Safari numbers still dwarfed by Firefox downloads

Apple has been desperately trying to turn Safari into a mainstream browser player. Unfortunately, its numbers simply don't compare to Firefox.

Safari 4.0 notched 11 million downloads in just three days. While significant, this number is almost a rounding error compared with Firefox 3.0.11, which pulled down 150 million downloads in just 24 hours, as Mozilla's Asa Dotzler reports.

With more than 300 million active users of Firefox, Mozilla is miles ahead of Safari in terms of users. Firefox also dwarfs Safari (and Internet Explorer) in community; indeed, it is Firefox's rich ecosystem of add-ons and extensions that arguably render irrelevant any performance advantages Safari claims.

Perhaps for this reason, despite the apparent rise of Safari, Firefox is actually gaining at its expense, as Dotzler calls out:

Safari, just like IE, gets virtually all of its usage by shipping as the bundled and default browser with its operating system...

Safari usage is growing...the explanation, though, is not more people choosing Safari; it's more people choosing Mac. That's a very different thing. Having chosen Mac, Safari users, about 27% of them, have opted out of the bundled and default browser and instead chosen Firefox.

That's an even higher conversion to Firefox rate than we're seeing on Windows.

I'm an example of this. I was one of those 11 million Safari downloads, but I did so because the Apple update system pushed the update to me, not because I actually wanted it. (Nor am I alone in this.) I use Safari roughly twice per month: once when I check my bill on Comcast.com (which doesn't seem to work with Firefox), and once when I review Net Applications for browser market share (which, again, doesn't seem to work properly with Firefox).

Other than that, it's all Firefox, all the time.

I'm a Mac fanatic, but that doesn't mean I swallow Safari along with it. Safari lacks the add-ons that make my Firefox experience so rich. Safari may be fast, but it's like having a fast car without enough room to seat my family or accommodate a stereo and cup holder. I'm sure there's an audience for that, but I'm not it.

So, while Microsoft resorts to charitable donations to goose its IE8 downloads, and Apple claims misleading Safari numbers, Firefox wins because it's simply better.

Update @ 3:50 PT: It turns out that the Comcast.com problem stems from Adblock Plus, not Firefox. I guess I shouldn't blame Firefox for its extensions' problems.

Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.

[Sleep Dawg]

"Rich ecosystem of addons that effectively render irrelevant any performance advantage" is a dubious assertion. In addition to the poor memory management from Firefox over the years that has NEVER been ADEQUATELY dealt with, the addons have been significant culprits in hampering performance of the browser. Indeed it is only an addon-free Firefox that performs with any acceptable measure of speed.

Worse are the often trivial features of the addons, such as skinning and service functions (Digg, etc) that attract users to a "christmas tree ornamentation" of the browser without rewarding the user experience.

Firefox once held great promise but has been, sadly, lapped in the development and user experience department. Opera, Chrome and Safari hold the keys to the future currently.

[Philips]

I really love Safari and Chrome. They are great browsers. Great - but useless.

Even without add-ons, FireFox has load of mini features making it easily best of the best right now.

"Opera, Chrome and Safari hold the keys to the future currently."

Without automatic updates, without decent ad/pop-up/script blocker - only in your dreams.

[Sausagebiscuit]

uhm, all of the said browsers feature some form of automatic updates.

[Bruce11111]

Right on the money !!!

[shellcodes_coder]

safari is the future for unskilled hackers because it will take them less effort to exploit holes in it and man it's one of the crappiest and ugliest browser

[Perry_Clease]

"by shellcodes_coder June 13, 2009 3:52 PM PDT
safari is the future for unskilled hackers because it will take them less effort to exploit holes in it and man it's one of the crappiest and ugliest browser."

Prove it!

[SJ2571]

"it is only an addon-free Firefox that performs with any acceptable measure of speed" -- rubbish. Absolute rubbish. Maybe you're using add-ons written by losers or something, but my Firefox with 5 add-ons performs FASTER than a fresh clean Firefox install. You can thank AdBlock for that -- it strips out the ads which means the pages don't need to look for, wait for, and then download the graphics for them. But even without AdBlock, my Firefox still runs as fast as a fresh clean Firefox install.

