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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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'
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.
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?
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???
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 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.
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.
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
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.
Comments
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...
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.
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!!
Does anyone know what the share of Safari and Firefox is on Mac OS X?
With or without the iPhone/Touch factored in?
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.
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...
Tabbed browsing is still there, the tabs on top are not.
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.
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!
Last thought: When using Safari on my Mac, it 'feels' more like 'home'
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=
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.
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?
After all these years, why aren't these issues resolved???
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.
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.
...
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.
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.
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.