(removed images)
now, you want to talk about speed? GIVE ME A BREAK, WILL YOU?
There's much more to browser speed than javascript benchmarks. No matter how you twist and turn, go out on the net (on a mac) with firefox, and you'll see it's much slower than most anything out there. Yes, it might do javascript quicker, but there's more than javascript on the net.
Im surprised, why? because your browser has little functions, so I can't make argument that more functions brings more usability?
Sigh! After several pages, you still haven't figured out why that is a logical fallacy?
I am not saying that _because_ a given browser I use have fewer functions, I am saying that more functions does not equal more useability, unless the functions are easy to use, implemented well, and actually works. Now, FF has the the latter down, but the rest? Nope. It has nothing to with me using another browser or not. Please, no more strawmen from your side.
No to mention firefox's implementation of more functions looks pretty good for many users, and they don't count?
First of all, I have told you before that you should stop using your own opinion and then just assume everyone else using firefox feels the same.
Secondly, it's not a matter of how many are enjoying a given product. Even if 99 percent of the people out there were polled and all said they liked FF, that doesn't mean another browser couldn't actuallly be the better browser. The reason is, it has naught to do with how many people prefer a specific product (once again, you're leaning yourself against the McDonald's-argument).
your standard, like your screenshot, a browser with no buttons? Im telling ya, you are 0.001% of the users. extreme minority? you bet.
Noone said Omniweb had no buttons. The point is: In firefox I would need to have buttons plenty of them, even to have the same functionality, to get a decent overview etc.
The horisontal tabs alone in FF (and Safari as it were) is crap, having used something better for years. Horisontal tabs are a bitch, when you have many tabs open. That alone means that even set up "as delivered", Omniweb wins hands on implementation and useability: Much quicker to get a quick overview and not get in the way, quicker to find the tab on, and, let's not forget: If you have a widescreen computer, vertical real estate is not really one of the things you have a lot of (for a given pixel count), whereas you hve plenty of the horisontal kind. This means that that drawer actually gives you more space for contents. Hell, even opera has a better implementation of this than FF (and other with horisontal tabs, such as IE and Safari).
But I'm still not extreme (and, btw, yet another of your numbers pulled out your arse: Since when did you come up with a survey about HOW people browse? Don't use numbers you have no clue about): Many people use shortcuts. CMD+ arrow keys, CMD+L, CMD+T, CMD+Shift+Arrows, CMD+Shift+F, CMD+".", and so on. All those things are therefore not needed up there. Calling that extreme is ridiculous.
only 1. stability, 2. rendering, 3. implementation?
Ah, yes. The memory leak in Safari. It's a bitch.
But you seem to have forgotten very quickly, that I don't use Safari, I use Omniweb, nor do I infer that any browser is perfect. On the contrary, I have made the point several times, that it's necessary to use more than browser to get around the web there's always a stupidly designed site that doesn't work or renders weird in a given browser.
Further, the memory leak
yes, it's a bitch, but Safari can be slowed downed a lot because of that before it enters the slowness-realm of Firefox. No, I'm not talking on PC's, I'm talking on a Mac.
billions of browser users around the world? and only above mentioned 3 are important to all of them? Should I call that group thinking? or judge other people based on your own standard?
Ah, once again you try invoking the McDonalds argument: Clothes from Walmart is excellent quiality. How could it not be? Millions of buyers will swear it? Or put another way: 50 billion flys can't be wrong: Eat ****.
You still, even after having been pointed to the flaw in that thinking, try to make an argument based on numbers of people using a given browser. That's your sole argument. Now, though, you have begun to add to that, insinuating, that arguing that there might be something better out there where the implementation (the user interface) is better, I am somehow saying that all the rest are "wrong". The problem with that argument is that you're just stating your opinion, and the extrapolate that to all other users of Firefox. And ironically, you then become guilty of what you accuse me of: Stating an opinion without arguing your case.
Implementation? implement what? if no functions to implement, sure its stable.
Ah, yes, omniweb has no functions at all. All it has is a search and URL field
[/sarcasm] :rolleyes·
Don't act stupid. Seriously, if I want a peer-to-peer downloader, I prefer my cartoon and porn dowloads not to interfer with my browsing (no matter if the browsing is for work or play).
Further, how good is FFs workspaces? Oh, that's right
Every piece of functions omniweb implemented is glories, every other functions implemented by other browsers are crap. Mr. do you have enough data to make your argument at all?
LOL, you ask for "data" in a place where only arguments will do, and where I have provided you with arguments. Excellent. Now, before you demand "data", I would like you to find all those surveys that support your views: Surveys that say my use of short cuts are extreme, surveys that show I'm only in the 0,001 percentile of users (being "extreme" and all), surveys that show that the users of firefox are using FF for the same reasons as you, and surveys of users, that given the choice (i.e. being on a mac, and price was the same), would _still_ use FF over, say, Omniweb or Opera.
Further, I'm not saying every function of Omniweb is glorious. As any other browser, it too has its shortcomings. However, I do consider it to be the best compromise out there. But, again, you come with this ridiculous accusation, even after I have told you I'm always willing to try out other browsers to see if it could improve my workflow. That's not exactly being blind to anything. However, I do find that, once again, you're the one being guilty of the exact thing you accuse me of: You're the one thinking and arguing, that no browser can hold a candle to Firefox, and your "proof" is download numbers.
Btw, I notice you have stopped talking about security, namely phishing. Also, the newest webkit will be implemented as soon as it's stable. What's not to like?
Oh, I forgot, about Opera: They have this ridiculous (yes, that's an opinion) Torrent-feature. A thing added, because people always wat everything in a multitool, not thinking how that will affect the rest. It's poorly implemented, and if you want to play around with Torrents you can do much better getting a stand-alone "Torrenter" (for want of a better word).
Another thing, although not a "web browser" per se, is the Adobe Bridge CS3: I was looking inside the package, having a look to see how easy (or difficult, as it were) to make a danish interface (translate the language files), and I discovered that it uses Opera for it's browsing. Its implemented really well, and doesn't feel like it's making use of an ordinary webbrowser at all. I guess, though, that it's the best way of doing it: That way you get updates (both features and security) and the Adobe people can concentrate on workflow.
Yet another thing, you seem to dislike the words "implementation" and "workflow-oriented". But take a look at apps like the mentioned Bridge, Lightroom, Aperture and Soundbooth. Those things are all about implementation and workflow, not getting in the way of productivity. So, even though you think it's nonsense to speak and think about these things, it's obvious some people will pay (good money) for that. Even if neither Lightroom nor Aperture can do all Photoshop can do.
