Well, you may want to educate yourself about it then before you go ranting about a feature you think Safari needs when it already has it.
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.
Firefox vs. Safari
- Thread starter SnowLeopard2008
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What I complained about was the use of the term "FANBOY" which is insulting in MY CULTURE. I could use the terms Fa.....t or Fu.....P....r to insult all the Americans on here who's opinions differ from mine and use a defence that "hey it means nothing over here and how am I to know".
A few people need to stop using personal remarks about other posters.
I'm trying to figure out why load time matters to anyone. Firefox "bounces" about twice as much as Safari for me (due to some indispensable add-ons I guess), but it isn't like I have to restart the program 11 million times a week. I boot up, open Firefox, and it stays open until the next time I have to reboot, whether that is 3 days or 3 months into the future.
Maybe I'm being simplistic here and don't understand everything, but if a program takes too long to open (as if 5 seconds is "too long,") then just don't close it! Macs can handle that, right? There are a lot of valid arguments pro and against both browsers, but I think the load time gambit is grasping at straws.
Everyone should just be happy that we have so many great choices to choose from in Mac land. I use Firefox, Safari, Opera, and OmniWeb, and they are all fantastic in their own way. I can fully understand why a user would make any of these their primary browser, because they are all great! Which one you choose as your favorite is non of my business. Just don't try to tell me that your choice is better than mine.
Maybe I'm being simplistic here and don't understand everything, but if a program takes too long to open (as if 5 seconds is "too long,") then just don't close it! Macs can handle that, right? There are a lot of valid arguments pro and against both browsers, but I think the load time gambit is grasping at straws.
Everyone should just be happy that we have so many great choices to choose from in Mac land. I use Firefox, Safari, Opera, and OmniWeb, and they are all fantastic in their own way. I can fully understand why a user would make any of these their primary browser, because they are all great! Which one you choose as your favorite is non of my business. Just don't try to tell me that your choice is better than mine.
Sorry - this is nonsense.
Webkit broke nothing to be acid3 compliant.
But you can criticize how they reached these 100 points.
Read for example:
http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2008/03/27/acid-redux/
one extract:
"For example, suppose I told you that WebKit had implemented just the bits of SMIL-related SVG needed to pass the test, and that in doing so they exposed a woefully incomplete SVG implementation, one that gets something like 2% pass rates on actual SMIL/SVG tests. Laughable, right?"
Firefox is a handy Browser to have on the Mac
As i have seen some applications on websites only work with IE (windows) and FF
So its nice to have both
Safari overall my favorite, followed by Omniweb
As i have seen some applications on websites only work with IE (windows) and FF
So its nice to have both
Safari overall my favorite, followed by Omniweb
Firefox is kind of crummy all around, and not a very good Mac citizen. It uses it's own set of ugly and befuddling widgets that just make it rough around the edges. With the speed and design of Safari 4 ( and frankly Safari 3) I don't ever have a reason to use Firefox.
I find it a bit funny that most safari users dont use firefox because it doesnt "look like a mac app."
I dont care if an app blends in with other apps, i just know that firefox's extensions cant be paralleled on any other browser at the moment.
I dont care if an app blends in with other apps, i just know that firefox's extensions cant be paralleled on any other browser at the moment.
There is not one browser with native widgets. Even Apple use special widgets for Safari. Native widgets have not enough possibilities for a web browser.
---
But Firefox 3.5 will have much improved widgets as well. Besides an endless list of other special Mac improvements.
Here is for example a screen-shot of one of my next GrApple themes for Firefox 3.5.
http://www.takebacktheweb.org/themes/stuff/FF-example.png
Completely rebuild around countless new possibilities and they have really not much in common with the old Firefox 3.0 themes (the same naturally with the default theme) ;-)
The whole look and feel from Firefox 3.5 is even much improved.
Alot of people dont use them because they dont know they exist. I put firefox on my moms laptop for her and she liked it but had no addons at all. I showed her the addon page at mozilla and she was just amazed that one browser could be tailored to do exactly what she needs and nothing else.
