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 > Firefox 2 Released

Firefox 2 Released
Thread Tools
kick52
Baninated
Join Date: May 2005
Location: England
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2006, 07:33 PM
 
Hi.

Firefox - Rediscover the Web


Discuss.

kick52
     
houstonmacbro
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Houston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2006, 09:10 PM
 
i like it overall ... it is much more responsive, and not as bloated feeling. it also seems to render pages quicker and feel ... lighter and more precise.

also things like drop downs and things that you interact with on web pages feels quicker.
     
DuckRacer1
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2006, 09:22 PM
 
It seems like the only difference between 2.0 RC3 and the full 2.0 release is just the version name.
     
houstonmacbro
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Houston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2006, 10:40 PM
 
what has your experience been so far? does it seem all-around quicker and less bloated feeling?
     
Technicolor
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Oakland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2006, 11:19 PM
 
Seems the same to me. Not noticeably faster on my 12" PB. Does look a little nicer. Still discovering new things as I use it. I like it.
     
Barefoot Matt
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2006, 12:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by DuckRacer1 View Post
It seems like the only difference between 2.0 RC3 and the full 2.0 release is just the version name.
I guess that would be why they call it a "release candidate"

Downloading now... I'm a camino user, but I use firefox in windows. I'm looking forward to seeing if this version is faster than 1.5; speed is why I switched to camino, and I'd like to have firefox back if that issue goes away.
iPod nano 3G 16GB
MacBook Pro 1.83 / 100 GB 5400 RPM / 1.5 GB
     
Gee4orce
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Staffs, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2006, 06:43 AM
 
I just had a PC user friend IM me and say "Have you seen Firefox 2 ? It's fantastic - it spell checks text fields on web pages !"

I said "Oh - like every Mac OS X browser since - well - ever ?"

Sigh.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2006, 08:24 AM
 
Gee4orce, give your friend a break-Windows has NEVER had apps integrated enough to have the OS provide a spell checker. It's all about "programmer autonomy" or some junk....

Anyway, FF2 looks better, runs faster, and feels smoother than 1.5whatever that I had been running. It doesn't exactly look like a "native Mac application" but it's closer now, and it does seem to be better at rendering stuff than earlier versions. Cool.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Gee4orce
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Staffs, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2006, 08:40 AM
 
Well, "better" and "free" has always been a winning combination, so I'm not exactly complaining !

I think it's given me a foretaste of what's to come when Vista appears - "Hey have you seen Windows now ? It has transparent windows and funky 3D effects !".
     
mitchell_pgh
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2006, 11:35 AM
 
I've never been a big fan of Firefox (love the concept, but didn't feel the advantage over Safari).

2.0 changed my opinion. I'm actually using it as my primary. We'll see what Leopard will have regarding an updated Safari.
     
Don Pickett
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2006, 11:54 AM
 
Firefox 2.0 is seriously making me consider using it as my primary browser.
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
plamparello
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2006, 11:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Gee4orce View Post
I just had a PC user friend IM me and say "Have you seen Firefox 2 ? It's fantastic - it spell checks text fields on web pages !"

I said "Oh - like every Mac OS X browser since - well - ever ?"

Sigh.

How do you get spell check in Safari. When I fill out forms, I never get misspellings underlined like the new firefox browser does.
plamparello
     
Don Pickett
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2006, 12:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by plamparello View Post
How do you get spell check in Safari. When I fill out forms, I never get misspellings underlined like the new firefox browser does.
Right-click in the text box and select "Check spelling as you type".
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
plamparello
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2006, 12:05 PM
 
I can't believe that I didn't know safari has always had spell check.


On another note, has anyone had problems with Firefox freezing up when it is installed with Google toolbar and the Google toolbar extensions (browser sync)?
plamparello
     
©öñFü$íóÑ
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2006, 12:18 PM
 
Firefox 2 has problems letting me log on to my iLearn site (SFSU); something to do with a "disabled" security feature on the school's servers. I presume other people may have trouble using FF 2 in logging onto certain websites with older security measures. But aside from that, FF 2 flies and works like a charm (even on an old AMD 800mhz like mine).

