Chrome sucks. I tried it on my PC at work, and it sucks. If it ever shows up on Mac OS X, it won't make a ripple in what people use. That's probably why Google has been so slow to release it.
Apple's future as a computer company is very bright. The facts that Vista is widely considered a failure, early reports of Windows 7 being lukewarm at best, and the latest Zune debacle are clobbering Microsoft's ill-deserved reputation for being the only game in town.
Another part of what is helping Apple's computers are the non-computer devices that caused Apple to drop the word Computer from the company name. (I still argue that Apple is subversively causing people to become Mac users when the buy iPhones or iPod Touches.) Once people see how well iPhones and iPods work, it helps them believe that the computers may also be as good. To Mac fans like me, this has been apparent for many years, but if this is the way some people need to be convinced, so be it.
Reports of Windows 7 have all been quite positive, unless all your 7 reports are coming from Apple-centric sites.
Safari is OK, but it's just a feature-less browser, and it's one of the worst Windows apps out there, and I would rather use Chrome over it, even on OSX. FF3 is just the best balance, as it can be customized further and it has a lot of features I do use all the time.
Of course, most of the tech media adores Microsoft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by guinness
Safari is OK, but it's just a feature-less browser, and it's one of the worst Windows apps out there, and I would rather use Chrome over it, even on OSX. FF3 is just the best balance, as it can be customized further and it has a lot of features I do use all the time.
One of the worst? How? Most people don't even use Firefox's extensions, they mainly care about speed and text/page rendering, all of which are better in Safari.
Those samples are highly biased in favor of Windows/Mac; you can tell very little about actual market or web share from them.
Most Linux users run with automatic ad and web bug removal and make much more extensive use of RSS readers and on-line services. Furthermore, in my experience, Linux has almost completely displaced OS X in education, at least outside the US.
I use Firefox most of the time. I like the sunken visual effect it gives when you hover/click on a site in the bookmark bar; Safari is just boring shading. Also, the gradient FF uses to differentiate tabs is better for me than Safari; the latter is too dark and makes the text difficult for me to read.
Also, googling is much easier in FF:
1. If I'm working on my desktop (not using the web) and want to research something, it's a simple matter for me to copy a word and paste it into the google bar. That is, I launch FF, right-click in the search blank, and paste. In Safari, I first have to left-click in the search blank before I get the option to paste from a right-click.
2. If I'm already using the web and want to read about something further, I can highlight the word/phrase in FF, right-click, search google, and get results in a new tab. With Safari, trying the same thing doesn't give me a new tab like I want; it replaces whatever tab I'm on. (There must be a way to change this in Safari, but I can't figure it out.) The default for Safari is really irritating when it causes you to lose information!
What Safari has going for it is that it's faster, both for launching the program and loading web pages. I like its left-hand positioning of the "x" to close tabs. I like that I can launch Dictionary by right-clicking on a highlighted word.
Of course, most of the tech media adores Microsoft.
One of the worst? How? Most people don't even use Firefox's extensions, they mainly care about speed and text/page rendering, all of which are better in Safari.
Safari for Windows is pretty terrible, not only does it try and look/act like a Mac app in Windows, it doesn't use Cleartype for its text rendering, which makes it look blurry on XP/Vista. Yeah, it renders pages quickly, but so does Chrome and Opera, and they're simply better browsers in Windows, than Safari is, primarily because using a Mac app in Windows just doesn't work that well.
Safari is fine on OSX, but it doesn't have any features, like decent ad blocking, ability to easily block/enable JS on a page by page basis, I use other extensions like a download helper, an image zoomer, and a couple more. Also in FF3, I constantly use the ability to search through my bookmarks, by typing in a few letters in the address bar, and I also hate how Safari organizes bookmarks, which is fine if you don't have a lot, but it's far too minimalist for my tastes.
The most positive thing I can say about Safari, is that it's fast, and that's it, but I've been spoiled with FF3, and having actually features/choice about what I want to add, but then again Safari falls in line with Apple's take or leave it policy.
And most of the media loves Apple, especially engadget, but they even give credit when it's due.
I too will give Chrome a try. I, however, will likely go back to Safari because it integrates with the Mac OS the best. Moreover, Firefox has too many issues such as not displaying PDFs as well and in some cases not displaying graphics on at least one of my Macs (a flaw others have reported as well).