[hinano--2008]

For me, as a front-end web developer, only Firefox is a usable tool with firebug and web developer tools. There is hope for Chrome (and to a lesser degree IE8) but the rest are used merely for testing. Which is the only reason my download is of Safari is counted. Like Opera and IE8 (Chrome being the exception), it'll never be my primary browser.

[eagledrc]

Open Source will never fail like you as you predict. Look at Lifehacker's speed tests (http://lifehacker.com/5286869/lifehacker-speed-tests-safari-4-chrome-2-and-more). Firefox has the lowest system memory footprint. Addons are not trivial. The way I use my browser (from keyboard shortcuts to blocking ads to closing tabs) depends on my addons. Open Source wins every time. Its time you learn that.

[caladan607]

Firefox IS the future at this time. Why do you think it outdistances the others 10-1??? I and at least 15 friends (8 of them IT professionals) LOVE Firefox and have no intention of changing. Neither do my 4 add-ons impact my browser's speed and I would notice as I am always checking the speed as I cannot tolerate slowness of any kind.

[SactoGuy018]

I use Firefox 3.0.11 as my default browser in Windows Vista Home Premium (SP2). Discussion over. :-)

[bradweikel]

While I agree with you on the big picture and nearly all of the finer points in this article, there's a bit of an oversight in your numbers: according to http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10263494-37.html , 6 million of those 11 million Safari downloads were Windows users. So, at least based on those numbers, the Dotzler quote is a bit misleading.

I'd be curious how the 6 million Windows users Safari gained in that period compare to the number of Safari to Firefox switches among Mac users over the same period. Is it a net loss or gain?

Also, on a side note, I think it shouldn't be at all surprising that Firefox conversion would be higher among Mac users than PC users, because Mac users are on average more tech savvy and more likely to experiment with alternatives. The long tail of tech-handicapped PC users, on the other hand, are unlikely to ever convert unless someone else does it for them.

[clamburgler]

"I think it shouldn't be at all surprising that Firefox conversion would be higher among Mac users than PC users, because Mac users are on average more tech savvy and more likely to experiment with alternatives."

I'm sorry but I don't buy that Mac users are more tech savvy than PC users. The reason why most people use Macs is because they aren't too technical to start with, and just buy into the whole "Macs are easier to use" fud. Also Apple fans are very brand loyal and would be the last people you would expect to experiment with alternatives.

[mbenedict]

The reason Firefox conversion is higher on the Mac is because a large proportion of recent Mac converts are PC users who used Firefox on their PCs. They switched to the Mac but opt to continue using Firefox, a familiar interface to them.

Many tech savvy people choose Macs, but that doesn't mean Mac users are "on average" more tech savvy than PC users. That's myth often repeated without substantiation (even on this blog, I might add) Just hang around any Apple Store for a few minutes and interact with the "Geniuses" there... you'll quickly understand that the term "Genius" could only be applied here because so many Mac users have zero technical knowledge.

In fact Macs are specifically targeted to NON tech savvy people... historically those who couldn't understand the C:\ prompt and were afraid of "the command line" ... more recently to people who's technical prowess barely goes beyond knowing how to sync their iPods. Think journalists, musicians, educators...

I'd hazard to guess that many tech savvy Mac users own at least one PC in addition to their Mac. As you say, they like to experiment, and from a hardware point-of-view the PC is where experimentation happens. You can't play with the latest motherboards, CPUs, video cards, etc., on the Mac.

I can honestly say most truly tech savvy people I know right now are tinkering with Windows 7... again mostly due to curiosity and experimentation more than anything else. They like to be up-to-date on anything technology and from a hardware perspective that means the PC.

[sting7k]

Not all Mac users are tech savvy, I thought the whole point was you don't need to be to use the Mac and make it work.

