[milhous]

just realized this tonight as i tried customizing the toolbar for the first time. a sheet drops down and let's one drag and drop components in the extra space. now this is on windows, but i'd imagine the experience would be consistent on other platforms.

of course, the sheet effect isn't as elegant and slick as os x.

[wataru]

Welcome to the Phoenix era.

Actually, I don't know when the fake sheet was added, but it's been there as long as I can remember.

[lngtones]

The whole Firfox default UI reaks of Safari. It's not that surprising. Most open source software is a cheap rip off of original *commercial* ideas.

[wataru]

Originally posted by lngtones:
The whole Firfox default UI reaks of Safari. It's not that surprising. Most open source software is a cheap rip off of original *commercial* ideas.

What bullsh�t.

[demograph68]

Originally posted by lngtones:
The whole Firfox default UI reaks of Safari. It's not that surprising. Most open source software is a cheap rip off of original *commercial* ideas.

Isn't it the opposite?!?

[Link]

Camino and phoenix both had the layout LONG before safari existed. Of course back in those days camino was called chimera and the app itself considered itself "Navigator", but that's another story.

[sushiism]

Originally posted by wataru:
What bullsh�t.

Sounds like an accurate description to me, just look at Linux 90% of the programs are desperately trying to look an act like windows alternatives and the other 10% desperately try to be mac like. Its because they're coded and designed by geeks who think they know everything but really know next to nothing about gui design so have to steal from other programs

[sniffer]

But than again Linux and Mac programmers aren't the same.

[moonmonkey]

Originally posted by sushiism:
Sounds like an accurate description to me, just look at Linux 90% of the programs are desperately trying to look an act like windows alternatives and the other 10% desperately try to be mac like. Its because they're coded and designed by geeks who think they know everything but really know next to nothing about gui design so have to steal from other programs

Correct, geeks don't know sh1t, real people, old people, kids and disabled people should influence how our software works.

If they can operate sober, I can operate pissed.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by milhous:
just realized this tonight as i tried customizing the toolbar for the first time. a sheet drops down and let's one drag and drop components in the extra space. now this is on windows, but i'd imagine the experience would be consistent on other platforms.

of course, the sheet effect isn't as elegant and slick as os x.

Did you even try to run FireFox on Mac OS X? It doesn't have a sheet effect.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Did you even try to run FireFox on Mac OS X? It doesn't have a sheet effect.

That's actually a bug; it's supposed to have the same sheet effect as the other platforms (and other Mac programs). They've noted it, and plan on fixing it for the 1.0 release. The Mac release of Firefox 1.0 is actually being delayed relative to the other versions, so that they have more time to fix the interface bugs.

[lenox]

Originally posted by lngtones:
The whole Firfox default UI reaks of Safari. It's not that surprising. Most open source software is a cheap rip off of original *commercial* ideas.

Perhaps you forgot where Apple got their html rendering engine...oh, that's right, an open source project. But wait, you said...

[lngtones]

Originally posted by lenox:
Perhaps you forgot where Apple got their html rendering engine...oh, that's right, an open source project. But wait, you said...

No one said anything about technology. Talking about UI.

[Cadaver]

Originally posted by lngtones:
The whole Firfox default UI reaks of Safari. It's not that surprising. Most open source software is a cheap rip off of original *commercial* ideas.

Not sure if "most" is correct, but "a lot" it is. Look at OpenOffice - a veritable CLONE of MS Office, right down to the layout of the toolbars. Can't they at least try to improve on MS Office instead of acting like a cheap (not as in free) clone?

[Tsilou B.]

Originally posted by Cadaver:
Not sure if "most" is correct, but "a lot" it is. Look at OpenOffice - a veritable CLONE of MS Office, right down to the layout of the toolbars. Can't they at least try to improve on MS Office instead of acting like a cheap (not as in free) clone?

