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.
New Safari Seeds Continue Performance Improvements, Bug Fixes
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
try beta 4 then, will be out soon, beta 4's javascript is 2.5x (currently) faster than safari 3.0.4. app is much snappier than beta 3 as well.
first thats your personal opinion and how you use your browser, I have no intention to argue about,
you do realize that draggable text boxes first appeared as a firefox extension, do you? ( And I, unlike apple, strongly reject the "C(opy)" word, but a tiny history you might want to know, it has been an extension for firefox at least since 2005, Netscape has it in version 9, and safari got in in version 3.x)
Im surprised one of 2000+ extensions from firefox, once added into safari, can make so many ppl so happy.
I also think if draggable text box is so nice, maybe you would like the draggable elements cross tabs in firefox 3. so you can collect materials on one tab and make post in another, exchange content of the two easily without have to pressing cmd+c, cmd+v
your posts are full of unreasonable "analogy", not to mention your usage habit can maybe only represent <0.001% of browser users. You can make as long post as you want, but your personal opinion just doesn't offer too much for normal users.
I was a big NNW fan, but just FYI I recommend checking out NewsFire which just turned Freeware yesterday
Thanks - Newsfire is very fast but I like the way RSS and browsing are integrated in NNW and Safari (when it worked). I expect there is something screwy with my Safari installation (although 10.5.1 or 10.5.2 didn't fix it) as I don't hear about other people with RSS problems. Just in case anyone has any suggestions, here's the problem:
For example, I have a folder of RSS feeds in the bookmark bar; it shows there are 40 unread items so I click on it. The articles load up but there are only 10 unread articles and now the bookmark item indicates that I have seen all the unread items. Clicking yesterday or this week does not yield any articles marked as unread, even though I haven't yet seen them.
I said for the hardware of the time.
Also, I could download 100 MB files over dial-up overnight without ever timing out. My PC using friends could never believe it.
that would be yesterday. I feel very calm today
Im getting use to list unfavorable facts in a mac world. As long as I keep my principle, other people take it or not, I don't really care. Something stands by itself. Popular or not.
I use Firefox and Safari. I don't really know of anything Safari can do that Firefox can't but I prefer to use Safari. Don't know if it's just because Firefox is ugly. I'm hoping Firefox comes to iPhone with the SDK release. That would give me instant access to a web interface I use at work. I'd still like them to make the site Safari compatible though.
Nope, I didn't know, and I wish I had. I will definitely use it if FF ever becomes my primary/secondary browser (FF3 is closing in on Camino1.5.5 as my second favourite browser).
i will definitly enjoy a smoother ride in the safari jeep, but i think we are overlooking the enviromental impact of safari expeditions, if only the jeep didnt leave tracks all over the serengety and was full of veterinarians instead of hunters.
My two cents
I think the Firefox and Safari comparisons are awash. They are both decent browsers. You can find fault with both of them. The one thing I would like improvement in Safari, however, is the overall stability. I use Safari as my main browser; hence, I obviously like it. However, it still could use some improvements.
I think the Firefox and Safari comparisons are awash. They are both decent browsers. You can find fault with both of them. The one thing I would like improvement in Safari, however, is the overall stability. I use Safari as my main browser; hence, I obviously like it. However, it still could use some improvements.
Ive read that SAFARI has an up to 250mb memory leak.
all i can say is predictable every half hour or so it freezes, and i get the colored beachball spin I can wait and wait and wait. If I do a force quit, Safari will be in the list, and if you wait a few seconds, suddenly a "not responding" is appended to "Safari"
It enrages me
all i can say is predictable every half hour or so it freezes, and i get the colored beachball spin I can wait and wait and wait. If I do a force quit, Safari will be in the list, and if you wait a few seconds, suddenly a "not responding" is appended to "Safari"
It enrages me
That's how I open up a new tab as well. Safari is a solid browser that I used mainly, but definitely needs some improvement though. It crashes at least a couple time a day when I'm browsing simple websites, it freezes then beachballs and I know it's coming....it force quits itself and I get asked if I want to report it to Apple. Hopefully they have been looking in to it by I assume many other similar reports and fix it. The new webkit build would be good as well!
but for once it belongs here as it really is the subject of the article (i'm was just being witty at 3 am yesterday...)
Yes, there are quite a few analogies. That happens when you discover that people don't know how to differentiate between "useability", "functions" and "functionality" and use strawman argumentation ad nauseum. Also, they're far from unreasonable. That is just your claim which, I might add, you haven't made valid, or even argued for. Just another meaningless claim.
Ah, the numbers again. Yes, I see the point you guys are trying to push: Anything that you don't agree with, you will use the McDonald's argument against, completely ignoring valid arguments, and completely ignoring, that if the McDonald's-argument was valid, then the lowest common denominator would at the same time be the highest common denominator.
