Mozilla releases faster, safer, smarter version of Firefox browser

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 92
    daniel0418daniel0418 Posts: 122member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by coolfactor View Post


    Please elaborate on why.



    I am no that guy who said he hates new safari, I actually was so excited for safari 4... the beta was amazing. It just had bugs and stuff but it was good. Then they took out the tabbed browsing and now it sucks... So I am going to keep using Chrome. Firefox is good and very robust but I feel like it slows down my old computers.
  • Reply 42 of 92
    virgil-tb2virgil-tb2 Posts: 1,416member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    They are crapping on Safari because not only is Safari eating away more of IE it is also eating away part of FF market growth.



    Add Chrome and the WebKit based browser market will surpass the Gecko market within 18 months.



    True, but IMO FireFox's decision *not* to switch to WebKit is really a political one at this point and politics doesn't make good software.



    If FireFox switched to WebKit they might even have a chance of beating them on speed and everyone would benefit. Also, if Microsoft is smart (I know, but it could happen), they are already testing a WebKit based version of MSIE.
  • Reply 43 of 92
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,745member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    Simple Question: Does your browser fully comply with HTML4.01, HTML5, CSS2.1 and CSS3; and SVG1.1/1.2?



    I won't even mention MathML which when that happens one can finally leverage browsers for far more technical markets.



    However, instead of standards for the browser being the benchmark I'm seeing whiny discussions on plugins and how tab functionality is enhanced.



    Get my question answered and I'm happy.



    Aha!!
  • Reply 44 of 92
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by patroll View Post


    Does anyone know what the share of Safari and Firefox is on Mac OS X?



    With or without the iPhone/Touch factored in?
  • Reply 45 of 92
    patrollpatroll Posts: 77member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    With or without the iPhone/Touch factored in?



    Ideally it would be interesting to know just the Mac breakdown. I looked it up before posting but you seem to need a subscription for more detailed data - and the site I found does not appear to differentiate between Safari and its mobile version. My search was not thorough, though.
  • Reply 46 of 92
    cmf2cmf2 Posts: 1,427member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Daniel0418 View Post


    I am no that guy who said he hates new safari, I actually was so excited for safari 4... the beta was amazing. It just had bugs and stuff but it was good. Then they took out the tabbed browsing and now it sucks... So I am going to keep using Chrome. Firefox is good and very robust but I feel like it slows down my old computers.



    Tabbed browsing is still there, the tabs on top are not.
  • Reply 47 of 92
    itrnitrn Posts: 4member
    I still can't make the full time switch to Safari until it has sidebar bookmarks like Firefox.
  • Reply 48 of 92
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by The Apple Doctor View Post


    Just downloaded it and installed it!!! bad idea



    Just wiped off my Aero Fox theme and none of the favicons are showing on Bookmarks Toolbar.



    Do not use if you want to lose this Bookmarks Toolbar.



    I had no problem with it losing my bookmark toolbar.



    It definitely seems faster. Seems to consume a tad less memory than 3 did, as well.
  • Reply 49 of 92
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by meelash View Post


    Even if Firefox did everything else (marginally) better than Safari, I'd still use Safari 4 just because of coverflow browsing of history. I am *always* remembering that I saw something but can't remember where, and cover flow browsing of history saves my ass.



    No question, that is the best feature of any browser for me. Once I got used to it, I can't bear to use any other browser.



    Funny thing is, I never use Cover flow in iTunes or Finder, both of those have always seemed like useless gimmicks. But the history implementation is GENIUS IMO.



    I agree totally on the ?Cover Flow? browsing in Safari!
  • Reply 50 of 92
    blond37blond37 Posts: 18member
    And its not faster
  • Reply 51 of 92
    nite41nite41 Posts: 41member
    Well, first of all, Firefox 3.5 is out! Finally! Calls for a big celebration! I thought the Mozilla guys would drop the 3.5 all-together and go for 4 I downloaded it and yes, it is faster than Firefox 3.0.11. But, in my opinion, it's just not fast'er' than Safari 4. Agreed that the add-ons in Firefox are amazing. But, at the end of the day, it all comes down to personal preferences. I just need an add-on for ad-blocking and I get it with SafariBlock. So, I do not see any logical reason to switch to Firefox 3.5 as my primary browser. However, I am very keen on Google Chrome for Mac.