Don't bully me, I got an Uzi... HOO-HAH!
     
wataru
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2006, 06:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by plamparello View Post
On another note, has anyone had problems with Firefox freezing up when it is installed with Google toolbar and the Google toolbar extensions (browser sync)?
I don't use the toolbar, but the sync extension works fine for me.
     
alphasubzero949
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2006, 06:08 PM
 
To get old extensions working, install the Mr Tech extension:
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/421/

Then after a restart, go to the Add-ons window, view the extensions, and select Tools->Make all compatible. Restart again. YMMV.
     
houstonmacbro
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Houston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2006, 06:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Gee4orce View Post
Well, "better" and "free" has always been a winning combination, so I'm not exactly complaining !

I think it's given me a foretaste of what's to come when Vista appears - "Hey have you seen Windows now ? It has transparent windows and funky 3D effects !".
i just saw some website where microsoft IE development team sent the guys and gals at firefox a cake.

and apparently it was not poisonous.
     
KP*
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: New York, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2006, 10:57 AM
 
I like the new safari-style tabs, so I'm giving it another try as my primary browser. So far the biggest issue is that it won't print to my network printer at work (which was a hassle to get to work with my Mac anyway -- I have to do it manually via IP, not by selecting Bonjour printers). Strange that it won't print though -- thought that would be an OS issue, not app-specific. Although I haven't had time to try to print at home either, so maybe it's not working at all.
     
DuckRacer1
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2006, 08:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by houstonmacbro View Post
i just saw some website where microsoft IE development team sent the guys and gals at firefox a cake.

and apparently it was not poisonous.
Just in case someone is interested...

http://fredericiana.com/2006/10/24/f...mond-with-love
     
Cadaver
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2006, 11:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by DuckRacer1 View Post
Just in case someone is interested...

http://fredericiana.com/2006/10/24/f...mond-with-love
You bet the IE team is happy. They've got something new to try to copy.

     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2006, 11:19 PM
 
I didn't notice much new in Firefox 2. Not anything that would justify a major new version. The half-baked implementation of spell-checking is certainly no innovation.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 12:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
I didn't notice much new in Firefox 2. Not anything that would justify a major new version. The half-baked implementation of spell-checking is certainly no innovation.

Well, the Session Manager for one. Safari very badly needs a feature like this. The anti-phishing stuff is also probably useful to some. The ability to drag and drop tabs around is very nice, the RSS implementation is rather nice too.
     
TheoCryst
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 12:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cadaver View Post
You bet the IE team is happy. They've got something new to try to copy.
Not only that, but they have jobs. Without Firefox, the IE team would probably still be disbanded, and we'd all still be stuck with the POS that is IE 6. They should be VERY grateful that Firefox came around.

Any ramblings are entirely my own, and do not represent those of my employers, coworkers, friends, or species
     
dbranham
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Raleigh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 05:06 PM
 
I like FF2 quite a bit. Somehow it looks less Windows-esque than 1.5. As for it becoming my primary browser.....I'm still undecided.

I like to switch browsers from time to time, so designating one browser as "primary" doesn't really mean that much b/c it's always a temporary designation.
Old Times There Are Not Forgotten
     
Goldfinger
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 11:52 AM
 
Firefox 2 absolutely owns Safari IMHO. I used to be a Camino user on PowerPC but somehow Camino seems to be incompatible with the Intel version of Flash so that's a deal breaker. Camino also seems a LOT slower on my C2D iMac compared to Safari.
So I was using Safari until now on my iMac (eventhough I never liked Safari) but FF2 is just soooo much better.
FF2 is now my main browser. I really don't give a damn about spell check or those few buttons that don't look "Mac" enough.