OpenOffice is the free version of StarOffice. StarWriter, the main component of StarOffice has been written in 1985. It had a graphical interface with support for different fonts, formulas, graphics etc. long before Microsoft offered these features on the Intel platform. So it really isn't fair to say StarOffice is just a clone. And concerning the toolbars: Microsoft has defined these toolbars as a Windows standard. Even the free sample text editor called WordPad uses the same layout as Word minus the features it is missing. Third-party developers are encouraged to use these toolbars and this layout, too and therefore it's clear that OpenOffice uses the same toolbars as Word. Corel WordPerfect, Lotus WordPro and many other non-OpenSource applications use them, too.

[theolein]

I think that a lot of open source GUI software does attempt to emulate mainly Windows software. There's a very good reason behind that and that is that most people on this planet have windows experience and the idea is to make the software comfortable for them. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, There are many opensource coders who also bitch about the windows catch up syndrome and clam that oss should be going it's own way. And, in some cases they actually do. The Gnome Window manager, for example, has a very nifty feature called focus-follows-mouse, in that the window where the mouse gets the focus. Oss also has virtual desktops, for example, that neither windows nor mac have.

I think open office is wonderful. The fact that the descendant of the Starwriter of the 80s is going strong after one and a half decades of Microsoft domination, testifies to it's strength.

[stephenh]

Originally posted by sushiism:
Sounds like an accurate description to me, just look at Linux 90% of the programs are desperately trying to look an act like windows alternatives and the other 10% desperately try to be mac like. Its because they're coded and designed by geeks who think they know everything but really know next to nothing about gui design so have to steal from other programs

What does that have to do with what he called ********? How can Firefox possibly be a ripoff of Safari when it came along way before Safari? If you are going to get into stupid uninformed comments, then you could say Safari is a complete rip of Firefox, or Camino, hell even Opera had "tabs" and a toolbar search before Safari came along.

[freeandunmuzzled]

if you move the main browser window the "sheet" does NOT follow.

[sushiism]

Originally posted by theolein:
has a very nifty feature called focus-follows-mouse, in that the window where the mouse gets the focus. Oss also has virtual desktops, for example, that neither windows nor mac have.

I think open office is wonderful. The fact that the descendant of the Starwriter of the 80s is going strong after one and a half decades of Microsoft domination, testifies to it's strength.

actually focus follows mouse has been in several systems that predate gnome by miles

[utidjian]

Originally posted by sushiism:
actually focus follows mouse has been in several systems that predate gnome by miles

Yep. It has been a feechure of X windows window managers since, at least, 1989. Not surprising that Gnome and many window managers before it use it.

Perhaps if it becomes an option for the standard Mac OS X GUI we can all say that it is just trying to clone Gnome et al.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by lngtones:
The whole Firfox default UI reaks of Safari. It's not that surprising. Most open source software is a cheap rip off of original *commercial* ideas.

As concerns Firefox's default interface, I'm afraid I have to ask: what are you smoking, and where can I get some?

Much to the chagrin of many Firefox/Mac users, the default interface has been moving away from Safari in recent releases. This is most noticeable in the main toolbar, where the elegant Safari-like buttons were replaced by an icon set which borders on gaudy. The bookmark manager has never looked like Safari's (Camino's does, much to its credit, but Firefox's does not). The tabs also look different, but this wouldn't matter too much anyway, because Firefox had tabs long before Safari was ever released. The same is true for the search field, though many FF users drop that for the superior solution of bookmark keywords anyway.

So where are you getting this "default interface reeks of Safari" thing?

As for most Open-Source software being a cheap ripoff of original commercial ideas, I'll grant that the interfaces often are, largely because the Open-Source movement doesn't have many talented UI designers. In terms of technology, however, you might be surprised how much stuff debuted in the Open-Source world and only later got commercial implementations. Pretty much everything on the Net, including the Web, FTP, e-mail, chat, and even IM existed in open-source forms long before any commercial vendor dared to enter the market. P2P filesharing is another matter, though several implementations of the concept (including BitTorrent) got their start in the Open-Source world.

[Membranophonist]

Originally posted by utidjian:
Yep. It has been a feechure of X windows window managers since, at least, 1989. Not surprising that Gnome and many window managers before it use it.

Perhaps if it becomes an option for the standard Mac OS X GUI we can all say that it is just trying to clone Gnome et al.

