Apple should abandon Safari, embrace FireFox.

[lem0nayde]

I've been thinking about this a lot, as a web surfer and a web designer, and I really think that if Apple wants to do right thing in terms of customers and users - they should abandon Safari and replace it with FireFox.

My reasons:

1.) While I like Safari, FireFox has become my standard browser on both my Macs at home and my PC. While FireFox has some kinks that need to be worked out -- it is a fantastic browser.

2.) Since Firefox is an open source project, it falls right in line with Apple's embracing the Open Source community.

3.) By using Firefox, Apple will be offering a browser that offers the same exact experience on PC and Mac -- helping to build a new internet standard for web browsing.

4.) With Firefox picking up steam (quickly) and posing the first real threat to Internet Explorer in years, Apple should jump on board to help beat the crap out of Microsofts old, shriveled up browser. They would be joining the likes of AOL, Google (rumored), and the many individuals and corporations that are tired of the lack of security in I.E. and the garbage performance and are ready for something fresh.

5.) By embracing a browser already more widely used than Safari, Apple will be helping Mac users get the same internet experience as everyone else - instead of adding yet another browser that web developers have to specially test their site on (and most likely will not.)

This is a chance for Apple to really help take a stab at Microsoft. I think it would be the smart decision.

Joe

[Logik]

I don't agree. Firefox does not provide a consistant interface that safari does, and if they altered Firefox to do so, they would basically remove your argument of #3

Let's attack each one specifically..

1) I agree, Firefox is a great browser, but I only use it on my powerbook when I have to (at school). Any other time I use safari because it works so well with the rest of the system. Again, we come right back to what I said above, if they alter firefox to make it consistant across other OS X applications then you remove your argument for #3

2) Safari is open source, at least the KHTML engine is. The rendering engine is used in the KDE browser Konqueror, apple submits patches and updates to the KHTML engine and gives back to the community. The reason they chose KHTML is because it is lightweight and fast. While Gecko (the firefox rendering engine) is open source it is also carries much more baggage. It's not as lightweight, but is arguably faster than KHTML, depending on the page. Safari on my powerbook loads right up with one bounce, firefox takes nearly twice as long before it stops bouncing and even then it's not even ready to be used yet, so wait a bit longer.

3) Consistant across platforms, great, but not consistant in OS X, not the user experience apple is looking for. By altering the interface, you ruin your argument for cross platform similarities. In my opinion the interface of any webbrowser is so simple you should be able to work with any browser without so much as a simple thought or two.

4 and 5) I don't think jumping on the bandwagon is all that big of a deal. Safari displays most webpages just as well as Firefox. If it doesn't it's a bug and should be reported, or it's a web standards issue. Basically instead of making browsers support webpages, the web pages should support standards so that they all follow the rules, not breaking a web browser so a page displays correctly. The developers of webpages need to make the change here not apple or firefox.

No one is stopping you from using firefox, i bet most people have it installed anyway, choices are good. There doesn't need to be any one browser in the lead, they can coexist. It's an application afterall, everyone is going to have a different way of wanting to do something, having choices helps people do what they want in a way that makes them more productive.

[jeremy.king]

Logik, well said. I agree completely.

With competition comes innovation, so let them co-exist!

[RacerX]

My reasons why Firefox is no where near good enough for the Mac platform:

First off this is not a true Mac application. It is a port of an application designed for Windows... and it looks and acts like it.

Mac OS X provides any developer who takes the time to design a good Macintosh app many features that they won't have to create on their own from scratch.

For example... text and spelling services. I can write a Mac OS X text editor that uses these inside of 10 minutes. And I'm not even a developer!

So, why doesn't Firefox have this? Because it is designed for another operating system.

Small thing, color. Mac OS X provides all the colors you can think of for developers to use. OmniWeb makes use of Mac OS X's color service, why not Firefox?

And what about other services? Why can't I use MacJournal, Nisus Thesaurus, OmniDictionary, Mail, RBrowser, TextEdit or WebGrabber with this browser? Without having any more features than Firefox, Safari can take advantage of all these services because it is a Macintosh application. OmniWeb can take advantage of all these services because it is a Macintosh application.

This browser is good at looking at pages. But forget about actively working with internet content.

I have often said that in Mac OS X no application need stand alone. Firefox stands very much alone on my system... it may as well have been made by Microsoft for how Mac-like it is. I'm sure Firefox is one of the best browsers on Windows or Linux systems, but it sure falls way way short of what we should be expecting on a Macintosh.

This is (in my opinion) a perfect example of us getting second hand software. Applications written for our platform can do things that applications on no other platform can do. And yet we except hand-me-downs from other platforms with the limitations of those other platforms built right into the software. We shouldn't be having the same exact experience as on a PC, we should be having a far better experience because we aren't using a PC.

I haven't run across any pages I frequent that OmniWeb or Safari can't handle, and all those pages display better in OmniWeb and Safari than in Firefox.

If you are looking for less from your web experience, Firefox is the browser for you. If you are on a PC, Firefox is the browser for you. But if you are on a Mac, OmniWeb, Camino and Safari all take advantage of what makes Macs better than PCs.

Please don't lower our standards. We have more as Mac users, why settle for less.

[Logik]

RacerX, the reason it doesn't hold up as a OS X application in your eyes is because Firefox/Mozilla are built to be Cross-platform. Look, no other web browser supports so many platforms. Why do you think it does this?

Spelling and such are not built in because Mozilla created a whole PLATFORM on it's own. See if you try to make a web browser or any application that works on say 3 platforms (mac, linux, windows) then you will have a lot of OS specific functionality and makes a huge mess out of your application code. To combat this the Mozilla foundation created the Mozilla framework. It doesn't necessarily use any particular OS specific functionality, instead it created something within itself so that you program it once and that's that, you don't need to write code for 3 seperate platforms.

