Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Applications > Fx 3 Better than any other browser!?

Fx 3 Better than any other browser!?
Thread Tools
ryaxnb
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Felton, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2008, 06:08 AM
 
1. AwesomeBar
I hate the name, but the functionality is pretty cool. The AwesomeBar is an easy to use bookmark and history search bar in the title bar. It is very relevant and makes Bookmark folders and even tagging almost useless.
2. The Places/Library System
This advantage can be separated into:
1. AwesomeBar: Already stated. Way Cool.
2. Library window integrates bookmarks, history, and with extensions, del.icio.us, and GMarks. In other words, it integrates everything really well. Fully searchable, taggable, filterable, and stores content from inside the page (optional)
3. Tags. Makes it easy to bookmark junk.. just tag away. Very nice.
4. One-click bookmarking. Just one click bookmarks a page.
5. Better history: Easily browse or search history, or use visual history views with extensions.
3. Fast: Faster or as fast as Safari 3.1 at rendering websites, faster at pure Javascript, and almost as fast at warm boot, and UI.
4. Better Search: Search bar supports many engines: Tons available for download.
5. Google Toolbar: Handy. It's an extension, for Firefox and IE only, not safari.
6. Better YouTube support: Download YouTube videos, queue them up, or scale them: all with YouPlayer and DownloadHelper, extensions to the base Firefox.
7. Work Offline: Better Work Offline mode, supports (will support) offline apps.
8. Better Downloading. Open immediately after download (automatically) and per-file download folder choice. More importantly, resuming is supported, even cross-session.
9. Sidebar: History sidebar is very nice, so is the Bookmarks sidebar. Add-on sidebars include del.icio.us and iGoogle via extension.
10. Password Manager. Much better password handling then Safari, although it doesn't use the System Keychain.
11. Greasemonkey.
12. Status bar: With add-ons the statusbar area can act as a download area, a detailed info area and a launching bay.
13. Split Windows, Tab drawer, Ad blocking, and so much more: All can be yours with extensions.
Yes, many of these features are better with extensions or require extensions. But really, extensions are a great advantage of Fx. Fx is now better than safari even without extensions, as demonstrated by AwesomeBar, Places, Search and Downloading. But it is also better than OmniWeb, Opera and iCab, all feature-packed web browsers, due to its compatibility, speed, price and extensibility, allowing it to make up for lost features with extensions or just by being faster then OmniWeb or iCab. Therefore, My case is that Safari 3.1, nor OmniWeb 5.7, nor iCab 4, no longer holds the best browser, general seat: That seat now belongs to Firefox 3.
Disclaimers: Running too many extensions will make Firefox slow and buggy. Firefox still isn't all that Mac-like, and Firefox still isn't quite as fast at UI or Warm-up time, in general as Safari 3.1. Firefox also still lacks Keychain integration, Acid3 compliance, or similar features. They're working on most of that.


Firefox 3: I give it a 9.5/10 on Mac OS X and a 10/10 on Linux and Windows.
Trainiable is to cat as ability to live without food is to human.
Steveis... said: "What would scammers do with this info..." talking about a debit card number!
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2008, 06:20 AM
 
I can smell an imminent browser war thread.
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2008, 07:11 AM
 


Better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
rickey939
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Cooperstown '09
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2008, 09:16 AM
 
Safari will be out of business by weeks end.®
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2008, 10:01 AM
 
You could have just said "It has extensions" and saved a lot of space. Then I could have replied, "Good, I don't like any extensions and I especially don't like how they make Firefox buggy and even worse than it already is, so I'm giving the edge to Safari" and we would have saved space there as well. Bah, Firefox is a humbug.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2008, 10:51 AM
 
The biggest plus to Safari is that it's a small, lightweight, efficient browser.