iMac 20" C2D 2.16 | Acer Aspire One | Flickr
     
pliny
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: under about 12 feet of ash from Mt. Vesuvius
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2006, 02:55 PM
 
Firefox has crashed alot on some java pages. I don't remember which ones and don't care because I always try out Firefox on the Mac then end up deleting it from my hard drive. It does not look or work like a Mac applicaiton. Bookmark management is terrible. That's fine becasue there are good gecko browsers like Camino. The intel optimzed build of Camino is nice.
i look in your general direction
     
zerroeffect
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2006, 04:32 PM
 
The Intel optimized build of Firefox flies. I have also found little that I can't do with it (flash is inconsistent on some sites). And it's all about tweaking the app to your liking. Some people don't want to take the time or don't know what to do to get the results they want, so they call the program crap. At least you installed it.

I find that there is a lot of inconsistency in OSX with not only the look but behavior of different apps. I know there is an underlying design ethic running through the OS, but Firefox isn't hard to use and not very different from using any other app on my system IMHO.

Camino is great if you don't mind limited customization and are satisfied with what you are given. Personally, I like the flexibility and look of Firefox - non-native buttons and all. Thanks for your opinion.
     
real
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Ca
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2006, 05:36 PM
 
I look forward to useing FF2. Faster is always better, and that bloated feeling sucks so if they fixed that, it would be great. Can't wait to get home and try it out


real
With some loud music + a friend to chat nearby you can get alot done. - but jezz, I'd avoid it if I had the choice---- If only real people came with Alpha Channels.......:)
AIM:xflaer
deinterlaced.com
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2006, 06:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by zerroeffect View Post
The Intel optimized build of Firefox flies. I have also found little that I can't do with it (flash is inconsistent on some sites). And it's all about tweaking the app to your liking. Some people don't want to take the time or don't know what to do to get the results they want, so they call the program crap. At least you installed it.

I find that there is a lot of inconsistency in OSX with not only the look but behavior of different apps. I know there is an underlying design ethic running through the OS, but Firefox isn't hard to use and not very different from using any other app on my system IMHO.

Camino is great if you don't mind limited customization and are satisfied with what you are given. Personally, I like the flexibility and look of Firefox - non-native buttons and all. Thanks for your opinion.

I agree with you completely.

To me, the most compatibility, performance, and useful functionality trumps the advantage of having nice native OS X web browser preferences. I rarely visit the prefs anyway, just set them how I want and leave them.

Not to sound like a broken record, but I also disagree strongly with the so-called virtues of making web browser form widgets native OS X widgets. I think this whole concept is quite dumb and pointless.
     
Goldfinger
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2006, 06:28 PM
 
I have a question: I use this java app from time to time and when you open the applet the applet creates a few extra menus in the menu bar. But, Firefox doesn't show them and they are quite essential for the java app to work correctly. Am I missing something ?

iMac 20" C2D 2.16 | Acer Aspire One | Flickr
     
philm
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Manchester, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2006, 07:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by dbranham View Post
I like FF2 quite a bit. Somehow it looks less Windows-esque than 1.5. As for it becoming my primary browser.....I'm still undecided.

I like to switch browsers from time to time, so designating one browser as "primary" doesn't really mean that much b/c it's always a temporary designation.
Don't forget you can use a Mac-style theme with Firefox to make all the buttons and tabs look like Safari. I'm using FF2 with this theme and I like it a lot.
     
pliny
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: under about 12 feet of ash from Mt. Vesuvius
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2006, 09:51 AM
 
Why are Firefox lovers so touchy about complaints about the browser? Is it because you think everyone should love it, or what? The browser needs alot of work on the Mac. We have been saying this for years here at MacNN.
i look in your general direction
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2006, 10:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by pliny View Post
Why are Firefox lovers so touchy about complaints about the browser? Is it because you think everyone should love it, or what? The browser needs alot of work on the Mac. We have been saying this for years here at MacNN.

