Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ChasingApple · Oct 17, 2006, 04:01 AM

I have been testing out and using Firefox 2.0 RC2 since it was released, and by testing I mean in Windows XP and in OS X Tiger. I have been impressed with the features set it had and enjoyed the full compatibility / stability of it. Well last night Firefox prompted me that RC3 was out and ready for install, so I fired it up.

Bloody brilliant software is all I can say. The latest theme / UI is very mac like, and fits well in the Tiger environment well. Pretty much RC2 was bug free and RC3 seems to be rock stable for the 6+ hours I have been using it. I know a lot of people say Camino is more "mac like" but this latest version of FF is really really good. I find Safari to be a little slow and not fully compatible with everything so I don't use it so much.

Check out the latest FF 2.0, I am sure you will agree it is quite well done.

webmonkie · Oct 17, 2006, 05:56 AM

This is great news for PC user I guess. It looks like is going to be ready for IE 7 from Microsoft.

webmonkie · Oct 17, 2006, 05:56 AM

This is great news for PC user I guess.
It looks like is going to be ready for IE 7 from Microsoft.

wataru · Oct 17, 2006, 08:31 AM

I hate the new theme, but Kevin Gerich has an updated version of Pinstripe (the default FF1.0/1.5 theme) and some of Arronax's stuff is updated as well.

Incidentally all of my extensions are already 2.0-ready.

wataru · Oct 17, 2006, 08:34 AM

dp.

ChasingApple · Oct 17, 2006, 09:24 AM

Theme is nice in OS X as well, nice and clean.

Gee4orce · Oct 17, 2006, 09:33 AM

Shame it still doesn't use native Mac OS X toolbars, text inputs, contextual menus....the list goes on.

Until it does, FFX will always be an inferior experience to Camino or Safari, in my book. Sure, it's the best browser on the PC, but there are better options on the Mac (at least, in terms of the look and feel).

voodoo · Oct 17, 2006, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Gee4orce

Shame it still doesn't use native Mac OS X toolbars, text inputs, contextual menus....the list goes on.

Until it does, FFX will always be an inferior experience to Camino or Safari, in my book. Sure, it's the best browser on the PC, but there are better options on the Mac (at least, in terms of the look and feel).

Seconded. It can serve as a decend secondary/backup browser, but it just feels icky to use it for a long time.

V

Millennium · Oct 17, 2006, 10:16 AM

FF uses widgets that are actually suited to the Web, in that they respond to styling. In 3.0 they'll be written in Cocoa (this is already in the 3.0 nightlies), but it will still use real Web widgets, not the set-in-stone appearance of Aqua.

Turias · Oct 17, 2006, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by wataru

Incidentally all of my extensions are already 2.0-ready.

Now that greasemonkey runs on 2.0, only one of mine still needs updating -- the del.icio.us extension.

ChasingApple · Oct 17, 2006, 10:33 AM

Hmm, I will never truly understand the mac crowd. All the functionality can be there but if there is one interface that is different then COCOA it's unusable, hehe. Seriously, do you people surf the net or stare at the UI? The UI is fine, contextual menus work well, and the whole browser is clean and fast. It renders almost 100% of the pages perfectly and boots fast. Ahh never mind, I already know this will fall on deaf ears.

besson3c · Oct 17, 2006, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Gee4orce

Shame it still doesn't use native Mac OS X toolbars, text inputs, contextual menus....the list goes on.

Until it does, FFX will always be an inferior experience to Camino or Safari, in my book. Sure, it's the best browser on the PC, but there are better options on the Mac (at least, in terms of the look and feel).

Personally, I'll take efficiency, functionality, compatability, speed, and usability over having pretty widgets any day of the week.

The other issue with Safari using its own widgets is that they do not inherit CSS characteristics, aside from dimensions of the overall widget. Frankly, I dont see the point of making web applications look like OS X applications, rather than what the designers had intended and created. I suppose Mac UI consistency is nice, but there is no way of making the conventions of web applications themselves consistent with Mac interface guidelines, so why not just treat web applications as their own platform?

OS level integration such as spell checking is nice though (although this is a feature provided by FF 2.0 now). I suppose it's a mixed bag.

TETENAL · Oct 17, 2006, 10:44 AM

FF 2.0 does not integrate with the OS spell-checker afaik. It has its own dictionary, its own user dictionary etc. I don't call that "OS level integration".

Also I don't think many people are complaining that the widgets within websites don't look like native widgets. What people are complaining about is that the widgets of the program itself ("chrome") are not native widgets. That creates many little inconsistencies in look and feel that contribute to the "icky" feel of Firefox.

besson3c · Oct 17, 2006, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

FF 2.0 does not integrate with the OS spell-checker afaik. It has its own dictionary, its own user dictionary etc. I don't call that "OS level integration".

Also I don't think many people are complaining that the widgets within websites don't look like native widgets. What people are complaining about is that the widgets of the program itself ("chrome") are not native widgets. That creates many little inconsistencies in look and feel that contribute to the "icky" feel of Firefox.

I wasn't trying to suggest that FF uses the OS spell checker, sorry for being unclear...

Like I said, I believe making web apps to use the native widgets is a completely fruitless venture that Mac heads should just give up on. What is the point of a web app looking superficially like a Mac app when the app and its behavior itself do not conform to Mac UI conventions?

Ajax will help bridge this gap, but until web apps use widget types and conventions that remotely resemble OS controls, I say let web apps be web apps and let OS apps be OS apps. Trying to marry the two is exactly what Microsoft tried to do starting in Windows 98 (or whenever Windows Explorer became IE and vice versa). To me, this concept has always been dumb.

TETENAL · Oct 17, 2006, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

I believe making web apps to use the native widgets is a completely fruitless venture that Mac heads should just give up on.

Seems like you didn't understand what I was saying at all.

besson3c · Oct 17, 2006, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Seems like you didn't understand what I was saying at all.

you wrote:

What people are complaining about is that the widgets of the program itself ("chrome") are not native widgets. That creates many little inconsistencies in look and feel that contribute to the "icky" feel of Firefox.

Chome is not native to what? The OS? What else could it be native to?

TETENAL · Oct 17, 2006, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Chome is not native to what? The OS? What else could it be native to?

The browser chrome is not native. That's what people are complaining about, not that web widgets aren't native.

besson3c · Oct 17, 2006, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

The browser chrome is not native. That's what people are complaining about, not that web widgets aren't native.

native to what? I still don't get it.

TETENAL · Oct 17, 2006, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

native to what? I still don't get it.

Native to the operating system of course. What's so hard to get about that?

Turias · Oct 17, 2006, 12:46 PM

TETENAL wants the Firefox UI to use Cocoa instead of chrome.

It'll never happen, and I don't really see it as a big deal. Chrome is nice enough.