When you see Webkit adoption on mobile platforms such as mobile phones (S60, Android, etc.) it's not a mistake. Webkit is possibly the most web standards compliant of all engines (Opera being very close or perhaps equal) and has the advantage of being very fast and having a very small footprint. And with the new JavaScript interpreter (and even without it), Safari is the fastest browser (this has been supported in many independent comparison tests).

Firefox 3 is quite good. FF3's biggest advantage being that it's highly extensible. People that don't care about extensibility, however, don't need anything more than Safari.

It's great to see Firefox 3 doing so well. Anything to chip away at Microsoft's dominance.

And although Apple is doing the same thing MS did with Internet Explorer by making Safari the default Mac browser (most people simply use the default browser without ever looking for alternatives or knowing that an alternative exists), the fundamental difference is that Webkit actually is the best engine.

You can't become the best and most popular on technological prowess alone. Mozilla flexed its "look at me, I'm extensible" muscles to gain market share. Apple flexed its "Safari is what you're gonna use when you buy a Mac" muscles. Opera hasn't flexed a lot of muscle unfortunately and even though they're right up there with Webkit in terms of technology, you can't just claim you're the best and expect people to adopt your browser.

Almost nobody knows the technological details of a browser. If they did, everyone would be off IE and on Opera, FF and Safari. Most people that use FF don't love the actual engine...they love the extensibility.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2008, 11:18 AM
 
I prefer FF3, even though there's still some stability issues. I actually think that it is more standards compliant than Safari: If you look at what percentage of each test the browsers supported AT THE TIME THE TEST WAS ANNOUNCED, FF has won at least the last two (noone I know cared about the first one). Safari is much quicker at getting enough implemented to pass the test completely (as has Opera) but they generally do just what is needed and nothing more.

I use FF because of some of the features offered by extensions, but the only one I really need is Flashblock. I switched when I noticed that feature on Windows, and nothing has brought me back. If the new JS engine is as good as they say, then maybe that will bring me over.

That said, the attitude Mozilla shows in ads like the one above might very well drive me away from the browser eventually.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2008, 11:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
I prefer FF3, even though there's still some stability issues. I actually think that it is more standards compliant than Safari: If you look at what percentage of each test the browsers supported AT THE TIME THE TEST WAS ANNOUNCED, FF has won at least the last two (noone I know cared about the first one).
And if you have the power to freeze time, that might be a useful thing to consider. For the rest of us, Safari has blazed ahead and Firefox hasn't really moved very much.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2008, 01:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
I prefer FF3, even though there's still some stability issues. I actually think that it is more standards compliant than Safari: If you look at what percentage of each test the browsers supported AT THE TIME THE TEST WAS ANNOUNCED, FF has won at least the last two (noone I know cared about the first one). Safari is much quicker at getting enough implemented to pass the test completely (as has Opera) but they generally do just what is needed and nothing more.
As Chuckit has said, if time stood still "at the time the test was announced" you would have a point. But as of right now, today, this instant, Safari 3.1 is not only more standards compliant than FF3, it's also much faster and at least twice as small.

This is not an opinion but a fact...undebatable and proven. Of course, that doesn't make Safari better than Firefox. Firefox has its advantages I suppose...but some of them are mostly a matter of taste. Extensions and ad blockers are extra features that may or may not be important to some people.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2008, 01:19 PM
 
Safari also has a few extensions and ad blockers (e. g. Pith Helmet). If it has the extension you want™, that's another question. Surely, both browsers are `fast enough', but to make artificial arguments that one is better than the other is a bit ridiculous. I'm quite happy that there is no browser mono culture anymore and that IE loses market share (in Germany, IE has 30 or 35 % market share) -- which means I can do online banking with Safari and this ecosystem of several browsers curbs the enthusiasm to `optimize' a page for quirks of a certain browser
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
moep
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2008, 04:05 PM
 
Here's what I think: Webkit Nightlies with Squirrelfish > Safari 3.1.1 > Firefox 3

I like Firefox for it's customizability and it's would definitely be my #1 browser on Windows machines but not for Mac OS X. Compared to Safari it seems slow and even sluggish once you throw a couple of Addons in the mix.
It also still "feels" very unnatural in the Aqua environment unless you install 3 or 4 UI-specific Addons and a skin. I've also encountered two reproducible crashes with FF3 but hey, it's a .0 release so I guess that's to be expected.