A little, but I think many Mac users level of pickiness and like of shiny things perhaps overcomes their pragmatism.

Firefox is the most compatible, customizable, feature filled, and possibly best performing (although this can be debated) browser out there. Because it has a lesser preferences or bookmark interface, IMHO is a relatively minor problem.

Also, I believe that people don't understand the need for a logical separation between the Mac UI experience and the web.
     
pliny
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: under about 12 feet of ash from Mt. Vesuvius
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2006, 10:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
A little, but I think many Mac users level of pickiness and like of shiny things perhaps overcomes their pragmatism.

Firefox is the most compatible, customizable, feature filled, and possibly best performing (although this can be debated) browser out there. Because it has a lesser preferences or bookmark interface, IMHO is a relatively minor problem.

Also, I believe that people don't understand the need for a logical separation between the Mac UI experience and the web.
If by feature-filled you mean the extensions, ok. I personally haven't seen any extensions worth using, but as usual this is preference.

I assume "shiny things" is your way of describing, an interface that is consistent with the OS and that has a finished, polished look and consistent performance across menus and dialogs. This is what I look for since it is a good indicator...that an application is well constructed. Shiny per se, not so much.

The bookmark management on Firefox is from somewhere around 1997. It is clunky and does not work properly. Nested menus and basic functnos like delete, copy and paste, do not function consistently, or at all. Since bookmarks are an important element of browsing, this is signifcant I'd say.

To be honest I don't quite understand the statement about surfing the web in a way that detaches the browser from the OS. The browser is tied to the computer and hence the OS. Integration is a plus for me.

Firefox is a primarily a PC application, that is then coded for the Mac. I like it the other way around, that is why I use a Macintosh.
i look in your general direction
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2006, 10:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by pliny View Post
The bookmark management on Firefox is from somewhere around 1997. It is clunky and does not work properly. Nested menus and basic functnos like delete, copy and paste, do not function consistently, or at all. Since bookmarks are an important element of browsing, this is signifcant I'd say.
Can you explain this? I've never had any problems on either PCs or Macs with Firefox's bookmark management. I can't say I've copied many bookmarks from one folder to another, but I have a number of nested folders in my bookmarks, and Firefox seems to handle them fine. And I've never had a problem with adding or deleting them either. This applies to Firefox since version 0.9~ on both platforms, by the way.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2006, 11:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by pliny View Post
If by feature-filled you mean the extensions, ok. I personally haven't seen any extensions worth using, but as usual this is preference.

I assume "shiny things" is your way of describing, an interface that is consistent with the OS and that has a finished, polished look and consistent performance across menus and dialogs. This is what I look for since it is a good indicator...that an application is well constructed. Shiny per se, not so much.

The bookmark management on Firefox is from somewhere around 1997. It is clunky and does not work properly. Nested menus and basic functnos like delete, copy and paste, do not function consistently, or at all. Since bookmarks are an important element of browsing, this is signifcant I'd say.

To be honest I don't quite understand the statement about surfing the web in a way that detaches the browser from the OS. The browser is tied to the computer and hence the OS. Integration is a plus for me.

Firefox is a primarily a PC application, that is then coded for the Mac. I like it the other way around, that is why I use a Macintosh.

The browser may be tied to the computer, but the web is not. What is the point in trying to make web pages conform to OS X guidelines, when the applications themselves included on many applications do not? Like it or lump it, the web has become its own platform, and web-based applications are almost always not centered around providing visual cues and interface widgets that would be familiar to OS X users.

Consistency and uniformity are important, which is why I suggested that there is a tradeoff (a worthwhile one for me). What I meant by shininess is that many Mac users around here seem to have a superficial understanding of what usability actually entails.

