I've tried all the browsers on the Mac. I finally decided on Firefox. I don't have any speed or loading issues since I started using the Fasterfox extension . I have 8 other add-ons which I use constantly. Since I also use FF on my wintel, i can easily sync the bookmarks between Mac and XP machines. Once I cured the speed issues on FF, the extensions and add-on features of FF make it the best choice by far for me.
As for comparative rendering on KINGME's site, I only compared FF and Safari on the Mac, I'll do FF XP later. I could not see any differences.
I'm sorry, but, are you really this dense? Wikipedia is an example of a website that, try as it might, Firefox just doesn't have the capacity to render properly.
Dense or not, the Wikipedia main page looks fine in my installations of Camino, Firefox, and Safari. Keep trying
Dense or not, the Wikipedia main page looks fine in my installations of Camino, Firefox, and Safari. Keep trying
That's because the main page doesn't have any citations. Firefox decides to use the worlds smallest, bitmapped font that, in italics, is completely illegible. It ignores my computer's font settings entirely.
Dense or not, the Wikipedia main page looks fine in my installations of Camino, Firefox, and Safari. Keep trying
Ah Ha! When I first went to the some wiki pages , my untrained amateur eye did not notice any difference between FF and Safari. After giving it another go, I do see now on closer inspection that the text and pictures on Safari are definitely different than and sharper than FF. For most of what I do, the difference is not significant. But, I can imagine for certain types of pages it would matter. I still like the extra functionality of FF--I'm addicted to some of those add-ons. With the Fasterfox add-on, it really turbocharges FF. On my machine, FF + Fasterfox is much faster than Safari or Camino.
... It ignores my computer's font settings entirely.
Therein lies the rub. It displays just fine on my computers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfe2211
... After giving it another go, I do see now on closer inspection that the text and pictures on Safari are definitely different than and sharper than FF. ...
If you have to scour webpages to find fault, don't you think that you are going just a bit overboard.
webkit nightly is what I use now. This is safari, but with the rendering engine updated constantly to take advantage of changes in the builds of webkit. Why use the 18 month old versions of webkit in safari, when the new ones are faster and more accurate?
Currently my only addons to safari are inquisitor, which I think is pretty nice. I also run uno, which gets rid of the brushed metal interface and gives it the grey unified aqua look.
I think it would be a good idea for Apple to take Safari out of the OS and develop and release it like they do with iTunes. Browser technology has moved so fast in particular with the growth of Firefox and it's add-ons (and other browsers) that I don't think a bi-yearly update is enough.
I think it would be a good idea for Apple to take Safari out of the OS and develop and release it like they do with iTunes. ...
Safari is not in the OS. WebKit and WebCore are MacOS X frameworks which are available to all developers. WebKit is under active opensource development. Many people on this forum download and use a version of Safari from the opensource project called WebKit instead of the release version.
Safari is not in the OS. WebKit and WebCore are MacOS X frameworks which are available to all developers. WebKit is under active opensource development. Many people on this forum download and use a version of Safari from the opensource project called WebKit instead of the release version.
You missed the point. While WebKit nightlies can be used, official updates to WebKit are provided on a very infrequent basis, which is indeed rather problematic.
However, since WebKit is a system-integrated framework, providing proper updates to it would be rather difficult. Tons of applications rely on it, and their compatibility must be guaranteed.
i don't get it. the usernames in quote boxes on this page are bold and i don't get anything like what's on that page. i've never noticed anything with bold or italicized text.
Comments
As for comparative rendering on KINGME's site, I only compared FF and Safari on the Mac, I'll do FF XP later. I could not see any differences.
I'm sorry, but, are you really this dense? Wikipedia is an example of a website that, try as it might, Firefox just doesn't have the capacity to render properly.
Dense or not, the Wikipedia main page looks fine in my installations of Camino, Firefox, and Safari. Keep trying
Dense or not, the Wikipedia main page looks fine in my installations of Camino, Firefox, and Safari. Keep trying
That's because the main page doesn't have any citations. Firefox decides to use the worlds smallest, bitmapped font that, in italics, is completely illegible. It ignores my computer's font settings entirely.
Dense or not, the Wikipedia main page looks fine in my installations of Camino, Firefox, and Safari. Keep trying
Ah Ha! When I first went to the some wiki pages , my untrained amateur eye did not notice any difference between FF and Safari. After giving it another go, I do see now on closer inspection that the text and pictures on Safari are definitely different than and sharper than FF. For most of what I do, the difference is not significant. But, I can imagine for certain types of pages it would matter. I still like the extra functionality of FF--I'm addicted to some of those add-ons. With the Fasterfox add-on, it really turbocharges FF. On my machine, FF + Fasterfox is much faster than Safari or Camino.
... It ignores my computer's font settings entirely.
Therein lies the rub. It displays just fine on my computers.
... After giving it another go, I do see now on closer inspection that the text and pictures on Safari are definitely different than and sharper than FF. ...
If you have to scour webpages to find fault, don't you think that you are going just a bit overboard.
Therein lies the rub. It displays just fine on my computers.
No, it doesn't. You just aren't as picky about rendering quality.
Currently my only addons to safari are inquisitor, which I think is pretty nice. I also run uno, which gets rid of the brushed metal interface and gives it the grey unified aqua look.
Therein lies the rub. It displays just fine on my computers.
If you have to scour webpages to find fault, don't you think that you are going just a bit overboard.
Nope. Just saying what my amateur eyes see.
No, it doesn't. You just aren't as picky about rendering quality.
When I let President Bush use my computer, did he let you use it? I gave him specific instructions not to let anyone else on.
I think it would be a good idea for Apple to take Safari out of the OS and develop and release it like they do with iTunes. ...
Safari is not in the OS. WebKit and WebCore are MacOS X frameworks which are available to all developers. WebKit is under active opensource development. Many people on this forum download and use a version of Safari from the opensource project called WebKit instead of the release version.
Safari is not in the OS. WebKit and WebCore are MacOS X frameworks which are available to all developers. WebKit is under active opensource development. Many people on this forum download and use a version of Safari from the opensource project called WebKit instead of the release version.
You missed the point. While WebKit nightlies can be used, official updates to WebKit are provided on a very infrequent basis, which is indeed rather problematic.
However, since WebKit is a system-integrated framework, providing proper updates to it would be rather difficult. Tons of applications rely on it, and their compatibility must be guaranteed.
When I let President Bush use my computer, did he let you use it? I gave him specific instructions not to let anyone else on.
So, in that case, are you saying you have a special, magical Firefox, Mr. Me edition, that works better than everyone elses?
No. You may not care about typography. Other people do.
So, in that case, are you saying you have a special, magical Firefox, Mr. Me edition, that works better than everyone elses?
No, just better than yours.
No. You may not care about typography. Other people do.
Actually, I care very much about typography. It is one reason that I use a Mac.
Actually, I care very much about typography.
Evidently not.
No, just better than yours.
OK, prove it. Take a screenshot of a website with italics and small type. And post it to Flickr or Photobucket or something like that.
Let's see this Magical Mr. Me Edition.
OK, prove it. Take a screenshot of a website with italics and small type. ...
Pick the site.
http://danwarne.com/text-rendering-p...refox-for-mac/
Firefox 2 definately has rendering problems when it comes to fonts. Especially bold or italisized text.
http://danwarne.com/text-rendering-p...refox-for-mac/
i don't get it. the usernames in quote boxes on this page are bold and i don't get anything like what's on that page. i've never noticed anything with bold or italicized text.