I suspect Chrome's release really has more to do with not having to pay Firefox hefty fees to use Google search.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cygnusrk727
Safari is certainly my browser of choice. But I and a lot of others will download Chrome and give it a try. Who knows how many will hang with it. My only point there is in a couple of more months, millions of people who currently can't even download and use Chrome, will be able to do so at that point. So far, Safari market share has been shielded from the new browser.
Yes, but Firefox in Mac OSX does not support multi touch. For instance, in Safari if my cursor is in the address bar, I can swipe three fingers to the left on a newer Macbook (or Macbook Pro) and the browser will go back to the previous address. I can swipe three fingers to the right and move forward one website. This is just one on many examples of how Safari is well integrated with the OS.
Moreover, Google pays Firefox millions of dollars a year. You can bet it is going to support Google. The one thing I prefer with Firefox is the way it remembers form information. Firefox far excels in this over Safari, which poorly relies on the Keychain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WIJG
I use Firefox most of the time. I like the sunken visual effect it gives when you hover/click on a site in the bookmark bar; Safari is just boring shading. Also, the gradient FF uses to differentiate tabs is better for me than Safari; the latter is too dark and makes the text difficult for me to read.
Also, googling is much easier in FF:
1. If I'm working on my desktop (not using the web) and want to research something, it's a simple matter for me to copy a word and paste it into the google bar. That is, I launch FF, right-click in the search blank, and paste. In Safari, I first have to left-click in the search blank before I get the option to paste from a right-click.
2. If I'm already using the web and want to read about something further, I can highlight the word/phrase in FF, right-click, search google, and get results in a new tab. With Safari, trying the same thing doesn't give me a new tab like I want; it replaces whatever tab I'm on. (There must be a way to change this in Safari, but I can't figure it out.) The default for Safari is really irritating when it causes you to lose information!
What Safari has going for it is that it's faster, both for launching the program and loading web pages. I like its left-hand positioning of the "x" to close tabs. I like that I can launch Dictionary by right-clicking on a highlighted word.
This is pretty cool news. Dont underestimate Windows 7 especially in Business land. Many CIOs and IT Managers are waiting on Windows 7 for their upgrades. Apple still has a long way to go to get into this space.
Yes, but Firefox in Mac OSX does not support multi touch. For instance, in Safari if my cursor is in the address bar, I can swipe three fingers to the left on a newer Macbook (or Macbook Pro) and the browser will go back to the previous address. I can swipe three fingers to the right and move forward one website. This is just one on many examples of how Safari is well integrated with the OS.
Actually the latest firefox 3.1 beta has multi-touch support
Safari for Windows is pretty terrible, not only does it try and look/act like a Mac app in Windows, it doesn't use Cleartype for its text rendering, which makes it look blurry on XP/Vista.
I don't find Safari's lack of ClearType support very noticeable and on some sites, like Wikipedia, I'd say it's quite preferable to Firefox (at least in XP).
Quote:
Originally Posted by guinness
Yeah, it renders pages quickly, but so does Chrome and Opera, and they're simply better browsers in Windows, than Safari is, primarily because using a Mac app in Windows just doesn't work that well.
Chrome doesn't look like an XP app either, it doesn't look like it belongs to any operating system.
Safari isn't a "Mac app in Windows," it's a Windows app that tries its best to look like a Mac app. Many third party apps written for Windows vary greatly in look and feel, so I don't see the point in repeating that Safari just doesn't "feel right." Neither does iTunes, by that logic, and its one of the best looking apps on Windows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by guinness
Safari is fine on OSX, but it doesn't have any features, like decent ad blocking, ability to easily block/enable JS on a page by page basis, I use other extensions like a download helper, an image zoomer, and a couple more.
The FF3 features you mention are not built-in, they're extensions you have to search out and download (though they certainly count). But of course Safari has features, all browsers do. Safari 1) makes use of the system-wide Dictionary (FF3 doesn't), 2) allows you to drag and drop tabs out to create new ones and merge all tabs into one window (FF3 doesn't), 3) Dashboard widget clippings (FF3 doesn't), 4) access to the system-wide Services (FF3 doesn't), 5) AppleScript support (FF3 has nearly none), and one of my favorites, 6) inline PDF viewing (FF3 doesn't).
