I actually prefer safari's interface, but i can't use it for gmail without emptying out the cache every 24 hours, and it is just plain slow with page draws. I don't know what apple means when they say it is the fastest browser...do they mean it's the fastest-opening browser application? maybe, but i only turn on my browsers once per session unless they crash (which safari is prone to doing, i must say), and my sessions are usually a couple of weeks long or more...app boot time is irrelevant. As for IE7, I haven't used it enough to know if it is better than safari, but I am not sure if it could really be that much worse from my own experience. I'd say firefox gives the best over-all browsing experience on the mac, even though i want safari to be best.

i was holding out for safari 3, and then we got it, and it was if anything, worse than 2.

i love safari as well, but firefox is more compliant. so that's what i use.

Eraserhead
Mar 11, 2008, 07:40 PM
PC Mag has been fairly consistent in their reviews for many years and unlike other sites generally don't exhibit an anti-Mac bias.

What? They are the most bias usually. Look at their photographer comments for a start.

Michael CM1
Mar 11, 2008, 09:32 PM
Even though it's cool that Leopard won there are still things in this review which make me scream:
"No OS can claim perfect networking, but experience again wins out. Windows XP spent the past six years getting networking among XP systems just right"

:confused:This has nothing to do with the Windows XP I know.

Networking on WinXP was the last straw for me getting a Mac. I have no idea what the hell these people were thinking on a couple of those things. Safari is not a crappy browser. I like it best, although at work we have to use Firefox a lot. IE blows because they discontinued it for Mac (not usable for 10% of the computing world) and because I actually used that piece of bloatware before.

I agree. While I appreciate PC Mag giving top honors to our beloved Mac OS.... I disagree with many things in the article.

"Microsoft provides its major Windows upgrades, called Service Packs, free of charge. Paying more for Mac OS upgrades is a bit galling when you've already paid a premium for the hardware."

I can't stand this misunderstanding. The Mac equivalent of Windows SP's would be the 10.5.x upgrades.... which are free of charge. The only time we pay is when they do major overhauls of the OS (like XP or Vista for MS) such as 10.x

Oh my God. The "hardware premium" myth? The main reason Macs cost more now is the lack of crapware inside the systems. You can go make a PC full of tons of cheap hardware from what I call fifth-party vendors (that's how bad some are) or you can get good innards from Intel, Samsung, Sony, etc. In computing, you almost always get what you pay for.

And it's also obvious the reviewer hadn't used a Mac if he/she made THAT big of a mistake about upgrades/service packs. Microsoft's big service packs are nothing more than a Sam's Club-size update that makes people think somehow the upgrade is that much better. When Apple does this, they usually just move the second digit (10.5.1 to 10.5.2). I guess when your stuff works better to begin with, you don't have to make as big of a deal about your updates.

elppa
Mar 12, 2008, 08:20 AM
i love safari as well, but firefox is more compliant. so that's what i use.

It's not quite as clear cut as one being more compliant. Safari and Firefox will render standards based web pages identically (bar a couple of minor differences). No one has an advantage over the other and they are both beginning to support features from the CSS 3 and HTML 5 specs.

When it comes to handling non standards based pages (in almost all cases, these were written entirely for IE) its very much "best efforts" and there will be some differences. There is no one right way to do it, although Gecko may make a better guess at how IE would render the page, as it is a more mature product (its heritage stems from days of the IE v Netscape battle).

This is a really interesting read (http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/pinkerton/archives/017550.html) to get more idea, it's from Mike Pinkerton, who is a Camino developer. The Camino Browser, as you all know, uses the Gecko engine, so he will have had a lot of experience with it. This is not someone shooting from ignorance and probably better able to comment than many of us here:

Gecko is a liability. The architecture from day one was light years better than what we had (a grad-student project gone horribly wrong), but by no means was it well-designed. The horrible misapplication of COM, misguided pre-optimization, a singular focus on Windows, and a variety of other serious design flaws made Gecko difficult to understand and in some cases impossible to fix. The learning curve is immense (think Mt Everest), just ask my students every year; the look of terror in their eyes is proof enough. Gecko is as impenetrable and bloated as it is fast and compatible. WebKit, on the other hand, is sleek and svelte. It's approachable. It's really easy to fix bugs. If you ask developers which they'd rather work on, the ones who pick Gecko should get their heads examined.

