Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple should abandon Safari, embrace FireFox.
- Thread starter lem0nayde
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.nosen said:What the hell is a "favicon"??
kingjr3 said:I highly doubt this
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
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.SpaceMagic said:
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 said:
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.MisterMe said:
KHTML:broken_keyboard said:
virtual void layout();
Gecko:
NS_IMETHOD Reflow(nsIPresContext* aPresContext, nsHTMLReflowMetrics& aMetrics, const nsHTMLReflowState& aReflowState, nsReflowStatus& aStatus);
kingjr3 said:I highly doubt this
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
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
savar said:
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?
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.
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.
Can you translate that for those of us who can't speak (C++/Objective-C/whatever that is)?Punani said:
So that was the foundation of your antisocial behavior?kingjr3 said:
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
i'd use it more if this one thing was fixed
i'd use it more if this one thing was fixed