This is being very vague.. but mozilla/gecko/firefox are usable on more than just Windows, Linux and Mac.. BeOS, QNX, etc. I'm sure i'm missing a ton too. But the reason it is so platform independent is because they made it that way, so that it'll work on more than one operating system with minimal changes. It wasn't written for windows though. It was written for many operating systems, that's what the XUL + Javascript stuff is all about. You can create your own applications right inside of Mozilla or Firefox man. It is basically it's own IDE (Visual Studio, XCode) and Framework (like Cocoa or Carbon)... it's a swiss army knife.

EDIT: here are some links to how you can create applications with the mozilla framework..

Creating Applications with Mozilla
http://books.mozdev.org/html/index.html

Why you should use Mozilla as an Application Framework
http://www.mozilla.org/why/framework.html

with that said i could write an application using the stuff Mozilla provides and distribute that application and it'll work on any platform that Mozilla supports without any stupid hackery, or at least without major edits of the code. It doesn't need to be a web browser either, it can be damn near anything .. 3d games i guess.

[jeremy.king]

For example... text and spelling services. I can write a Mac OS X text editor that uses these inside of 10 minutes. And I'm not even a developer!


I highly doubt this :rolleyes:

Funny how you trivialize programming like its the easiest thing in the world to do. I am sure I can do whatever you do in 10 mins as well :eek:

[Lord Blackadder]

I like having both. I prefer the look and feel of safari, but firefox has excellent performance generally.

[Logik]

I highly doubt this :rolleyes:

Funny how you trivialize programming like its the easiest thing in the world to do. I am sure I can do whatever you do in 10 mins as well :eek:

if you know Objective-C and Cocoa ya.. you could write it in 10 minutes... well maybe not quite that fast but pretty quickly. Cocoa provides nearly everything you'd need right outta the box without a lot of programming, you'd just have to tie it all together.

Unfortunately, Cocoa is not a simple as pie thing, I've read a couple books on it and I still have a hard time with stuff, it's not easy and it's very complicated. It provides A LOT but to use that "A LOT" you have one hell of an entry learning curve.. it's not easy to learn. I can do simple stuff but man, I don't have the time anymore to fiddle so I just have a hard time keeping it in my head.. and i AM a developer. So, ya... if you aren't a developer good luck.. it's not THAT easy.

[broken_keyboard]

Going with KHTML over Gecko was really dumb.
Nice one Apple. I bet you have about 1000 rationalizations for that bad decision!

[RacerX]

It wasn't written for windows though.
It is a least common denominator of all the platforms it was designed for (which is Windows) and so is no better than a port of any other Windows app.

It is just fine for most people. My argument is against mediocre software. And Firefox is a mediocre Mac application. As Mac users we get tons of software like that. We get almost unaltered Mac OS 9 applications or Windows applications or even Linux/Unix appliactions which provide nothing more than they did on the platforms for which they were originally designed... which is less than they could with a little thought and care on Mac OS X.

If you are using a Mac, take advantage of it. Don't wish for less, wish for more! I just don't see why we should stand for applications which lower our platform to the same level as other platforms... specially if we don't have to. If I wanted a Windows, Linux, QNX or any other platforms experience I'd be using them.

If you write an application for a whole bunch of platforms the best you can hope for from that application is the best you are going to get from the worst of those platforms. :D

[Logik]

It is a least common denominator of all the platforms it was designed for (which is Windows) and so is no better than a port of any other Windows app.

It is just fine for most people. My argument is against mediocre software. And Firefox is a mediocre Mac application. As Mac users we get tons of software like that. We get almost unaltered Mac OS 9 applications or Windows applications or even Linux/Unix appliactions which provide nothing more than they did on the platforms for which they were originally designed... which is less than they could with a little thought and care on Mac OS X.

If you are using a Mac, take advantage of it. Don't wish for less, wish for more! I just don't see why we should stand for applications which lower our platform to the same level as other platforms... specially if we don't have to. If I wanted a Windows, Linux, QNX or any other platforms experience I'd be using them.

If you write an application for a whole bunch of platforms the best you can hope for from that application is the best you are going to get from the worst of those platforms. :D

You have to take into account the idea of what you're saying. they didn't HAVE to support all those platforms. They could've just supported Windows. But instead they took the effort to make it work on many. Beggers can't be choosers. You don't have to use it, use OmniWeb or Safari. The fact is the Mac has a very small user base, compared to Windows anyway. So you can't expect someone to spend money to develop something that is mac specific.. when the returns they get might not even cover the costs of doing a good port of the software. Firefox is FREE, you expect them to go out of their way to make it perfect for you? bah, the reason behind it being open source is thata someone like YOU could go grab the source, and adapt it to OS X or whatever you want.

[lem0nayde]

Logik - your second post is exactly why I think Apply should embrace the Mozilla platform. For most things I think Apple's proprietary software is superior, but for a web browser I think latching on to a larger movement makes much more sense. By consolidating the number of browsers there are, you can guarantee the same web experience across the board for all web users. The internet is not an isolated, proprietary experience.

I hate that I can't see stylesheets applied to forms and scrollbars etc. in Safari because it is aquafied - a small thing for sure, but a perfect example of how the web does not fit well into OS specific guidelines.

I've also had a far-from-perfect experience with Safari, it's really not that great of a browser. It crashes constantly, often slows down tremendously on database-heavy sites, is ugly to look at (sorry, brushed metal is just not my thing, tacky-o-rama) and is no better than the other KHTML based browsers.

On my machine Firefox is A LOT faster than Safari in all respects, from opening to downloading pages. The Mozilla folks have also stated that they are working on a refined Mac version (it only makes sense that they would focus heavily on Windows first - though I must say that between the two I think the Mac version is almost identical and actually better in some ways.)

Of course, like all of us, I love Apple and think they are generally brilliant. And, I think Safari filled an important gap when it was released. But, now that there is a new open-source standard that is spreading like wild-fire, I think Apple could benefit from putting the clever Safari folks to use on bigger and better things (like new iApps.)

The internet benefits from standardization - FireFox is the first true opportunity for cross-platform standards. It's a very exciting movement.

[RacerX]

I highly doubt this :rolleyes:

Funny how you trivialize programming like its the easiest thing in the world to do. I am sure I can do whatever you do in 10 mins as well :eek:
I believe you can.