Aesthetics are only a part of the overall user experience, which is a part of good usability. However, everytime there is a new OS or app revision announced, discussion around here always seems to revolve around how an application *looks*. Because of this dominant trend, I have started to believe that the way an application looks trumps other things for some Mac users. I wish there was more discussion around here about actual usability, and less unconditional defense of the decisions Apple has made, which have been good and bad.

There are several useful extensions, such as ad blocking and development tools. I always thought that the combination of Saft (used for session management) and Pithhelmet made for a very ugly hack (one which also requires paying shareware fees). The extensions I choose to use vary. Since session management is built into FF 2, this is one less plug-in I have to worry about.

My biggest gripe with Firefox is application association with file types I've downloaded. This affects me in my day-to-day more than anything else.

I understand the criticism FF garners up to a point, but its performance, compatibility, and flexibility seal the deal for me.
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2006, 11:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by pliny View Post
Why are Firefox lovers so touchy about complaints about the browser? Is it because you think everyone should love it, or what? The browser needs alot of work on the Mac. We have been saying this for years here at MacNN.
I bet they think everyone shares the same taste for crappy aesthetics and bloat.

Seriously though...Firefox is cool but Safari is pretty awesome too...at least the nightly Webkits with SVG and CSS3 and fixed memory leaks. Safari has always been a lightweight browser with tons of useful features as opposed to obscure features...

...and it's always a plus to see people like something other than IE or Firefox...because I really doubt web developers will target 3 browsers. The presence of 3 different browsers will force developers to write code that works in any of these browsers.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2006, 11:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! View Post
I bet they think everyone shares the same taste for crappy aesthetics and bloat.

Bloat? At the end of the day the rendering performance is what counts, and Gecko is great.


Aesthetics? This is EXACTLY what I was talking about above... No offense, but this is just dumb. A web browser is a vehicle for a user to access the web pages they desire. Once on said pages, the CONTENT is king, not the frame in which the content resides. Therefore, as long as the design is relatively neutral and doesn't interfere with the content, what does it matter whether you disagree with the way an icon or a gradient looks? There are far more important things to be concerned with, such as compatibility, performance, functionality... you know, the small stuff.
     
pliny
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: under about 12 feet of ash from Mt. Vesuvius
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2006, 11:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
What is the point in trying to make web pages conform to OS X guidelines, when the applications themselves included on many applications do not?
Lost me there. I don't fire up the web to access the web. I fire up a browser. If that browser can leverage underlying feartures of the OS to improve this, this is a plus.

One of the problems with Firefox on the Mac, and it is a big one in my opinion, which is why I don't use Firefox, is that PC widgets and approaches are the default. The app looks and operates like a PC application. Let's not forget that we're talking aobut an application here.
i look in your general direction
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2006, 12:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by pliny View Post
Lost me there. I don't fire up the web to access the web. I fire up a browser. If that browser can leverage underlying feartures of the OS to improve this, this is a plus.
But this only works up to a point. When you are using web-based applications such as web based email, online shopping, websites themselves, forms, etc. you are stuck with whatever usability conventions the author designs into the app. Sure you can make a form submit button superficially look like an OS application control, but what would be the point if the placement of the button is in a non-OS X-like location, or if a window close button was put on the upper right hand corner rather than the upper left?

Web based applications have become their own platform, we use these applications constantly.

One of the problems with Firefox on the Mac, and it is a big one in my opinion, which is why I don't use Firefox, is that PC widgets and approaches are the default. The app looks and operates like a PC application. Let's not forget that we're talking aobut an application here.
To me, how web pages perform and behave is what is important to me. The browser is only a vehicle to access web sites, hence its name.
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2006, 12:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Aesthetics? This is EXACTLY what I was talking about above... No offense, but this is just dumb.











Stupid, stupid people.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2006, 12:18 PM
 
An example of this:

I just discovered that in vBulletin you can make words bold with ctrl + B, italic words with ctrl + I, etc.