The 6 million Windows downloads is also misleading. Apple pushes Safari downloads/updates via it's updater software that comes with iTunes so many of them probably just click yes to the download and then never actually open the browser.

[jumpjetta]

This very tech-savvy computer/network diagnostician chose the Mac due to its flexibility in many environments. Get off your high-horse about whose users are more tech-savvy because it simply doesn't fly. I know PLENTY of idiot Windows users, and by sheer numbers, there are probably FAR more of those than idiot Mac users. Lucky there are, too. I have a job (and always will) because of them.

[bradweikel]

To clarify my original comment, re: tech savvy -- I'm not saying anything about individual users, just the AVERAGE for the respective systems. Both Mac and Windows have huge numbers of tech savvy users and huge numbers of tech luddites and, of course, huge numbers of people in between. However, because the "default" choice for the last 15+ years has been Windows + IE, there is a large group of people who will continue using Windows/IE forever until somebody else forces them to switch. Anecdotally - my grandmother will never switch to anything but XP+IE, because she's such a low end user that the pain of switching greatly exceeds any possible benefits. These sorts of users pull down the average, which pulls down the conversion rate in turn.

So, to further clarify, I'm not saying that your typical Mac user is more tech savvy than your typical PC user, just that there is a large population of luddites that pull down the average. And that isn't a judgment of any sort -- I just think it helps explain the numbers.

[monkeyfun14]

A good portion of the Windows downloads could also be from it being bundled in Apple update and users not caring enough to uncheck it.

[Perry_Clease]

"A good portion of the Windows downloads could also be from it being bundled in Apple update and users not caring enough to uncheck it."

More likely they are too clueless to uncheck it, as we all know if they had a clue they wouldn't be using Windows.

[Kwasiowusu]

@ bradweikel :" because Mac users are on average more tech savvy and more likely to experiment with alternatives. "

Huh?
On what planet is that?
This is the real world here, not some Apple zombie dreamland!
In the real world, Mac users are some of the most ignorant humans you could ever meet anywhere. You only have to read some of the comments of the Apple Defence Force on this very site to see that.
You really can't have it both ways. On the one hand, Apple zombies constantly and shrilly claim that the Mac is the most user friendly operating system ever made by man, so much so that even the most clueless humans use the Mac, and in the very next breadth, the same Apple fanatics turns round and cliam that the same technically clueless Mac users are somehow more technically savvy than Windows PC users. It just don't add up.

[Seaspray0]

@bradweikel. "there's a bit of an oversight in your numbers". Maybe. But you didn't consider that windows users may have had safari pushed to them as an update as well. When apple changed their update policy so that either itunes or quicktime ALSO installed safari, it was needlessly installed on millions of windows computers. As far as I'm concerned, apple's boast of 11 million downloads is worthless.

[Cole_Brodine]

I always thought the Mac users were more willing to use a different browser due to their machine's history. I remember the Mac default web browser being pretty poor until Safari came along (and I don't care a lot for it, but that's IMHO). Didn't they also really push IE for Mac for a while? If I were a Mac user, I would be trying desperately to get away from Microsoft. Isn't that usually the point of switching to a Mac?

[snackslapper]

i got the new safari with my software update. doesn't mean i'm gonna use it.

[Sausagebiscuit]

better yet, uncheck the sneaky 'update' apple pushes with all of its other software just to get the browser installed in as many computers as possible.

[shellcodes_coder]

That's one of the reason why there are so more Windows users who have downloaded it just like there are more iTunes users who use Windows than crap os x

[jake3373]

I just got it so I can test my website, make sure it works.

[z4dude4]

you can turn off certain updates for safari or just un click the box

[wohdin]

One word:

Opera.

[saviourseph]

Opera used to be a great browser, but it seems to be lagging a bit from what I can tell. Seem to get more page rendering problems with it than either Gecko or Webkit-based browsers.

Also the Mac interface is fairly dire - it could really do with either an overhaul or a Camino-style spinoff.

[Philips]

One word:

Don't.