But to give you a little help, here (http://www.stone.com/dev/sWord/Introduction.html) was the tutorial I used for my first app which can be done in Mac OS X too, and here (http://www.stepwise.com/Articles/Technical/HTMLEditor/index.html) is the tutorial I used for my second app (you can find the Mac OS X version here (http://www.stepwise.com/Articles/HTMLEditorX/index.html)).

I would hope you are no worse than I at this, so I'm sure this should quiet those doubts of yours. :D

[jeremy.king]

By consolidating the number of browsers there are, you can guarantee the same web experience across the board for all web users.

Do you work for Microsoft? This has been their attitude for years.

Its not the number or browsers out there that are the problem, its the failure to support standards set forth by the W3C and related organizations.

[lem0nayde]

RacerX - have you used FireFox? It is far from a hand-me-down mediocre Windows program. It is a very well thought out, well implemented, beautifully designed internet browser. As I mentioned in a previous post - the Mac version actually has a slight edge on the Windows version in my opinion, so it wasn't a secondhand port. Of course they started with a Windows/Linux version - but considering the Macs market share, that is just an obvious move to get the most feedback for development improvements. The fact that the 1.0 release was available on Mac, Windows and Linux on the same day proves that it isn't an afterthought.

[jeremy.king]

I believe you can.

But to give you a little help, here (http://www.stone.com/dev/sWord/Introduction.html) was the tutorial I used for my first app which can be done in Mac OS X too, and here (http://www.stepwise.com/Articles/Technical/HTMLEditor/index.html) is the tutorial I used for my second app (you can find the Mac OS X version here (http://www.stepwise.com/Articles/HTMLEditorX/index.html)).

I would hope you are no worse than I at this, so I'm sure this should quiet those doubts of yours. :D

I believe you can COPY someone else work in 10 mins, that's easy ;)

[johnnyjibbs]

I use FireFox on PC, because it's better than IE, but I don't really see what all the fuss about it is. It works and it's nice and simple, but that doesn't mean it's completely secure or problem free.

I have FireFox installed on the Mac (just for curiosity) but I much prefer the Safari interface and the Apple finish you get with it. It's about the best looking brushed metal app and works on nearly every site I come across (I don't use internet banking). My only gripe with Safari is its occasional high processor useage and the fact that the toolbar is very uncustomisable and inconsistent with toolbars for other Mac OS X apps.

But FireFox does not use pretty form layouts or pull-down lists and is a little more clumsy to use on the Mac I feel. On PC, as I said, it's fine.

[lem0nayde]

Please, if I worked for Microsoft would I even be posting on this board? I'd more likely be trying to buy MacRumors so I can shut it down. :)

The major difference between Mozilla and Microsoft is that Mozilla is out to provide an excellent web surfing enviroment for all web users, where as Microsoft wanted to take over the internet by forcing people to use a browser that was built into their operating system for gain in marketshare and control. Huge difference.

I fully agree that website builders also have a responsibility to support W3C standards - and those that don't will be left behind. But having widespread adoption of an opensource, non-corporate driven, fantastic web browser that supports those same standards would help designers and users both get the same web experience across the board.

As a web designer and user, I'd like to see a joint movement against Microsoft to create web software that is open-source, anti-platform, much like the internet itself.

Joe

Do you work for Microsoft? This has been their attitude for years.

Its not the number or browsers out there that are the problem, its the failure to support standards set forth by the W3C and related organizations.

[jsw]

I like Safari. The latest fix removed my one complaint - it didn't work perfectly with one banking site.

Safari is standards-based. FireFox is standards-based. IE only pays lip service to standards. If FireFox succeeds in dethroning IE, we all win. Safari will open pages just as well as FireFox, and we'll all be happy.

I use FF on Windows. I use Safari on Macs; it's better-integrated and uses the Mac L&F more (easy, because FF doesn't use the Mac L&F at all). If FF comes up with compelling reasons for me to use it on my Mac (such as cool services that are available only for the FF platform), I'll use it too. I can afford the extra couple of MB to have both installed. In fact, I have both installed now - I just don't ever open up FF.

However, I strongly believe (but hope I'm wrong) that FF will end up supporting ActiveX, which means we'll still be 2nd-class net citizens on a lot of web content (people will still use ActiveX, we won't be able to use it, pages won't open, even in the Mac version of FF).

Edit: so, I disagree that Apple should discontinue Safari. It's a great browser, and FF is not yet as good. Faster in many cases, yes, and I like that, but not well integrated and not - like Netscape and Mozilla before it - likely to ever be well integrated.

[RacerX]

Beggers can't be choosers.
Who is begging? I've been using OmniWeb since version 2.0. I've watch browsers come and go and I'm still using OmniWeb.

So you can't expect someone to spend money to develop something that is mac specific.. when the returns they get might not even cover the costs of doing a good port of the software.
Apple made Safari, the Omni Group made OmniWeb, and now we have Shiira. We have a much more rich browser market on our little platform than most any other platform I know of.

Firefox is FREE, you expect them to go out of their way to make it perfect for you? bah, the reason behind it being open source is thata someone like YOU could go grab the source, and adapt it to OS X or whatever you want.
I have no problem with Firefox... and I have no problem not using it. You really are projecting more into my argument than is really there.

My problem is when people make a big production over something that is less than you can get with something else.

For example, how often is it said in the press that Opera is going to be coming out with the first voice activated browser? Is it the first? Didn't OmniWeb have voice control in at least 4.5 (released about a year and a half ago)? Why all the hype over Opera?

And why all the hype over Firefox?

We are all going to use what we are going to use, but lets keep it in perspective. We have no reason to go hat in hand to these people for a browser. They make a nice browser and a lot of people seem to like it. But we surely aren't begging for browsers on this platform. :rolleyes:

[RacerX]

I believe you can COPY someone else work in 10 mins, that's easy ;)
I would hope I could COPY in far less than 10 minutes, but I can redo what I've learned in about 10 minutes. :p

But maybe I was wrong about you being able to learn and do this stuff, specially if you seem to think that the only way to use tutorials is as something to copy from. :eek:

[jsw]

For example, how often is it said in the press that Opera is going to be coming out with the first voice activated browser? Is it the first?

