i intended to find out, and I sure would not judge you in anyway before the thing clears up.
This "thing" won't "clear up". It's one thing inferring I'm an Apple apologist, but I'm not going to magically prove it to you *you could do the effort of at least read my posts in this very thread by yourself. If
First I do not think you are representative of normal users. I wouldn't call toolbar icons "eye candy". and may I say 99% of users aren't using browsers w/o a single button on the toolbar?
Propably not. I use short cuts for my browsers, for mail, for my audio editing software. It's much faster than using a mouse/touchpad. And much better for your wrists (if set up properly.
Also, better function, more functions, are all terms you used, and I would like to hear the details.
If you had only read the thread. In short, Kar's argument is that because Firefox has support for more, more buttons to push, more parameters to adjust, then it automatically has better functionality. Better functionally is a relative term which translates into "How well does it do what it does", and not, like Kar's suggesting "My browser can do many more things", hence my analogy to the swiss army knife.
Yes, it certainly can do a lot more than safari. So can Omniweb (my preferred one, if you remember), but the _way_ Firefox works is cumbersome to me, slow (not just objectively, but in use).
Another way to put it, is like saying a full-fledged mastering studio is much better, when what you want and need is a stereo for your living room. It might have many more functions, but really, that studio would make a rather crappy counterintuitive stereo for a living room. It's all about useability.
We could also use Linux vs. OS X as an example. Yes, you can do all sorts of fun things with Linux, but I care more about output than tinkering.
omniweb is using even older engine of webkit, I personally won't recommend it to users.
I am fully aware that omniweb is one behind safari. However I like it much more than safari. For some reason, it seems the omnigroup is actually capable of making a browser on the same webkit as Safari is based on, yet [sarcasm]inexplicably[/sarcasm] it's not as buggy as the Apple-product.
However, from what I can gather, your only beef with it is that uses an older webkit. That is quite a hollow argument. And I'm surprised such a statement would come from someone who doesn't even bother reading a persons post, before not thinking the person is an Apple apologist and at the same time demanding answers on something I have already stated.
Omniweb has quite a bit more functions than Safari, it even has more functionality. Because, unlike FF, it's implemented in a non-cumbersome fashion.
Further, there's a reason people (incl. me) actually choose to _pay_ for Omniweb. I think we (the buyers) care more about how well we can use it, rather than if it's the latest webkit.
I sure hope not many ask you for advice when it comes to browsers.
