Sidebar Sidebar
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

ivladster said:
Umm ya its because Windows are still on 200000 year technology like 32-bit. So that dark Safari you see is actually from the future....called :apple:!


=))
Good luck...
Click to expand...

Um, is Safari available as a 64-bit native application?

I don't have a Core 2 Duo machine yet, and my iMac G5 died a few months ago (sob) so I can't verify this for sure, but I was under the impression that the current version of Safari for Macintosh is released as a Universal Binary consisting of only 32-bit PPC and 32-bit x86.
 
iweb sites on Firefox 3

I think there is a problem with picture galleries created with iweb. Firefox 3 does not show them.

Any idea?
 
FF3 final doesn't seem like that much of an upgrade to me because I'd already been using the 3rc releases for at least the past month or so. It's definitely my favorite browser of all - it's fast, renders quickly, and the extensions are probably my favorite "non-browsing" feature of all.

Just waiting for a few of my favorite extensions to be updated, as well as some better themes.

I tried to like Safari, and I use it sparingly to make an occasional webclip for Dashboard, but it just feels like a very generic web browser to me. It is fast and renders well, but there's something to be said for looks too, and Firefox just has the themes that I like.
 
I've been using the RC's since they first started popping up and I could tell with the first how much faster it was over FF2.

This update was well worth it
 
FF3 is a CPU hog.
After a few minutes the 1.33ghz G4 is running at 100%, close FF and it settles down to something more reasonable. :confused:
Don't experience this with FF2, Safari nor Camino.
Though I do love the FF add-ons

would love to use just one browser, but they all have their own specials faults, god bless 'em
 
PCMacUser said:
I wasn't sure if you'd get the joke. I tried putting in the :p so you'd understand, but I guess that wasn't enough. :eek:

Explanation: I was just kidding.
Click to expand...

Sorry, was having a bad evening all around, sense of humor was non-functional. :rolleyes:

I still love FF, but until I can use it to see iWeb photo album pages in FF3 I will have to use FF2.
 
mlarkin said:
Its over for FireFox. Safari has already won. And the next version of Safari will make this even more useless, desperate.
Click to expand...

We'll have to wait and see then. I actually hate safari and avoid using it whenever I can. it's just a personal ease-of-use thing for me - there are some things Safari does that annoy the heck out of me.

But like another poster said, it's nice to have many free choices available...
 
tuffluffjimmy said:
It's still firefox in all of its bad font glory.
Click to expand...

I don't get this comment. The fonts look nearly identical between Safari 3.1 and Firefox3 here. Admittedly, I'm using a CRT on this PowerMac so if it's some kind of soft-focus thingy that your LCD requires to look proper, I guess that might explain it. Otherwise, I have no clue what you're talking about. Why don't you post a picture with side-by-side little snaps of Safari/FF3 comparative font captures to illustrate what you're talking about?

EDIT: and of course it still can't pass the acid3 test. Although neither does the current build of safari, both the nightly webkit build and safari 4 can.
Click to expand...

You might have a point if the public version of Safari could pass it. Beyond that, you might explain to me the relevance of Acid3 given Web-Kit/Safari only HACKED tiny bits of support for the overall standard in order to pass the Acid3 test. Explain what good it does for a browser team to only do partial implementations of standards just enough to pass one specific test, but fail utterly using those standards in the real world because they don't fully support the standards in question.

The Firefox team has said they need to implement the full standards properly, not just play artificial racing games to pass a small snippet of a standard and yell Wahoo, because that's what Web-kit has done in their working betas. :rolleyes:
 
picture issues

I have a problem when going to sites such as Engadget...no header pics with the articles on the front page. Also, on a comments page I didn't have avatar pics and some links (on the right) were all jumbly.

I haven't even tried an iweb 08 site yet...

Originally Posted by tuffluffjimmy
It's still firefox in all of its bad font glory

I don't get this comment. The fonts look nearly identical between Safari 3.1 and Firefox3 here. Admittedly, I'm using a CRT on this PowerMac so if it's some kind of soft-focus thingy that your LCD requires to look proper, I guess that might explain it. Otherwise, I have no clue what you're talking about. Why don't you post a picture with side-by-side little snaps of Safari/FF3 comparative font captures to illustrate what you're talking about?