Safari Adblock = Adblock
Launchbar >= AwesomeBar
1Password >>> Firefox Password Manager

These apps cover all the features I need for Safari*.
If they wouldn't exist then yeah, I would definitely consider using FF3 on the Mac too.
(*NoScript for Safari would be cool but I can live without it.)

PS: any browser that cuts into IE 6.0's market share has my approval.
"The road to success is dotted with the most tempting parking spaces."
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2008, 04:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Safari also has a few extensions and ad blockers (e. g. Pith Helmet).
There are some hacks for Safari available, but Safari does not have an extensions feature.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2008, 05:07 PM
 
That's right, but still, all that matters is whether it works. Arguably, ad blocking is one of the most important extensions, I would say.

In either case, I'm not taking away FF's advantage when it comes to extensions.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
ryaxnb  (op)
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Felton, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2008, 10:17 PM
 
Let's not also forget Fx's wonderful Downloads, Places, AwesomeBar, History, RSS, and Search, none of which need extensions.
Trainiable is to cat as ability to live without food is to human.
Steveis... said: "What would scammers do with this info..." talking about a debit card number!
     
angelmb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Automatic
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2008, 04:25 AM
 
Firefox still isn't all that Mac-like, and Firefox still isn't quite as fast at UI or Warm-up time, in general as Safari 3.1. Firefox also still lacks Keychain integration, Acid3 compliance, or similar features. They're working on most of that.

Firefox 3: I give it a 9.5/10 on Mac OS X and a 10/10 on Linux and Windows.
That is too generous… I highly doubt even Safari deserves that 9.5/10

Firefox very own site looks awful due to that reason you cited…





Maybe next version would arrange it so they can name it Firefox 4 Mac… oh snap !!
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2008, 08:43 AM
 
I'm not really saying that Firefox is better than Safari, I'm just saying that Firefox was better when I switched, and since then nothing has driven me to switch again. Safari may well be slightly better, but not enough that I've bothered migrating bookmarks and whatnot again.

I also feel that there is a difference between an unsupported hack and an extension that uses a supported API. I don't want to delay installing a security update because it might make a hack work.

And if you have the power to freeze time, that might be a useful thing to consider. For the rest of us, Safari has blazed ahead and Firefox hasn't really moved very much.
Acid[1,2,3] is not the complete specification of any standard - it picks a few points here and there. After the test is known, those specific points are improved - the rest of standards compliance doesn't move too much. For this reason, the amount of the test passed before anyone starts fixing bugs is a more relevant measure of standards compliance than who finishes it first (that is more a measure of development speed). Of course there is a certain amount of luck involved, if the team that makes the test happens to pick something you're good at, but Firefox has won 2 in a row.
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2008, 09:16 AM
 
The team that makes the test never picks something you're good at. The purpose of a test is to find things you do wrong. This is what the author of the Acid3 test had to say:

Also, I have to say, it was quite difficult to find standards compliance bugs in WebKit to use in the test. I had to go the extra mile to get WebKit to score low! This was not the case with most of the other browsers.”

Hixie's Natural Log: Moebius

So how the browsers scored at the time the test was released tells you exactly nothing.
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2008, 04:03 PM
 
If we're talking about real reasons why Firefox is better than Safari, then let's talk about this:

Kerning and OpenType features in Firefox 3




     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2008, 05:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
The team that makes the test never picks something you're good at. The purpose of a test is to find things you do wrong. This is what the author of the Acid3 test had to say:

Also, I have to say, it was quite difficult to find standards compliance bugs in WebKit to use in the test. I had to go the extra mile to get WebKit to score low! This was not the case with most of the other browsers.”

