Safari + Glims (saved tabs, icons in bookmarked items) + Mobile Me Sync (stopped using XMarks, bookmarks sync to the Mobile Safari on the iPhone) for me.
I didn't like the fact that I was given no control or notification about updates being downloaded in the background by Chrome:
So is Chrome going to update by itself, or do I have to trash it and download the latest version? The option to update is currently greyed out, telling me I have the latest version.
Chrome had a XMarks extension for some time now. Just check the extension gallery. It only syncs bookmarks though as the XMarks developer claim that Chrome still lacks the necessary APIs for password syncing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
My current version shows ver. (5.0.375.55.)
This is the stable version. If you were using the beta channel before than you don't have to do anything as they pushed the latest beta version into the stable channel unchanged. In the past Google usually switched beta channel users to the stable channel automatically when the first stable version was released. If you want to stay on the beta channel you'll probably have to switch channels again manually.
We believe that it provides not only the stability, performance and polish that every Mac user expects, but also a seamless native Mac application experience that Mac users will feel instantly at home with."
Mike Smith must be stoned. Services are not supported so there's no way to do Text-Speech, for example.
Preferences are hideous and violate the Aqua UI guidelines. The look of tabs also do not follow the rules.
chrome for mac does not like flash transparency right now , (as in a transparent background in flash and use something like allowTransparency=true in iframes) . However chrome for windows works fine lol...
and Dont tell me not to use flash and go for html5....i know what i'm doing. I'm well aware of what flash(and i am using flash 10.1 ) can do and what it cant do, and what html5 can do and what it cannot do.
Preferences are hideous and violate the Aqua UI guidelines. The look of tabs also do not follow the rules.
I'm curious, in what way do they violate the guidelines? To my untrained eye they look like the ones in many other applications. They surely look more common than the preferences in iTunes.
That's because it IS Safari. It's just called WebKit to distinguish itself from the full release version.
It is WebKit and it uses your currently installed Safari as a front end. That's why an installed WebKit suddenly got the Safari 4 look when a user upgraded from Safari 3 to Safari 4 even though WebKit Nightly wasn't updated.
Installed it for the first time, started it up, after a minute or so (while I was still browsing through the preferences settings), this message popped up. Within a few minutes, it popped up at least five more times (with me even not having tried to visit any page, just having an empty tab open).
BTW, I do run a pre-alpha Camino build as my main browser and Webkit nightlies as a secondary browser.
Google, another M£ 'mee too' company. Has anything they do left beta? I mean truly?
Sure, the do search? Got to be the most over rated company on the planet.
What do we have here? A 'poorly' Mac piccy?
I don't want Google spying on me. No thanks.
I'll stick with Safari. Fast. Elegant. Rarely have any problems with it.
...and it sounds like it's set to get even better.
Great news for you Mac guys (I myself only use a Mac occasionally). Chrome is by far the best browser out there. Having each tab as a separate process makes a big difference, as does it's ability to load up from scratch in a fraction of a second. (ie. it appears pretty much the instant you click it's icon)
Everyone seems to talk about browser speed. Do you really able to anticipate 1/100 of a second difference? Speed depends on your broadband not on your browser.
Good it finally is stable. It was a good browser even in beta, just not my type. It has many features but doesn't look sexy, i prefer sexy over functional.
P.S. same as in female market, sexy over smart is 99.9% choice
With the increasingly more common implementation of stuff like AJAX on the web, heavy javascript websites are more and more prevalent. The difference between a slow and fast browser is significant. Much more than 1/100 of a second.
With the increasingly more common implementation of stuff like AJAX on the web, heavy javascript websites are more and more prevalent. The difference between a slow and fast browser is significant. Much more than 1/100 of a second.
There is certainly room for more JS engine speed improvements, but looking at the current set or browsers and the improvements they've made over previous versions I think Soskok has a point.
The upcoming IE9 and all the current standards-based browsers are have very fast and comparable JS speeds. So much so that the focus should be which browser app offers the features, stability, and security you desire over a very slight edging in performance.
The good thing is that they are all getting so close and all becoming standards compliant ? even IE ? that we are really seeing some great strides on all fronts.
There is certainly room for more JS engine speed improvements, but looking at the current set or browsers and the improvements they've made over previous versions I think Soskok has a point.
The upcoming IE9 and all the current standards-based browsers are have very fast and comparable JS speeds. So much so that the focus should be which browser app offers the features, stability, and security you desire over a very slight edging in performance.
The good thing is that they are all getting so close and all becoming standards compliant — even IE — that we are really seeing some great strides on all fronts.
But when websites get more and more complex, that .1 second difference becomes a several second difference. If a Ferrari and a Mustang race down a 1 mile stretch of track, the difference is seconds. If the same two cars race from Houston to Chicago, the difference is hours.
EDIT: With HTML5 on its way up and Flash on its way out, Javascript is going to be utilized much more heavily.