Quote:
Originally Posted by guinness
Also in FF3, I constantly use the ability to search through my bookmarks, by typing in a few letters in the address bar
Same thing is possible with Safari. However, FF3's "AwesomeBar" is better in that it will search through the entire url, rather than the first few letters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by guinness
and I also hate how Safari organizes bookmarks, which is fine if you don't have a lot, but it's far too minimalist for my tastes.
Any examples?
Quote:
Originally Posted by guinness
The most positive thing I can say about Safari, is that it's fast, and that's it, but I've been spoiled with FF3, and having actually features/choice about what I want to add, but then again Safari falls in line with Apple's take or leave it policy.
Absolutely, Firefox's killer app is its extensions mechanism. Without it, it'd largely be a slower version of Safari.
If all you wanna do is browse, though, speed is a major selling point. FF3's extensions add functionality, but they impact speed and when you spend most of your time in an RSS reader, those extensions can go unused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by guinness
And most of the media loves Apple, especially engadget, but they even give credit when it's due.
I don't find Safari's lack of ClearType support very noticeable and on some sites, like Wikipedia, I'd say it's quite preferable to Firefox (at least in XP).
I can't say I've ever liked ClearType, if it's mistuned, it's horrible, even when properly tuned, it has weird side-effects.
Quote:
The FF3 features you mention are not built-in, they're extensions you have to search out and download (though they certainly count). But of course Safari has features, all browsers do. Safari 1) makes use of the system-wide Dictionary (FF3 doesn't), 2) allows you to drag and drop tabs out to create new ones and merge all tabs into one window (FF3 doesn't), 3) Dashboard widget clippings (FF3 doesn't), 4) access to the system-wide Services (FF3 doesn't), 5) AppleScript support (FF3 has nearly none), and one of my favorites, 6) inline PDF viewing (FF3 doesn't).
I agree with most of those points, at least 1, 2, 6. Though I don't know how I can make good use of dashboard web clippings. The same goes for AppleScript and Services, I've not heard or read anyone mention those three in a long time. Do you use them?
Quote:
Absolutely, Firefox's killer app is its extensions mechanism. Without it, it'd largely be a slower version of Safari.
If all you wanna do is browse, though, speed is a major selling point. FF3's extensions add functionality, but they impact speed and when you spend most of your time in an RSS reader, those extensions can go unused.
Simple ad & flash blocking are all I really need, and none of the ad blockers for Safari that I've tried were simple, especially in comparison with the ones I use in FF. Sometimes an EXIF viewer (FXIF) provides interesting information.
I can't say I've ever liked ClearType, if it's mistuned, it's horrible, even when properly tuned, it has weird side-effects.
Oh yeah, I never meant to imply I did. I was just giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I agree with most of those points, at least 1, 2, 6. Though I don't know how I can use dashboard web clippings. The same goes for AppleScript and Services, I've not heard or read anyone mention those three in a long time. Do you use them?
I don't use AppleScript, no, but for those that do, Firefox isn't an option.
Safari's access to the system-wide Services menu is useful, especially in regard to text. Select some text, then go to Services. You can send the selected text to 1) a new message in Mail, 2) Google search (in a new window/tab), 3) Spotlight, 4) a new TextEdit document, 5) Dictionary, or 6) have the text read via Mac OS X's built-in text-to-speech system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Simple ad & flash blocking are all I really need, and none of the ad blockers for Safari that I've tried were simple, especially in comparison with the ones I use in FF. Sometimes an EXIF viewer (FXIF) provides interesting information.
That's true. I don't visit many Flash-heavy sites, and I spend most of my time in NetNewsWire, so I'm not nearly as affected by Flash as I was before I discovered RSS.
That article says that Mac's have a 66% market share of the Q1 2008 +$1000 US RETAIL computer market. That does will not include the majority of business PC's which I am sure you would agree account for a lot of the PC's out there and might not even include web sales which of course brings Dell into play.
The majority of consumer PC's sold cost less that $1000 and the vast majority of Mac's cost over $1000. So really this statistic tells us nothing at all anyway, it is smoke and mirrors.
