[nav3]

Okay, so after spending the last week trying out different browsers, it became apparent to me just how lacking Safari is in features. It also seems as though the only real change in the upcoming version of Safari is RSS. Thats pretty disappointing considering this is a relatively major update.

After toying around with Firefox I loved the features it has, especially the customizable search box in the address bar. This got me to thinking why hasn't Apple merged Safari with Sherlock yet? It makes perfect since to do so, and the applications would go hand in hand.

Firefox has a lot of bells and whistles that I though were rather useful, but I'm sticking with Safari. I just couldn't handle how sluggish Firefox is as an application. It also lacks the feel of a true Macintosh application. If Safari were to integrate the features of Sherlock, I think it would set the standard for browsers on all platforms.

[TETENAL]

Sherlock is crap. In Safari just set a bookmark to the web site a Sherlock channel queries.

RSS is crap. It delivers the headlines of articles that I have to click on to read the full article in HTML. I rather read the proper MacNN frontpage where everything is available at once. I wish Apple would not bloat their browser with this nonsense.

What "bells and whistles" does Firefox have? Two dozens of themes? Give me a break.

The interface of Safari is fine. Don't bloat it with unnecessary stuff. If they improve the underlying engine that is much more important and much more justifies a version bump than sugar coating on the surface.


Don't!

[Hi I'm Ben]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Sherlock is crap. In Safari just set a bookmark to the web site a Sherlock channel queries.

RSS is crap. It delivers the headlines of articles that I have to click on to read the full article in HTML. I rather read the proper MacNN frontpage where everything is available at once. I wish Apple would not bloat their browser with this nonsense.

What "bells and whistles" does Firefox have? Two dozens of themes? Give me a break.

The interface of Safari is fine. Don't bloat it with unnecessary stuff. If they improve the underlying engine that is much more important and much more justifies a version bump than sugar coating on the surface.


Don't!

someone always feels the need to ignorantly come crap on someones ideas. I guess you're the winner today. But rather than just to play the devil's advocate why don't you know what you're talking about.

Giving Safari the feature to do RSS... exactly HOW is that BLOATING it? It's adding a feature. If you choose not to use it, you'll never know it even exists. Personally I like a few RSS feeds. I use one for my iCal calendar and another for interface lift. Just because you don't find use for some things does't make it suck.

Also FireFox has one major thing safari lacks. extensions. There are extentions to do tons and tons of different things that wouldn't be available in any other browser. It makes FireFox one of the most customizable browsers out there.


I like sherlock.
Feel free to "bloat" your own browser with links like "yellowpages.com" and "hollywood.com".

[ManOfSteal]

Sherlock is about to get blown out of the water from Dashboard...

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Hi I'm Ben:
Giving Safari the feature to do RSS... exactly HOW is that BLOATING it? It's adding a feature. If you choose not to use it, you'll never know it even exists.

This is bloating it because it increases launch time and memory usage, as well as decreasing speed, stability, and speed of development for useful features. All that for adding a feature that is so completely redundant it's silly.

[Hi I'm Ben]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
This is bloating it because it increases launch time and memory usage, as well as decreasing speed, stability, and speed of development for useful features. All that for adding a feature that is so completely redundant it's silly.

lol right. RSS will make safari take .0000000000041 seconds more to launch. Again, the feature is not completely reduntant. Many other browsers have it implimented. And I'm sure those RSS feed bookmarks use TONS of memory. I'm gonna have to buy a new computer just to run this new safari.

It's not reduntant. I prefer to scan over news titles and names to see. A: If anything was even updated and B: If I even want to read the new articles. Why on earth would I want to browse through 5-6 sites for articles I might find interesting when I can click a folder in my bookmark bar and see all the articles from all the pages in 1 minute. Then if I choose to actually look at them. I can click from there. Again. This is what I prefer. I'm not thrilled about the release of Safari RSS, because it's not THAT important. But to get all bent out of shape making assumptions that it will consume memory and delay launch time is completely ridiculous.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by TETENAL:


RSS is crap. It delivers the headlines of articles that I have to click on to read the full article in HTML. I

You don't understand RSS.

