Browsers
I have always used IE because of prior PC use (before conversion) and this has gotten rediculous- so slow. I've also been using Safari for the last several months and find it much faster - though with a few glitches. This last week I signed up with Mozilla and find it to be very fast and easy to use (so far) - though I find it doesn't let go - I have to use "force quit" if I want to shut down. My question is what are good alternative browsers? and what is experience with Mozilla. This is from a senior newbe.
Comments
OmniWeb 4.5 is also a really good browser although it doesn't offer tabbed browsing. It uses the same rendering engine as Safari. You can find it at http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omniweb/
Mozilla- for E-mail (I find the interface too "bright" and it hurts my eyes after 15 minutes of surfing)
iCab- Nice, pretty fast, customizable web browser. But hangs when I open too many windows/tabs at once
Camino- Nice web browser, but didn't "click" with me. (Personal taste) Cool sidebar frature for storing bookmarks.
Safari- Small, fast browser good for everyday use.
I kinda wish someone would release a web browser that makes very efficiant use of screen space. I run 1024x768 on my Pismo and the top 1 1/4 or more is prettymuch wasted space in most browsers. I remember OS 9 being a little better about this.
Oh yea, my choice would be Safari. Second place iCab.
I would go with Safari all the way. Great browser, very fast, very easy, more standardized than any of the others listed here. What are these "glitches" you speak of? Maybe we can help you out with them.
Note: In the future, this might be better off in Software.
My girlfriends cell phone is through Sprint and in the current version of Safari, it is EXTREMELY slow to load. In the new version of WebCore (the heart of Safari) which is still in development, this has been resolved, so until that is released I use Camino on some sites here and there.
I dunno what the Mac version's like though...
I use Safari on my Mac. I try the others occasionally, but I keep defaulting to Safari. Each of the other browsers has its own set of problems. Safari has been the most reliable of them all.
Firebird is pretty good on Mac OS X, but it still isn't quite up with Safari in the look-and-feel department. Recent nightly builds have incorporated a new version of the Pinstripe theme that is much better than the default. I suspect that when Omniweb 5 is released, though, it'll blow the pants off all the other browsers.
Moving to Software.
Originally posted by DMBand0026
I would go with Safari all the way. Great browser, very fast, very easy, more standardized than any of the others listed here. What are these "glitches" you speak of? Maybe we can help you out with them.
Safari is a great and fast browser, agreed, but it does has it's issues.
Javascript support is not yet up to standards, as is CSS.
And I don't know what the deal is with (secure) https:// sites, but I know that when an URL starts with that, we're in trouble.
Still some work to do, and I'm eagerly waiting for v. 1.5 or 2. In the meantime is Saffie my main browser, but I have to keep Explorer at hand somewhere under a rock.
Originally posted by BigBlue
And I don't know what the deal is with (secure) https:// sites, but I know that when an URL starts with that, we're in trouble.
Such as?
All HTTPS sites that I frequent work fine. This includes but isn't limited to my bank (Wachovia, First Union), my girlfriend's bank (Navy Federal Credit Union), my girlfriend's parents' bank (I can't recall the name, it's a smaller one), and my school's registration system and e-mail system (NCSU).
As for ECMAScript and CSS, Safari works fine with all the sites I visit. I can't recall ever visiting a site where problems were noticeable enough for me to file a bug report. If you're referring to sites (Mozilla junkies make a lot of these) that just stress-tests the browser with hundreds of CSS and ECMAScript variations, I don't count those as "real" sites. As long as Safari renders actual sites correctly, specifically ones that code properly (which it does for me), I don't care about some mocked-up testing site that is only used for benchmarking purposes.
I don't know about your posting problem. Chock it up to server weirdness.
BTW...I would rather people start developing sites towards more standards compliance, rather than IE compliance. That is my personal mission with sites that I develop. Some people think that IE compliance is actually standards compliance which is bullcrap. That needs to change.
I still use Safari though, like the simple interface. I booted up in OS9 last week only to find out half the pages I have problems with actually work in OS9!! Seems we're going backwards when it comes to compatibility.
What I miss in Safari (along with better Java, CSS support) are proper contextual menus. Hate not being able to go back to previous page with my right mouse button
Originally posted by kelib
What I miss in Safari (along with better Java, CSS support)
Keep in mind Java isn't linked to Safari (problems would affect all browsers) and most importantly:
Java != JavaScript
They are not related in any way. Netscape just chose the name JavaScript because Java was an industry buzzword at the time. The "real" name for JavaScript is actually ECMAScript.
Originally posted by Brad
Keep in mind Java isn't linked to Safari (problems would affect all browsers) and most importantly:
Java != JavaScript
They are not related in any way. Netscape just chose the name JavaScript because Java was an industry buzzword at the time. The "real" name for JavaScript is actually ECMAScript.
