Mozilla releases faster, safer, smarter version of Firefox browser

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 92
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post


    With Interweb Exploder at 65-70% I wont worry about all other browsers sharing WebKit. They don't have to be identical. Chrome does its own thing with sandboxing and multiprocesses and V8 JavaScript Engine, that makes it different from Safari and a significantly better browser.



    Obviously IE is still an issue, but at least there are still a variety of very different browser implementations right now. I'm thinking a few years down the road, assuming your vision comes to fruition, which actually reduces this heterogeneity. The same rendering engine is still a possible issue, dare I say it, a likely issue. Sandboxing is great, but probably not enough in itself because that can probably be defeated too. Even depending on different versions of the rendering engine isn't enough, because a lot of these bugs cross major versions.
  • Reply 82 of 92
    erunnoerunno Posts: 225member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    Is this a wish on your part, or is there information to back this up?



    Actually the gap between Firefox and WebKit based browsers (Safari + Chrome) slightly increased during the timespan from May 2008 to May 2009 despite the appearance of a second massively cooperate-backed WebKit-based Browser. [1][2] As usual statistics which one has not forged himself should be viewed with the necessary cautiousness.



    In short:



    Difference between Firefox and Safari May 2008: 12,16 percent.

    Difference between Firefox and Safari + Chrome May 2009: 12,28 percent.



    [1]http://marketshare.hitslink.com/repo...ame=M&qpsp=112

    [2]http://marketshare.hitslink.com/repo...ame=M&qpsp=124
  • Reply 83 of 92
    aizmovaizmov Posts: 989member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    Obviously IE is still an issue, but at least there are still a variety of very different browser implementations right now. I'm thinking a few years down the road, assuming your vision comes to fruition, which actually reduces this heterogeneity. The same rendering engine is still a possible issue, dare I say it, a likely issue. Sandboxing is great, but probably not enough in itself because that can probably be defeated too. Even depending on different versions of the rendering engine isn't enough, because a lot of these bugs cross major versions.



    Actually, it is possible for WebKit to become more secure with more eyes looking into the code and more developers committing bug fixes.

    Plus I'm sure each vendor will extend WebKit to meet their needs. Mozilla will probably throw some XUL on it, to allow for the extensibility and customizabilty Firefox is known for.
  • Reply 84 of 92
    erunnoerunno Posts: 225member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post


    Actually, it is possible for WebKit to become more secure with more eyes looking into the code and more developers committing bug fixes.

    Plus I'm sure each vendor will extend WebKit to meet their needs. Mozilla will probably throw some XUL on it, to allow for the extensibility and customizabilty Firefox is known for.



    XUL is a huge markup language. It would probably take years to rewrite it on top of WebKit for very questionable benefits (if any at all).
  • Reply 85 of 92
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post


    Actually, it is possible for WebKit to become more secure with more eyes looking into the code and more developers committing bug fixes.



    But many eyes doesn't mean zero bugs, it's pretty much impossible to stomp them all out given the complexity of software these days. And some of those bugs are going to be security flaws. As such, I'd prefer that there be more than one code distinct base for web browsers, advocating they all share a similar code base is asking for trouble, even if each one has their own things on top. An exploitable flaw in the foundation means they might all break in the same way, and having nothing else to fall back on just sounds like a powderkeg that's only a little better than everyone using IE.
  • Reply 86 of 92
    bigpicsbigpics Posts: 1,382member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by meelash View Post


    I think most of the stuff you mentioned is pretty fair, it's just a question of how important those features are to everyone. You have to admit that not every one will find those features as important as you do, and there are other things Safari does better. Also, many people are fans of minimalism, look how far Google's taken that with Chrome.



    And speed. Since my post I've been spending more time in S4. It hasn't changed my critique of its feature depletion much, but, damn, it is more than twice as fast as Firefox on my old iBook, and video is much smoother.