Focus follows mouse is highly unlikely to come to Mac OS X. Why? Think about trying to get to the menu bar when you have windows layered and positioned such that your cursor must travel over a background window to reach the menu bar.

[utidjian]

Originally posted by Membranophonist:
Focus follows mouse is highly unlikely to come to Mac OS X. Why? Think about trying to get to the menu bar when you have windows layered and positioned such that your cursor must travel over a background window to reach the menu bar.

That is because Mac OS X (and Mac OS previous to Mac OS X) do raise-on-select or raise-on-focus. If the focus-follows-mouse is configured all those windows in the way between the menubar or the Dock will be popping up and the menubar will be the one for the last app window the mouse passed over.

In most X-windows window managers (WM) this is not a problem because one can set the WM to not raise-on-focus. Quite often the WM is set to not even raise-on-mouse-click (my preference) and requires an Alt-click or right-click or whatever one has it set to in order to raise the window to the foreground. This even works fine in Mac OS style environment where one has no menubars attached to each window but only a single one at the top of the screen.

The need or the utility of this feature may be lost on someone who has primarily used Mac OS or Windows. For someone who has used Unix and X-windows as long as I have it not only seems natural but essential to the efficient use of the machine to get work done. I think this is because Unix has been (and still is) very much a multitasking text based environment. Mac OS and Windows come from a more task-switching whole-GUI-focused-on-one-thing-at-a-time kind of environment. Sure mac OS and Windows are now multitasking but the GUI is still oriented towards task-switching. I am not putting down Mac OS or Windows because of what I see as a limitation in how I like to work. For users that like or are just used to the Mac OS or Windows style of window focus it works fine for them (shrug).

[Jasoco]

Originally posted by Millennium:
So where are you getting this "default interface reeks of Safari" thing?

Take a look at Safari. Take a look at FireFox. If you take the metal off Safari, you can barely tell the two apart.

Which is a good thing. I love Safari, but when I have to use another playform, I love FireFox because it's familiar. Kudos to the Mozilla team for almost successfully copying the pants off Safari.

[wataru]

Originally posted by Jasoco:
Take a look at Safari. Take a look at FireFox. If you take the metal off Safari, you can barely tell the two apart.

Which is a good thing. I love Safari, but when I have to use another playform, I love FireFox because it's familiar. Kudos to the Mozilla team for almost successfully copying the pants off Safari.

Uh, they're browsers. They do largely the same things. So of course their interfaces are going to be similar in some ways. But that's the most superficial part of the program; the real power of a browser is in its features.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Firefox has existed for longer than Safari has. So this "Firefox is copying Safari" business is complete BS, like I said earlier. Would you also like to accuse Netscape of copying Safari? Why not just take it all the way back to NCSA Mosaic?

[Jasoco]

Originally posted by wataru:
Uh, they're browsers. They do largely the same things. So of course their interfaces are going to be similar in some ways. But that's the most superficial part of the program; the real power of a browser is in its features.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Firefox has existed for longer than Safari has. So this "Firefox is copying Safari" business is complete BS, like I said earlier. Would you also like to accuse Netscape of copying Safari? Why not just take it all the way back to NCSA Mosaic?

Whatever. Doesn't matter. So, tell me more. What did the interface of FireFox look like before Apple announced Safari and showed it off?

Also, remember, FireFox wasn't called FireFox back then.

[wataru]

Originally posted by Jasoco:
Whatever. Doesn't matter. So, tell me more. What did the interface of FireFox look like before Apple announced Safari and showed it off?

Also, remember, FireFox wasn't called FireFox back then.

What do you mean "doesn't matter?" What I said invalidated your statement. End of story. You have no counterargument except for "doesn't matter."

The interface of Firefox looked a lot like it does now. In fact there have been very few changes.

And so what if it wasn't called Firefox back then? It was still the same browser.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Jasoco:
Whatever. Doesn't matter. So, tell me more. What did the interface of FireFox look like before Apple announced Safari and showed it off?