Really? I don't think so.
for example:
http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/2008/11/19/1-billion-add-on-downloads/
.. we served our 1 billionth add-on download since we started keeping track of downloads in 2005.
.. At 1.5 million add-on downloads per day and increasing, ..
i do not understand how this woefully incorrect information are still being brought up? again and again, years after being pointed out?
like people mentioned above, safari's widget are individually drew as well. There is NO browsers on mac that uses native widgets.
You may need to educate yourself on attempting to understand somebody else's point before trying to form a rebuttal.
There is a major difference between private browsing and "not remembering history" - you're probably confused at this point, so I'll explain it to you:
I'd like to turn it on as a preference, as it's there and the same every time you start safari. With private browsing you need to initialize it every time you start the browser, that's just a pain in my ass and something I'm likely to forget. Then, if I do forget it, I have to clear out the history manually because I don't like it remembering things for me.
I mean editing the flags so safari is unable to edit the file where the history is stored works fine for me, but it shouldn't have to go to that level, it should be accessible to an end user. The combined user base of Firefox, Opera, and IE is MUCH greater than the user base for safari, each one of those browsers has the ability to turn off remembering history in the preferences, so why can't Safari? There's no legit reason for it, it's just something apple in their not-so-infinite wisdom "decided people didn't need to change."
If your culture insides with that of people who swear by apple's products and absent-mindedly create opinion based "facts" (usually) without using other similar non-apple products for an extensive amount of time, then yes, you coincide with my definition of a fanboy, and I will refer to you as so.
Yeah, you have a good point here. I was actually thinking about that earlier, as I rarely close my web browser(s), but I felt I'd just get some stupid rebuttal claiming "I should have the ability to close my browser and open it quickly again in a short amount of time!!" - so I didn't bother. Though you're right, most people here have macbooks, macbook pros, iMacs, Mac Pros etc. which have at least an intel core 2 duo and more importantly 2 or more GB of RAM, so you can leave any browser open without memory leaks.
It seems like a non-sense post because you mis-understood it.
You obviously know way more about "the facts" than you do about actual experience, or you wouldn't be making that statement, so I'll fill you in.
Yes, passing the acid3 claims 100% web compliance. This usually hurts end users. How are you going to ask? Because people don't code web pages to work at 100% web compliant levels, they just don't do it. They do it to work with the 2 most common browsers, which are IE (which has like a 20 on the acid3) and more recently FF which still doesn't pass the acid3, then maybe, possibly, if they have time, they make sure it looks okay in Safari. Seeing as the most common browsers AREN'T acid3 compliant, and a good chunk of sites are tailored more for those browsers than they are for web compliancy, then some web sites actually don't show up right.
You can try to counter this all day, but it comes down to one simple fact. There's a bunch of (little) glitches I've noticed using the 100% web compliant latest build of webkit with safari that don't show up in the not 100% web compliant firefox and safari.
Summary:
It's simply a matter of "doing what is right" (web compliance) versus "doing what people do" which is code for compliance on popular browsers.
Passing the acid3 test claims only = passing the acid3 ;-)
You should read likely something about the Internet Explorer 8 changes and why they want (for the first time) really support web-standards.
And you talk about current web coding problems, but only web-standards are the solutions to prevent such web site problems.
Even Microsoft understand this newly and it is time for you to do the same ;-)
Cheers
I don't really wish to debate this - to each their own. Perhaps it was the phrasing of 'native widgets' that I had wrong, or not, I don't know. My reason still stands, that being FF form controls make my browsing experience feel a little too windowsy for my taste.
thats fine, i have no problem with you having problem with the shape of things in the webpage, somebody previously mentioned that the curve of firefox's urlbar are bad too.
But I do hope we can get this issue over, that safari's form control is not native. its not using system wide objects.
Just to add a few things...
