Firefox For Mac Gets Updated With Retina Support

[Risco]

Originally Posted by somethingelsefl

oh...my...god. Hilarious. That's one of the the most hilarious things i've seen on mr in years!

rotfl!

[StrudelTurnover]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

Development of extensions is also way easier on chrome and safari (at least in my own experience).

How 'bout you make me a Chrome extension that lets me move where the reload button sits in the toolbar?
Can't? Awhh.
It's a good thing one UI works perfectly for all humans.
Oh, it doesn't? Awhh.

Originally Posted by rmwebs

The fact that Chrome, a much newer browser has overtaken Firefox in terms of user share, in a much shorter timeframe says a lot.

It says a lot about Google's marketing power. It doesn't say much about having made a better tool. By user share logic, Windows is clearly a superior product, especially XP. Also the browser market share numbers differ depending on the source. It's not an exact science.

Firefox made a heavy dent in IE around the time they got full page ads in the New York Times.
Visit any Google site (search, Youtube, Docs/Drive, etc.) with a user-agent other than Chrome, and you will see top-placement links and ads suggesting that Chrome will run faster and better. And it certainly does for Google sites... which a whole lot of people use... hmmmmm. This might be a rare exception to correlation is not causation. Marketing is funny like that.

Originally Posted by rmwebs

Also the fact that Firefox moved from a 'long' release cycle to a more regular release cycle (the same as Chrome) just makes it more evident that Chrome took them by surprise.

Yup, but again it's marketing. Firefox 18 will still have the same WONTFIX bugs that Firefox 2 had.

As for iOS, Mozilla doesn't want to build a webkit wrapper. Google is willing to be slower than Safari for more mindshare.

[A Hebrew]

I haven't used Firefox since 4...amazing what version it is on already

[Watabou]

Originally Posted by trunten

I don't really care to look at memory usage much but you claim shocked me so I've opened 3 tabs in safari and checked activity monitor. I think something may be wrong with your safari because your 2GB+ figure is way off. 238.2mb for me

Hmm, maybe but other people are having issues with Safari eating memory too though. I also have a bunch of plugins that I use. I could disable all of them but then what would be the point? I would get less memory and similar speed with Firefox with 10+ extensions installed.

As an example, here is my Safari with 8 tabs open and it's taking up 2GB of memory.

[eyehop]

Oh good, now I will be able to see very clearly how much the Firefox UI sucks.

[Mr. Retrofire]

Originally Posted by Makosuke

Surprisingly enough, a few do, though it's getting increasingly hard to see why.

Safari is slow, if you open a few dozen tabs and requires large amounts of RAM. Firefox can display the same pages and uses less resources.

----------

Originally Posted by MBPr15

I've used Firefox on OSX for years with no issues. Maybe my needs aren't the same as others, but its been just fine on my retina laptop.

I would very much like to hear what specifically chrome does better.

Spying.

----------

Originally Posted by deannnnn

You don't "trust" Chrome?

I don't get why people freak out about Google having a little bit of information about us. They're a reputable company so they're obviously never going to try to use that info to harm us in any way. And it's not like there are specific people watching over what you do, it's all stored in their system to help make your Google experience better.

The only reason that I can think of to worry about Google is if you're doing illegal things online. If that's the case then you shouldn't use Firefox, you should stop doing illegal things.

That is very naive.

[Chupa Chupa]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

Thats not what "official" descriptions of the word would say, even from U.S. sites. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=de...hrome&ie=UTF-8

That definition is wrong. Sorry. Check out the Wikipedia page here. I usually resist referring people to Wikipedia but their entry here is accurate. Hipsters are the modern day "hippie."

[rmwebs]

Originally Posted by Mr. Retrofire

Spying.

Care to provide evidence, or are you happy to agree that thats 100% FUD.

[John.B]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

Care to provide evidence, or are you happy to agree that thats 100% FUD.

Google overrode third party cookie preference settings for Safari and IE users to gain additional ad revenue. That's all the "evidence" many people are ever going to need. Trust matters.