I'm very very happy that Safari and Chrome make such strides. Because that might finally push Opera to make some decent UI to its browser. It is rather sad that such excellent technology rots under such antiquated user-unfriendly interface.

Also, I would NOT recommend Opera for one more reason: lack of auto-updates. Opera is last browser which requires manual updates what in this age is simply unacceptable.

[jumpjetta]

The fat lady sang and the Opera is pretty much over. ;-)

[monkeyfun14]

@Philips

Opera auto-updates it just asked me the other day.

[Sausagebiscuit]

Yes, monkeyfun14

Philips seems to think that the only browser in the world that does auto updates is Firefox.

[SJ2571]

Opera has had its heyday. It's better than IE but beneath Firefox. Reasons: won't let me use all web sites, and has nowhere near the number of great add-ons like Firefox. Add-ons are everything because all browsers suck without them, just like an OS sucks without applications installed.

[SactoGuy018]

No thank you! While Opera is very W3C-compliant, its interface is so different from IE 8 and Firefox 3.0.11 that many users will get confused trying to use it.

[10092]

Mac user. Mac lover. Still firefox user. Still firefox fan.

[shellcodes_coder]

dude, security holes in firefox is much easier to exploit in os x than in Windows Vista and 7. Even Nils admitted this truth.

[CreativeMalcolm]

Firefox is a bastardized app on the Mac that doesn't adhere to the basic expectations of what a Mac app should be. Most Firefox users on the Mac are windows switchers who were already familiar with Firefox.

As for add ons, aside from perhaps ad blocking, what do I need? Themes are hardly necessary if the browser vendor knows how to do a UI design. (Do I really need buttons with bright green lightning bolts and pink fluffy bunnies?) My guess is a large chunk of Firefox users don't actually use add ons aside from perhaps a google one here and there.

Firefox is good for the industry, but thankfully it's not going to be the new microsoft of the browser space, and nobody should want it to!

[saviourseph]

This. Firefox is a very poor fit on the Mac desktop (not quite right UI, lack of keychain support, text losing its style when copy-pasted etc.).

As for adblocking, a proxy system such as Glimmer is far preferable to an extension IMO anyway - works regardless of which browser you're using and won't affect stability like extensions can.

[Nicholas Buenk]

Yep that's right, firefox on OS X is a crappy port of a windows app. Feels as out of place as Safari does on windows.
Safari also has a much better and faster rendering engine, webkit.
And not everyone cares about or uses addons. I expect a browser to function without needing additions.

[tm_anon]

@Nicholas Buenk

Firefox works fine without addons, it renders pages nices, will bring up your email and anything else IE will bring up. In fact, even the pages that say IE only will work in Firefox 99.9% of the time as long as you fool the pages into thinking you're using IE. Found that out using Firefox on Linux.

The purpose of addons is to customize your browser in ways which make sense to you. For example, I have X-marks, Adblock Plus, bit'ly preview, power twitter and User Agent Switcher. That means I can look at minimized links and see what page they lead to before clicking them, I can block ads on any site in Flash format, I can sync my bookmarks with as many computers as I like and I can fool a website into thinking I'm using one of several different browsers.

Haven't heard of any browser having all of those capabilities in their native interface.

[kelmon]

100% agreed. When Firefox was the fastest browser I could see the reason in using it on a Mac but with the new Safari I will only use Firefox if I come across a site that isn't WebKit-aware. My #1 issue with Firefox for years has been its cross-platform nature that means that it caters to the lowest common denominator (i.e. Windows) and therefore doesn't support the system services that a true Mac application does. For this reason I would always advocate Camino over Firefox for a Gecco-based browser.

I've never understood the argument that extensions for Firefox make it better.

[ssj4Gogeta1]

@kelmon: You won't know until you use them. I use 50+ addons, and each one of them makes my life easier. Yes, I regularly use each one of them. And only 3 of them are appearance related. Once you use them, you'll never want to go back.