Hixie's Natural Log: Moebius

So how the browsers scored at the time the test was released tells you exactly nothing.
I think it does. Out of 100 things he thought to test, 39 passed in Safari and 51 (I think it was?) in Firefox. How come? Much of what they failed at was likely the same, advanced features not yet implemented etc, yet Safari had at least 12 unique bugs. Were tests picked that intentionally put Safari in a bad light? Unlikely. Of course, if Opera and IE and everyone else also bugged out on the same things, they might be included, but that implies that they ought to render more or less the same. They don't.

Besides: Currently released FF3 gets a 71 on Acid3. Currently released Safari 3.1.1 gets 74, but it's not the same tests that fail as the Safari pic still shows that cat. That the Webkit nightlies get 100 is nice and all, but I'm not going to be running nightlies for my main browser.
     
64stang06
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2008, 05:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
I think it does. Out of 100 things he thought to test, 39 passed in Safari and 51 (I think it was?) in Firefox. How come? Much of what they failed at was likely the same, advanced features not yet implemented etc, yet Safari had at least 12 unique bugs. Were tests picked that intentionally put Safari in a bad light? Unlikely. Of course, if Opera and IE and everyone else also bugged out on the same things, they might be included, but that implies that they ought to render more or less the same. They don't.

Besides: Currently released FF3 gets a 71 on Acid3. Currently released Safari 3.1.1 gets 74, but it's not the same tests that fail as the Safari pic still shows that cat. That the Webkit nightlies get 100 is nice and all, but I'm not going to be running nightlies for my main browser.
How about Safari 4 Developer Preview?

MacBook Pro 13" 2.8GHz Core i7/8GB RAM/750GB Hard Drive - Mac OS X 10.7.3
     
AKcrab
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2008, 11:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
That the Webkit nightlies get 100 is nice and all, but I'm not going to be running nightlies for my main browser.
Why not? I've been doing it for months now, haven't had an issue at all.
     
Curiosity
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 01:30 AM
 
Does Firefox 3 have better helper application handling? If you want to have it use a particulay helper application to handle a particular file type, is that easy to do, or do you still need an extension to get it to do that?
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 01:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Curiosity View Post
Does Firefox 3 have better helper application handling? If you want to have it use a particulay helper application to handle a particular file type, is that easy to do, or do you still need an extension to get it to do that?
Yes, that is one of the improvements. In the Prefs, there is a list much like old Netscape 3 or thereabouts where you pick which application to match for each file.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 02:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by AKcrab View Post
Why not? I've been doing it for months now, haven't had an issue at all.
Because stability matters. That is also the reason that I don't like to use unsupported hacks and prefer the extension system in Firefox. I used to be more cutting edge, but at some point I realized that I got more things done if I didn't bother with things like that. If I had been a web developer, then it would had been more relevant to use a brand new browser, but I'm not.

And saying that you haven't had a any problems doesn't really say much - if it had been of comparable stability with Safari 3.1 or FF3, it would be released by now. It's not, ergo there are still enough bugs to be fixed.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 02:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Because stability matters. That is also the reason that I don't like to use unsupported hacks and prefer the extension system in Firefox.
Funny, that's exactly my impression of the extension system in Firefox — a bunch of unsupported hacks, with the only difference being that these ones are using a published API. Does Mozilla actually guarantee the quality or even the compatibility of Firefox extensions?

Originally Posted by P View Post
And saying that you haven't had a any problems doesn't really say much - if it had been of comparable stability with Safari 3.1 or FF3, it would be released by now.
That's a specious claim if ever I heard one. Apple doesn't release software just because it's stable.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 04:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Funny, that's exactly my impression of the extension system in Firefox — a bunch of unsupported hacks, with the only difference being that these ones are using a published API. Does Mozilla actually guarantee the quality or even the compatibility of Firefox extensions?
The problem about Safari hacks is when you update the browser. You don't know what works and not, and often nothing works. This means that you either drop all your hacks, or you delay installing the update. In Firefox, all extensions can be certified as working with the update or not, and with all the important ones, the extension is marked as working (because it usually is - a security update rarely touches the extension system) before the update is released. If something doesn't work, you are offered an update from inside the browser.

Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
That's a specious claim if ever I heard one. Apple doesn't release software just because it's stable.
They release when they're done. This includes stability as well as some sort of feature target. A preview only makes sense when a browser is more or less feature complete, so it can be tested, so it only makes sense that what remains to do is bugfixes. In any case that is the last part of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 04:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
That the Webkit nightlies get 100 is nice and all, but I'm not going to be running nightlies for my main browser.
Why not? The builds are usually very stable, right now, I've been running WebKit for three days straight (including flash sites, youtube) without a hiccup.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 04:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
Nice, very nice
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 10:16 AM
 
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=348047

Mozilla is a dinosaur. Almost two years, and they still don't have a large application icon for Firefox.
     
Spoffo
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: San Rafael, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 01:03 PM
 
A question for you Firefox enthusiasts: does v3 finally support the Adobe Reader plug-in? I actually use Firefox 2 on my one PPC Mac, using the Schubert plug-in to read PDFs, but that add-on doesn't work on Intel Macs, and that lack of an in-browser PDF reader makes FFox fatally flawed (IMHO) as an everyday tool on those machines.

If you tell me V3 handles pdfs as elegantly as Safari on an Intel Mac, then I'll be eager to try it.
Dual 1.8 G5 tower w/ Pioneer 112, 4 gb RAM, 500 & 200gb HDs
MacBook Pro 2.16 gHz Core 2 Duo, 4 gb RAM, VM Ware Fusion & Boot Camp installed with Win XP Pro (Previously used Parallels)
     
ApeInTheShell
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: aurora
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 01:06 PM
 
I thought G4 tv was kidding when they said the Awesome bar. I think Firefox is cool and I use it for school and thottbot but I do not use it more than Safari. Apple's browser has grown on me so I looked for a search like spotlight/auto-guess hack and found an application online called "Inquisitor". It has a nice black user interface and sits in the search bar. Definitely better than seeing the typical google results.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 01:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
You could have just said "It has extensions" and saved a lot of space. Then I could have replied, "Good, I don't like any extensions and I especially don't like how they make Firefox buggy and even worse than it already is, so I'm giving the edge to Safari" and we would have saved space there as well. Bah, Firefox is a humbug.
Do you use any Safari add-ons/hacks?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 01:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
That's right, but still, all that matters is whether it works. Arguably, ad blocking is one of the most important extensions, I would say.

In either case, I'm not taking away FF's advantage when it comes to extensions.
It works, until you upgrade to a newer version of Safari... I grew tired of this game of cat and mouse.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 01:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Funny, that's exactly my impression of the extension system in Firefox — a bunch of unsupported hacks, with the only difference being that these ones are using a published API. Does Mozilla actually guarantee the quality or even the compatibility of Firefox extensions?


That's a specious claim if ever I heard one. Apple doesn't release software just because it's stable.
Which add-ons have you used that were unstable, just out of curiosity?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 01:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=348047

Mozilla is a dinosaur. Almost two years, and they still don't have a large application icon for Firefox.
And this extremely low priority task makes it a dinosaur how?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 01:42 PM
 
The other problem with all of this standards compliance race and competition is that developers are limited by the least compliant mainstream browser. For that reason, it has been years that developers have had to live without transparent PNGs, CSS 3 text shadows, etc.
     
Koralatov
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Aberdeen, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 04:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
I’m quite impressed that they’ve implemented it. However, it seems far from perfect, and needs a good bit of work before it can be considered a killer feature. FF’s use of discretionary ligatures is especially irksome.