But when websites get more and more complex, that .1 second difference becomes a several second difference. If a Ferrari and a Mustang race down a 1 mile stretch of track, the difference is seconds. If the same two cars race from Houston to Chicago, the difference is hours.
And if a couple seconds down a stretch of road is most important to you, then go with the Ferrari, but I'll stick with my Merc S-Class for comfort, safety and reliability while still getting to my destination plenty fast.
Again, they are all very fast now and very close in speed that the most important aspect for a modern browser should be, IMO, a focus on features, stability and security, not just the browser with the slightly faster JS engine speed on a test site.
PS:Another aspect to consider for notebook users that are often without power is power efficiency. IE on Windows and Safari on Mac are the best choices for preserving your battery life.
And if a couple seconds down a stretch of road is most important to you, then go with the Ferrari, but I'll stick with my Merc S-Class for comfort, safety and reliability while still getting to my destination plenty fast.
Again, they are all very fast now and very close in speed that the most important aspect for a modern browser should be, IMO, a focus on features, stability and security, not just the browser with the slightly faster JS engine speed on a test site.
PS:Another aspect to consider for notebook users that are often without power is power efficiency. IE on Windows and Safari on Mac are the best choices for preserving your battery life.
I don't think you got my analogy. I am saying that within the next year websites are going to be using enough Javascript to make the difference several seconds.
Because Safari is a horribly under-featured browser build on top a good web engine? Safari has almost nothing going for it except its excellent history.
Under featured (what I would give to have some of the features from the S4 beta back) and incredibly buggy. I had site incompatibilities and crashes that I just don't have on any other browser, Safar's webkit cousin Chrome included. If they were to ever fix the bugs (they haven't in seven years, so I'm not holding my breath) and give back the option of top tabs, I'd give Safari another shot.
Gimpy adblocking (it downloads ads, then blocks them) and no RSS live bookmarks are a dealbreaker for me. The plugin APIs don't allow for either to be effective.
I'm using chrome right now on my AMD Geode 500mhz japanese micro-laptop, simply because it is the only browser with acceptable speed on this incredibly under powered machine, but in O X and Windows I use Firefox exclusively.
I tried reading RSS feeds in Firefox when they first introduced that feature. I did not like it. I actually have a few RSS feed in Firefox. I find both browsers and email clients like Entourage a unsatisfactory means for viewing RSS. May I suggest Newsgator's free NetNewswire which syncs with Google Reader online. I find this to be a far superior approach to organizing and reading RSS feeds on the Mac. FeedDemon is Newsgator's windows client.
Comments
I didn't like the fact that I was given no control or notification about updates being downloaded in the background by Chrome:
http://www.quickshortnotes.com/googl...ut-permission/
But it's still great that Chrome is available as a choice for Mac users.
My current version shows ver. (5.0.375.55.)
Will this version of chrome work with X-Marks?
Chrome had a XMarks extension for some time now. Just check the extension gallery. It only syncs bookmarks though as the XMarks developer claim that Chrome still lacks the necessary APIs for password syncing.
My current version shows ver. (5.0.375.55.)
This is the stable version. If you were using the beta channel before than you don't have to do anything as they pushed the latest beta version into the stable channel unchanged. In the past Google usually switched beta channel users to the stable channel automatically when the first stable version was released. If you want to stay on the beta channel you'll probably have to switch channels again manually.
Sexy AND smart no that's the combination to go for. In that case Safari wins hands down.
I am completely baffled how people can come to the conclusion that Safari is in any way "smart". I truly am.
We believe that it provides not only the stability, performance and polish that every Mac user expects, but also a seamless native Mac application experience that Mac users will feel instantly at home with."
Mike Smith must be stoned. Services are not supported so there's no way to do Text-Speech, for example.
Preferences are hideous and violate the Aqua UI guidelines. The look of tabs also do not follow the rules.
Yes, Mike... "Seamless" indeed.
and Dont tell me not to use flash and go for html5....i know what i'm doing. I'm well aware of what flash(and i am using flash 10.1 ) can do and what it cant do, and what html5 can do and what it cannot do.
Preferences are hideous and violate the Aqua UI guidelines. The look of tabs also do not follow the rules.
I'm curious, in what way do they violate the guidelines? To my untrained eye they look like the ones in many other applications. They surely look more common than the preferences in iTunes.
That's because it IS Safari. It's just called WebKit to distinguish itself from the full release version.
It is WebKit and it uses your currently installed Safari as a front end. That's why an installed WebKit suddenly got the Safari 4 look when a user upgraded from Safari 3 to Safari 4 even though WebKit Nightly wasn't updated.
Really?
Installed it for the first time, started it up, after a minute or so (while I was still browsing through the preferences settings), this message popped up. Within a few minutes, it popped up at least five more times (with me even not having tried to visit any page, just having an empty tab open).
BTW, I do run a pre-alpha Camino build as my main browser and Webkit nightlies as a secondary browser.
Google, another M£ 'mee too' company. Has anything they do left beta? I mean truly?
