Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Safari 4.0.1 vs Firefox 3.5

vanc said:
One thing is missing from Safari is the three finger swipe up for top of the page and swipe down for bottom of the page. Some times, it's quite handy with these two gestures.
Click to expand...

Ok, I so did not know Firefox did that, I've been using multiclutch to add open/close new tabs and tab switching through multitouch (as well as back/forward navigation).

The thing is, you say that the add ons don't speed up web browsing, when they clearly do - for example, morning coffee - If you read a lot of webcomics, news, blogs/feeds which update on a regular basis, being able to hit a single button and have them all open in separate tabs is faster than manually loading each in a new tab, by a long shot.

I also use Stumbleupon, which allows me to discover all sorts of intresting new content I simply wouldn't find without it, as - like most internet users - I am quite set in which websites I frequent. Whilst this does not accelerate browsing, it does make it a more interesting and diverse experience.
 
SnowLeopard2008 said:
Dear Clevin,

I know that admitting you're wrong about something isn't easy, but let's face facts. Acid3 doesn't test for everything, but it does test for web standard compliance. Not EVERY web standard, but most. SunSpider tests for Java. Maybe not a 1:1 ratio of the brower's Java performance but most. If you do the preschool math, we can assume most means 90%. If Safari won by 10% of less, then I'd say Firefox might be an equal. But if Safari wins by > 10%, I'd have to say Safari wins overall. I know you like Firefox and that a browser isn't all about speed or Java. But for people that aren't biased, Safari is the superior browser. This isn't some lunacy claimed by a biased person, just a open-minded person comparing two browsers.

In the end, a WEB BROWSER is supposed to browse the web. If you want to shove the fact that FF has lots and lots of plugins up my nose, go right ahead. But plugins don't browse the web. They are extra stuff that goes ontop of a browser. Safari clearly loads pages faster and renders them much better. Look at the drop down menus in FF and Safari. FF's style is a bit 'flat' and not as beautifully rendered as Safari.

Thanks,
Snow Leopard

P.S. I'm using Firefox to type this so it's not like I hate it.
Click to expand...

you write to me?

Dear SL:

did you check how many mistakes you have made writing a small post like this?

and what browser is a browser that it can't help users reach the website they want to go fast enough?

which part of 110% of zero is still zero dont you understand? or you have a pair of super eyes that you can tell the difference by 0.001ms?

your statement is filled with misused terms and self defined logics, I am not even sure if you understand anything you are saying!:p

JAVA? 10%?

Yeah people aren't biased, thats why firefox is used by 22% of the people, while safari has only 5-8%.

why don't you get your facts straight and check my posts, I easily throw out numerous firefox build in functions that save users time by minutes, not the 0.001 ms you were bragging about.

I do have my dedicated addon thread if I find anything interesting to introduce. you have problem with that? reply to them!

Dear SL:

Im growing tired discussion with some users who just keep making up stuff without check basic definitions in a dictionary, can you stop that?

and you think you are open minded and did an adequate job comparing two browsers? LMAO. I don't expect your fairness, but at least be honest when making statements.
 
SnowLeopard2008 said:
Well at least some of us think of a Mac as a system, not as a face that users can do plastic surgery all over. I agree FF has plugins, but I (like 90% of the internet using population) don't care about plugins. So I get a shoddier UI, or an ad blocker. A web browser is supposed to browse the web, which Safari clearly does faster than FF. I thought this was a browser war, not a browser plugin ability war.
Click to expand...

Your response just sounds absurd to me. The Mac is a system, but who cares if that system WORKS WELL or serves the user properly. Browsers have plugins, but I don't care about how a browser performs, only how fast it is and if has the exact same aesthetics as Steve Jobs would like instead of what I would like since I only like what Steve likes. :confused:

You can make Firefox look and behave any way you want, including almost just like Safari (why you would want it to boggles my mind, but that's beside the point). Even the idea that Firefox doesn't look enough like Safari is invalid since there are themes to make it nearly identical to Safari, but that is apparently too much work or beyond the (total lack of) technical expertise of the typical Mac fan and most seem to think plugins mean nothing, even though they mean Firefox can be exactly what you say it is not aesthetically. In short, rather than nothing, it means a LOT to a browser experience since with Firefox it defines it.