You can make as much or as little content available as you choose. The reason most sites ask you to click through to the site itself is simple - advertising revenue. If we all start to read our news via RSS readers then there's no way people will continue to pay for banner ads.

I read all my news on NetNewsWire. It allows me to keep tabs on about 50 sites in 5 minutes every morning. You cannot do that in html.

[rjenkinson]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
I read all my news on NetNewsWire. It allows me to keep tabs on about 50 sites in 5 minutes every morning. You cannot do that in html.

sure you can. create folder of bookmarks in safari and check the auto-tab box.

-r.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
You don't understand RSS.

Sure I understand it. Open the MacNN or Spiegel.de RSS feed and you get a bunch of headlines that link to articles. If I open the front pages directly I get the headlines, excerpts of the articles, images etc. pp. The RSS feed is redundant and silly. This is a technology as useful as a goiter.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Sure I understand it. Open the MacNN or Spiegel.de RSS feed and you get a bunch of headlines that link to articles. If I open the front pages directly I get the headlines, excerpts of the articles, images etc. pp. The RSS feed is redundant and silly. This is a technology as useful as a goiter.

Well, the RSS feed of the page would load faster so there is marginal utility.

However, I think the key utility of RSS is the ability to have feeds from multiple sites at your fingertips. So all the headlines of 20 sites load on one page for your review instead of going to each site seperately. That is quite useful, IMO.

But whether or not you find the features useful, your argument that it will somehow make Safari slower or worse in some way seems pretty baseless.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I think the key utility of RSS is the ability to have feeds from multiple sites at your fingertips. So all the headlines of 20 sites load on one page for your review instead of going to each site seperately. That is quite useful, IMO.

News aggregation – that's exactly what the news-sites' job is already. MacNN does that for Mac news. Spiegel.de (or CNN) does that for general news. Most people rely on the handcrafted news aggregation by professional news sites. Automated news aggregation is inferior, but if you have to check 20-50 news sites a day, that might be useful for you (and the other 3 guys in the world who do that).

But whether or not you find the features useful, your argument that it will somehow make Safari slower or worse in some way seems pretty baseless.

The argument is not baseless. The original poster wanted "all the bells and whistles" included in Safari 2.0. "All the bells and whistles" – of which RSS is one useless example – would slow down Safari. That's why I argued to not include everything just for the bulleted feature list. Improving the rendering engine is more important.

[Hi I'm Ben]

TENETAL you should move to PC so you can use IE6, they won't have RSS feeds for a long time! And hey, it's faster!

Meanwhile. Stop with your "it's going to slow down safari" nonsense.

I can't believe you're still trying to argue a losing battle. You're one dense guy, just because you don't like something doesn't mean the world is following your trend.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by rjenkinson:
sure you can. create folder of bookmarks in safari and check the auto-tab box.

-r.

...and sift through all the unupdated pages...

[rjenkinson]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
...and sift through all the unupdated pages...

well, yes and no. you would do the work the application does when it checks and compares and the RSS feed. i posted that response only to show that keeping tabs on 50 sites using HTML is possible, contrary to what another user claimed.

-r.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by rjenkinson:
well, yes and no. you would do the work the application does when it checks and compares and the RSS feed. i posted that response only to show that keeping tabs on 50 sites using HTML is possible, contrary to what another user claimed.

-r.

Possible, but not in nearly as speedy a manner...his point was speediness.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by Hi I'm Ben:
TENETAL you should move to PC so you can use IE6, they won't have RSS feeds for a long time! And hey, it's faster!

I say MacNN needs to create a post filter that auto-banninates anyone who uses the phrase "You should move to PC."

Seriously, it's like people think, "Man, I don't really have an argument against what he just said. Hey, I know what'll piss him off!" There's nothing about not having an RSS reader in your browser that is particularly WinIE-like — it's just a generic comeback along the lines of "Your mom!" And even if it were like Feature X in Windows, that doesn't mean anybody who likes the feature ought to sell their computer and software collection for a system they generally like less.

Bottom line: "You should move to PC" is a great argument ... if you live under a bridge.

[ManOfSteal]

Drama!