    And I don't have to shut it down every few hours because it's stolen all the memory and CPU cycles.



    So I'm finding that pretty compelling for the same reason I DON'T have an iPhone yet - that is, ATT.



    My cell is still my primary means of actually TALKING to people, and while my Verizon LG Voyager is inferior in every other respect (except that it's my live TV too), just dialing and talking just like that and virtually all the time trumps lots of other "features" if they come with a frustrating, inferior phone experience.



    On the other hand, just downloaded FF 3.5 with new engines itself, so we'll see.



    Quote:

    Top sites can be a replacement for that functionality, since you can customize how many and which sites show up, and see at a glance if the page has been updated without having to open it.



    Nice feature, actually. But you don't get the history associated with the previous invocation of the sites.



    Oh, one more FF function so integral to me now is the built-in spell checker that works across sites - and LEARNS. Wouldn't be "non-Apple' to add that.



    Quote:

    I would say Apple could do a lot to encourage development of plug-ins than they're doing right now.



    I'd settle for starters for being able to find where in Safari you can add, disable, tweak, etc. plugs-ins at all. I spent time looking, and tried the help system. I know it's there, but as for finding it, intuitive, especially compared to firefox, it ain't.



    Quote:

    Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity. Some people prefer it. As for the passwords, they're all in your keychain along with all other OS X passwords, mail, etc. I think that's a plus for Safari over Firefox.



    Thanks for that! I switched (well added a mac as my notebook 5 years ago, and forget Keychain, since I can't remember the last time I've intentionally accessed it.
    semi-unrelated simplicity rant - I don't use iPhoto, I'm not going to use iPhoto (Photoshopper who organizes his own folders) - and last I checked I couldn't find a way to stop it from starting up every time I insert my thumb drive to do a docs and pix backup. This is dead simple - dead simple intrusion - not a bit more enjoyable than Windows User Access Control. There's doubtless asimple way I'm missing (??), but then there's simple as a form of subliminal "our way or the highway" marketing - "you've got pictures: OK here's iPhoto."



    Even XP asks me what, if anything, I want to do with a list of choices, when I insert.
    Quote:

    As I mentioned before: Cover flow history! Nobody else has got anything close (AFAIK), and it is pretty damn unreplaceable.



    Will give it fair trial, thanks again.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Bigpics certainly makes some valid points as to why Safari doesn’t work for him, but that isn’t what Apple usually operates and I wouldn’t expect most of those features to ever come to Safari.



    I catch your general gist, and somewhat agree, but the "simple" ability (I'm still stuck on simplicity from above, sorry) to "simply" restore to your previous session (with all tab histories intact) strikes me as exactly simple - no user need use any of the backwards buttons, users don't have to select "restore last session" as the start-up mode, etc., etc. With Safari I have to recognize exactly where I was for each page view, sometimes up to 20 times.



    Simple? Uh-uhh. And multiple home pages and session restore don't seem inconsistent with Apple design philosophy, as Apple has long provided various levels of power user and developer levels beneath default behaviors.
  • Reply 87 of 92
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigpics View Post


    I catch your general gist, and somewhat agree, but the "simple" ability (I'm still stuck on simplicity from above, sorry) to "simply" restore to your previous session (with all tab histories intact) strikes me as exactly simple - no user need use any of the backwards buttons, users don't have to select "restore last session" as the start-up mode, etc., etc. With Safari I have to recognize exactly where I was for each page view, sometimes up to 20 times.



    Simple? Uh-uhh.



    I don?t recall you mentioning that feature of FF. If you did, mea culpa as that is one very useful and very ?Apple-like? feature that seems like it would have been the next major addition to all browsers once it was first introduced.



    Even with the new plug-in sandboxing in SL to prevent browser crashes they really should, IMO, add seperate tab processes and a true reopen all tabs from last session popup option if the browser does quit unexpectedly.