Firefox takes longer to load, but it uses a lot less RAM than Safari grows to.
Keeping on a similar theme, but does anyone else not like the direction Apple are taking Safari in version 4? They add another process to collect your webpage previews (which uses quite a bit of CPU when it's doing its thing). They've also shoved in Coverflow and the let's-copy-Chrome-but-make-it-look-shiner Top Sites. It all seems to be taking things a bit too far in the resources department without providing any real use. Just flashyness.
Firefox takes longer to load, but it uses a lot less RAM than Safari grows to.
Keeping on a similar theme, but does anyone else not like the direction Apple are taking Safari in version 4? They add another process to collect your webpage previews (which uses quite a bit of CPU when it's doing its thing). They've also shoved in Coverflow and the let's-copy-Chrome-but-make-it-look-shiner Top Sites. It all seems to be taking things a bit too far in the resources department without providing any real use. Just flashyness.
I know what you're saying, but sites aren't going to change their coding overnight to pass some stupid "test" that 99% of end users don't even know exists. They want it to display in the most popular browsers, which are now, sorry to say, Firefox and IE. Those are simply numbers, not bias against Safari...
MS trying to go web compliant in IE 8 will certainly help change this, but they're still mostly trying to get things to show up right on FF8. Until FF tries to go web compliant they'll be setting the standard for sites everywhere - and at that point the 100% compliance of Safari, Opera, and possible (doubt it) IE 8, doesn't mean much, it's just a number to them.
It would probably be best if all browsers and all sites strived for 100% web compliance. This is why we have web compliance tests. Though that's simply not the case. A lot of sites (or portions of them, anyway) have to be re-written to be web compliant, and on top of that, FF has to completely replace (or re-write) Gecko with an engine that uses web compliance before sites will start changing. Once a site isn't showing right on the most main streamed browsers around (IE and FF) then sites will start changing.
Also, another factor, which nobody is bothering to address about the Acid tests, is the fact that the browsers that are passing the Acid3 aren't necessarily that way by nature. It seems to my (and I'm sure others) opinion that Webkit and Opera were pulled hard in the direction that the Acid3 was going to test in terms of their strength. It's almost like Webkit and Opera were designed to pass the Acid3, while ignoring the rest of compliance issues.
That's why the creator of Acid3 said that he's not going to release how he's going to go about testing certain aspects for the Acid4 test. Safari and Opera are tuned to pass the test, not just web compliant and passing the Acid3 as a side-effect like it should be...
One of the biggest problems for me with Firefox is the font rendering.
I just plain don't like the what it does
In this example it doesn't look too far off but when spread across a whole webpage the differences to me just look horrible and make it difficult for me to read. I have tried various things to get it to look better but unfortunately I can't. Which makes firefox a no go for me.
But that said it is a personal preference stopping me from trying rather than saying which font rendering is best, it is all personal afterall some people will prefer the firefox rendering.
I just plain don't like the what it does
In this example it doesn't look too far off but when spread across a whole webpage the differences to me just look horrible and make it difficult for me to read. I have tried various things to get it to look better but unfortunately I can't. Which makes firefox a no go for me.
But that said it is a personal preference stopping me from trying rather than saying which font rendering is best, it is all personal afterall some people will prefer the firefox rendering.
I will agree with this one. This is one of the few things I don't like about Firefox. The funny thing is that I wouldn't even notice or think twice about it if I didn't use Safari, OmniWeb, and Opera as well. On a few pages that I visit regularly the difference really sticks out.
Agreed.
I don't like anything about Firefox though. Safari's just always been more my cup of tea.
Agreed.
I don't like anything about Firefox though. Safari's just always been more my cup of tea.
Its funny you said this is "personal preference", which I tend to agree since most people can't single out one parameter to make decision without influence of other things they care.
But forgive me for being frank, looking at those fonts, Im surprised myself that firefox does it best for people to read! I never notice this before.
Here is how it looks when I zoom it in firefox
