Mozilla Releases Firefox 3.5

[clevin]

Until Safari has support for something as simple as adding www. and .com it can render pages as fast as it likes.

Safari might load faster, but overall it makes surfing slower because its just such a pain to use.

No it goes to some other site first which corrects your error for you. I've had issues with Safari in the past where it simply went to the address without the www. and .com and because those sites had not registered for common misspellings it didn't take me where I wanted.

Try typing mplex without the www and .com and see if it works for you. Currently I am using OpenDNS which seems to correct errors for me.

well, not really, safari does add www. and .com around the string you typed.

However, I agree with your point, using safari overall slow down thr surfing experience because many usability features make firefox faster to reach the website users want to go. Awesomebar is a big example.

The problem with safari's urlbar, as your question touched, is exactly that, safari only does www. and .com, nothing else. Which is quite dumb. e.g., you type in a term with domain suffix other than ".com", safari won't go there; you type a term that has not been registered with a .com suffix, safari returns error; you type two terms, safari just plays dumb again.

I think after 2 hr use, most users will save 100x-1,000x more time than whatever safari has in js advantages, which is in the range of 0.001-0.01ms.

 

[elppa]

Try typing mplex without the www and .com and see if it works for you. Currently I am using OpenDNS which seems to correct errors for me.

Yes, it does. Maybe this has more to do with OpenDNS than Safari.

 

[windywoo]

Yes, it does. Maybe this has more to do with OpenDNS than Safari.

You have completely misread my post. I am using Safari atm and it will only put the www and the .com on a URL if I have already been to that site.

Here is what happens if I type msn into the address bar and press enter. Safari will go to http://msn/ and relies on the DNS server to find a close match and change it to .com.

I can't reproduce it at the moment but I have seen it go simply to http://blah/ and not add a .com and therefore not go to the correct url. Perhaps they fixed it.

 

[elppa]

using safari overall slow down thr surfing experience because many usability features make firefox faster to reach the website users want to go. Awesomebar is a big example.

I think after 2 hr use, most users will save 100x-1,000x more time than whatever safari has in js advantages, which is in the range of 0.001-0.01ms.

And if you have visited the page and can't remember the title but can remember some of content, then Firefox adds minutes, scrolling through the history double clicking on each “likely” site to load it (and then using the page search) to find the right one.

Whereas with history coverflow combined with full history search saves the user minutes, on top of the already faster javascript and HTML rendering performance.

Similarly, top sites means that users don't have to visit a site to see if it has been updated, they can just check to see if it has a star.

Finally, when reading RSS feeds, Safari saves some more seconds, with searching, sorting and date filters.

As the Safari user never have to wait in the morning for updates to their extensions to be checked (which in many cases adds features which come right out the box in Safari, such as “Firebug”) thus saving the user another few valuable seconds!

Then there is the time you have to spend making the Firefox spell checker learn all the spellings you already taught your system to learn because it doesn't use the system wide dictionary, unlike Safari which does.

The ability to merge all windows into tabs to clean up space in a single click without having to manually drag and drop into place also saves time.

This is a very silly game to play - some Firefox features will speed up usage, and some Safari features will speed up usage.

 

[elppa]

You have completely misread my post. I am using Safari atm and it will only put the www and the .com on a URL if I have already been to that site.

Actually I'm pretty sure I haven't. Why don't you try it and see? What have you to lose by trying it (aside from a bit of time).

Safari prepends www. and appends .com to sites, even if you haven't visited them before. And yes, I tried the mplex example, and yes, it worked. And no, I had never visited mplex before.

 

[windywoo]

Trust me, turn OpenDNS off and it will work.

I had the issues BEFORE openDNS.

 

[clevin]

And if you have visited the page and can't remember the title but can remember some of content, then Firefox adds minutes, scrolling through the history double clicking on each “likely” site to load it (and then using the page search) to find the right one.

Whereas with history coverflow combined with full history search saves the user minutes, on top of the already faster javascript and HTML rendering performance.

Similarly, top sites means that users don't have to visit a site to see if it has been updated, they can just check to see if it has a star.

Finally, when reading RSS feeds, Safari saves some more seconds, with searching, sorting and date filters.

As the Safari user never have to wait in the morning for updates to their extensions to be checked (which in many cases adds features which come right out the box in Safari, such as “Firebug”) thus saving the user another few valuable seconds!

Then there is the time you have to spend making the Firefox spell checker learn all the spellings you already taught your system to learn because it doesn't use the system wide dictionary, unlike Safari which does.

The ability to merge all windows into tabs to clean up space in a single click without having to manually drag and drop into place also saves time.

This is a very silly game to play - some Firefox features will speed up usage, and some Safari features will speed up usage.

non sense, why do you think its called awesomebar, if it were to ask you try each one out? and nobody stopping you to limit search within url with 3.5's keyword function.

Somebody need to show some side by side video action to fully show the unbelievable potential of awesome bar for yu guys then.

You can describe safari glowing as much as you want, its urlbar is inferior and in 99% of the situations much slower than firefox.

and you are excited just because safari has one or two functions out of box that users can get for firefox for 5 clicks? then imagine that 5000+ potentials!

merge all windows? Now somebody finally find the usefulness of single window mode? then let me tell ya, firefox by default is CLEAN.

History overflow, lol, why do users want to spend extra time and clicks just to bring up that UI and then search? when they can just start search from urlbar? That doesn't save time, that waste time!

 

[jive turkey]

I want to add that the best change I have made to the Firefox configuration was toggling 'network.dns.disableIPv6' to true. I have been having problems with both Safari & Firefox taking several seconds on occasion to find a site, and after making the above change I connect immediately.

Perhaps this is just coincidence with the sites that I tend to hit frequently not being IPv6, but it certainly would be worth a try if you experience delays in lookup time.

See http://kb.mozillazine.org/Network.dns.disableIPv6 for more information.

 

[elppa]

non sense, why do you think its called awesomebar, if it were to ask you try each one out? and nobody stopping you to limit search within url with 3.5's keyword function.

Somebody need to show some side by side video action to fully show the unbelievable potential of awesome bar for yu guys then.

You can describe safari glowing as much as you want, its urlbar is inferior and in 99% of the situations much slower than firefox.

and you are excited just because safari has one or two functions out of box that users can get for firefox for 5 clicks? then imagine that 5000+ potentials!

merge all windows? Now somebody finally find the usefulness of single window mode? then let me tell ya, firefox by default is CLEAN.

History overflow, lol, why do users want to spend extra time and clicks just to bring up that UI and then search? when they can just start search from urlbar? That doesn't save time, that waste time!

The message point was the bit at the end. Hence there was no reason to quote each proceeding point in turn. Here it is again:

This is a very silly game to play - some Firefox features will speed up usage, and some Safari features will speed up usage.

I fail to see in any way, shape or form you managed to get to this conclusion: “You can describe safari glowing as much as you want”.

I'm too tired to play the next round and reply to each of your points, but needless to say as usual some are wrong due to your blinded fanaticism in relation to Firefox.