MacAndy74 said:
Would it be at all possible if you read the rest of my post and then formed an educated opinion? Cheers.
Click to expand...

I did read it. I responded accordingly. Other than the RSS bit, your entire post consisted of exactly what I said. It's not Mac enough. It's not integrated with the Mac enough. It's not by Apple. It's like a worn out car (ridiculous comparison, BTW considering Firefox's features and popularity, which it would never achieve against IE or Safari if it sucked as bad as some seem to think).

What part did I miss?

Overall, I see two kinds of users in this world. One type uses what the OS comes with, whether it be Internet Explorer (Windows) or Safari (Mac). To them, this is the cat's meow. It's the path of least resistance (i.e. you don't have to download/install/think about anything). That browser also represents the OS creator's vision for that OS. Therefore, it's the best browser. Over 75% of the world thinks like this (mostly IE since Windows is most of the world). Some in this category have tried another browser at some point, but quickly decide it's not like what they're used to so it sucks.

The other 25% of the world actually tries out the browsers and decides for themselves what's best for them. They explore features and preferences and add-ons, if available. They make an informed, intelligent decision about what browser best suits them, not which browser is readily available. Some still choose the default browser, but for solid useful reasons, not complaints about aesthetics or a couple of CTRL-Combos don't perform identical to what they're used to, etc.

In your case, I see one solid reason (RSS doesn't behave like you prefer) and the rest sounds like, "it's not OS X enough for me" (probably by default without getting any add-ons that make it more like Safari). My problem with that latter thinking is that who said a browser should be like a single OS? A browser should be a great BROWSER...not just an extension of an OS aesthetic. I'm not saying Safari isn't a good browser at this point, but it certainly lacks interface options and the lack of plugins means it often can't do what many users might like it to do. Firefox can do things here that Safari will NEVER EVER be able to do. I don't forsee that ever changing given Apple's philosophy of "we decide it for you".

The one thing everyone ignores, though is that you can have BOTH on your machine and use which one suits your needs at the time or for a particular web site.
 
The problem is that not all websites are coded according to web standards. Take IE for example (6,7,8, take your pick). A lot of older sites are coded to work best with IE (like my company's intranet sites, timecard, etc). Some of these sites will not work at all with Safari. Even if you change the user agent string, they will not render properly. Many sites have been rewritten to adopt web standards, but many still have not, so the perfect Acid3 score means little if the websites I'm trying (forced) to visit is crap and won't run in Safari.

Fortunately, there is nothing preventing us from using multiple browsers. I'd rather have the page render a bit slower than not at all.

Here at work I have to use IE6 due to IT policy, but I have so far been lucky with using a portable version of FF3.5 for all but a few sites.
 
Personally I prefer Firefox over Safari - Maybe because it was what I used before switching to Mac, but I think mainly because I like the way it can be customised to do what I want it to do and how I want it done.

IMHO the plug ins that Firefox has gives it the same advantage over Safari that say the iPhone has over a Blackberry. The blackberry will do certain things faster but you can't add on all the apps that iPhone has. Also because the plug-ins for Firefox are all based on an open source software initiative all the plug ins are continually being upgraded and improved in much the same way that apps for the iphone get upgraded and improved.

I can also report that Firefox integrates very well with Apple - In fact there are more trackpad gestures (I use a MBP) that work in Firefox then there are in Safari, so put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Speed isn't everything - I will be sticking with Firefox for quite some time to come I think...

:rolleyes::apple:
 
I use both. Whichever one works best for a site, that's what I use. Since Safari 4.0.x was released, that's what I use by default on my Mac. I use Firefox on my work PC since there's no ad block for Windows Safari (and I don't really like how Safari works on a PC). Safari starts up fast (faster than Firefox) and loads pages nice and fast. If I have a page that doesn't work in Safari, I'll load up Firefox.
 
I've been using both of them in probably a 60/40 FF/Safari time-share since I downloaded it yesterday; FF 3.5 has crashed on me 4 times today alone compared to 0 for Safari in the past week.

Too bad- I think they released it a little early.
 
Three items makes Firefox my default browser over Safari.

  1. NoScript
  2. Better multi-touch trackpad support. Especially, three finger swipe up/down, not sure why Apple didn't implement this in Safari
  3. While Safari does render pages slightly faster, I get a lot more beach balling with Safari.
 
they both are crashing ever so often, but I do prefer Safari, I like the look of it and the clean layout. I think they both need some time before we see the true performance.
 