[tevion5]

Safari surprisingly scores the best in Javascript benchmarks but in my opinion, as long as your not using Internet Explorer, your doing fine.

[rmwebs]

Originally Posted by John.B

Google overrode third party cookie preference settings for Safari and IE users to gain additional ad revenue. That's all the "evidence" many people are ever going to need. Trust matters.

Yes thats wonderful, we all already knew about that.

Now. How about you actually back up what you said about Google Chrome and Spying.

Also FYI the Safari cookie bypass is not spying. Its enabling a cookie to track an anonymous id to show related adverts. Get real - there's not some sad gimp sitting in Mountain view watching your every move.

[Rodimus Prime]

Originally Posted by John.B

Google overrode third party cookie preference settings for Safari and IE users to gain additional ad revenue. That's all the "evidence" many people are ever going to need. Trust matters.

Post above me cover a good part of it.
Also you need to understand software development works. The media makes it a bigger deal out of it that it really was. It only takes 1 developer who might of missed a line of code in a check (simple as an if (Not Private....) Make cookie.

They designed it based on Chrome. Chrome and Safari used different things. Or Chrome still blocked things and Safari did not. It past the test because Chrome had the fall back so the error was never reported.

They fix it as soon as they found it and quickly disabled the code. Chance are it was a hack fix to buy time then they went in and did it correctly later.

[John.B]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

Yes thats wonderful, we all already knew about that.

Now. How about you actually back up what you said about Google Chrome and Spying.

How about you actually show me where I said that?

:shakeshead:

Originally Posted by rmwebs

Also FYI the Safari cookie bypass is not spying. Its enabling a cookie to track an anonymous id to show related adverts. Get real - there's not some sad gimp sitting in Mountain view watching your every move.

Trust is a delicate thing. If Google can't be bothered to honor privacy settings for Safari or IE users (for monetary gain or sloppy coding or whatever other reason), why would anyone trust the integrity of a browser they themselves developed?

[Rodimus Prime]

Originally Posted by John.B

Trust is a delicate thing. If Google can't be bothered to honor privacy settings for Safari or IE users (for monetary gain or sloppy coding or whatever other reason), why would anyone trust the integrity of a browser they themselves developed?

Go learn how to code and work on a software team. You will quickly find out how very embarrassing mistakes can slip threw the cracks. When the QA department does test they test common set up. Chances are the testing was done in Chrome/FF
Both of which do not allow that by pass.
It also speaks volumes about the security (or lack their of) on safari that it was so easily by passed. Safari should not be letting it happen either and Apple needs to patch Safari. Why would you trust Apple with security if they let such a simple thing be by passed so easily...........

[rmwebs]

Originally Posted by John.B

How about you actually show me where I said that?

I'll apologise for that - I thought it was you who made the post however it was 'Mr. Retrofire'

Originally Posted by John.B

Trust is a delicate thing. If Google can't be bothered to honor privacy settings for Safari or IE users (for monetary gain or sloppy coding or whatever other reason), why would anyone trust the integrity of a browser they themselves developed?

Really your trust issues should be with Apple here. They are the ones that let the bug exist, and knew about it for a hell of a long time before even acknowledging it was there.

Also the fact that this only happened in Safari shows that it was in fact a bug on Google's end as well, otherwise similar issues would have been present on Firefox, Chrome, etc.

[John.B]

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

Go learn how to code and work on a software team. You will quickly find out how very embarrassing mistakes can slip threw the cracks. When the QA department does test they test common set up. Chances are the testing was done in Chrome/FF

According to the Wired.com story I linked to, it was an intentional "workaround" to allow their "+1" links to report ad hits via Adsense:

Originally Posted by Wired.com

Safari blocks the sites that power those services from setting or reading cookies, so a Facebook widget on a third-party site, for instance, can’t tell if you are logged in, so it can’t load a personalized widget. Google, along with a number of ad servers, were caught by Mayer avoiding this block, using a loophole in Safari that lets third parties set cookies if the browser thinks you are filling out an online form. (See a good technical overview here.)