Some of my favorites are aardvark (saves printer ink by letting me remove the elements from a page which I don't want printed), answers (alt-click on a word to look up its definition), chatzilla (IRC inside my browser), all-in-one sidebar (opera-style sidebar, only better and more customizable), ctrl-tab (lets me quickly search/select tabs by keywords, since I usually have at least 20 tabs open), download statusbar (neatly displays my downloads' progress in the status bar), downthemAll (great download accelerator), FEBE (backup my FF profile so that I can take all my addons and settings with me and restore them), fission (to get safari-style progress bar), foxy tunes (lets me control music players from within FF), Google Notebook, tab mix plus, read it later, MR tech toolkit, drag-drop upload, and more.

So I have all the inbuilt features of all the other browsers, plus many more. All the addons save me a lot of time.

[jake3373]

As a website developer, I constantly need my add-ons.

[Nicholas Buenk]

@tm_anon I'm not going to use Firefox for as long as it's using the gecko engine and not webkit.
And many of those things you list you use addons for I can do with the developer menu in Safari, or with addons from http://pimpmysafari.com/

[cpopken]

Most of these downloads could have come from the Apple updater that is installed with itunes. Just because it was downloaded 11 million times, doesn't mean those people are all using it. Some people just may have been curious.

[shellcodes_coder]

agree with you. That's how they managed to get so many Windows users to download it just like they did before.

[nickh2]

"I did so because the Apple update system pushed the update to me, not because I actually wanted it."

You were NOT forced to accept it. Safari 4 was presented by Software Update as an OPTION.
Simply deactivating the checkbox would have prevented it's installation.

Furthermore, to qualify for Safari 4 as a Mac user, you have to be running Mac OS X 10.4.11 or Mac OS X 10.5.7. Not everyone is. Neither does that restriction apply to users of the latest Firefox.

Leaving out a few simple facts can make your numbers look like anything you want them to.

[monkeyfun14]

How many of those users are going to be bothered to uncheck it?

Some people immediately hit okay without reviewing anything just to get it out of the way.

[Sausagebiscuit]

Right. Forcing you to uncheck something is a sneaky way to get your software installed and inflate your numbers. As monkeyfun14 said, many people just hit ok to make the popup go away, or don't even know what this Safari thing is all about anyway.

[nickh2]

Sorry, that's a pathetic excuse.

The guy writes a tech blog on cnet and according to his bio below the piece:
"Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management."

Yet he can't figure out how Apple Software Update works?

It took me about half a second to figure it out, the first time I saw it. It was that obvious.

As for being forced to uncheck something -it's a single mouse click.
The same mouse click that he used to click the OK button, I'll bet.

[jake3373]

It would be better if sneaky Apple didn't make it default to being checked.

[sanjayb]

On my Apple updater Safari was unchecked. I didn't have to unselect it at all.

[Oahu808]

I only use FireFox to help in my web development, but for general browsing Safari beats it hands down for me..... The RSS reader is better, the speed is faster, and interface more refined.

[empirestatebuddy]

I'm using IE8... and I guess I'm happy with it. I mean, I'm not unhappy with it. I have no idea whether it's better or worse than anything else. I've downloaded Firefox a couple of times, just to see what all the fuss was about... but, honestly, it didn't seem much different than IE... at least for how I use the internet... so I always revert back to IE... if only because I know where all the buttons are. :)

[Philips]

Number of features keep me on FireFox. For example FireFox remember your text zoom setting per domain. Or keyword search (special bookmark to search engine). Or keyboard shortcuts (which can be customized with help of extensions). Or overall better (than IE) bookmarks (the IE's drag-n-drop is total mess).

AdBlock and FlashBlock are also not the least reasons why I stay with FireFox.

[sting7k]

Do these "downloads" include the ones Apple pushes via it's Apple Updater on Windows? I refused the Safari 4 download yesterday when it came up.

How do we know what Apple is counting here? Mozilla doesn't have anyway like that to push Firefox on people.

