That got it. One of the add-ons not yet compatible with FF3. Not sure which one, I killed 3-4 of them. It's behaving nicely now. thanks
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.
Mozilla Releases Firefox 3 Web Browser
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That got it. One of the add-ons not yet compatible with FF3. Not sure which one, I killed 3-4 of them. It's behaving nicely now. thanks
Mozilla haven't got Acid3 working yet because they have just finished a developer cycle (Gecko 1.9, Firefox 3) and Safari is mid through development (between 3 and 4).
Mozilla can now concentrate on implementing CSS3, rather than rushing it and making the whole thing buggy, which Webkit and Opera have done.
May I also point out, Safari doesn't complete Acid3 correctly, they have produced workarounds, and that Acid3 is still not the final version, it is going to change which will make it not complete all the tests.
Change Firefox's default font to Helvetica (default is Times) in preferences.
Both Safari and Firefox use the same text rendering engine now, so there is no difference.
indeed, firefox was at the stage of developing cycle when codes for gecko 1.9 almost completed, acid 3 would have introduced significant amount of bugs and delay the release of firefox 3 at that time.
Current Firefox 3.1 nightly has 79/100 @ Acid3.
Opera did have some work-around for acid 3, which caused the previous well-known "false alarm" in racing towards 100/100 of acid3, but in general, it did a much better job than webkit team in implementing those standards. (Opera 9.5 has a 83/100 acid 3 score)
Mozilla also indicated it might not ever pass the acid 3 in its current form, due to the fact that some of items in the acid 3 test have since been abolished and/or changed.
How did you get Better Gmail to look like that?
better gmail offers some skins.
Greasemonkey can do the same job, but need more work.
Once better gmail 2 is installed, go to its options. Choose the Redesigned skin.
new solution for u https://forums.macrumors.com/showthre...24#post5625424
no bookmarks.
still search in title tho.
I aren't gonna make you do anything you don't want, did I?
i just let you know that I think its a BIG improvement. of course not everybody likes every new thing tho, that I totally understand,
sloppy? search in url is search, search in title is search too, there is no physical reason why one is sloppy and the other is not. You can argue you want mozilla to improve the algorithm, but thats different from thinking one is sloppier than the other.
what i WANT it to do is just autocomplete the URL, mixing in title and bookmark search results makes it sloppy. i want simple behavior, not this all-in-one BS. it's overdesigned and needs to be able to be turned off (a feature which i believe was in one of the beta versions of FF3).
The solution I linked DOES NOT SEARCH AMONG BOOKMARKS. seriously, why all the ranting and not even trying
the function you mentioned in beta, it was removed not because they dont want you to use it, it was removed because it no longer works after the change of algorithm.
If you want the algorithm to be reversed, you can always file a bug for it. If enough ppl complain about it, it will be considered.
I do not see the "redesigned skin" option anywhere in the options for the addon.
Make sure you have the latest version of that addon, and its under the skins tab in Better Gmail 2's options.
The solution I linked DOES NOT SEARCH AMONG BOOKMARKS. seriously, why all the ranting and not even trying
the function you mentioned in beta, it was removed not because they dont want you to use it, it was removed because it no longer works after the change of algorithm.
If you want the algorithm to be reversed, you can always file a bug for it. If enough ppl complain about it, it will be considered.
YOU are not paying attention. that WILL NOT STOP IT FROM SEARCHING IN PAGE TITLES, etc
that is what i hate and that is what makes the results SLOPPY and ANNOYING
Thats my point, they are functionally identical. The Mac version doesn't integrate into Mac OS X very well. There are a few pages floating around demonstrating this. From my experience, its a good Windows app with a very poor Mac OS X port.
I m not sure if the word "port" honestly describe what firefox 3 has to offer on OSX. And there are so much OSX native codes in Firefox 3, its far from just wrap up windows version of app and make a shell to run it on OSX. If thats what you were suggesting.