Me to...
I don't understand this as well.

*offtopic* Also, would someone please tell me how to clip a small quote from someone? I know how to reply with a quote but in the above example, I couldn't figure out how to pull out MagnusVonMagnum's quote and comment , other than to copy/paste it.... duh.
 

Attachments

  • Picture 2.png
    Picture 2.png
    159.5 KB · Views: 87
ATG said:
Firefox is bad for the mac, it just doesn't want to be a proper OS X app. The problem is that the developers just don't care about the UI on OS X. So here's my list of things wrong with firefox's UI:

*ridiculous list of nitpicks*
Click to expand...

Congratulations, I think you've reached a new level of anal-retentiveness on behalf of all Mac users. Bravo.
 
Voidness said:
I don't like using Firefox under Mac OS X. It doesn't have this "native" feel to it, as opposed to Safari. Firefox 3 tried to imitate the native feel but I still think it falls short.

The performance improvements are very welcome though.
Click to expand...

It's apparent some people don't like change and cling to whatever comes with the OS (this applies to IE as well which is why 75% of the world still uses IE even though it's total crap) so I guess Safari isn't much different in the Mac world (no I'm not saying Safari is crap, but just illustrating with Windows that the tendency has little to do with functionality or performance and more with familiarity).

Likewise, I always see too many people judge a browser COMPLETELY on its default configuration. FF3 looks 'better' but 'not exactly like Safari' so it sucks--that kind of thing. Why SHOULD it look EXACTLY like Safari? It's not Safari. But the cool thing about Firefox is that it can change its look to accommodate whereas Safari cannot. It can even add functionality or change behaviors with add-ons. Safari once again cannot do any of that. You either do it Steve's way or switch to Firefox.

BUT if you must have an appearance nearly identical to Safari in both form and function, you might first try these changes/additions to Firefox before you toss it out altogether:

http://macapper.com/2008/04/25/safari-esque-firefox-themes-extensions-and-more/

These get Firefox3 looking and acting 95% like Safari (the buttons lack the slight 'reflective' shiny look in the theme and you have to click the tag button addition to resize text boxes, but otherwise it's pretty darn close).

Personally, I'm happy with the default theme. It blends in with the OS (I have Firefox3 for OSX, XP and Linux) but retains its "Firefox" essence across all platforms.
 
Starship77 said:
Well, I tried FF3 for a little while, but there are some things that will make me stick with Safari:

1- When I drag a tab in FF3 it doesn't turn into a new window like in Safari and I really use this very often.
Click to expand...

If we're going to make pet-peeve lists, one thing I HATE in Safari is that the tab I "middle-click" on doesn't CLOSE when I do it. It'll OPEN to a new tab in Safari if I middle click on a link, but to close it I have to left click on the little "x" icon on the tab. Needless to say, I have a standard 3-button mouse on my Powermac and I use that middle-click trick across WinXP, Linux and MacOSX. The browser feels the same on all platforms. IE and Safari both can open tabs that way but can't close them that way.

Similarly, you can typically get a tab extension for Firefox that will let you do things like change the focus order (say from the tab you're closing to the previously used tab instead of the one to the left of it) whereas once again in Safari you're stuck with the default behavior.

2- There's no resizable text boxes like in Safari
Click to expand...

You can fix that with an add-on. That is a nice feature of Safari, though. Too many older message boards have tiny little message input areas.

3- Even with the "native look and feel" it's kinda ugly. The top part is a mess, the buttons don't look very good, and the whole thing takes quite more screen space then Safari...
Click to expand...