Actually, that's something you can look up for yourself. Before Pinstripe (as it was called) became the default theme for Firebird (again, as it was called), a theme called Qute was used on all platforms. You can still get this theme, actually:

http://www.quadrone.org/graphics/

Before Qute, the default theme was called Orbit, back in the Phoenix days. This, too, has been updated:

http://themes.mozdev.org/themes/orbit.html

Both links include screenshots of the Windows versions, but the Mac version was basically identical to these (minus the menubar, of course). These themes should both work in the latest version, so you can actually track the evolution of the MozillaBrowser/Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox interface by using all of them.

[lngtones]

They even use Aqua tabs!

http://update.mozilla.org/?application=firefox

Heh

[Jasoco]

Originally posted by wataru:
What do you mean "doesn't matter?" What I said invalidated your statement. End of story. You have no counterargument except for "doesn't matter."

The interface of Firefox looked a lot like it does now. In fact there have been very few changes.

And so what if it wasn't called Firefox back then? It was still the same browser.

You sound like you were just DYING to start an argument, I did the smart thing and ended it before it started. Who cares? Let me repeat my question in better wording for everyone.

I am talking about the UI. Not the theme. I mean the UI Apple supposedly invented. With the Back and Forth buttons together, The Reload/Stop button all in one, etc. Not the idea of a browser. The Apple-ism's that Apple put in. I said FireFox looks exactly like Safari. This is true. The main interface is almost an exact copy minus the metal. But what I want to clarify is did FireFox LOOK like Safari BEFORE Safari came out? Just answer me this one simple question as it is all I am looking for. It will clear up everything. Did Pre-Safari versions of FireFox (Whatever it was called back then) LOOK like Safari. Yes or no. And if Yes, I need proof as those sites don't help.

The way I see it, if Safari had made THEIR browser look like FireFox, we would have heard about it when it came out. I heard no "Hey, Safari looks like FireBird/Fox/Whatever." back when it was released. So I would say FireFox's team did a MIGHTY FINE JOB OF COPYING SAFARI'S INTERFACE. This is ALL I'm saying. Nothing about anything else. Nothing about the internals. Just the layout and functionality. I simply want clarification as to who looked like what first.

Understand now? Should I repeat it?

[lngtones]

Originally posted by Jasoco:
I am talking about the UI. Not the theme.

You mean UI is not just about pictures?

[Millennium]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jasoco:
[B]I am talking about the UI. Not the theme. I mean the UI Apple supposedly invented. With the Back and Forth buttons together, The Reload/Stop button all in one, etc. Not the idea of a browser. The Apple-ism's that Apple put in.

I said FireFox looks exactly like Safari. This is true. The main interface is almost an exact copy minus the metal.

Then I'm afraid I must reiterate: what are you smoking, and where can I get some?

• Back and Forth buttons together: Nope. Although they are next to each other -a convention as old as the Web itself- they are not combined into a single unit as Apple's is.
• Reload/Stop as a single button: No. Actually, this isn't original to Safari either; OmniWeb has done it since at least the OSX Public Beta -over two years before Safari's release- and possibly even longer than that (I never used it on NextStep so I can't be sure).

But what I want to clarify is did FireFox LOOK like Safari BEFORE Safari came out? Just answer me this one simple question as it is all I am looking for. It will clear up everything. Did Pre-Safari versions of FireFox (Whatever it was called back then) LOOK like Safari.

That's what I gave you the screenshots for. You can also download the themes and use them yourself, if you want a better picture.

This how Firefox, whatever name you care to call it by, has worked since long before Safari was ever announced. The only major UI change since the early days have been tabbed browsing (introduced long before Safari) and the Find toolbar (introduced only recently, but Safari has nothing like it).

Yes or no. And if Yes, I need proof as those sites don't help.

Yes. If you want proof, you can download these themes and run them yourself. If this does not satisfy you, then you can try and run older builds, though I'm afraid I can't guarantee that they will work. Here they are, in reverse-chronological order:

• ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/ (builds from 0.8 and up)
• ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.or...bird/releases/ (0.6 and 0.7 releases)
• ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/phoenix/releases/ (The 0.1 through 0.5 releases)

That last URL, I'm afraid, is going to present something of a problem, because there were no Mac releases of Firebird until the 0.6, which was released after the first Safari betas. If you have access to a PC, however, you can still run these old builds.