What is a poor port? I think the classic example is safari for windows, iTuns for windows, and quicktime for windows. Its honestly just a wrap up of OSX version in some sorts of shell and make them run in windows.
Clevin, your firefox fanboyism is showing
I don't think anyone was saying that they weren't going to use firefox in OS X and so they were switching to Safari on Windows
Clevin, your firefox fanboyism is showing
I don't think anyone was saying that they weren't going to use firefox in OS X and so they were switching to Safari on Windows
That doesn't change the definition and substance of what a "poor port" is, does it?
Firefox 3 is just as native or un-native on windows as its on OSX, as its on Linux.
I don't think I was saying anything about convert people, did I? merely object to some statements I considered not really accurate.
Given I use all three operating systems (XP, Linux and MacOSX [both tiger and leopard for that matter on different partitions]), I guess I'm not so sensitive to OS-Centric quibbles.
Frankly, I hated Apple's keyboard that came with this PowerMac so I bought a Logitech one and swapped the command key to CTRL on it (seeing as how everything that uses CTRL in Windows OR Linux uses CMD in OSX...a case of Apple holding on to non-standards just to be difficult, IMO; it does then cause issues in X11 since my ALT key then does the CTRL stuff, but I don't use X11 much in OSX). If I hadn't changed anything, it would still have two keys reversed since the alt key is actually where the CMD (apple) key goes and the "windows" key is alt and CTRL would be CTRL on both EXCEPT that htey don't DO the same things (again that's CMD). Confused yet? You have to do SOMETHING when using a standard keyboard (i.e. not a crappy Apple one that is either missing the numeric keypad or has flat keys that remind me of a cross between a speak'n'spell and an ATARI 400 keyPADboard. Don't even get me going on that stupid Mighty Mouse design. I bought a cheap Dynex mouse and it works identical in both OSX and Windows now.
I guess what I'm getting at is Firefox REALLY not fitting into OSX or is more like OSX isn't fitting in with everyone else out there (i.e. Windows, Linux, BSD, etc.) You only think it's odd because you are used to Apple doing non-standard things (Appletalk, Nubus, pushing Firewire in lieu of USB 2.0 when it first came out instead of including both, etc.), which only ever happens in the first place because Apple wants you to buy THEIR hardware, not get a good deal on something standard and cheap from the rest of the computing world. They finally realized one button doesn't cut it (i.e. they were wrong all along about it) but to try and cover the fact up, they HIDE the second button on their mice even today. It works well enough to make some PC users think they STILL use one button. Well, then there's the absolutely ABSURD use of only ONE button on their laptops even today when not only are there right AND middle button clicks supported in OSX, but they are DESIGNED to be able to run Windows now either directly via BootCamp or in addition with Fusion or Parallels. So WHY would they still insist on pretending to use one button on a laptop when they know there are a LOT of people that want that 2nd button. Sure you can do that double tap on the pad or whatever, but it's no substitute for the real thing or they wouldn't include the first button either.
I digress. I'm sure given the extension system someone can use the Stylish extension or something like that to make every single key shortcut, button, etc. identical to Safari for those that need that for some reason. I mean Apple USED to depend on Internet Explorer so how between then and now everyone thinks Apple = Safari is beyond me, especially given how awful Safari was a couple of years ago compared to today. But as I mentioned earlier, the biggest difference between Safari and Firefox is that if I don't like Firefox's default interface, I CAN do something about it. With Safari, if I don't like it (say on my XP machine where it looks completely out of place), I'm stuck because Apple believes things have to look like their current method even on operating systems where NOTHING ELSE looks like that. But as someone else attempted to point out, you don't see die-hard Mac fans complaining how awful Safari looks on Windows, just Firefox3 (which at least makes an attempt to better fit in and can be further adapted by the user) which then gets hounded for its supposed sins against humanity.
Personally, I can use Firefox OR Safari and I don't feel all that weirded out with either one. There is, after all, more than one way to skin a cat, even a Leopard.