Of course, anything can be voice-activated on the Mac. ;)

[RacerX]

RacerX - have you used FireFox?
Yes. But as I posted earlier, in order to use it I had to divorce myself from using most of the features and services that I have access to in Safari or OmniWeb.

Some people may like this browser (I thought it's rendering wasn't as good as OmniWeb/Safari), but not being able to work with MacJournal, Nisus Thesaurus, OmniDictionary, Mail, RBrowser, TextEdit or WebGrabber is a lot to ask for what I see as little or no advantages over Safari, and major disadvantages compared to OmniWeb.

As a consultant I'll carry it and set it up on people's systems (along with Netscape, OmniWeb, Camino, Shiira and Opera), but as a user and web designer, it just doesn't meet the standards that I've come to expect for the Mac platform.

But as has been pointed out (even by the developers themselves), it wasn't designed to.

[RacerX]

Of course, anything can be voice-activated on the Mac. ;)
Yeah, I see this type of preference panel in everything on a Mac. ;)

[wrldwzrd89]

My reasons why Firefox is no where near good enough for the Mac platform:

First off this is not a true Mac application. It is a port of an application designed for Windows... and it looks and acts like it.

Mac OS X provides any developer who takes the time to design a good Macintosh app many features that they won't have to create on their own from scratch.

For example... text and spelling services. I can write a Mac OS X text editor that uses these inside of 10 minutes. And I'm not even a developer!

So, why doesn't Firefox have this? Because it is designed for another operating system.

Small thing, color. Mac OS X provides all the colors you can think of for developers to use. OmniWeb makes use of Mac OS X's color service, why not Firefox?

And what about other services? Why can't I use MacJournal, Nisus Thesaurus, OmniDictionary, Mail, RBrowser, TextEdit or WebGrabber with this browser? Without having any more features than Firefox, Safari can take advantage of all these services because it is a Macintosh application. OmniWeb can take advantage of all these services because it is a Macintosh application.

This browser is good at looking at pages. But forget about actively working with internet content.

I have often said that in Mac OS X no application need stand alone. Firefox stands very much alone on my system... it may as well have been made by Microsoft for how Mac-like it is. I'm sure Firefox is one of the best browsers on Windows or Linux systems, but it sure falls way way short of what we should be expecting on a Macintosh.

This is (in my opinion) a perfect example of us getting second hand software. Applications written for our platform can do things that applications on no other platform can do. And yet we except hand-me-downs from other platforms with the limitations of those other platforms built right into the software. We shouldn't be having the same exact experience as on a PC, we should be having a far better experience because we aren't using a PC.

I haven't run across any pages I frequent that OmniWeb or Safari can't handle, and all those pages display better in OmniWeb and Safari than in Firefox.

If you are looking for less from your web experience, Firefox is the browser for you. If you are on a PC, Firefox is the browser for you. But if you are on a Mac, OmniWeb, Camino and Safari all take advantage of what makes Macs better than PCs.

Please don't lower our standards. We have more as Mac users, why settle for less.
RacerX - that's what Camino is for! Camino is basically Firefox in a Mac OS X mold. It takes advantage of Mac OS X-specific features and looks like a Mac application. It was probably designed for the very reasons you complain about Firefox. Personally, I'd like to see Safari stay around AND have Camino distributed with Mac OS X. Wouldn't that be the best of both worlds?

[vga4life]

Blah blah blah, Firefox rules, Safari drools.

*ahem* sorry.

Anyhow, yeah, all those Cocoa-licious services don't work in Firefox. Boo hoo.

You know what I like about Firefox? It works on every site I throw at it, rendering every page correctly. Safari? Not so much. Also, Safari's cookie management leaves a lot to be desired. Firefox lets me permit cookies on a per-site basis so I don't have to block all cookies just to block e.g. Google's nasty tracking cookie.

Look, I use Safari as my default browser too, but I regularly give thanks that Firefox has a decent Mac port.

edit: Oh yeah, and OmniWeb? It is to laugh. I've used OmniWeb since it was available for NEXTSTEP 3.3 and required a plug-in to support SSL. The phrases "Converting HTML to SGML" and "Converting SGML to RTF" still make my blood boil and cause me to instinctively look at my watch. It was nice to have a non-IE option in the early days, but Safari's light-years ahead now.

-vga4life

[timnosenzo]

Ahhh, the Safari vs. FireFox debate continues.

I use Safari almost exclusively, although I do have FireFox installed "just in case." IMHO, I think Safari display's most pages better than FireFox, and I like the UI on Safari better than FireFox. Using FireFox on my Mac makes me feel like I am using a PC, which sucks.

lem0nayde: If you think the brushed metal interface on Safari is tacky, you might want to try to get used to it because I think we're going to see more and more Apple apps sporting it (including Mail)...I think other software companies will probably follow suit.

My $0.02

-Tim

[jared_kipe]

What is the point? Aren't they pretty comparable? For one thing, all mac browsers have problems with certain websites, websites I can only open in VPC, and I will say this again, even if firefox could open these pages, I won't use it for anything beyond the occasional page or two.

People have been saying for a long time, no more safari, take firefox. Or no more ichat, use adium. Let people choose the software they want to use. Stop being a software missionary.

[zim]

Let people choose the software they want to use. Stop being a software missionary.

I agree with jared_kipe. Decide for yourself. Think one is better then the other? good for you :D

I personally feel that we should be thankful that there are options. Having options allows for us to make decisions. As long as the browsers support web standards and the developers play an active role in promoting web standards, then I am happy with who ever is making the browsers.

[RacerX]

edit: Oh yeah, and OmniWeb? It is to laugh. I've used OmniWeb since it was available for NEXTSTEP 3.3 and required a plug-in to support SSL. The phrases "Converting HTML to SGML" and "Converting SGML to RTF" still make my blood boil and cause me to instinctively look at my watch. It was nice to have a non-IE option in the early days, but Safari's light-years ahead now.
So the last time you used OmniWeb was in NEXTSTEP 3.3?