Again, there are nearly exact theme replacements if you have to have a duplicate of Safari. Not all of us are thrilled with Safari's look either. I'm certainly not. Frankly, I always like Noia 2.0 Extreme in Firefox2 (with a matching Thunderbird theme), but it hasn't been updated yet for Firefox3.
 
ugh, for some reason ever since i downloaded FF3 i have been getting extremely slow speeds, can barely load a page in 20 seconds (normally takes 1 second). i had problems on FF2, then fixed, upgraded for FF3 and no back to where i started.
any idea where to get FF2 from? I will upgrade once some bugs are fixed in FF3, don't really use all the features available.
 
queshy said:
Indeed, Safari still has a more "native" i.e. snappier feel. Who cares about features when the thing is slower to begin with?
Click to expand...

Personally, I think that's your imagination. I have a 1.8GHz G4 (not exactly the most modern CPU out there) and Firefox is PLENTY "snappy". Admittedly, Firefox2 was a bear by comparison in MacOSX.
 
I feel more exciting with firefox 3 than the WWDC 2008, what a shame on Apple.

off-topic

I am using a powerbook 667 DVI too. i dun think ANY decent software can run fast/smooth on our book.
when i was still using panther 10.3.9 on y pb, everything smooth.
when i have just upgrade to 10.4 this year becoz many appz require 10.4....
i found it's time for me to upgrade my book



dAlen said:
What I have noticed is that 'fire'fox is nothing like fire on my computer.
Hasnt been, and still isnt.

I have a powerbook G4 667mhz and a internet connection that is 512k. (slow.)

Safari opens in 5 seconds.
Firefox first launch is 30 sec.

I always clear cache to keep the speed optimal each time I open, and when I do Firefox is 30 sec. each time. Otherwise it loads in about 15 seconds.

---
Second issue.
The smart bar or whatever - not to smart compared to Safari.
Not saying it doesnt have its merits...but consider this:

When I type a url in safaris web bar it automatically starts to fill in the address. And when I put in "macr" it already puts macrumors in their for me so I dont have to type the whole thing NOR do I have to push the down arrow to make it select macrumors.

Thats pretty smart...you know the spotlight type filling in the blank.

I suppose if they could work out the speed issue, as well as that smart bar issue and then let Flock integrate it into their set up (as Flock is based off of FireFox) I would switch over. (Easier for blogging, etc.)

Until then...its Safari - to bad Apple doesnt put whatever it is that people like from Fox and Flock into the browser. ;)
(or allow as options.)

Peace

dAlen
Click to expand...
 
PCMacUser said:
I'm guessing this is just a joke guys and gals... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It sounded like typical Mac fanaticism to me. I've seen posts that state they're sticking with Safari and have a smiley afterwards (is that the fanboy smiley?) and then they ask if Firefox3 is faster than Safari (i.e. they never even tried it but they're standing by their Safari because it's the MAC thing to do). Sadly, that whole example is the one aspect of the Mac community I can't stand. A product should stand on its own merits not by whom is was made. Not everything Apple 'pwns'. Sorry, it just doesn't. Firefox theming and extensions make it so far beyond Safari (which won't let you customize a darn thing) in terms of utility it's not even funny.
 
ATG said:
Firefox is bad for the mac, it just doesn't want to be a proper OS X app. The problem is that the developers just don't care about the UI on OS X. So here's my list of things wrong with firefox's UI:

  • Main window:
  • OK, just looking at it, the toolbar buttons are the wrong shape. Apple's ones have a smaller radius around the edges.
Click to expand...


  • Sorry, but I had to stop reading your message right there. What in the world does the shape of the buttons have to do with ANYTHING? Apple decides what your life looks like, I take it??? If the default theme doesn't look IDENTICAL to Safari (i.e. copy-cat and possibly copyright violations) it's no good? That's the #1 thing on your list, dude. Geeze. I have to conclude WHO CARES. I won't even bother reading the rest. There's a link in one of my posts above to convert FF3 into Safari's twin if you want, but some of us don't think it SHOULD be its twin because we didn't think Safari was all that and a bag of chips to begin with.
 
Multi-touch gestures & close button

I am sure someone with the multi-touch trackpad noticed it, but three finger flip to go to the previous page does not work with Firefox.

Also, I do not understand how FF claims to have integrated itself with the OS. The tab close button is on the right, and that's so confusing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back