Okay then. Use your invalid arguments, only switch Safari (or Omniweb) with Firefox, and Firefox to Internet Explorer. It's a shi9ft to the right, but if your arguments were valid, all of the stuff you guys say about Firefox, would be just as valid said about IE. The reason is, that you come with your own personal opinion, and the only "back up" you have is usage numbers. What the hell would you guys do if someone made the same claims, only about Internet Explorer or windows? It goes to show, that although you try making it look like it's more than a personal unfounded claim, it's nothing more than that. You're not even trying to use arguments only a completely irrelevant number.
It's about time you guys looked up "logical fallacies". Otherwise you will never learn why the McDonald's argument is invalid. As it is, you just choose to ignore the fallacy, but that doesn't make it valid by any stretch.
As much as I love Safari, it needs a lot of work on Stability and compatibility with websites. I still have to use firefox way too much.
If McDonald is that successful, no matter how much you hate their taste personally, it is still reality, is it?
what is a valid argument?
is "most people don't use browser like you" not a valid argument?
is "high quality function is only a personal opinion" not a valid argument?
is "omniweb isn't secure enough" not a valid argument?
Not to mention there is nothing stupid of people enjoy using safari or firefox, and there is nothing indicate "highest common denominator" of omniweb users.
It is you who is so deeply involved in your own argument that "firefox's more function is 'low-quality' and shouldn't be enjoyed by high common denominator people", that you fail to see the fact that many people like more functions.
There are people out there who want to see a weather forecast in their browser's status bar
there are people out there who want to use mouse gestures to operation browser
there are people out there who want latest webkit core
there are people out there who don't like to pay for omniweb's
High quality is such an useless word. If you don't even have that function, you don't even get to the quality discussion.
I got from Tosser's (entire) post:
You cannot judge the quality of a product by the number of people using it.
If you could, then Internet Explorer would have to be judged as 1,000s of times better than FireFox.
Tosser, correct me if I am interpreting it incorrectly.
You cannot judge the quality of a product by the number of people using it.
If you could, then Internet Explorer would have to be judged as 1,000s of times better than FireFox.
Tosser, correct me if I am interpreting it incorrectly.
Huh,
1. more functions become "more people use it"?
2. high quality functions become "high quality product"?
3. 1000s better? since when 74/17=1000?
Hey... leave me out of your debate. I was just asking 'Tosser' how to interpret what 'Tosser' posted; I am NOT stating any facts.
However, here are a few famous quotes for you...
Before the curse of statistics fell upon mankind we lived a happy, innocent life, full of merriment and go, and informed by fairly good judgment Hilarie Belloc
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital Aaron Levenstein
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please: facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable Mark Twain
Yes, you are correct.
They are saying, that Firefox is better than Omniweb and Safari, because otherwise "hundreds of millions" (that's what one of them said at one time) wouldn't have downloaded it. And since one way of testing whether an argument holds water is to adhere it to similar situtians but see how far it can go, IE and Windows _must be better than anything else out there. That's the McDonald's-argument in a nutshell. Needless to say, it's invalid.
Further, no matter what their arguments are, and whether they actually relate to download numbers, they constantly go "Well, I'm right, I have the dl-numbers to prove it". Again, it's invalid: One could say, "The Fox-icon best App.-icon ever. The DL-numbers prove it" – which, frankly, is nonsense – just like saying "FF is the best browser in the world. The DL-numbers prove it".
The above is my whole beef with this discussion.
Not to throw fuel on a fire here, but being in the middle of trying to build a fairly basic site I have to say that both browsers are buggy in frustratingly orthogonal ways. I'd already made the decision to blow off IE support because it would require testing on a Windows machine which I don't have handy, but just trying to get Safari and FF to both position things accurately through Javascript is mind numbing.
Doesn't matter what I do-- if I make it work in one browser the other other doesn't. Every time I think of a new way around the problem, I find a new and annoying bug in one browser or the other. It's not that one browser is right-- they're both making mistakes, and they're making them in such a way that I can't avoid the bugs or cater to them by writing bug-friendly code.
If I had to guess, the reason anyone would think FF is less buggy than Safari is because the Web writers of the world have gone through the trouble of making their code FF friendly, but have been less interested in doing that for Safari.
Personally, I think the web is broken just as badly as the browsers that are viewing it. Eventually I'll cave and write switches in for different browser types just out of a need to get something done but, man, how I hate doing that... It's not like HTML/CSS/Javascript standards are *that* complicated...
Doesn't matter what I do-- if I make it work in one browser the other other doesn't. Every time I think of a new way around the problem, I find a new and annoying bug in one browser or the other. It's not that one browser is right-- they're both making mistakes, and they're making them in such a way that I can't avoid the bugs or cater to them by writing bug-friendly code.
If I had to guess, the reason anyone would think FF is less buggy than Safari is because the Web writers of the world have gone through the trouble of making their code FF friendly, but have been less interested in doing that for Safari.
Personally, I think the web is broken just as badly as the browsers that are viewing it. Eventually I'll cave and write switches in for different browser types just out of a need to get something done but, man, how I hate doing that... It's not like HTML/CSS/Javascript standards are *that* complicated...