Safari vs. Everything Else?

[bobr1952]

If you read through these posts, you will see the word "personally" used a lot. There is a reason for that, the proper browser really can only be determined by one person--you. So as some have suggested, you really should try Safari out since it is the Mac browser--but also try others like Firefox and Chrome--and then you can make the decision yourself as to which you like the best. I "personally" like Safari and that's the one I use.

 

[v5point0]

That is true in this regard it is better than IE. There would still be a Chrome without Safari though. They would have built on a different render engine or maybe simply started with KHTML. Google has huge resources of very skilled developers they could have built any engine them selfs they used webkit because it was there and pretty quick and decent.
The reason Chrome exists is that Google knew in order for its WebApps to run properly the client side needs a faster better browser. Thus they upped the game to get some competition started and make the client Browser of any company (IE9 being the last one) fast enough to handle the new Web.

Webkit was ported from KHTML and among the geniuses who worked on that was Dave Hyatt who formerly co-developed Firefox. Google has its own share of geniuses as well but why spend money and time building something when there is already a good alternative out there, not to mention creating another headache for web developers.

So Google used webkit and built on it a brand new browser like you said to up the game because Mozilla wasn't really doing it for them. It is not just about speed, but compatibility, compliance, standards, and usability. I think they have done a good job with that, which explains why many have been flocking to Chrome.

 

[dusk007]

Your point I disagreed with was only that you said Chrome exists only because of Webkit. Which is not true I wasn't saying webkit is bad.
I know the origin of webkit is KHTML. I was saying that if there was no WebKit they might have started with KHTML and built their own WebKit which probably would have a different name though.

The qualitiy of the render engine is only one part of the browsing experience and since they all are pretty good it is imo a small one. Proof to this is the IE9 Alpha. Fast engine but by itself really useless for browsering.
Safari's weakness is not webkit it is usuability aka the whole browser around the window.

 

[v5point0]

Your point I disagreed with was only that you said Chrome exists only because of Webkit. Which is not true I wasn't saying webkit is bad.
I know the origin of webkit is KHTML. I was saying that if there was no WebKit they might have started with KHTML and built their own WebKit which probably would have a different name though.

The qualitiy of the render engine is only one part of the browsing experience and since they all are pretty good it is imo a small one. Proof to this is the IE9 Alpha. Fast engine but by itself really useless for browsering.
Safari's weakness is not webkit it is usuability aka the whole browser around the window.

Trident which powers IE is one of the worst rendering engines, it is full of bugs and not standards compliant. It was only after Chrome's recent threat, that Microsoft have started improving it. Gecko is a powerful layout engine, but the code is a mess to work with. Webkit is really well designed, clean, and approachable - there has also been a significant amount of work which has gone into its development and it has matured well over the years. It is not easy creating a layout engine from scratch, it requires lots of testing, and that takes time. So from all those options Webkit was the most viable option for Chrome. Which was why I said "If it wasn't for the development that went into making Webkit and Safari better, Google wouldn't have been able to shape from that foundation the Chrome that exist today."

 

[Manderby]

I'm a bit of a minimalist, so I don't care about addons and crap ...

Then Lynx is the browser of choice

I'm primarily concerned with things like speed, system integration, aethetics, etc.

Ok. Maybe not in this regard.

Seriously: When you use the browser for browsing some plain old webpages and not as a thing-doing-everything-humanity-can-think-of, it doesn't really matter which one. I personally installed Safary as soon as it was available for download on day one, because the Browsers available that day were IE and Netscape, and no matter how good they are nowadays, back then, they stunk (stink, stunk, stunken, is that correct?).

I've tried other browsers since then but still, Safari is the browser for me. You can customize it to a pretty minimalistic look, even automatically hide and show the adress bar, so you just have a window with the title and below: nothing but content. System integration... I don't really get, what you want with that, but anyway, Safari uses Webkit (Chrome too) which is part of the system. Aesthetics: It's standard, which means, non-distracting. Speed: The hype around the speed-comparisons is over, all browsers are very good.

 

[MacSignal]

For "fitting in" with a Mac-centric work environment, I would recommend finding out what other people in your work environment are using.