I would sure hope that Safari is light-years ahead now of OmniWeb 2.4/2.7b, but today OmniWeb 5.1 uses the same rendering engine as Safari 1.2, only OmniWeb 5.1 works with both Mac OS X 10.2 and 10.3 while Safari 1.2 only works with 10.3.

But just out of curiosity, where did you find the phrases "Converting HTML to SGML" and "Converting SGML to RTF"? I still use OPENSTEP (with OmniWeb 3.1) daily and haven't met up with those timeless (or time-stopping?) phrases.

[MisterMe]

Blah blah blah, Firefox rules, Safari drools.

*ahem* sorry.

Anyhow, yeah, all those Cocoa-licious services don't work in Firefox. Boo hoo.

You know what I like about Firefox? It works on every site I throw at it, rendering every page correctly. Safari? Not so much. Also, Safari's cookie management leaves a lot to be desired. Firefox lets me permit cookies on a per-site basis so I don't have to block all cookies just to block e.g. Google's nasty tracking cookie.

Look, I use Safari as my default browser too, but I regularly give thanks that Firefox has a decent Mac port.

edit: Oh yeah, and OmniWeb? It is to laugh. I've used OmniWeb since it was available for NEXTSTEP 3.3 and required a plug-in to support SSL. The phrases "Converting HTML to SGML" and "Converting SGML to RTF" still make my blood boil and cause me to instinctively look at my watch. It was nice to have a non-IE option in the early days, but Safari's light-years ahead now.

-vga4lifeYou used NeXTstep and don't like services? Are you sure? One thing is certain; you haven't used OmniWeb in years, if ever. Suffice it to say that I have never seen "Converting HTML to SGML" or "Converting SGML to RTF" on the MacOS X version of OmniWeb.

[budugu]

LET ME TELL YOU LOOK AND FEEL IS THE LEAST OF THE CONCERNS HERE. You can write java applications with a mac look and feel or a standardized java look and feel(and it just takes a second to build both in Xcode -just by setting a radio button)!

Since when java was introduced, it was cross-platform (GCD - greatest commom dinominator for you :D) and did not have a mac look and feel.. it should not be adopted by mac...why? because we are superior of some sort? Why does Xcode still give an option of java look and feel? Because a business application should not change the interface from platform to platform. And by going alone you are not going very far! may be you should first understand what are the concepts of a STANDARD

[budugu]

I agree with jared_kipe. Decide for yourself. Think one is better then the other? good for you :D

I personally feel that we should be thankful that there are options. Having options allows for us to make decisions. As long as the browsers support web standards and the developers play an active role in promoting web standards, then I am happy with who ever is making the browsers.

When developers, users etc.. start playing a role in promoting & DEVELOPING web standards ..thats when all these issues start! Making of standards is the latest thing (and btw it does make or break companies) ... it is good ... but the process of selecting whose technology to use gets dirty!!

[gopher]

If Apple does go Firefox, they'll have to find an easy way to convert their bookmarks over from XML to HTML. People are already syncing their bookmarks with their .Mac account. It is only going to cause confusion to have two different bookmark formats. I prefer HTML though since that is easier to reference from one browser to the next.

[Mord]

for me safari represents perfection, i have never had a gripe with it, ever.

it's simple it's fast it works.

if they changed to firefox i' much rather they just change the source code and not screw with the interface.

btw i'm useing safari 2.0 with 10.4 :P


firefox is fugly and when i use exposé it has a little box that appears from no where and for some reason firefox dose not work on my schools network. it's great for pc's but it's like running linux on a mac wtf is the point?

[thequicksilver]

I'm in 100% agreement that KHTML was a bad move for Apple, but believe without doubt that Safari should now continue on the path it's on.

In the 21 months since Safari came out, practically all sites have come up to speed with the idea of alternative browsers to IE existing. I rarely, if ever find any sites with compatibility issues, something I don't believe would have happened if Safari hadn't come out. Finally a major computer company stood up and pointed out that the web is not a Microsoft product, and people listened. With all respect, Mozilla/Netscape would not have achieved this in so short a time. Thanks in part to Apple, the use of a non IE browser has been legitimised.

That said, I've been a user of Firefox (via Phoenix and Firebird) since version 0.5, longer than I've used Safari for. The Windows version remains my favourite browser on any platform, and in truth, no Mac browser comes close to feeling as nice.

The port of Firefox to the Mac has been, in my eyes, very poorly handled. It still feels like a beta, despite hitting 1.0 not long ago. Apparently we're getting a version 1.1 - which will make it act better in an OS X environment - in a few months, but until then, I can't even consider using it full time. Oh, and it absolutely has to use backspace as the keystroke to move back a page. I can't be moved on that, cmd-left just doesn't cut it. :)

If Camino had conventionally sized menus and spell checking options (how did a Cocoa based app miss this out? As a non programmer, I'd been led to believe that this was one of the key benefits of Cocoa…) it'd be my first choice. As it stands, I'm stuck with Safari's inconsistent behaviour (and splendid interface) until Firefox 1.1.

But, to emphasise, no matter what 1.1 brings, Apple must continue with Safari as it is.

(Question must also be asked - with Firefox probably being up to 5% usage by the end of the month, would Mozilla want, or even need Apple to come on board? Just a thought.)

[RacerX]

LET ME TELL YOU LOOK AND FEEL IS THE LEAST OF THE CONCERNS HERE. You can write java applications with a mac look and feel or a standardized java look and feel(and it just takes a second to build both in Xcode -just by setting a radio button)!
This is well known, Apple originally made TextEdit out of Java to show it could be done and done well.

What is your point here?

Since when java was introduced, it was cross-platform (GCD - greatest commom dinominator for you :D) and did not have a mac look and feel.. it should not be adopted by mac...why? because we are superior of some sort? Why does Xcode still give an option of java look and feel? Because a business application should not change the interface from platform to platform. And by going alone you are not going very far! may be you should first understand what are the concepts of a STANDARD
Who's standards? Why? What business application?