There were unofficial Mac builds of Phoenix before the 0.6 release, but these were not done by the Mozilla Organization, and so finding them is going to prove much more difficult.

The way I see it, if Safari had made THEIR browser look like FireFox, we would have heard about it when it came out. I heard no "Hey, Safari looks like FireBird/Fox/Whatever." back when it was released.

Probably because nobody cared. However, the truth is the truth. Of course, I still have no idea what deludes you into finding the interfaces so similar.

So I would say FireFox's team did a MIGHTY FINE JOB OF COPYING SAFARI'S INTERFACE.

And I would question what on Earth you're alleging is copied.

[utidjian]

Originally posted by Jasoco:
I am talking about the UI. Not the theme. I mean the UI Apple supposedly invented.

Yes... well as you may know Apple has published (somewhere) guidelines for how apps should look/feel/work. It is completely natural, even recommended, that when creating an application for Mac OS X that the app creator use and follow the guidelines as closely as possible. By following the guidelines an app creator can be pretty sure that it will integrate well into the whole GUI experience. This is what many people like about using Mac OS... the "user experience".

With the Back and Forth buttons together, The Reload/Stop button all in one, etc. Not the idea of a browser. The Apple-ism's that Apple put in. I said FireFox looks exactly like Safari. This is true. The main interface is almost an exact copy minus the metal.

Well I just downloaded a copy of Firefox from http://www.mozilla.org (it is version 1.0PR) to see what you are going on about.

* Back and forth buttons together... well sure. Would you place them separately? Separated by other buttons??? Guess what... the back and forth buttons are together in IE on the Mac, they are together in Mozilla on Linux. I am not sure if there is any mention in the Apple HIG about back and forth button placement... where they are placed just seems consistent with other current browsers. The back and forth buttons in browsers like Mozilla/Netscape have been together on Linux (and presumably other systems) long before Mac OS X, let alone safari ever existed. Not even sure you could call it an "Apple-ism". Kinda like placement of gas-brake-clutch pedals in a car. Umm perhaps that should be clutch-brake-gas ;-)

* The Reload/Stop all-in-one button seems to only exist in Safari as far as I can tell. They are separate in Firefox on my system. I looked to see if it was an option in Preferences but can't find it. Is yours themed or skinned differently?

* I see quite a few other differences such as spinner placement, icon images, kiosk button, bookmark button, homepage button. Nothing that would make one or the other awkward to use yet they still look quite different beyond their metal/pinstripe themes.

* Someone mentioned (not you I think) something about how the scrollbar buttons are placed. Again... this is in keeping with the HIG.

But what I want to clarify is did FireFox LOOK like Safari BEFORE Safari came out? Just answer me this one simple question as it is all I am looking for. It will clear up everything. Did Pre-Safari versions of FireFox (Whatever it was called back then) LOOK like Safari. Yes or no. And if Yes, I need proof as those sites don't help.

Who cares? Does it really matter all that much to you?

The way I see it, if Safari had made THEIR browser look like FireFox, we would have heard about it when it came out. I heard no "Hey, Safari looks like FireBird/Fox/Whatever." back when it was released. So I would say FireFox's team did a MIGHTY FINE JOB OF COPYING SAFARI'S INTERFACE. This is ALL I'm saying. Nothing about anything else. Nothing about the internals. Just the layout and functionality. I simply want clarification as to who looked like what first.

Understand now? Should I repeat it?

Somehow the term "tempest in a teacup" comes to mind. (sigh)

[Jasoco]

There were no screenshots in those links. I saw no theme you referenced to. Nor do I give a **** anymore. I didn't give a **** at the beginning. I'm jumping off this ship. Good bye.

[diamondsw]

I find it amazing that no one has mentioned the fact that Dave Hyatt (yes, of Safari fame) started both Camino and Firefox (when they were Chimera and Phoenix, respectively). OF COURSE they look similar and act similarly - they had the same original design goals, and clearly the people who have taken over the projects since share those ideas.

