Apple should abandon Safari, embrace FireFox.

[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

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.

-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.

 

[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 ) 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

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


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 ) 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.

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

 

[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? ).

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).