Sure, the do search? Got to be the most over rated company on the planet.
What do we have here? A 'poorly' Mac piccy?
I don't want Google spying on me. No thanks.
I'll stick with Safari. Fast. Elegant. Rarely have any problems with it.
...and it sounds like it's set to get even better.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Chrome does only transmit usage data to Google if you opt-in. You're simply spreading FUD.
you need to go into options and turn off the 'use suggestion service...'
because anything you type in the url/search box gets sent to google if you don't.
Everyone seems to talk about browser speed. Do you really able to anticipate 1/100 of a second difference? Speed depends on your broadband not on your browser.
Good it finally is stable. It was a good browser even in beta, just not my type. It has many features but doesn't look sexy, i prefer sexy over functional.
P.S. same as in female market, sexy over smart is 99.9% choice
With the increasingly more common implementation of stuff like AJAX on the web, heavy javascript websites are more and more prevalent. The difference between a slow and fast browser is significant. Much more than 1/100 of a second.
With the increasingly more common implementation of stuff like AJAX on the web, heavy javascript websites are more and more prevalent. The difference between a slow and fast browser is significant. Much more than 1/100 of a second.
There is certainly room for more JS engine speed improvements, but looking at the current set or browsers and the improvements they've made over previous versions I think Soskok has a point.
The upcoming IE9 and all the current standards-based browsers are have very fast and comparable JS speeds. So much so that the focus should be which browser app offers the features, stability, and security you desire over a very slight edging in performance.
The good thing is that they are all getting so close and all becoming standards compliant ? even IE ? that we are really seeing some great strides on all fronts.
There is certainly room for more JS engine speed improvements, but looking at the current set or browsers and the improvements they've made over previous versions I think Soskok has a point.
The upcoming IE9 and all the current standards-based browsers are have very fast and comparable JS speeds. So much so that the focus should be which browser app offers the features, stability, and security you desire over a very slight edging in performance.
The good thing is that they are all getting so close and all becoming standards compliant — even IE — that we are really seeing some great strides on all fronts.
But when websites get more and more complex, that .1 second difference becomes a several second difference. If a Ferrari and a Mustang race down a 1 mile stretch of track, the difference is seconds. If the same two cars race from Houston to Chicago, the difference is hours.
EDIT: With HTML5 on its way up and Flash on its way out, Javascript is going to be utilized much more heavily.
But when websites get more and more complex, that .1 second difference becomes a several second difference. If a Ferrari and a Mustang race down a 1 mile stretch of track, the difference is seconds. If the same two cars race from Houston to Chicago, the difference is hours.
And if a couple seconds down a stretch of road is most important to you, then go with the Ferrari, but I'll stick with my Merc S-Class for comfort, safety and reliability while still getting to my destination plenty fast.
Again, they are all very fast now and very close in speed that the most important aspect for a modern browser should be, IMO, a focus on features, stability and security, not just the browser with the slightly faster JS engine speed on a test site.
PS:Another aspect to consider for notebook users that are often without power is power efficiency. IE on Windows and Safari on Mac are the best choices for preserving your battery life.
And if a couple seconds down a stretch of road is most important to you, then go with the Ferrari, but I'll stick with my Merc S-Class for comfort, safety and reliability while still getting to my destination plenty fast.
Again, they are all very fast now and very close in speed that the most important aspect for a modern browser should be, IMO, a focus on features, stability and security, not just the browser with the slightly faster JS engine speed on a test site.
PS:Another aspect to consider for notebook users that are often without power is power efficiency. IE on Windows and Safari on Mac are the best choices for preserving your battery life.
I don't think you got my analogy. I am saying that within the next year websites are going to be using enough Javascript to make the difference several seconds.
Because Safari is a horribly under-featured browser build on top a good web engine? Safari has almost nothing going for it except its excellent history.
Under featured (what I would give to have some of the features from the S4 beta back) and incredibly buggy. I had site incompatibilities and crashes that I just don't have on any other browser, Safar's webkit cousin Chrome included. If they were to ever fix the bugs (they haven't in seven years, so I'm not holding my breath) and give back the option of top tabs, I'd give Safari another shot.
Gimpy adblocking (it downloads ads, then blocks them) and no RSS live bookmarks are a dealbreaker for me. The plugin APIs don't allow for either to be effective.
I'm using chrome right now on my AMD Geode 500mhz japanese micro-laptop, simply because it is the only browser with acceptable speed on this incredibly under powered machine, but in O X and Windows I use Firefox exclusively.
__________________________________________________ ______________________
I tried reading RSS feeds in Firefox when they first introduced that feature. I did not like it. I actually have a few RSS feed in Firefox. I find both browsers and email clients like Entourage a unsatisfactory means for viewing RSS. May I suggest Newsgator's free NetNewswire which syncs with Google Reader online. I find this to be a far superior approach to organizing and reading RSS feeds on the Mac. FeedDemon is Newsgator's windows client.