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Bottom line: "You should move to PC" is a great argument ... if you live under a bridge.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by ManOfSteal:
Drama!

I know, I know. What would Mary J. Blige say?

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Sure I understand it. Open the MacNN or Spiegel.de RSS feed and you get a bunch of headlines that link to articles. If I open the front pages directly I get the headlines, excerpts of the articles, images etc. pp. The RSS feed is redundant and silly. This is a technology as useful as a goiter.

You don't understand RSS and you're using it the wrong way. As a result you're blaming the technology for your lack of satisfaction. Just because it might not be for you doesn't mean that the technology is somehow crap.

First of all, you're wrong in saying that nobody uses RSS. It is currently the fastest growing technology on the internet. All of the big newscasters have adopted it, together with about 99% of all blogs. We are using it in our own business. For us the main benefit is to be able to stay in touch with our customers without having to worry about our newsletters getting caught in spam filters.

Secondly, an RSS reader is pointless if you're only following two or three sites or want to read a site in depth. It comes into it's own when you're following large amounts of news on a regular basis. I frequently check the headlines of about 30 sites. On my RSS reader (NetNewsWire) that takes me 3 minutes. I click through to the articles that are of interest to me, which in the latest version of NNW open in the same window.

I couldn't do that with a browser and bookmarks.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Secondly, an RSS reader is pointless if you're only following two or three sites or want to read a site in depth. It comes into it's own when you're following large amounts of news on a regular basis. I frequently check the headlines of about 30 sites. On my RSS reader (NetNewsWire) that takes me 3 minutes.

Good, so it is useful for you. How is that an argument for putting that functionality into Safari? E-mail is a useful internet technology, so is instant messaging. Why isn't that squeezed into Safari as well?

I would rather like to see Safari focused on it's main purpose, do that well, and leave other tasks to specialized applications, than to add "all the bells and whistles" to Safari (as the original poster preferred). I will stand by that position whether people are trying to insult me for it or not.

[rjenkinson]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Possible, but not in nearly as speedy a manner...his point was speediness.

no, his point was that it couldn't be done with HTML. which is untrue.

-r.

[Hi I'm Ben]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Good, so it is useful for you. How is that an argument for putting that functionality into Safari? E-mail is a useful internet technology, so is instant messaging. Why isn't that squeezed into Safari as well?

I would rather like to see Safari focused on it's main purpose, do that well, and leave other tasks to specialized applications, than to add "all the bells and whistles" to Safari (as the original poster preferred). I will stand by that position whether people are trying to insult me for it or not.

Maybe this will help you understand.
http://www.mozilla.org/products/fire...bookmarks.html

See how that RSS feed has pictures, and links, and HTML. I'm not sure what you think a browser is for but to me that fits the description perfectly. Why is this better then an RSS reader? BECAUSE if you're reading an article and clicking on links within it then you have to open a seperate program and view the external links to the article you're at now you're running two seperate programs for a program that could do it with no problem.

Supposing this is still not enough proof for you, when Safari DOES come out with Safari RSS what browser are you going to start using?

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by rjenkinson:
no, his point was that it couldn't be done with HTML. which is untrue.

-r.

Read his post again. There was an emphasis on minutes and time-it-takes.

"...50 sites in 5 minutes...can't do that in HTML"

This isn't worth arguing about. The point is, RSS neither bloats Safari nor is a bad idea.

[rjenkinson]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Read his post again. There was an emphasis on minutes and time-it-takes.

"...50 sites in 5 minutes...can't do that in HTML"

the emphasis was not solely on time. his post had three parts: RSS allows him to keep tabs on 50 sites, to do that in 5 minutes, and that you cannot accomplish this feat using HTML. if there was emphasis anywhere in his post, it was on that third point. read it again if you don't believe me.

as for the time issue, loading HTML would be slower than 50 RSS feeds, but since you still have to read the content, the difference would be marginal. you only need to have one page in front of you at time while the others load in the background. so while the loading time would be different, the user can quickly scan a page for new content, disregarding the rest. just because there's more information on a page doesn't mean that you have to read it all.