Mainly, I use Safari, but I also have Chrome and Firefox installed. There are three sites that I regularly use/visit that are not completely functional in Chrome or Safari, so I will continue to use Firefox. Safari is the only one of the three that works with OS X's text substitution feature -- which I use a lot in email -- so Safari is my go-to browser for web-based email.

I like Chrome too. It seems a little quicker on my computer for the way I use a browser and I've noticed it is earning praise for its security.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

Safari needs more tolerance built into it, it's all to easy for flash sites to bring it down.

 

[iBunny]

I like Chrome the best. So far, it seems the fastest. All browsers (Safari, FireFox, Chrome) have been totally stable.

 

[v5point0]

Safari is the only one of the three that works with OS X's text substitution feature -- which I use a lot in email -- so Safari is my go-to browser for web-based email.

If you mean the "Paste and Match Style", Chrome has recently added that feature along with more Apple Scripts like invoking dictionary from the right click context menu.

 

[R94N]

Safari needs more tolerance built into it, it's all to easy for flash sites to bring it down.

It needs to TOUGHEN UP and not let Flash boss it around!

No, I completely agree. Flash is the #1 thing that makes Safari, at least for me anyway, crash. It often displays a 'Plug-in failure' message on some sites.

 

[kasakka]

Safari is not intended for power users, it is a simple web browser to display web pages which comes standard on a Mac that complies with the industry standards. I use it for bookmarking syncing with my iPhone, nothing else really.

I disagree. While it may lack a lot of things out of the box, Glims adds many of them in. As a web developer I like Safari, it has a decent set of developer tools built-in.

 

[colinsky]

I switched over to Chrome for a while but I pined for Safari's "Reader" feature. Then I discovered ClickForFlash and went back to Safari, and I haven't had a Flash crash ever since.

 

[v5point0]

I disagree. While it may lack a lot of things out of the box, Glims adds many of them in. As a web developer I like Safari, it has a decent set of developer tools built-in.

I checked out Glims, it does bring Safari a bit more up to standards, but these things should be there by default. Safari is not a bad browser, after all Chrome and Safari have more things in common then their differences. Its just that in terms of usability, I feel Safari lacks it for example with shortcuts and features. This is not surprising because Apple didn't build Safari to be in the race. Apple has their own principles of what a browser should be on a Mac and Safari is their answer. The fact that Safari market share has remained under 5% percent for the past two years just goes to tell what others think about that idea.

I switched over to Chrome for a while but I pined for Safari's "Reader" feature. Then I discovered ClickForFlash and went back to Safari, and I haven't had a Flash crash ever since.

I use the Readability bookmarklet I believe Safari's Reader is based on that, the readability bookmarklet is more superior in a sense that you can customize it.

I took a look at ClickForFlash, seems to be known as ClickToFlash now. I don't use it but I do use AdBlock.

 

[John Paul]

I started out using Safari years ago. Then I experimented with Firefox and fell in love with it; loved the concept of all the addons/extensions etc. But recently I have found FireFox being a bit wonky/clunky and simply being slow.

On a lark I tried out Chrome. I'm not a Google fanboy--in fact, I might be about the only person alive on the entire world wide web that doesn't have a gmail address--but I must say, I have been very impressed with Chrome. Shockingly impressed. It definitely seems snappier than Safari or Firefox, and visually I like how it's laid out.

I've only been using it about a week or so now, so I'm not quite ready to migrate over to it as my "main" browser. But I'm getting closer every day. I'm truly shocked how much I like it.

 

[petvas]

I disagree. While it may lack a lot of things out of the box, Glims adds many of them in. As a web developer I like Safari, it has a decent set of developer tools built-in.

I just installed Glims and I love it! Having favicons on the tabs was muchly needed. The search suggestions and all the other optimizations that Glims bring make it a must have for all Safari users.

I am between Chrome and Safari. I like Chrome's clean interface and the many extensions. Safari with Glims is almost on par. Add to that the way it handles PDF documents and downloads in general, plus the better integration to the OS, and I think I can start using it again.

 

[Nihilvor]

I much prefer FireFox (for the features and customizability). If you don't like the look of FF, just set it the way you like. Only about half of the addons I use on it have an equivalent in Safari (and some of those don't work as well in Safari).

The order of browser I turn to is FireFox first, then Safari, and then Opera.