[ckh1272]

Can we stop with the conspiracy theories?? Uncheck the box and/or turn off automatic updates!! Yes, it really is that simple. BTW, I went to open Firefox this morning and it said "please wait while Firefox installs your updates". Someone want to tell me what the difference is?? Use whatever browser you want to use and don't worry what other people think of your browser experience!

[monkeyfun14]

@ckh

Many people can't be bothered to do it.

People are that lazy

[ckh1272]

monkeyfun14---I'm afraid you're right. Utterly pointless jibber jabber 98% off the time.

[Sausagebiscuit]

The difference is that you already had Firefox installed by your choice. Apple's updater that comes with iTunes or Quicktime tries to sneak Safari in as an added bonus.

[ckh1272]

"by Sausagebiscuit June 13, 2009 12:27 PM PDT
The difference is that you already had Firefox installed by your choice. Apple's updater that comes with iTunes or Quicktime tries to sneak Safari in as an added bonus."

That may be true, but like an earlier poster said, if you're too lazy to read what may or may get installed on your computer, then that is not the fault of any company. ID10T error!

[shellcodes_coder]

That's their way of doing so :)

[Seaspray0]

@ckh1272. "Can we stop with the conspiracy theories?"

Reminder to self: Add ckh1272 to the suspect list.

[pcSimon]

Opera! Me too.
I don't use Safari also, but this article is obviously biased.

[Sausagebiscuit]

Please justify this statement so others can be educated on how this article is biased.

[Seaspray0]

@sausagebiscuit. pcSimon is an opera fan. The author has proclaimed he is an apple and firefox fan. The article trashes apple's boast of 11 million downloads as meaningless. You can see where this is heading... Is it biased? If the reporter puts aside personal judgments and reports the news truthfully, showing a ballanced perspective, then it's good reporting and not biased. The reporter admits his personal preferences, giving the audience the chance to take that into perspective so I'd say the article isn't biased.

[solitare_pax]

Hey, I use Safari, Firefox, Internet Explorer and Opera... On PC and Mac.

But unlike most website designers, I want to make sure what I create will appear and work consistently no matter what browser or machine is viewing the site.

Some "professional' website designers should consider that before unleashing their flawed code on the world...

[Sausagebiscuit]

If these designers followed the published standards, there would be no need to test. If it doesn't work in your favorite browser, and the code adheres to published standards (assuming bug free code) then the problem is the browser not the designer.

[jake3373]

And the browser that causes the most problems for website designers:
Internet Explorer. Even the latest version.

[danielwsmithee]

Browser Ranking according to me.

Chrome > Safari > Firefox > Opera > IE

Speeds trumps Firefox's plugins. The most important plugins like adblock are available in Safari, and soon will be in Chrome.

[Sausagebiscuit]

I miss the days of editing the hosts file to block ads :p

[assman]

Firefox > Chrome > Safari > Opera > IE

I can't live without Firefox's extensions. If I move to any other browser, my productivity gets cut in half.

I have 18 extensions installed right now, and I use every one of them daily. They're all customized just the way I like and it's an experience unmatched in any other browser. Not even close.

But.. props to Chrome for its speed (although miserable lack of features), and Safari for its huge version 4 (public beta) upgrade, which now makes it very usable on Windows.

[meh100]

Firefox fixes most of the speed problems in 3.5. It's still slightly slower than Chrome and Safari, but it's close enough that you can't tell the difference in most cases.

[dredlew]

"Firefox wins because it's simply better."

Um, would you mind not imposing your "opinion" on mine? I have my own opinion and that is, FireFox is not better... far from it. Just a tip for next time you write an article; I would refrain from stating "facts" just because it's your opinion. Also, some research on statistics and how those numbers relate to each other could prove to be helpful before presenting "your facts".

[jumpjetta]

Agreed. Opinion. Useless.

But since you put it out there, I tend to see Firefox as being this never-right, always updating Frankenstein's monster on the Mac. Looks odd, clunks along, especially since nearly every time I load it it takes 2-4 minutes updating itself or plugins. Bleck. Who cares if it renders a page quickly if you lose all your performance waiting for it to launch and update weekly.