    I?d also like the option to get my tabs back on top. On my netbook I need that extra space, but in general, I just prefer it.
  • Reply 88 of 92
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigpics View Post
    semi-unrelated simplicity rant - I don't use iPhoto, I'm not going to use iPhoto (Photoshopper who organizes his own folders) - and last I checked I couldn't find a way to stop it from starting up every time I insert my thumb drive to do a docs and pix backup. This is dead simple - dead simple intrusion - not a bit more enjoyable than Windows User Access Control. there's doubtless asimple way I'm missing (??), but then there's simple as a form of subliminal "our way or the highway" marketing - "you've got pictures: here's iPhoto."



    Even XP asks me what, if anything, I want to do with a list of choices, when I insert.



    In all fairness, it probably did ask you at one time. But once you set it, it's not obvious where to change it, it's obtuse.



    The middle section of this document covers it:



    http://support.apple.com/kb/TA26553?viewlocale=en_US
  • Reply 89 of 92
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    In all fairness, it probably did ask you at one time. But once you set it, it's not obvious where to change it, it's obtuse.



    The middle section of this document covers it:



    http://support.apple.com/kb/TA26553?viewlocale=en_US



    That is one of those areas where Apple just doesn?t seem to get it. Besides putting the same controller in iPhoto and Image Capture (which is completely unknown to most users) they could put it in System Preferences. There are a list of apps that users have to choose a default, like with the CD & DVD pane of System Preferences. Why not one for the user that has Mail, Browser, Photos and even Audio so I can set up in one window which apps I want to open or not open when I plug in a device.



    Perhaps someone can make a Pane that would tie into these things. Anyone?
  • Reply 90 of 92
    bigpicsbigpics Posts: 1,382member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    In all fairness, it probably did ask you at one time. But once you set it, it's not obvious where to change it, it's obtuse.



    The middle section of this document covers it:



    http://support.apple.com/kb/TA26553?viewlocale=en_US



    Thank you, thank you, thank you!!



    It worked! And (see solipsism's comment below) - I STILL have no idea of what the "Image Capture" Application does exactly. And no idea how I ever would have found out how to do this without this forum.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I don’t recall you mentioning that feature of FF. If you did, mea culpa as that is one very useful and very “Apple-like” feature that seems like it would have been the next major addition to all browsers once it was first introduced.



    Even with the new plug-in sandboxing in SL to prevent browser crashes they really should, IMO, add seperate tab processes and a true reopen all tabs from last session popup option if the browser does quit unexpectedly.



    I’d also like the option to get my tabs back on top. On my netbook I need that extra space, but in general, I just prefer it.



    Agreed on all points



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    That is one of those areas where Apple just doesn’t seem to get it. Besides putting the same controller in iPhoto and Image Capture (which is completely unknown to most users) they could put it in System Preferences. There are a list of apps that users have to choose a default, like with the CD & DVD pane of System Preferences. Why not one for the user that has Mail, Browser, Photos and even Audio so I can set up in one window which apps I want to open or not open when I plug in a device.



    Perhaps someone can make a Pane that would tie into these things. Anyone?



    Again, good points.



    To which I'll add two more mini-rants:



    1. Virtually the only behavior I ever change in iTunes is the quality at which I import CD's - and it's buried 6 clicks deep in "Preferences" (and even deeper in "Options" in Win). To me, with limited iPod storage space it makes sense to burn fave music at 320 (lossless for best of the best), and various lower settings for less fave or less sonically demanding music - and I can't be alone in this. I don't know if this reflects a subtle push to direct one to the iTunes Store, or is simply clumsy interface design, but it would be a minor matter to make import settings easy to get to without inconveniencing any existing iTunes users - Just add "import settings..." to the "Edit" Menu and have it bring up a single box where codec, bit rates, can be specified without going through pop-up hoops, etc..