As for the sheet specifically, yeah - they saw it in OS X and copied it as best they could. Are you surprised?

[diamondsw]

Originally posted by Jasoco:
<snip>
Understand now? Should I repeat it?

Wow. I haven't seen such a moronic post in a long time. Of course, I largely stay out of OS X interface threads these days.

[wataru]

Originally posted by Jasoco:
There were no screenshots in those links. I saw no theme you referenced to. Nor do I give a **** anymore. I didn't give a **** at the beginning. I'm jumping off this ship. Good bye.

Thank you for wasting our time.

They really shouldn't let people like you on the internet.

[dn15]

Early Phoenix screenshot (2002):
http://mozilla.tlk.fr/gfx/ecrans/phoenix.jpg

Apple unveiled Safari at MWSF 2003:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/jan/07safari.html

It is my own humble opinion that the Mozilla suite popularized the idea of having the URL and basic set of buttons all in a row. Since then many other browsers have adopted that approach, such as Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox, Camino, Safari, and Shiira. I don't think any one browser should be considered guilty of copying another because no matter how you configure the toolbars all browsers have basically the same practically since the beginning.

And no, I am not claiming Mozilla invented this layout because I have no idea if they did. I'm just saying that Mozilla's adoption of this layout seemed to happen around the time other browsers started doing it as well, so I suspect it may have served as a model for other browsers.

[Jasoco]

All I was referring to was the inclusion of the Google search (Or any search box in general) in the corner and the lack of a logo in the corner. THESE were what I was referring to. Those are what made Safari unique. Look at that screenshot, if that is indeed an early version of what became FireFox, I was right. Because I see no Search box up there.

How can anyone deny that the whole look of FireFox doesn't resemble Safari? Until Safari came out, were there any browsers with a search box built into the top corner? That is all I was asking. A simple yes or no. People don't know how to answer questions anymore, it's sad.

I figured people understood what I was talking about. There was no reason to say what you did, wataru. I'm not an idiot. Sorry for wasting your precious time. If I could, I'd give you your 10 seconds back so you could waste them reading someone elses stupid post.

[Gee4orce]

Originally posted by freeandunmuzzled:
if you move the main browser window the "sheet" does NOT follow.

Yep - I'm a habitual fiddler/customiser, so the customise toolbar option is the first thing I do after going to change the preferences. Hasn't Apple got a patent on this ? If not, they should. It's a rip-off, and a piss-poor one at that. I mean, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and all that, but jeez this is more like mockery !

Added to the fact that the windows version of Firefox can't log into .Mac webmail (fails on a redirect from the login page), and Firefox has little more than novelty value for me.

Actually, when I ran Firefox on windows, I could see why my Windows/Linux buddies raved about it, but at the same time thought that it was a looooong way behind the likes of OmniWeb, Camino and even Safari.

[wataru]

Originally posted by Gee4orce:
Added to the fact that the windows version of Firefox can't log into .Mac webmail (fails on a redirect from the login page)

That sounds like your problem, not Firefox's problem. I log into my .Mac webmail from Firefox on Windows machines all the time with no problems.

[wataru]

Originally posted by Jasoco:
All I was referring to was the inclusion of the Google search (Or any search box in general) in the corner and the lack of a logo in the corner.

People don't know how to answer questions anymore, it's sad

What a ****ing troll. Nowhere in any of your posts did you make it clear that you were talking about those two specific items. It seems you don't know how to ask questions.

When presented with evidence that you could check yourself (links to old builds of Firefox, for instance) you said

There were no screenshots in those links. I saw no theme you referenced to. Nor do I give a **** anymore. I didn't give a **** at the beginning. I'm jumping off this ship. Good bye.

Instead of actually looking at the evidence, you decided it wasn't worth your time to defend your position, and you "jumped ship." Now you come back and change your story completely. I reiterate: You are a troll. Stop wasting our time.

Now, just in case you still thought you might be correct, I will address your two points.