Google’s rationale seems to be that Apple’s default settings don’t adhere to standard web practices and don’t actually reflect what users want, since the browser never asks users if that’s the privacy setting they want. Facebook even goes so far as to suggest to outside developers that getting around the block is a “best practice,” linking to a developer’s blog post from 2010 that includes sample code on how to circumvent the block.

Google said it used the backdoor so that it could place +1 buttons on ads it places around the web via its Adsense program, so that logged-in Google+ users could press the button to share an ad. Without the work-around, the button wouldn’t be able to tell Google which Google account to link the button to.

Make up whatever sad "poor overworked Google coder" story you want, but the facts don't support your claims. Google didn't like how Apple (and Microsoft) prevented Google from acquiring valuable tracking information for their revenue-generating Adsense program, so they intentionally coded around it. Why would anyone trust Chrome to honor privacy settings in light of this behavior?

[Rodimus Prime]

Originally Posted by John.B

Make up whatever sad "poor overworked Google coder" story you want, but the facts don't support your claims. Google didn't like how Apple (and Microsoft) prevented Google from acquiring valuable tracking information for their revenue-generating Adsense program, so they intentionally coded around it. Why would anyone trust Chrome to honor privacy settings in light of this behavior?

And again goes back to one coder does it. Over worked or not. One coder did it thinking it was a good move. QA at any software company is generally MASSIVELY over worked and under staffed. They are the last to get anything and any delays are taken out of their time to test stuff.

If the test cases did not look for that not going to be found.
I know of several examples from where I work. No one caught it until it happened and then we did a rush job to fix it/buy time.

It slip threw. Plan and simple.
You are also giving Apple a free pass on the fact that they let this happen as well. The fact that it requires trusting a third party at all to honor a request is a major flaw.

[Quirinus]

Originally Posted by SpiderDude

Is that PornHub that you have opened on another tab?
LMAO

LOL priceless. Thank you for this .

[Makosuke]

Originally Posted by Mr. Retrofire

Safari is slow, if you open a few dozen tabs and requires large amounts of RAM. Firefox can display the same pages and uses less resources.[COLOR="#808080"]

It's funny that that's your experience; mine has been the exact opposite. As I said, I use Safari regularly and Firefox occasionally, but one of the reasons I don't even consider Firefox as an option for a primary browser is that it's so damn slow once you have a few windows or tabs open.

Perhaps it has to do with the sites I'm pointing it at, but right now I have 14 onscreen active windows open in Safari, a few of which have more than one tab in them, and another 14 minimized windows, and it is using 1.36GB of private memory, and feels perfectly responsive.

Firefox has it's preference window and 5 minimized windows (3 of which have been closed since launch, so they never even loaded the content--they're white in the preview icon), and it's already at about 500MB. And I recently had to quit and re-open it because it was jittering and lagging so badly with about 8 tabs in two windows open I couldn't use it; when I looked, it was well over 1GB of RAM at that point.

I'm not saying that this is your experience--it obviously isn't. But for me, at least since Lion, Safari has been unquestionably faster, and generally uses less RAM as well. It's still RAM hungry, but I have 16GB, so I don't mind that at all, so long as it works well.

[JGRE]

Originally Posted by Outkast27

why does it stink?

It is sssssssllllllllllllllllooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwww as hell

[iDuel]

Originally Posted by runeapple

I really hope your joking - OmniWeb, Roccat, Stainless, iCab, Sunrise... Blah blah blah etc. etc.

The post I quoted stated that Camino was the only browser made specifically for OSX in which I replied that Safari was also made for OSX. I don't know where your post came from.

[runeapple]

Originally Posted by iDuel

The post I quoted stated that Camino was the only browser made specifically for OSX in which I replied that Safari was also made for OSX. I don't know where your post came from.

You're right sir, I was supposed to have quoted the person you quoted. My bad!