You go to a PC shop and buy a $999 PC, a $500 monitor, $100 on a keyboard and mouse and you have a $1600 PC, but this would be counted (quite rightly) as a sub $1000 PC sale. A $1600 iMac however would be counted as a +$1000 sale.
Anyway, the point is that it is dishonest to claim that these figures mean that Apple have a 66% share of the +$1000 computer market.
2. If I'm already using the web and want to read about something further, I can highlight the word/phrase in FF, right-click, search google, and get results in a new tab. With Safari, trying the same thing doesn't give me a new tab like I want; it replaces whatever tab I'm on. (There must be a way to change this in Safari, but I can't figure it out.) The default for Safari is really irritating when it causes you to lose information!
Two ways to Google search selected text and have it open in a new tab in Safari:
1) With the text selected, go to Menu Bar > Safari > Services > Search with Google...
2) Use the keyboard shortcut command-shift-L, which performs the exact same task without mousing around.
That article says that Mac's have a 66% market share of the Q1 2008 +$1000 US RETAIL computer market. That does not include the majority of business PC's which I am sure you would agree account for a lot of the PC's out there and might not even include web sales which of course brings Dell into play.
I never meant to imply anything other than retail...but how many +$1000 Windows PCs are bought up by the enterprise market? I'd guess pretty few.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murphster
The majority of consumer PC's sold cost less that $1000 and the vast majority of Mac's cost over $1000. So really this statistic tells us nothing at all anyway, it is smoke and mirrors.
How does that fact not tell us anything!? The +$1000 retail consumer market is the premium computer market, which is where Apple largely competes: the profitable, premium computer market. So what it tells us is Apple has a majority share of the premium computer market. Considering they're outpacing the industry 4 to 1, it's obvious that market is the only one with serious growth because the low-end, junky, profitless computer market is over-saturated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murphster
You go to a PC shop and buy a $999 PC, a $500 monitor, $100 on a keyboard and mouse and you have a $1600 PC, but this would be counted (quite rightly) as a sub $1000 PC sale. A $1600 iMac however would be counted as a +$1000 sale.
Most consumers buy their desktop computer, monitor, keyboard, and mouse as a package, not individually. Do you wonder why Apple's best selling desktop is the iMac? I'd assume they're counting $1000 computers, but if they don't, too bad. The Mac mini doesn't get counted either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murphster
Anyway, the point is that it is dishonest to claim that these figures mean that Apple have a 66% share of the +$1000 computer market.
I hope my clarifications and explanations have helped you understand the figures' relevance.
Comments
Chrome sucks. I tried it on my PC at work, and it sucks. If it ever shows up on Mac OS X, it won't make a ripple in what people use. That's probably why Google has been so slow to release it.
Apple's future as a computer company is very bright. The facts that Vista is widely considered a failure, early reports of Windows 7 being lukewarm at best, and the latest Zune debacle are clobbering Microsoft's ill-deserved reputation for being the only game in town.
Another part of what is helping Apple's computers are the non-computer devices that caused Apple to drop the word Computer from the company name. (I still argue that Apple is subversively causing people to become Mac users when the buy iPhones or iPod Touches.) Once people see how well iPhones and iPods work, it helps them believe that the computers may also be as good. To Mac fans like me, this has been apparent for many years, but if this is the way some people need to be convinced, so be it.
Reports of Windows 7 have all been quite positive, unless all your 7 reports are coming from Apple-centric sites.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/30/w...provement-ove/
Safari is OK, but it's just a feature-less browser, and it's one of the worst Windows apps out there, and I would rather use Chrome over it, even on OSX. FF3 is just the best balance, as it can be customized further and it has a lot of features I do use all the time.
Reports of Windows 7 have all been quite positive, unless all your 7 reports are coming from Apple-centric sites.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/30/w...provement-ove/
Of course, most of the tech media adores Microsoft.
Safari is OK, but it's just a feature-less browser, and it's one of the worst Windows apps out there, and I would rather use Chrome over it, even on OSX. FF3 is just the best balance, as it can be customized further and it has a lot of features I do use all the time.
One of the worst? How? Most people don't even use Firefox's extensions, they mainly care about speed and text/page rendering, all of which are better in Safari.