Personally, I’ve used FF, Safari and Opera extensively (I gave up on IE around about version 5), and Safari has been, in my experience, the best overall. Second to that would be Opera, with FF trailing as third.

FF2’s memory usage was just insane, and using extensions — one of FF’s marquee features — was so hit and miss it was often not worth bothering with. FF3 is an improvement, but still far from being a viable Safari replacement. Whilst probably slightly shallow, FF3’s default UI on the Mac is genuinely, genuinely awful. I’m not arguing for absolutely homogeneity, but gods, they need to do a better job of it in future. It also violates a lot of little Honestly speaking, I can’t find anything to recommend FF over Safari for your average user.

Also, pulling stuff like this, and publicly airing sour grapes, doesn’t encourage me to use their browser.

PS. Can anyone explain why it’s now referred to as ‘Fx3’ instead of ‘FF3’?
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 04:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spoffo View Post
A question for you Firefox enthusiasts: does v3 finally support the Adobe Reader plug-in? I actually use Firefox 2 on my one PPC Mac, using the Schubert plug-in to read PDFs, but that add-on doesn't work on Intel Macs, and that lack of an in-browser PDF reader makes FFox fatally flawed (IMHO) as an everyday tool on those machines.

If you tell me V3 handles pdfs as elegantly as Safari on an Intel Mac, then I'll be eager to try it.
The Mac version doesn't do that by default (the Windows version does, and I don't think it used to do that). There is however a new plugin that lets it do that.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 04:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Koralatov View Post
FF3 is an improvement, but still far from being a viable Safari replacement. Whilst probably slightly shallow, FF3’s default UI on the Mac is genuinely, genuinely awful. I’m not arguing for absolutely homogeneity, but gods, they need to do a better job of it in future. It also violates a lot of little Honestly speaking, I can’t find anything to recommend FF over Safari for your average user.
What, specifically, is it about the default Mac interface that you don't like? There is a bit of uncanny valley going on in that it is now quite close, so the small differences (like the bookmark menus not flashing when you select something) bug me more, but I was even more bothered with the first (metal) Safari interface.

FYI: If you have a sharp line between the titlebar and the buttonbar, then that is a bug that comes from the theme UNO. Delete the file userChrome.css from your Firefox profile folder to fix.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 04:56 PM
 
Firefox:

- needs fewer restarts due to being bogged down with a number of pages open (I'm assuming this is because it is has fewer memory leaks)

- a far better browser for web dev in just about every way

- better page compatibility

- obviously more features, or potential for features

- satisfying performance


Safari

- quicker startup

- faster for several sites/pages

- smaller footprint
     
parsec
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 11:37 PM
 
I think I'd be pretty damn tempted to switch to firefox on the mac if it supported just one thing: ctrl-cmd-d to show the definition of a word when the mouse cursor is over it. That really is the main thing keeping me from it.

I use firefox 3 on windows at work every day, and quite like it (though the 'awesome bar' took a little getting used to).

The two main features that safari doesn't have:

- Bookmark keywords (I can't survive without being able to type 'wiki whatever' and all the other bookmark keywords I use. When Safari 3 came out I was in misery until the Sogudi update finally came out).
- Adblocking. I'm not a big fan of extensions, so I don't really want to bother with PithHelmet (plus I'm cheap). Sogudi notwithstanding - it's a necessity.

The whole open source thing is kind of nice too, but, meh..

Oh yeah, Safari being able to resize text areas on web pages also kicks ass.

All this ACID test standards stuff is just a pissing contest at this point. Standards are important and the whole Canvas / Squirrelfish etc. stuff is awesome, but Windows IE is dragging things down and will be for a good long while I think.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 12:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by moep View Post
1Password >>> Firefox Password Manager
QFT.

1Password is just an awesome app.

And the my.1password.com sync is a great boon.