    Last thought: When using Safari on my Mac, it 'feels' more like 'home'
  • Reply 52 of 92
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by patroll View Post


    Does anyone know what the share of Safari and Firefox is on Mac OS X?



    http://www.statowl.com/web_browser_m...r_se=&fltr_cn=
  • Reply 53 of 92
    erunnoerunno Posts: 225member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post


    True, but IMO FireFox's decision *not* to switch to WebKit is really a political one at this point and politics doesn't make good software.



    They don't switch to WebKit because that means Mozilla would have to reimplement XUL unless they want to have 2 engines around, one for content and another one for UI. Obviously a work which a single developer can finish in mere weeks.
  • Reply 54 of 92
    meelashmeelash Posts: 1,045member
    Wow, drill down for just Safari. About 92% are still using version 3.x instead of 4.x even if you shorten it to just the last month. Why aren't people upgrading, it comes automatically in Software Update, right?
  • Reply 55 of 92
    erunnoerunno Posts: 225member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    Simple Question: Does your browser fully comply with HTML4.01, HTML5, CSS2.1 and CSS3; and SVG1.1/1.2?



    Don't know, are there any test suits which completely tests the individual specifications?
  • Reply 56 of 92
    bugsnwbugsnw Posts: 717member
    I will be so happy when the day comes when we can stop using two browsers on our systems. Firefox is still needed for tax software and some govt. sites and even just now, I needed to revert to FF just to correctly print a return merchandise authorization at amazon.com. Safari split it oddly into two pages, cutting the barcode right in half. Firefox printed the 2 items perfectly, as expected.



    After all these years, why aren't these issues resolved???
  • Reply 57 of 92
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,317member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Erunno View Post


    Don't know, are there any test suits which completely tests the individual specifications?



    WebKit has them. Unfortunately, MathML is still on the TODO portion of their test suite. I understand their reasoning--I'd make it a lower priority behind the rest that actually drives web proliferation. Running the test suites in the build process is interesting, but having that complete Table listing of support status for one to quickly reference would be welcome.



    Gecko's had MathML for a while, even if incomplete.



    Instead of just release notes of ACID 3 compliance it would be nice to have a true Table of Layout support managed at the W3C for the most current browsers.



    I found this interesting on CSS3: http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work



    # 2009-03-20 Working Draft: CSS Transitions Module Level 3

    # 2009-03-20 Working Draft: CSS 2D Transforms Module Level 3

    # 2009-03-20 Working Draft: CSS 3D Transforms Module Level 3

    # 2009-03-20 Working Draft: CSS Animations Module Level 3



    All of these are being developed by Apple.
  • Reply 58 of 92
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,317member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bugsnw View Post


    I will be so happy when the day comes when we can stop using two browsers on our systems. Firefox is still needed for tax software and some govt. sites and even just now, I needed to revert to FF just to correctly print a return merchandise authorization at amazon.com. Safari split it oddly into two pages, cutting the barcode right in half. Firefox printed the 2 items perfectly, as expected.



    After all these years, why aren't these issues resolved???



    Most likely because Amazon's header tests for browser support doesn't include Safari. Neither do the merchant sites nor some government sites.



    You can have the most up-to-date browser in the world, but if the dynamically developed app sites aren't keeping up they will break on these layout engines.
  • Reply 59 of 92
    erunnoerunno Posts: 225member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    ...



    So, might I infer from your answer that currently there is no standardized way to test whether a browser fully complies with any given W3C standard?



    EDIT: Ran the namespaces CSS tests manually (is there no test runner?) and Safari 4 fails in numerous tests where FIrefox 3.5 fails only in one concerning error handling.
  • Reply 60 of 92
    synoticsynotic Posts: 151member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    That is a web development issue. If you code everything inside an enclosing <table> then it waits. Of course that is the way everyone codes because it looks nice.



    I'm not sure that "everyone" codes that way. Just looking at the top 20 sites on Alexa.com, almost nobody is using tables for layout anymore. The only exceptions seem to be Google, which seemingly hasn't changed its code in over a decade, and uses a table for its bottom navigation and Microsoft which uses a table for its navigation but not its overall layout, and Rapidshare. The rest are table-free. MySpace, Facebook, Wikipedia, Yahoo!, Bing, YouTube, etc... Other, notable table-free websites include ESPN, NY Times, and Expedia.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    I agree in theory but there are situations where tables are quite convenient. DIV with CSS is just another tool in the kit and not completely without issues either.



    There were admittedly some hiccups with CSS and layout for a long time, but I think that we're at a point, in this mobile-friendly, search-engine oriented internet, that the former benefits of tables (mostly comfort and familiarity) are far outweighed by the benefits of markup that actually means something.
Sign In or Register to comment.