Most Linux users run with automatic ad and web bug removal and make much more extensive use of RSS readers and on-line services. Furthermore, in my experience, Linux has almost completely displaced OS X in education, at least outside the US.
Those samples are highly biased in favor of Windows/Mac; you can tell very little about actual market or web share from them.
That's like saying something is biased in favor of Ford/Toyota. Mac OS X is the most popular, widespread UNIX distribution in the world.
Most Linux users run with automatic ad and web bug removal and make much more extensive use of RSS readers and on-line services.
What the heck do ad blockers have to do with web share?
Also, googling is much easier in FF:
1. If I'm working on my desktop (not using the web) and want to research something, it's a simple matter for me to copy a word and paste it into the google bar. That is, I launch FF, right-click in the search blank, and paste. In Safari, I first have to left-click in the search blank before I get the option to paste from a right-click.
2. If I'm already using the web and want to read about something further, I can highlight the word/phrase in FF, right-click, search google, and get results in a new tab. With Safari, trying the same thing doesn't give me a new tab like I want; it replaces whatever tab I'm on. (There must be a way to change this in Safari, but I can't figure it out.) The default for Safari is really irritating when it causes you to lose information!
What Safari has going for it is that it's faster, both for launching the program and loading web pages. I like its left-hand positioning of the "x" to close tabs. I like that I can launch Dictionary by right-clicking on a highlighted word.
Of course, most of the tech media adores Microsoft.
One of the worst? How? Most people don't even use Firefox's extensions, they mainly care about speed and text/page rendering, all of which are better in Safari.
Safari for Windows is pretty terrible, not only does it try and look/act like a Mac app in Windows, it doesn't use Cleartype for its text rendering, which makes it look blurry on XP/Vista. Yeah, it renders pages quickly, but so does Chrome and Opera, and they're simply better browsers in Windows, than Safari is, primarily because using a Mac app in Windows just doesn't work that well.
Safari is fine on OSX, but it doesn't have any features, like decent ad blocking, ability to easily block/enable JS on a page by page basis, I use other extensions like a download helper, an image zoomer, and a couple more. Also in FF3, I constantly use the ability to search through my bookmarks, by typing in a few letters in the address bar, and I also hate how Safari organizes bookmarks, which is fine if you don't have a lot, but it's far too minimalist for my tastes.
The most positive thing I can say about Safari, is that it's fast, and that's it, but I've been spoiled with FF3, and having actually features/choice about what I want to add, but then again Safari falls in line with Apple's take or leave it policy.
And most of the media loves Apple, especially engadget, but they even give credit when it's due.
I suspect Chrome's release really has more to do with not having to pay Firefox hefty fees to use Google search.
Safari is certainly my browser of choice. But I and a lot of others will download Chrome and give it a try. Who knows how many will hang with it. My only point there is in a couple of more months, millions of people who currently can't even download and use Chrome, will be able to do so at that point. So far, Safari market share has been shielded from the new browser.
Moreover, Google pays Firefox millions of dollars a year. You can bet it is going to support Google. The one thing I prefer with Firefox is the way it remembers form information. Firefox far excels in this over Safari, which poorly relies on the Keychain.
I use Firefox most of the time. I like the sunken visual effect it gives when you hover/click on a site in the bookmark bar; Safari is just boring shading. Also, the gradient FF uses to differentiate tabs is better for me than Safari; the latter is too dark and makes the text difficult for me to read.
Also, googling is much easier in FF:
1. If I'm working on my desktop (not using the web) and want to research something, it's a simple matter for me to copy a word and paste it into the google bar. That is, I launch FF, right-click in the search blank, and paste. In Safari, I first have to left-click in the search blank before I get the option to paste from a right-click.
2. If I'm already using the web and want to read about something further, I can highlight the word/phrase in FF, right-click, search google, and get results in a new tab. With Safari, trying the same thing doesn't give me a new tab like I want; it replaces whatever tab I'm on. (There must be a way to change this in Safari, but I can't figure it out.) The default for Safari is really irritating when it causes you to lose information!
What Safari has going for it is that it's faster, both for launching the program and loading web pages. I like its left-hand positioning of the "x" to close tabs. I like that I can launch Dictionary by right-clicking on a highlighted word.