[jumpjetta]

And by "you put it out there", I mean the author of the article, not the last comment.

[Sausagebiscuit]

The authors opinion is just that, his opinion. Don't like it? Don't agree with it. Do your own thing. The author is not there with a gun forcing you do say "I love firefox".

Don't you have a complaint to file with the FCC right about now for something that offended you on last night's TV? QQ

[jumpjetta]

I tend to think Firefox "won" (and even thats dubious) has nothing to do with the strengths or weaknesses of Safari, but due to the weakness of M$ once-dominant garbage.

[sebastien.kalonji]

Are FF users going to start this childish behaviour as well? Well let's play along : FF numbers are still dwarfed bij IE8 usage! Eat that and download safari now!

[scalemaster34]

"So, while Microsoft resorts to charitable donations to goose its IE8 downloads, and Apple claims misleading Safari numbers, Firefox wins because it's simply better."

I agree that the fact that Safari had 11 million downloads doen't not qualify as a "news event". But I'm not going to agree that Firefox really wins...

I've had a Mozilla browser on my PC before there was a Firefox... and I agree that Firefox has been ahead of IE in bringing new features, speed and security. But Microsoft has improved quite a bit, and like in the article, I've found many situations where Firefox would not work with a webpage and I'd have to swap over to IE. Becuase of this, I don't think you can say that Firefox is the winner... if you have to have another browser as a back-up, then maybe it isn't really the best.

[tm_anon]

Please name the webpages and whether you tried simply faking your user agent (browser type) for those particular pages.

I've noticed many sites simply state "IE only" for no reason. I fake the user agent and have no problems rendering the page in Firefox. It's not the browser most of the time, it's some idiot trying to force his choices onto me.

[jake3373]

I haven't run into an IE-only site in a long time.
ActiveX... history (finally)

[brodieq]

I like how the author says Firefox is "simply better" but he even points out in his article that Safari renders pages better on two seperate occasions. I'd be willing to bet that most pages Firefox has problems with, Safari renders better. Don't get me wrong, I don't use Safari because I use Opera, but just take your little Firefox to the Acid3 test and tell me how it does...

[tektaktyks]

iv heard that bruce lee was arrogant and was using coke...but he was simply better than chuck norris ...

[brodieq]

You're right, Bruce Lee was better at martial arts than Chuck Norris. Just like Safari and Opera are better at rendering webpages than Firefox. I don't know, maybe I'm the one that's confused here, but I thought web browser's main function was viewing webpages. Opinions about what features are available to each and ever browser don't mean a whole lot if the browser doesn't do it's main job correctly.

[meh100]

93/100 and all seven failed tests are in box 5.

[brodieq]

Come on now, let's talk RELEASED browsers... Firefox 3.0.10 get's 70/100 and that's with it barely chugging along. The fact of the matter is both Opera and Safari have RELEASED browsers that get 100/100. By all accounts, that's still better than a beta that gets 93/100.

[twburger]

I tried Safari, the darn thing would not work and I could not figure out why. Chrome, FF, and IE were fine. I think the Apple people need a little more experience in the odd world of Windows: They have been spoiled working with an OS that does what is expected, when expected.

I really like the Firefox add-on library. FF may not be the best browser for technical reason (re: Acid3) but is very adaptable and customizable.

I have used Opera on my Linux boxes and from the comments here I will play with it in Windows and see if it has an advantage.

Personally, I'm simply very happy to have all of these choices.

[shellcodes_coder]

One thing's for sure they make really slick looking machines but when it comes to software...DUH!! they suck
Just look at that ugly copy of Aero peek in endangered os--snow leopard; well that was just an example

[tm_anon]

@shellcodes_coder

OS X has had that look a lot longer than Windows. Neither one looks very good to me but Apple didn't steal it from MS.

[shellcodes_coder]

@tm_anon: dude am talking about expose integrated into that dock aka ugly copy of aero peek