Ehh no. FF has way too many awkward keyboard shortcuts that are not integrated to the rest of the OS, whereas Safari is simple. cmd+t for tab, cmd+q for quit and so on. Safari executes JS much faster, you've seriously got to be kidding me.
Both "easy shortcuts that safari has" that you mentioned are exactly the same with the exact same functionality in Firefox. That's the weakest argument ever.
Also, it's pretty weak using the Acid3 tests as proof. The current public release of Safari does NOT pass the Acid3 test, you're using webkit, which does, great, but that isn't 'current safari' - comparing a mainstream to a beta (or even 2 betas for that matter) is a complete waste of time.
Also, not sure where you're getting "firefox is jerky" 'n such from. That's a personal problem for you and your computer. The rest of the world uses firefox without the jerkiness.
You say to use facts, but the only argument you have that uses any fair grounding is that "firefox is jerky" which in and of itself is an opinion which doesn't mean jack ****.
I'm not defending firefox, honestly, I just hate the way your arguments suck so badly. Yeah, WEBKIT passed the Acid3, not the curr release of safari, everything else is all opinion, and as for shortcuts, the ones you mentioned are exactly the same in firefox.
Me? I use webkit - why? It passes the Acid3, and that's pretty much all I care about, I use my own personal PHP bookmark keeper/organizer that I made, I don't use history, I don't let browsers remember my passwords, and I can't care less what "add-ons" it has. Though in linux I use firefox and have no issues with it.
My only real beef with Safari is two things:
A) If you're an apple fan boy, you will swear by it without any kind of solid or factual proof what-so-ever (though I guess that's just the nature of the beast)
B) WHY, in apple's infinite (pretty damn finite if you're not an end user) did they deem that safari/webkit doesn't need to have a "don't remember any history" option in preferences? The only way to stop it from remembering **** is to lock the damn history files while they're empty...that's pathetic.
Aside from those 2 things, the first of which I guess isn't safari's fault, I have no beef with it. Though on the flipside, I don't have a beef with firefox, either.
- Huge apple fan boys will always swear by safari, regardless of how good or bad it is.
- Huge trenders will always swear by firefox, regardless of how good or bad it is.
In terms of an actual browser, negating that webkit passes the acid3 because it's a beta, the facts are as follows:
- Both score approximately the same on the Acid3 (web compliance) test.
- Safari executes JS a bit faster, but not to the point where you're going to notice "an entirely new web experience"
- Both use and manage add-ons fine.
- Both manage their history and favorites fine.
- With the exception of outsiders (of the norm) who have bad experiences with one, they both run the same in terms of how smooth they browse.
So after all that it pretty much becomes an argument over opinion, which makes it pretty damn useless to begin with as opinions are like *******s, everybody has one, and they aren't all the same, and there's no reason to try and make them so.
Also, another interesting thing is that safari vs firefox is for OS X which is like 10% of the computer using population ONLY, if you take firefox and safari as a whole, then most common linux distributions use firefox (or some variation of the gecko base such as ice wiesel), and firefox on windows is a lot higher of a percentage used than safari for windows.
So in the end firefox has a lot larger user base in general due to it being tri-platform where safari has 2 of the 3, and 1 of which is dominated by firefox (windows) over safari (excluding IE).
This thread kinda blows, I'm kind of sorry I subscribed to it. You can't debate opinion, and that's all that is happening here.