BongoBanger
Mar 16, 2008, 05:06 PM
Oh God, if only it was that easy. In Vista, the shut down option has been replaced with the monstrosity I've attached below. Just look at that.

So change to Classic view. Not difficult.

BongoBanger
Mar 16, 2008, 05:08 PM
I wonder if Mac OS will ever really be any good - I remember the classic Mac OS was horrible until Mac OS X - or if it's just a lost cause.

See? I can have an opinion, too. Opinions are not facts.

Which is why there was a question mark at the end of the sentence.

Carry on.

FloridaBSD
Mar 19, 2008, 08:00 PM
everything that XP beat OSX in was pretty much due to the fact that it has been out for 10(?) years and was (maybe even still is) the standard ...

For one thing Xp has only been out sense 2001 (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryProGraphic.mspx) so thats 7 yearsand secondly we all know that Mozilla Fire Fox far surpasses IE, Safari and even Camino for sake of debate.

miamialley
Nov 11, 2008, 11:01 AM
Oh God, if only it was that easy. In Vista, the shut down option has been replaced with the monstrosity I've attached below. Just look at that.

So, we've got a power symbol, a lock, and then a little sideways pointing arrow. The lock seems obvious enough, I guess that'll "lock" the workstation so I need a password to get back in. The power symbol's obvious too, right? That'll turn off my computer!

No, no it won't. It will hibernate your computer, writing the contents of your RAM to disk and then turning it off, whether you want it to or not. No, to shut down your computer entirely and NOT save the OS's state to disk first, you have to hit that sideways pointing arrow, which will give you a pop-up menu of all the system sleep/shutdown options.

Atrocious.

I just don't at all see how this is poor design. Makes sense to me. And I like hibernation.

Sesshi
Nov 11, 2008, 11:30 AM
Isn't this the same mag which ran the completely (and probably intentionally) misleading 'Fastest Vista machine we've tested' article, and the one in which the editor quit after being threatened about his slightly anti-Apple article?

A real authority then.

headfuzz
Nov 11, 2008, 12:55 PM
The Mac equivalent of Windows SP's would be the 10.5.x upgrades.... which are free of charge.

...not to mention a damn sight more frequent. 3 service packs in the best part of a decade for XP... Hmmmm. :rolleyes:

AlmostThere
Nov 11, 2008, 01:51 PM
Oh God, if only it was that easy. In Vista, the shut down option has been replaced with the monstrosity I've attached below. Just look at that.

So, we've got a power symbol, a lock, and then a little sideways pointing arrow. The lock seems obvious enough, I guess that'll "lock" the workstation so I need a password to get back in. The power symbol's obvious too, right? That'll turn off my computer!

No, no it won't. It will hibernate your computer, writing the contents of your RAM to disk and then turning it off, whether you want it to or not. No, to shut down your computer entirely and NOT save the OS's state to disk first, you have to hit that sideways pointing arrow, which will give you a pop-up menu of all the system sleep/shutdown options.

Atrocious.

That power symbol looks awfully like the IEC 5009 Standby Symbol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_symbol), which sounds, from your description, like it acts exactly as it is supposed to.

While everybody is wallowing in self-righteous indignation, I would like to point out that the same symbol on my PowerBook gives me a confounding and unnecessary array of options, rendering the entire machine unusable, as well as demonstrating Apple's utter contempt for any sort of standardisation. It is probably monopolistic or anti-competitive or something like that too, seeing as it has corrupted your ability to use Windows effectively.