    2. And maybe this is possible, if someone knows how, but I never use Apple Mail or Address Book - Gmail's a better idiom for me and always synchronized across all computers - so an on PC inbox with all its storage is an anachronism to me - so I'd love to be able to make going to gmail on my browser (and not just Safari, btw) the default for those "compose e-mail" options which invoke Apple Mail.



    (I don't worry have about not having my inbox away from wi-fi. I can't send a reply anyway, and I can compose my draft in TextEdit, ready for when I'm next online.)



    UPDATE:



    Three hours into FF 3.5, it's def snappier than 3. Haven't tried it against S4 yet. And FF is still lovin' RAM and CPU cycles, but not quite as voraciously so far. (But I felt the same way about FF3 at first. And then it seemed toget as hoggy as the 2 series. We shall see.)



    UP-UPDATE:



    FF 3.5 is functioning much better than its predecessor on my 5 years young iBook. Haven't had to quit it in 36 hours and still have CPU headroom and memory for other programs, which was not the way things were going before. Doesn't seem quite as fast as Safari, but close enough now given the comparisons I've done elsewhere in the thread to keep my surfing mostly with the Fox.
  • Reply 91 of 92
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigpics View Post


    To which I'll add two more mini-rants:



    Ask and ye shall receive…



    Quote:

    And maybe this is possible, if someone knows how, but I never use Apple Mail or Address Book - Gmail's a better idiom for me and always synchronized across all computers - so an on PC inbox with all its storage is an anachronism to me - so I'd love to be able to make going to gmail on my browser (and not just Safari, btw) the default for those "compose e-mail" options which invoke Apple Mail.



    http://mail.google.com/mail/help/not...ifier_mac.html



    Quote:

    Virtually the only behavior I ever change in iTunes is the quality at which I import CD's - and it's buried 6 clicks deep in "Preferences" (and even deeper in "Options" in Win). To me, with limited iPod storage space it makes sense to burn fave music at 320 (lossless for best of the best), and various lower settings for less fave or less sonically demanding music - and I can't be alone in this. I don't know if this reflects a subtle push to direct one to the iTunes Store, or is simply clumsy interface design, but it would be so to make import settings easy to get to without inconveniencing any existing iTunes users - Just add "import settings..." to the "Edit" Menu and have it bring up a single box where codec, bit rates, can be specified without going through pop-up hoops, etc..



    http://dougscripts.com/itunes/script...portoncdinsert



    This one is only a partial receive, but I think, if you refer to the PDF, that it shouldn’t be too hard to have the script then ask you what bitrate you wish to use. I’d post your query on the MacOSXHints.com forum as it’s more geared to solved this answers, and Doug’s Scripts is so convoluted that it’s quite possible it’s already been done. Good luck!
  • Reply 92 of 92
    bigpicsbigpics Posts: 1,382member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Ask and ye shall receive?





    ? http://mail.google.com/mail/help/not...ifier_mac.html





    ? http://dougscripts.com/itunes/script...portoncdinsert



    This one is only a partial receive, but I think, if you refer to the PDF, that it shouldn?t be too hard to have the script then ask you what bitrate you wish to use. I?d post your query on the MacOSXHints.com forum as it?s more geared to solved this answers, and Doug?s Scripts is so convoluted that it?s quite possible it?s already been done. Good luck!



    Thanks will check both out -



    would like to see Apple deal with these though, and specifically thinking more of those cases when you're on a site and the (growing less frequent?) "contact us" buttons (with no email address provided there), which when pressed sets my mac into a frenzy of invoking Apple Mail. which does eventually get me an address I can THEN cut, close Apple Mail, and paste into a gmail replay. Lotsa extra time and steps there...... ...and I imagine Google Notifier eats up constant resources which I'm husbanding on this little ol' ibook pretty carefully just to have a decent experience in an ever more resource intensive web world.



    Kudos to Apple on smaller and faster in Snow and for speeding up Safari even for PPC notebooks like mine.
Sign In or Register to comment.