Except for LiveConnect. Which Safari doesn't support, IIRC.
Originally posted by kelib
In terms of compatibility all browsers on the Mac are CRAP.
Generally, that's because In terms of compatibility MS Internet Explorer for Windows is CRAP.
IE breaks conventions, and sheep design their sites to work with IE's non-standard ideosyncracies. So standards-based browsers, which actually do everything as they're supposed to, don't display those broken sites correctly. It doesn't change the reality that those sites don't work in Safari, but it's often the site that's broken and incompatible, not the browser.
Really, it was a briliant (if belated) long-term strategic business move. Own the browser, own the internet. Or, at least, own the only tools to design and host sites that work correctly with the browser. So, same thing. Embrace, extend, own (and extinguish at will). [Yes, this is a major pet peeve of mine.]
Edit: Yea, foad! Didn't notice your reply at first.
Originally posted by Towel
Generally, that's because In terms of compatibility MS Internet Explorer for Windows is CRAP.
....
Edit: Yea, foad! Didn't notice your reply at first.
[rant]
I hate that situation. IE is such a POS browser...even on windows. There is no reason it should be the most used browser. It is the wrost browser. It is the worst not only for it's rendering of code but also for the shotty programming.
Now MS wants to intergrate it more with the OS. That is the worst idea I have ever heard. My web browser should not have low level system access. It jsut opens up the amount of crap that can go wrong on someones computer. I just hate it. On my windows box at work I use Firebird because it is a pretty good browser.
Sorry for the random rant...I have a utter hatred towards IE. I learned how to code standards compliant code, then I also had to learn how to write IE code.
[/rant]
Originally posted by Brad
Such as?
All HTTPS sites that I frequent work fine. This includes but isn't limited to my bank (Wachovia, First Union), my girlfriend's bank (Navy Federal Credit Union), my girlfriend's parents' bank (I can't recall the name, it's a smaller one), and my school's registration system and e-mail system (NCSU).
As for ECMAScript and CSS, Safari works fine with all the sites I visit. I can't recall ever visiting a site where problems were noticeable enough for me to file a bug report. If you're referring to sites (Mozilla junkies make a lot of these) that just stress-tests the browser with hundreds of CSS and ECMAScript variations, I don't count those as "real" sites. As long as Safari renders actual sites correctly, specifically ones that code properly (which it does for me), I don't care about some mocked-up testing site that is only used for benchmarking purposes.
I had several https sites that did not work, so much so I had to use IE for it. Problems were with my bank, Hotmail and Paypal. However, now I checked again for this post - and I don't know it's because of the last update (1.1.1) - these sites work fine now. Cool. One more reason to dump IE. Paypal replies still do crash Mail, tough.
On the CSS front, however: form tags are still not supported (field background colors and borders and such).
Originally posted by Brad
Such as?
All HTTPS sites that I frequent work fine. This includes but isn't limited to my bank (Wachovia, First Union), my girlfriend's bank (Navy Federal Credit Union), my girlfriend's parents' bank (I can't recall the name, it's a smaller one), and my school's registration system and e-mail system (NCSU).
In my case too, there are secure domains that Safari cannot handle. In these cases, fortunately, OW 4.5 can do the trick and I can avoid IE
Originally posted by foad
[rant]
I hate that situation. IE is such a POS browser...even on windows. There is no reason it should be the most used browser. It is the wrost browser. It is the worst not only for it's rendering of code but also for the shotty programming.
Now MS wants to intergrate it more with the OS. That is the worst idea I have ever heard. My web browser should not have low level system access. It jsut opens up the amount of crap that can go wrong on someones computer. I just hate it. On my windows box at work I use Firebird because it is a pretty good browser.
Sorry for the random rant...I have a utter hatred towards IE. I learned how to code standards compliant code, then I also had to learn how to write IE code.
[/rant]
Way to go! That's completely right. I hate how MS is constantly bullshitting about making a "more secure" computing experience in response to the ridiculous number of security holes found in their software, and then they turn around and do the same kind of stuff that caused all these security holes over again. Don't they ever learn? Why can't all these big-headed industry analysts see that they're just a stupid company that doesn't spend any time looking for security flaws before a product release? Instead they just wait for third parties to discover them at which point they can try to cover their ass (and because it's Microsoft, everyone will allow them to). The general public doesn't care; they don't even equate all the problems with Microsoft. They just say "boy, those hackers are something these days," or "man, computers sure can be a pain." I would be interested to see a commercial by Apple (or any other company that wants to strike a blow to MS) in the style of a public service announcement, telling people that X number of security flaws have been found in the Microsoft Windows OS, the MS could have prevented it, and that they've caused countless billions of dollars in lost productivity over the years. It would be a gutsy move but I'd like to see it, even if it would only convince a few people of MS's irresponsibility.