Yes, but Firefox in Mac OSX does not support multi touch. For instance, in Safari if my cursor is in the address bar, I can swipe three fingers to the left on a newer Macbook (or Macbook Pro) and the browser will go back to the previous address. I can swipe three fingers to the right and move forward one website. This is just one on many examples of how Safari is well integrated with the OS.
Actually the latest firefox 3.1 beta has multi-touch support
Safari for Windows is pretty terrible, not only does it try and look/act like a Mac app in Windows, it doesn't use Cleartype for its text rendering, which makes it look blurry on XP/Vista.
I don't find Safari's lack of ClearType support very noticeable and on some sites, like Wikipedia, I'd say it's quite preferable to Firefox (at least in XP).
Yeah, it renders pages quickly, but so does Chrome and Opera, and they're simply better browsers in Windows, than Safari is, primarily because using a Mac app in Windows just doesn't work that well.
Chrome doesn't look like an XP app either, it doesn't look like it belongs to any operating system.
Safari isn't a "Mac app in Windows," it's a Windows app that tries its best to look like a Mac app. Many third party apps written for Windows vary greatly in look and feel, so I don't see the point in repeating that Safari just doesn't "feel right." Neither does iTunes, by that logic, and its one of the best looking apps on Windows.
Safari is fine on OSX, but it doesn't have any features, like decent ad blocking, ability to easily block/enable JS on a page by page basis, I use other extensions like a download helper, an image zoomer, and a couple more.
The FF3 features you mention are not built-in, they're extensions you have to search out and download (though they certainly count). But of course Safari has features, all browsers do. Safari 1) makes use of the system-wide Dictionary (FF3 doesn't), 2) allows you to drag and drop tabs out to create new ones and merge all tabs into one window (FF3 doesn't), 3) Dashboard widget clippings (FF3 doesn't), 4) access to the system-wide Services (FF3 doesn't), 5) AppleScript support (FF3 has nearly none), and one of my favorites, 6) inline PDF viewing (FF3 doesn't).
Also in FF3, I constantly use the ability to search through my bookmarks, by typing in a few letters in the address bar
Same thing is possible with Safari. However, FF3's "AwesomeBar" is better in that it will search through the entire url, rather than the first few letters.
and I also hate how Safari organizes bookmarks, which is fine if you don't have a lot, but it's far too minimalist for my tastes.
Any examples?
The most positive thing I can say about Safari, is that it's fast, and that's it, but I've been spoiled with FF3, and having actually features/choice about what I want to add, but then again Safari falls in line with Apple's take or leave it policy.
Absolutely, Firefox's killer app is its extensions mechanism. Without it, it'd largely be a slower version of Safari.
If all you wanna do is browse, though, speed is a major selling point. FF3's extensions add functionality, but they impact speed and when you spend most of your time in an RSS reader, those extensions can go unused.
And most of the media loves Apple, especially engadget, but they even give credit when it's due.
Haha, that's a good one.
I don't find Safari's lack of ClearType support very noticeable and on some sites, like Wikipedia, I'd say it's quite preferable to Firefox (at least in XP).
I can't say I've ever liked ClearType, if it's mistuned, it's horrible, even when properly tuned, it has weird side-effects.
The FF3 features you mention are not built-in, they're extensions you have to search out and download (though they certainly count). But of course Safari has features, all browsers do. Safari 1) makes use of the system-wide Dictionary (FF3 doesn't), 2) allows you to drag and drop tabs out to create new ones and merge all tabs into one window (FF3 doesn't), 3) Dashboard widget clippings (FF3 doesn't), 4) access to the system-wide Services (FF3 doesn't), 5) AppleScript support (FF3 has nearly none), and one of my favorites, 6) inline PDF viewing (FF3 doesn't).
I agree with most of those points, at least 1, 2, 6. Though I don't know how I can make good use of dashboard web clippings. The same goes for AppleScript and Services, I've not heard or read anyone mention those three in a long time. Do you use them?
Absolutely, Firefox's killer app is its extensions mechanism. Without it, it'd largely be a slower version of Safari.
If all you wanna do is browse, though, speed is a major selling point. FF3's extensions add functionality, but they impact speed and when you spend most of your time in an RSS reader, those extensions can go unused.