1. The lack of a logo: In addition to Firefox and Safari, Opera, OmniWeb, Camino, and iCab do not have a logo in the upper-right. The browsers that do have a logo in the upper-right (Mozilla, Netscape, IE) use it as a "throbber." A throbber is an animation that plays while a page is loading. Firefox has a throbber; it just happens not to be a logo. Safari, on the other hand, does not really have a throbber at all. Of all the Mac browsers I've looked at, Firefox's throbber is most similar to OmniWeb's and iCab's. Therefore, you are completely wrong on this point.

2. The search field: In addition to Firefox and Safari, OmniWeb, Camino, and iCab all have search fields in the toolbar. Mozilla and Netscape have something very similar, which is the "Search" button next to the URL input field. I don't believe that Safari was the first browser out of all of the above to have an independent search field, and it is very easy to see how Mozilla's Search button might naturally evolve into an independent field. I don't know the timeline of that feature's evolution, so I can't say. But clearly, if Safari did pioneer the search field, then everyone is guilty of copying it and so your specific criticism of Firefox is disingenious at best.

Also note that Firefox's search field is far superior to Safari's since it can accommodate any number of additional search engines. In addition to the 5 defaults, there are hundreds more available.

[Gee4orce]

Originally posted by wataru:
That sounds like your problem, not Firefox's problem. I log into my .Mac webmail from Firefox on Windows machines all the time with no problems.

Possibly, but considering that I can check my .Mac email from work throught the firewall using Opera (Win), IE (Win), Safari (Mac), OmniWeb (Mac) and Camino (Mac), but not Firefox (Win), I'd say the odds look like it's something about Firefox not liking our firewall settings. They are all configured identically.

In actual fact, looking at what OmniWeb says it's doing, I'm willing to bet it's the SSH tunnel through the proxy that Firefox is having problems with.

[JKT]

Originally posted by Millennium:
[*]Reload/Stop as a single button: No. Actually, this isn't original to Safari either; OmniWeb has done it since at least the OSX Public Beta -over two years before Safari's release- and possibly even longer than that (I never used it on NextStep so I can't be sure)

Er, no. OmniWeb may well have done this during the NeXT and OS X PB*, but it certainly hasn't done it since version 4.0.x and OS X 10.0 for the obvious reason that it just plain SUCKS as an idea. I personally can't stand the way you end up trying to stop a page loading in Safari and end up reloading it instead... grrr.

* I can't say if it did or not, I never used it prior to version 4.0.x

[LaGow]

Originally posted by wataru:
Also note that Firefox's search field is far superior to Safari's since it can accommodate any number of additional search engines. In addition to the 5 defaults, there are hundreds more available.

I think the one feature regarding Safari's search engine field implementation that seems to be a true Apple innovation is what I think I've read Dave Hyatt call "crumbs," but is probably better known as the SnapBack feature. Much more convenient than constantly hitting the Back button. Wish Firefox had that one.

[wataru]

I tried to use SnapBack, but it just never really "did it" for me. I guess I'm just too used to the old way of doing things.

[Devin Lane]

It seems to me that there is a standard set of features, buttons, menu items, etc, that a web browser must implement in order to be remotely useful. If you are going to make a web browser, you are going to make it use these standard features. Thats one of the things that I really enjoy about OS X: the consistency of the UI. I know some apps break it (Think BIG commercial apps), but for the most part, apps look pretty similar in the ways that they should be.

You don't, and aren't likely to ever see a web browser come out with the buttons one the bottom, in reverse, the tabs on the side, and the google search bar in a drawer on the right. Does that mean that all the devs are copying from each other? No. It means they are adhering to standards set by other programs. If I place an OK button in the proper spot on a dialog, am I copying from all the thousands of other devs that did the same? Nope.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by JKT:
[B]Er, no. OmniWeb may well have done this during the NeXT and OS X PB*, but it certainly hasn't done it since version 4.0.x and OS X 10.0 for the obvious reason that it just plain SUCKS as an idea. I personally can't stand the way you end up trying to stop a page loading in Safari and end up reloading it instead... grrr. [b]

Are you sure about that? I used OmniWeb back in the early 4.0.x days, and I'm pretty sure that Reload/Stop were one button; I remember being annoyed by it.

Is it possible there was another browser which did this, and I'm mistaking it for that old version of OmniWeb?