-t
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 01:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by moep View Post
Here's what I think: Safari DP4 + Webkit Nightlies with Squirrelfish + SAFT + Inquisitor > Webkit Nightlies with Squirrelfish > Safari 3.1.1 > Firefox 3
Fixed™.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 01:56 AM
 
As for adblocking. TRUE adblocking comes from using a hosts list. Never loads the ads in the first place (as opposed to just hiding them) and works in ANY browser.

I use this list.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 03:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
As for adblocking. TRUE adblocking comes from using a hosts list. Never loads the ads in the first place (as opposed to just hiding them) and works in ANY browser.

I use this list.
That's nice, if adblocking were what I was after. It's not. I want to block Flash animations because they annoy me. If anyone wants to show me a banner, go ahead.
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 03:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
That's nice, if adblocking were what I was after. It's not. I want to block Flash animations because they annoy me. If anyone wants to show me a banner, go ahead.
Is this a feature of Safari or SAFT? I honestly can't tell them apart anymore:


[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 04:48 AM
 
Fx 3 Better than any other browser : for having to reboot your machine continuously.

Not installed on my iMac yet since I have to reboot my work laptop approx every other hour when using FF3. Four tabs, two add-ons (one - Google Browser sync - doesn't work, the other is Grease Monkey which I do nothing with) and it takes 120M.

Not good enough.
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 01:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Firefox:

- needs fewer restarts due to being bogged down with a number of pages open (I'm assuming this is because it is has fewer memory leaks) Explain!

- a far better browser for web dev in just about every way Explain!

- better page compatibility Explain!

- obviously more features, or potential for features

- satisfying performance


Safari

- quicker startup

- faster for several sites/pages

- smaller footprint
Explain the bolded parts.
     
Koralatov
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Aberdeen, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 03:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
What, specifically, is it about the default Mac interface that you don't like? There is a bit of uncanny valley going on in that it is now quite close, so the small differences (like the bookmark menus not flashing when you select something) bug me more, but I was even more bothered with the first (metal) Safari interface.
It’s a combination of small and large issues. I hate the rounded corners on the ‘AwesomeBar’, the enlarged and combined back/forward buttons and the ligher tab bar. The gradient doesn’t look quite right, even though it was apparently fixed. All in all, I just can’t stand it, even though it’s probably horrifically shallow of me. I’ve resorted to using GrApple Yummy, because I really, genuinely believe that Safari is the best-looking browser on the market.

FYI: If you have a sharp line between the titlebar and the buttonbar, then that is a bug that comes from the theme UNO. Delete the file userChrome.css from your Firefox profile folder to fix.
I don’t suffer that problem; I’ve only installed FF3 on my MBP, which is on Leopard. Both my Tiger machines are using UNO, however, so I’ll keep an eye out for that particular issue. That said, I don’t think I will install FF3 on either — they’re both lower-end machines, and FF2 dragged ass so bad on them that I’m just going to stick with Safari 3 (which runs much more smoothly).
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 03:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! View Post
Explain the bolded parts.
What's the magic word?

needs fewer restarts due to being bogged down with a number of pages open (I'm assuming this is because it is has fewer memory leaks)
Just my experience - Safari benefits from being restarted every once in a while. When I'm doing development or research, I keep my browser open for a very long time, so this is a nuisance. YMMV.

a far better browser for web dev in just about every way
Firebug, Web Developer, ColorZilla, MeasureIt... Plus, for a long time several web apps would work on Firefox that wouldn't work under Safari 2 (e.g. TinyMCE), and at the time this was due to acknowledged shortcomings in Safari. This is less the case now, but I still consider Firefox my "gold standard" browser for development due to the aforementioned developer tools, as well as its larger user base. Safari would be fine for all of this though, if it had the add-ons I rely on heavily.

Better page compatibility
Every now and then I run into Web apps that don't work in Safari for various reasons. Instead of messing around with user agent switching (which does no good for sites that utilize XUL), it is quicker just to use Firefox for my usually brief and temporary visits to these sorts of sites.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:46 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,