I would point out that Xcode is designed to work with WebObjects which is (now) totally Java based, of course you should be able to use a standard Java interface, you would need that for the web. :eek:

We can at least work to make sure that the reason we use Macs is because they are better. If they are the same, why use them?

[vga4life]

You used NeXTstep and don't like services? Are you sure? One thing is certain; you haven't used OmniWeb in years, if ever. Suffice it to say that I have never seen "Converting HTML to SGML" or "Converting SGML to RTF" on the MacOS X version of OmniWeb.

I like services. I never said I didn't. Don't be a big jerk by trying to put words in my mouth. There are enough words there already, and you're already a jerk for getting that song stuck in my head. :)

"So take the hand of Mister Me and mister, make him glad to swim the Mister Misty Sea and cease the Mister Mystery that mister, made him sad!"

So the last time you used OmniWeb was in NEXTSTEP 3.3?

I would sure hope that Safari is light-years ahead now of OmniWeb 2.4/2.7b, but today OmniWeb 5.1 uses the same rendering engine as Safari 1.2, only OmniWeb 5.1 works with both Mac OS X 10.2 and 10.3 while Safari 1.2 only works with 10.3.


Me use OmniWeb long time. I was just ribbing you OmniWeb fanatics with my reference to the slowitude of OmniWeb 2.x. I know the latter-day OmniWeb uses KHTML like Safari. (Personally, that gives me even less reason to use it now.)

I love those Omni guys, I really do. I got a lot of use out of their NEXTSTEP apps over the years (not to mention plenty of fragging time in their DOOM ][ port). I just don't think OmniWeb is all that special now. By all means, keep using it if it floats your boat (or you're still using OpenStep).

All I was saying that I liked about Firefox was that it rendered more pages correctly and had better cookie management than Safari. The former still applies to OmniWeb. (To Omni's credit, cookie management in OmniWeb is pretty good.) I just don't see any need to pay for a web browser that's in any way inferior to one or more free alternatives. This is why I haven't been an Opera user for a long time, either.

edit: Oh yeah, and type-ahead find. I forgot to mention that, but it's unbeatable. It's the reason I use Firefox all day long at work. I miss it every time I use Safari.

But just out of curiosity, where did you find the phrases "Converting HTML to SGML" and "Converting SGML to RTF"? I still use OPENSTEP (with OmniWeb 3.1) daily and haven't met up with those timeless (or time-stopping?) phrases.

Omniweb 2.x. Be glad you never had to use it. I traded my NeXTStation TurboColor for a Playstation 2 last weekend, so I never have to see that again.

-vga4life

[MisterMe]

....

"So take the hand of Mister Me and mister, make him glad to swim the Mister Misty Sea and cease the Mister Mystery that mister, made him sad!"

Me use OmniWeb long time. I was just ribbing you OmniWeb fanatics with my reference to the slowitude of OmniWeb 2.x. I know the latter-day OmniWeb uses KHTML like Safari. (Personally, that gives me even less reason to use it now.)

....What are you? Twelve? Thirteen?

[hulugu]

I've been thinking about this a lot, as a web surfer and a web designer, and I really think that if Apple wants to do right thing in terms of customers and users - they should abandon Safari and replace it with FireFox.

My reasons:

1.) While I like Safari, FireFox has become my standard browser on both my Macs at home and my PC. While FireFox has some kinks that need to be worked out -- it is a fantastic browser.

2.) Since Firefox is an open source project, it falls right in line with Apple's embracing the Open Source community.

3.) By using Firefox, Apple will be offering a browser that offers the same exact experience on PC and Mac -- helping to build a new internet standard for web browsing.

4.) With Firefox picking up steam (quickly) and posing the first real threat to Internet Explorer in years, Apple should jump on board to help beat the crap out of Microsofts old, shriveled up browser. They would be joining the likes of AOL, Google (rumored), and the many individuals and corporations that are tired of the lack of security in I.E. and the garbage performance and are ready for something fresh.

5.) By embracing a browser already more widely used than Safari, Apple will be helping Mac users get the same internet experience as everyone else - instead of adding yet another browser that web developers have to specially test their site on (and most likely will not.)

This is a chance for Apple to really help take a stab at Microsoft. I think it would be the smart decision.

Joe


But, that's just what caused the whole IE debacle in the first place, one dominant browser. No, we want parallel development so new ideas can be easily tested.
However, the difference between FF and Safari are minimal for web-developers and this should just encourage everyone to follow standards rather than any particular implementation.
If anything, Apple could move the code from Konqueror-base to Mozilla and still have Safari, however see above.
As for interface, Safari I think is much better, however I would like to see something like the password implementation in Safari and I would like to see Safari's bookmark system intergrated into FF.

[Loge]

I have FireFox installed on the Mac (just for curiosity) but I much prefer the Safari interface and the Apple finish you get with it. It's about the best looking brushed metal app and works on nearly every site I come across (I don't use internet banking). My only gripe with Safari is its occasional high processor useage and the fact that the toolbar is very uncustomisable and inconsistent with toolbars for other Mac OS X apps.

Safari works fine for internet banking for me (though I can only speak for the one bank that I use :) ). Now, booking cinema tickets with Odeon, though, that is still IE only :mad:

[andiwm2003]

puh, when i read the title of this thread i thought safari is in danger. but fortunately there seem to be enough people around to support safari.

i like safari because its osX like, it's simple, stable,quick, displays all the websites i visit, i can reset it to get rid of those cookies (do I? :confused: ).

it's not to widely used so there are no people using its security leaks.

how can you say they should abandon it? i like it and i want to keep it. if you like firefox more, go ahaed and use it. but don't pretend you can decide what browser all other people should use!

my two cents, andi

[AmigoMac]

Maybe is a bit off topic but:

Does Camino use the same rendering engine version than Firefox?
I think yes but someone with a better experience can confirm this ;).

[vga4life]

What are you? Twelve? Thirteen?

Old enough to remember paying $3k for an Apple //e system with a duodisk, 80 column/128k aux slot card, green monitor, Grappler+ and an Epson FX-80 9 pin printer in 1984. Old enough to have prefered this setup vastly to using a VM/CMS timeshare at the local university. (Though I got back into that a few years later, dialing in to get on RELAY.)