-r.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by rjenkinson:
as for the time issue, loading HTML would be slower than 50 RSS feeds, but since you still have to read the content, the difference would be marginal. you only need to have one page in front of you at time while the others load in the background. so while the loading time would be different, the user can quickly scan a page for new content, disregarding the rest. just because there's more information on a page doesn't mean that you have to read it all.

-r.

You don't "still have to read [all] the content"; Safari will keep track of new items and display them all in chronological order. RSS is much more useful than you may think.

You don't have to read through old lists of unupdated feeds; you don't have to locate the content of new articles in updated feeds and then scan it in an attempt to figure out whether your want to read it or not.

RSS displays, depending on the feed, a handy summary or the entire article -- but in text form.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
News aggregation – that's exactly what the news-sites' job is already. MacNN does that for Mac news. Spiegel.de (or CNN) does that for general news. Most people rely on the handcrafted news aggregation by professional news sites. Automated news aggregation is inferior, but if you have to check 20-50 news sites a day, that might be useful for you (and the other 3 guys in the world who do that).

How about people who check:

CNN
MacNN
VersionTracker
ThinkSecret
AppleInsider

CNN takes care of general news. MacNN then does that for Mac news. VersionTracker lets you keep on top of new Mac software, and the other two sometimes have nifty Tiger screenshots...

Maybe people have special interests besides Macs that they could also add to that list, making the list longer. It will be hard for you to find one web site that will cover every kind of news that any individual person would care about.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
How about people who check. ...

I believe they are the minority and stay the minority. RSS will be dead in a few years. People are not interested in aggregating news when thy have professional news sites doing that for them; news sites are not interested in providing useful RSS feeds because that doesn't make them advertising money.

In case of doubt I would rather leave something out than add bloat to an application. Don't focus so much on RSS; that was just an example I mentioned. My main point was to oppose the opinion that Safari should include "all the bells and whistles" in future versions. It shouldn't in my opinion. It should stay focused on web browsing and should do that well. Not e-mail, not news groups, not instant messaging.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
I believe they are the minority and stay the minority. RSS will be dead in a few years.

Wanna bet?

People are not interested in aggregating news when thy have professional news sites doing that for them

Wrong.

news sites are not interested in providing useful RSS feeds because that doesn't make them advertising money.

Wrong. RSS feeds can adopt ad footers if they so choose. Click-thrus also generate revenue when people want to view comments, etc.

In case of doubt I would rather leave something out than add bloat to an application.

You don't know what "bloat" is. Bloat is adding unneeded features that get in the way or somehow denigrate the application at large.

Don't focus so much on RSS; that was just an example I mentioned. My main point was to oppose the opinion that Safari should include "all the bells and whistles" in future versions. It shouldn't in my opinion. It should stay focused on web browsing and should do that well. Not e-mail, not news groups, not instant messaging. [/B]

RSS feeds are part of websites. They are another way of displaying website information. They are not in a completely different arena.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by Hi I'm Ben:
Why is this better then an RSS reader? BECAUSE if you're reading an article and clicking on links within it then you have to open a seperate program and view the external links to the article you're at now you're running two seperate programs for a program that could do it with no problem.

Wouldn't this logically imply that any app that whose documents can include hypertext links should be integrated into Safari? Should 10.5's browser be "Safari MS Word"?

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Wouldn't this logically imply that any app that whose documents can include hypertext links should be integrated into Safari? Should 10.5's browser be "Safari MS Word"?

RSS Feeds display web information and summaries of web information. MS Word does a little more than display links.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
I believe they are the minority and stay the minority. RSS will be dead in a few years. People are not interested in aggregating news when thy have professional news sites doing that for them; news sites are not interested in providing useful RSS feeds because that doesn't make them advertising money.

This, I am sorry to say, is 100% incorrect.

I work in publishing and marketing. One of the biggest challenges we're facing is to understand how people are creating their own media universe, and then how to be invited into that universe. The reality you're describing ended about five years ago.

An excellent book to read on this matter is The Cluetrain Manifesto.

The image below is a screenshot of the latest NetNEwsWire beta. The sites listed aren't the ones I am following (that's on the PB) but it still gives you an idea on just how much information you can digest via RSS.