On the Mac, wouldn't it be more appropriate to make these controls something other than the control key? The control key is generally only used for triggering the contextual menu, and in other key combos. Well, tough titties, you are stuck with what the vBulletin authors designed, period, and no web browser will change that.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2006, 12:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
Stupid, stupid people.

You've taken my point completely out of context... We are talking about the point of aesthetics in the context of web browsing when content is king, and when we will always be limited by what the page we are on looks like.

It's a fruitless battle if you think the sites you love clash with the look of your web browser "frame"
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2006, 12:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You've taken my point completely out of context... We are talking about the point of aesthetics in the context of web browsing when content is king, and when we will always be limited by what the page we are on looks like.
On a television set content is king. On an iPod content is king. Does that mean the design of these devices doesn't matter? I put Ive in there for a reason. For a car getting from a to b fast and fuel efficient is king. Does that mean the design of the car doesn't matter? Shouldn't its colour be irrelevant and yet there are dozens to choose from? I put Bangle in there for a reason.

I know you don't understand aesthetics, but that's a defect that is not shared with the majority of mankind. For us Firefox just looks like crap.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2006, 12:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
On a television set content is king. On an iPod content is king. Does that mean the design of these devices doesn't matter? I put Ive in there for a reason. For a car getting from a to b fast and fuel efficient is king. Does that mean the design of the car doesn't matter? Shouldn't its colour be irrelevant and yet there are dozens to choose from? I put Bangle in there for a reason.

I know you don't understand aesthetics, but that's a defect that is not shared with the majority of mankind. For us Firefox just looks like crap.
Sure the design matters. Ideally, Firefox would have an awesome Mac-like design to go along with its current offerings. But, using your TV analogy, none of this matters if the TV picture quality is crap, or the picture is not consistent, or there are channels missing, etc. I'm not trying to create this analogy as to suggest that Safari is a lacking TV, just speaking rhetorically here.

Your TV analogy is also good because the TV itself is very similar to the web browser. Some people care what their TV box looks like, but I bet far more people care about what their TV's picture looks like. This is my point.
     
legacyb4
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Vancouver
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2006, 01:37 PM
 
I must have missed a tick box somewhere, but command-W on the last tab open gives me a blank page but does not actually close the browser window completely.

Intentional?
Macbook (Black) C2D/250GB/3GB | G5/1.6 250GBx2/2.0GB
Free Mobile Ringtone & Games Uploader | Flickr | Twitter
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2006, 02:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by legacyb4 View Post
I must have missed a tick box somewhere, but command-W on the last tab open gives me a blank page but does not actually close the browser window completely.

Intentional?

cmd + shift + w = close window, cmd + w = close tab
     
pliny
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: under about 12 feet of ash from Mt. Vesuvius
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2006, 03:29 PM
 
I don't really much see your point. I look for a browser that has good features that work (unlike Firefox) and interface consistency. And that is as integrated as much as possible with the OS.
Obviously, the choice is not between browsers that work (Firefox) and those that don't (all the rest).

Firefox on the Mac has been an also-ran on the Mac since its inception. 2.0 has advanced, but this foundation still plagues it. It's had a loyal following here for awhile, but I doubt it will ever be the Mac browser of choice given its limitations.
i look in your general direction
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2006, 03:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by pliny View Post
I don't really much see your point. I look for a browser that has good features that work (unlike Firefox) and interface consistency. And that is as integrated as much as possible with the OS.
Obviously, the choice is not between browsers that work (Firefox) and those that don't (all the rest).

Firefox on the Mac has been an also-ran on the Mac since its inception. 2.0 has advanced, but this foundation still plagues it. It's had a loyal following here for awhile, but I doubt it will ever be the Mac browser of choice given its limitations.

What do you not understand about my points? I've made them just about as clear as I can.

Do you understand the distinction between web-based apps that run within a browser vs. the browser itself?
     
 
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 08:03 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.,