Sorry if I offended you. I thought your name was a They Might Be Giants reference; They had a song on one of their early albums called Mister Me. You'd never forget it if you heard it.

-vga4life

[lem0nayde]

I think hulugu artfully altered my original point so that it makes more sense -- maybe Apple shouldn't drop Safari in favor of FireFox; but instead move Safari over to the Firefox/Mozilla codebase so that they can benefit from the tremendous amount of open source work being done for the platform. This allows Safari to be maintained as an Apple product, with an Apple GUI but be in line with the new wave of browsers in terms of compatibility.

Speaking of Apple GUI - someone mentioned that I had better get used to brushed metal. I'd like to just say - I know, though I'm still saddened by the choice on Apple's part. The new smooth metal look in 10.4 seems a bit more palatable, but I think the decision to go with that kind of tacky goo was a surprisingly bad one in the first place. It is cheap, and makes their products look skinned.

I guess the mainstream likes that look though, because it looks like they are taking it to the extreme with Dashboard and the new blue highlighting all over 10.4 (looks like XP to me - YUCK!!!)

Oh well, at least the operating system is AWESOME BEYOND BELIEF. I can ignore the graphics.

[RubberChicken]

...Basically instead of making browsers support webpages, the web pages should support standards so that they all follow the rules, not breaking a web browser so a page displays correctly. The developers of webpages need to make the change here not apple or firefox...

This is so important, if more weight had been put behind this concept from the beginning we would not be in this non-compliant mess right now.

[AmigoMac]

What's up with Camino, from what I understand it should be the same like firefox but with Mac OS X advantages (services & maybe other things) ... but there has no been update in a while, or not too many news about it. will they drop it?

[MisterMe]

What's up with Camino, from what I understand it should be the same like firefox but with Mac OS X advantages (services & maybe other things) ... but there has no been update in a while, or not too many news about it. will they drop it?Camino, FireFox, Mozilla, and Netscape are all Gecko-based browsers. I have them all, but I use Camino for my everyday browsing. Quite frankly, I can't get into the FireFox hype. How can anyone in 2004--soon to be 2005--promote a browser that doesn't fully support favicons? My guess is the hype comes from Windows users who are looking for a respite from the clutches of Bill and are easily impressed. More power to them, but I can do better.

[dubbz]

Quite frankly, I can't get into the FireFox hype. How can anyone in 2004--soon to be 2005--promote a browser that doesn't fully support favicons?

You're joking, right?

[wrldwzrd89]

Quite frankly, I can't get into the FireFox hype. How can anyone in 2004--soon to be 2005--promote a browser that doesn't fully support favicons?
How could you say such a thing, MisterMe? Favicons are insignificant when compared to all the other features and benefits of Firefox - the extensions alone make Firefox extremely powerful (and far more secure than IE's ActiveX implementation of browser extensions).

[timnosenzo]

How can anyone in 2004--soon to be 2005--promote a browser that doesn't fully support favicons?
What the hell is a "favicon"?? :confused:

[wrldwzrd89]

What the hell is a "favicon"?? :confused:
Look in the address bar of your browser. See the little icon to the left of the location/URL? That's a favicon, and web site developers can customize it by including a tag in their pages. It's short for "favorite icon", and it's used as a means of identifying sites in your bookmarks/favorites list.

[SpaceMagic]

I highly doubt this :rolleyes:

Funny how you trivialize programming like its the easiest thing in the world to do. I am sure I can do whatever you do in 10 mins as well :eek:

Don't doubt this. Its easy - all built into OS

[wrldwzrd89]

Don't doubt this. Its easy - all built into OS
It's even easier if you use AppleScript Studio where possible. You wouldn't believe what you can accomplish in Mac OS X with pure AppleScript.

[MisterMe]

How could you say such a thing, MisterMe? Favicons are insignificant when compared to all the other features and benefits of Firefox - the extensions alone make Firefox extremely powerful (and far more secure than IE's ActiveX implementation of browser extensions).I am dead serious. Camino and Safari each do a wonderful job with favicons. I use Windows only when I have to, so I cannot care less about ActiveX or its insecurities. I also use IE only when I have to. And by the way, IE does not fully support favicons, at least not on my copy of WinXP SP2.

[wrldwzrd89]

I am dead serious. Camino and Safari each do a wonderful job with favicons. I use Windows only when I have to, so I cannot care less about ActiveX or its insecurities. I also use IE only when I have to. And by the way, IE does not fully support favicons, at least not on my copy of WinXP SP2.
If you mean favicons in formats other than .ICO, there aren't too many browsers that support this - IE for Windows being one of the many that doesn't, as you said. Safari's handling of favicons is great, I'd agree. No comment on Camino, as I haven't used it in a while.

[Punani]

Going with KHTML over Gecko was really dumb.
Nice one Apple. I bet you have about 1000 rationalizations for that bad decision!KHTML:
virtual void layout();

Gecko:
NS_IMETHOD Reflow(nsIPresContext* aPresContext, nsHTMLReflowMetrics& aMetrics, const nsHTMLReflowState& aReflowState, nsReflowStatus& aStatus);

[savar]

I highly doubt this :rolleyes:

Funny how you trivialize programming like its the easiest thing in the world to do. I am sure I can do whatever you do in 10 mins as well :eek:

Actually, as a Cocoa developer I can tell you that its true. You won't write MS Word in 10 minutes (and thank god for that!) but you can actually write an application like SimpleText in about as long. Of course you're not really writing more than a few lines of code, most of the work is point and click and naming different things. Some Cocoa tutorial books actually have a text-editor as a demo project.

You can also write a web browser now in 10 minutes or less, since Apple has spun off Safari's main rendering software into a Cocoa framework which is designed for no-muss.

http://www.cocoadevcentral.com/articles/000077.php

[jeremy.king]

Actually, as a Cocoa developer I can tell you that its true. You won't write MS Word in 10 minutes (and thank god for that!) but you can actually write an application like SimpleText in about as long. Of course you're not really writing more than a few lines of code, most of the work is point and click and naming different things. Some Cocoa tutorial books actually have a text-editor as a demo project.

