[Will V.]

I just switched from Windoze to OS X at home, and so maybe I have a different perspective. Mozilla, and then, Firefox, have long been my browsers of choice on the Windoze platform. I was quite upset when Netscape got simply too old to continue using, and Netscape 6 was simply a disaster. I was basically forced to use IE, because it really was the best thing on the platform. Mozilla and Firefox saved a good many Windows users from having to put up with IE, which has almost become as antiquated as Netscape 4.x did. IE is also about as secure as an ocean liner with a hull made of Swiss cheese. Mozilla and Firefox are fantastic browsers on their own, and even more so when you consider the alternative.

So, when I decided to switch to OS X, Firefox was a natural choice for me. Granted, since I haven't really been using Macs [regularly] as much as Windows, I am totally unaffected by the "not made for Mac" issue noted by others. I'm sure as I continue to use Firefox, I will notice quirks here and there, like every piece of software. But, mostly, I am very grateful to the Mozilla developers who worked on Mozilla and Firefox for Windows, and porting Firefox for Mac OS X.

[Turnpike]

didn't read the whole thread yet, but I wanted to point out one thing to the OP: Safari doesn't choke on PHP. It can't. PHP doesn't ever make it to the brower. PHP is entirely server-side, and what is handed back to the client (your browser) is all in HTML (maybe DHTML, XHTML... heck, it could hand back plain text or some other format). Either way, it isn't PHP that Safari doesn't like, 'cause browsers don't have any part in the actual PHP part of a PHP-based site.

[Will V.]

Originally posted by Turnpike:
PHP doesn't ever make it to the brower. PHP is entirely server-side, and what is handed back to the client (your browser) is all in HTML (maybe DHTML, XHTML... heck, it could hand back plain text or some other format).

Well, to be perfectly clear, PHP *could* make it to the browser one way or another (for example, deliberately; or, if the web server stops filtering PHP pages through the PHP engine). However, Safari wouldn't handle this any better or worse than any other browser.

For some time, Mozilla browsers would choke at ASP.Net pages. Or, more appropriately, ASP.Net would choke on Mozilla browsers.

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Camino is also like Firefox but without the disadvantages. It does look Mac-like, and uses proper buttons, context menus, sheets, etc. It also seems to start up slightly faster.

Not that Firefox is a bad browser, but Camino is more Mac-like.

Yeah but Camino lacks a bunch of features that Shiira and Safari, which are very Mac-like and Opera, is quite Mac-like

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by Janaka Cooray:
This is not sounding good. Firefox is regarded as the best browser in Windows (for those users that care - many don't.)

In fact, Firefox is now estimated to have approaching 10% of the browser market worldwide. Firefox loads fast on Windows, renders fast, has little reported compatibility problems (only sites using activeX won't work - and they are disappearing.)

I looked at this thread hoping for an answer to which browser to use as Safari seems to be obviously slow. In addition, it has a problem handling animated GIFS (and 'is not ready for primetime'), as I have been told on another thread in the hardware forum - thus is seems perfectly logical to seek another alternative.

What I am reading though, is that OS X browsers are either: slow, buggy, poorly featured, or poorly integrated into the OS (blocking manu bar etc.)

Is this really the state of browsers on this platform. I am a very recent 'switcher' - and whilst I appreciate not having to dowload security patches all the time, I'm finding OS X to have been hyped somewhat as making Windows seem so inferior that it is one of the great crimes of our century that people are forced to run it. But at least web browsing can be a no-brainer if you want it to be on Windows


Hope someone will prove me that the 'switch' is the best thing I ever did (no Mac Zealots need reply.)

No, the browsers are not perfect, but I thinnk they more or lress rock and are way better then Windows. I Love OmniWeb and Shiira, myself. If you ddislike WebKit, try Firefox (it really is pretty well integrated) or Opera 8.

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by Janaka Cooray:
OK, being choosy is not a bad thing. But anyone care to come up with a list of browser pro/ cons like the first posting to help a brand new member to the Mac community? I think that first one may have been a little inaccurate since Safari was reported as crashing on so many web sites - I've only been using a Mac for a few days - but I would say that Safari's weakness are it's percived slowness and bug with typing when animated GIFs are present - not it's hideous incompatibility.

(Just my opinion) I think we can throw out Mozilla (since the Mozilla foundation is officially deprecating it.) AFAIK, Netscape is in the same situation as well. Camino is made under the auspices of the same organization that makes Firefox - so it seems that Camino is the way they want things to go for the Mac in the longer term (and hence why Firefox doesn't seem 'integrated' with OS X.)

And, just for the sake of completeness, IE is deprecated (as Microsoft supports Safari.)

So anyone with experience care to compare the remaining browsers in terms of performance, elegance, compatibiliy etc.? I think it would be useful to contrast to the first posting.

NOOO! I did a real nice comparison up there (iThink), with a conclusion, and I think Shiira would be best for you, BTW.

Mozilla -Still useful for Composer, Newsgroups, and fans of integration. Just being dead isn't a death blow... it still gets maintanence upgrades.

FFox- *beep* no. There is a clear plan to make it more Mac-like by v1.5 and v2.0, and Camino will stay too.

Overall, I still have an addiction to Shiira and especially OmniWeb, my absolute favorite piece of software ever, aside from OS X.