I use Firefox on both OS X and Windows. I actually used Safari-only for over a year, back when Firefox was in the 2.x.x era. (Which was terrible. I used 1.5 on my PC at the time.) But after FF 3 came out, I switched back to using it exclusively.

For me, it looks better. Maybe that's just me, but of course, the add-ons are nice too. (I <3 TwiterFox.)
 
ikos said:
they both are crashing ever so often, but I do prefer Safari, I like the look of it and the clean layout. I think they both need some time before we see the true performance.
Click to expand...

looks can be deceptive tho :)

GrApple-Crisp-2.0.png


GrApple-Tangy-2.0.png
 
Airforcekid said:
Only thing I like on firefox is ad blocking who NEEDS themes etc they slow you down I want features and speed= Safari plus glimmer Blocker blocks my ads!:apple:
Click to expand...

no they don't slow the app down, the elements of UI itself is no different when you use default, or a theme. They are all just js, css, etc, it would be impossible for anybody to tell the difference with bare eyes. Giving today's cpu speed.

you want futures? do you really?

you want speed? do you really? how many second does it take for you to use safari to reach a website? and how many second it takes to goto same site with firefox? when you accidentally close a tab with large amount of text entry (posting, commenting), how many seconds does it take in safari for you to re-enter them? and how many second does it take for firefox (hint, 1 second)?

Speed is a funny thing, so many people is focusing on a 0.001ms difference in js speed, while ignoring the seconds to minutes of speed difference in all other aspects of web surfing? Its mind boggling.

1. awesome bar saves time by presenting desired results much faster.
2. web worker allows background js, saves time
3. auto saving of text entries saves massive amount of time when tab gets closed accidentally, or browser crash.
4. remembering multiple passwords saves time
5. drop down list at urlbar saves time
6. search function in download list saves time
7. dragging elements among tabs and windows saves time
8. multiple search engines saves time
...
...
 
So what add-on for Firefox is the one that makes FF look like Safari (as seen in the pics above)?
 
Keleko said:
I use both. Whichever one works best for a site, that's what I use. Since Safari 4.0.x was released, that's what I use by default on my Mac. I use Firefox on my work PC since there's no ad block for Windows Safari (and I don't really like how Safari works on a PC). Safari starts up fast (faster than Firefox) and loads pages nice and fast. If I have a page that doesn't work in Safari, I'll load up Firefox.
Click to expand...

Same here. I use Firefox for those wonderful sites, such as my local golf club's webpage, that don't render correctly.
 
So yet again I've switched back to Firefox.

Both Safari 4.0.1 and Safari 3.5 works flawless for me. I CAN'T MAKE UP MY MIND!

Gonna try and stick with Firefox for a while.
 
I use Safari simply because it looks better. Plus I like the control-command-D feature for quick definition. Safari is a little faster, but the difference is negligible on my MacBook. I will say that FF 3.5 has improved the way it renders font. Still not on Safari's level, but getting better. I don't use any ad-ons. I'd rather see ads and flash than that hideous X.
 
bluedoggiant said:
This is an interesting conversation, I have both FF and Safari on my mac but use Safari, though I need a REALLY good reason to goto FireFox for prime time.

Has anyone even factored in the Google Chrome/Chromium project?

http://www.favbrowser.com/firefox-35-vs-safari-4-vs-opera-10-vs-chrome-2-vs-ie8/

it seems to be kicking ass

I have both Chromium, Google Chome

and the unknown but potential stainless

Also, how about some time about Gecko used in FF VS WebKit used in Safari...Hmm?
Click to expand...
gecko and webkit are too bare-boned to generate end user interests. IMO. After all. end users are presented, and using a browser, not a bare-boned engine.

Engine comparison, maybe worth a separate topic, if you like to create one.

chrome....mmmm.. its hard to factor that in when its in very early stage and could not be used by normal users on a day to day basis.

chrome is using webkit as layout engine, plus google's V8 js engine. Thats all i can say for now. It will be worth discussing more when it reaches a stable stage.

There is no need to put in all the minor forks, that would make the topic much more messier than most people would like, since most people dont use those minor browsers. Its not a judgment on their quality, just a simple fact.
 
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