Simple ad & flash blocking are all I really need, and none of the ad blockers for Safari that I've tried were simple, especially in comparison with the ones I use in FF. Sometimes an EXIF viewer (FXIF) provides interesting information.
I can't say I've ever liked ClearType, if it's mistuned, it's horrible, even when properly tuned, it has weird side-effects.
Oh yeah, I never meant to imply I did. I was just giving him the benefit of the doubt.
I agree with most of those points, at least 1, 2, 6. Though I don't know how I can use dashboard web clippings. The same goes for AppleScript and Services, I've not heard or read anyone mention those three in a long time. Do you use them?
I don't use AppleScript, no, but for those that do, Firefox isn't an option.
Safari's access to the system-wide Services menu is useful, especially in regard to text. Select some text, then go to Services. You can send the selected text to 1) a new message in Mail, 2) Google search (in a new window/tab), 3) Spotlight, 4) a new TextEdit document, 5) Dictionary, or 6) have the text read via Mac OS X's built-in text-to-speech system.
Simple ad & flash blocking are all I really need, and none of the ad blockers for Safari that I've tried were simple, especially in comparison with the ones I use in FF. Sometimes an EXIF viewer (FXIF) provides interesting information.
That's true. I don't visit many Flash-heavy sites, and I spend most of my time in NetNewsWire, so I'm not nearly as affected by Flash as I was before I discovered RSS.
Macs already have a 66% share of the +$1000 computer market, ie the premium market where they largely compete.
Can you provide a citation?
Yes I can:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ales_fall.html
No you can't.
That article says that Mac's have a 66% market share of the Q1 2008 +$1000 US RETAIL computer market. That does will not include the majority of business PC's which I am sure you would agree account for a lot of the PC's out there and might not even include web sales which of course brings Dell into play.
The majority of consumer PC's sold cost less that $1000 and the vast majority of Mac's cost over $1000. So really this statistic tells us nothing at all anyway, it is smoke and mirrors.
You go to a PC shop and buy a $999 PC, a $500 monitor, $100 on a keyboard and mouse and you have a $1600 PC, but this would be counted (quite rightly) as a sub $1000 PC sale. A $1600 iMac however would be counted as a +$1000 sale.
Anyway, the point is that it is dishonest to claim that these figures mean that Apple have a 66% share of the +$1000 computer market.
2. If I'm already using the web and want to read about something further, I can highlight the word/phrase in FF, right-click, search google, and get results in a new tab. With Safari, trying the same thing doesn't give me a new tab like I want; it replaces whatever tab I'm on. (There must be a way to change this in Safari, but I can't figure it out.) The default for Safari is really irritating when it causes you to lose information!
Two ways to Google search selected text and have it open in a new tab in Safari:
1) With the text selected, go to Menu Bar > Safari > Services > Search with Google...
2) Use the keyboard shortcut command-shift-L, which performs the exact same task without mousing around.
No you can't.
That article says that Mac's have a 66% market share of the Q1 2008 +$1000 US RETAIL computer market. That does not include the majority of business PC's which I am sure you would agree account for a lot of the PC's out there and might not even include web sales which of course brings Dell into play.
I never meant to imply anything other than retail...but how many +$1000 Windows PCs are bought up by the enterprise market? I'd guess pretty few.
The majority of consumer PC's sold cost less that $1000 and the vast majority of Mac's cost over $1000. So really this statistic tells us nothing at all anyway, it is smoke and mirrors.
How does that fact not tell us anything!?
You go to a PC shop and buy a $999 PC, a $500 monitor, $100 on a keyboard and mouse and you have a $1600 PC, but this would be counted (quite rightly) as a sub $1000 PC sale. A $1600 iMac however would be counted as a +$1000 sale.
Most consumers buy their desktop computer, monitor, keyboard, and mouse as a package, not individually. Do you wonder why Apple's best selling desktop is the iMac? I'd assume they're counting $1000 computers, but if they don't, too bad. The Mac mini doesn't get counted either.
Anyway, the point is that it is dishonest to claim that these figures mean that Apple have a 66% share of the +$1000 computer market.
I hope my clarifications and explanations have helped you understand the figures' relevance.
And just like that. Chrome surpasses Safari.