You can also write a web browser now in 10 minutes or less, since Apple has spun off Safari's main rendering software into a Cocoa framework which is designed for no-muss.

http://www.cocoadevcentral.com/articles/000077.php

Im well aware of whats available to a developer when writing a program for OS X.

But statement's like "it's not that hard" and "I can do it in 10 mins, and I am not a developer" (paraphrasing here) get under my skin. People seem to want to think that developing a program, for any platform for that matter, is easy and everyone and their sister can do it. Sort of like these 15 year olds nowadays with a copy of Frontpage or Dreamweaver who call themselves web developers. The art of programming takes time (as in years) and commitment to perfect, and it helps if you can think logically and problem solve. Dont trivialize my profession.

So if writing apps for OS X is so trivial, then why isn't everyone doing it?

[slooksterPSV]

In response to the first thread here I go:
To be honest I use Safari a lot more than I do IE or FF. Safari is faster, it has Google integrated (yes FF does too). Read specs on my mac, of course Safari runs faster. Even at school on the G5's I use Safari a lot more. It can do tabbed browsing that IE can't, but FF does.

Don't get me wrong I love FireFox, but Apple needs something that is theirs and only theirs. IE is Micro$lut and FF is a part of the Mozilla Project and finally Apple has Safari. The internet is like a Safari too in that there is so many things to see out there on the inet.

[Counterfit]

KHTML:
virtual void layout();

Gecko:
NS_IMETHOD Reflow(nsIPresContext* aPresContext, nsHTMLReflowMetrics& aMetrics, const nsHTMLReflowState& aReflowState, nsReflowStatus& aStatus); Can you translate that for those of us who can't speak (C++/Objective-C/whatever that is)?

[RacerX]

But statement's like "it's not that hard" and "I can do it in 10 mins, and I am not a developer" (paraphrasing here) get under my skin. People seem to want to think that developing a program, for any platform for that matter, is easy and everyone and their sister can do it. Sort of like these 15 year olds nowadays with a copy of Frontpage or Dreamweaver who call themselves web developers. The art of programming takes time (as in years) and commitment to perfect, and it helps if you can think logically and problem solve. Dont trivialize my profession.
So that was the foundation of your antisocial behavior?

I highly doubt any (normal) developer would take my comment as trivializing their profession. A lot of my friends are developers (who happen to use Cocoa).

So if writing apps for OS X is so trivial, then why isn't everyone doing it?
At one point most people who used Mac OS X had to. I still use Rhapsody and wrote a few apps to solve my problems. I couldn't go searching Version Tracker as there was almost no users (it wasn't released to the general public) so there were almost no apps. When I needed things beyond what I could make I would ask someone else if they could make it. Same thing when using Mac OS X DP 3, 4, Public Beta and even 10.0/10.1.

These days, most anything you can think of (at least in my range of abilities) can be found for Mac OS X much easier than making it myself.

:rolleyes:

Still, you should work on playing nicer with others. Nothing I said should have gotten under your skin, and if it did it is really a problem you should have kept to yourself. :eek:

[slooksterPSV]

The KHTML is just calling for the pure layout function.

Here is an example: I'm going to create 2 classes and you'll see what overrides what: (the c / c++ coding is incorrect, but I'm trying to hurry through this.

#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

class abc
{
public:
virtual void layout() { cout << "HEllo Layout 1"; }
};

class def : public abc
{
public:
void layout() { cout << "I'm layout 2"; }
};

int main()
{
abc *ab, *de;
ab = new abc;
de = new def;
ab->layout();
de->layout();
cin.get();
return 0;
}

OUTPUT:

Hello Layout 1
I'm layout 2

(actually it would be)
Hello Layout 1I'm layout 2

See how I invoked them as Window? Well it actually calls the base functions function, now if I take out virtual it won't work like I show it above.

[devwild]

My 2 or 3 cents:

I use firefox because 1) It has the best tabbed browsing system of any browser I have used, and that has addicted me to Firefox. Downside on OSX, I have to recompile with the middle-click patch to match my usage on other platforms. This should become official in 1.1 (do a search on bugzilla) 2) It is relatively consistant across several platforms, which I use.

To address the OSX "port". You are due to get your head chopped off if you call it a windows app around gecko/mozilla developers -- giant chunk of them are open source advocates running Linux/BSD (and even, yes, OSX). None of the ports are perfect. The Windows port has some issues where it doesn't even use Windows' URI system consistantly, causing some big problems in certain Windows domain environments (tries to write a profile in one place and read it from another, I've had to set up workarounds for this myself). If it could be considered ready for corporate use on any platform, it would be Linux.

Admittedly, the OSX port suffers from some serious oversights of what makes an OSX application (the middle click patch is actually an example, using the OS for mouse handling). This comes from certain development practices and choices that were poor, but due to us, there are active bugzilla tickets for every issue I've seen. Just give it a bit more time. In the meantime, the app is very very usable, and better than most open source projects I've used on OSX (VLC? MPlayer? I use them all the time but they have some serious issues interface-wise)

All this said. I think Apple should stick with Safari. KHTML is an awesome and slim rendering engine, and if I had a choice for the "integrated" engine of OSX, that would be it. Also, the competition is great. it helps push the firefox team to do things right, while making the KHTML engine breach the performance and capabilities of IE and Firefox on *all* platforms thanks to Apple's contributions.

[AHDuke99]

I like em both, I use safari more since it feels more mac-like, where as firefox feels like a windows app on a mac computer. it also annoys me when firefox always drops below the dock and i can't resize the window :P

i'd use it more if this one thing was fixed

[broken_keyboard]

KHTML:
virtual void layout();

Gecko:
NS_IMETHOD Reflow(nsIPresContext* aPresContext, nsHTMLReflowMetrics& aMetrics, const nsHTMLReflowState& aReflowState, nsReflowStatus& aStatus);


I stand corrected. 1001 rationalizations :)