Comments on: Only 7 percent of active Firefox browsers running on Macs?
Even Mac users seem content to ignore their browser options, which means Mozilla has a tough slog to promote its Firefox browser.
Even Mac users seem content to ignore their browser options, which means Mozilla has a tough slog to promote its Firefox browser.
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to the Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is general manager of the Americas division and vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
Add this feed to your online news reader
Mac having a lock on their market with Safari is OK becaust it integrates well with i-life etc. But IE being the same on the PC is anticompetitive? Actually, these numbers will work in MS favor. To say that it is true because Safari is better is meaningless. If IE was better, would mozilla be satisfied? Of course ot.
If you asked an everyday user what they would like, it is integration. In a perfect (PC) world, the internet would be an extension of windows explorer. Just another very large folder to browse for information and seamless with the desktop. Why do you think all "the cloud" is such a desirable goal? Most people don't care about the issues that make one browser better than the other. Not too many people sit in from of their computer with a stopwatch timing page rendering. And I don't thnk that I have ever encountered a page that will render on one browser and not on another.
If people want to use another browser so they can sniff at the masses, that;s OK as long as MS, or Apple, or people controlling Linux distributions, don't hinder that process. It's on that point that any arguments about browser (or media player ) should be made. Otherwise it is just whining.
BTW safari is using a open source engine called Webkit,
So the standards Safari Supports aren't created by Apple but universal !
look at how MS is trying to promote ActiveX and Silverlight , now that's anti-competitive !
these examples r only the a fraction of all the stuff M@fiasoft does to remain a monopoly !
and get unlimited financial gain !
Here's a major difference for you, and a little homework too. Try removing Internet Explorer from your Windows computer. Now remove Safari from your Macintosh. See the difference now? The Windows machine will have a nervous breakdown and then refuse to even boot back up after it crashes (that is, if it will even let you delete IE). The Mac couldn't care less and will tick along fine.
Oh, and your post and my rebuttal where completely off topic, let's focus.
IE is part of the Windows OS, that's why you can't remove it.
If you are really an open source booster, would you care which open source renderer "wins"? The thing to concern yourself about is how well each browser conforms to standards. Dave Hyatt and his team decided that it would be best to sacrifice the 5% of the malformed web sites out there that fail to render properly with anything but IE. This allowed them to create a lightweight, speedy engine. The Mozilla team went for greater compatibility, and ended up with something far heavier.
The fraction of MacOS X users that still use IE is practically insignificant: almost all use an open source browser in one form or another.
What amazes me is that there are some sites out there that still want you to use IE. Some will try to lock you out by redirecting to an "unsupported browser" page if you aren't using Internet Explorer 6 or higher. Which I find hilarious because the latest version for Macintosh was 5.2. You can't even download it from Microsoft's website it's so old!
and that's why FireFox users invented IETab(windows only though)
I do agree that it sucks that some sites do that since I need to reboot from Mac OS X Hackntosh, Ubuntu or whatev Linux distro I happen to be using into Windows
PS. It's also a pain to keep updating extensions. I'd rather do without them.
huh?
***?!?
FireFox with Tracemonkey enabled is faster
Firefox is getting bloated, can't handle pdf files worth a lick (good thing Mac OS X handles pdfs seamlessly, but I've started even using Safari or, <shudder>, IE at work sometimes!).
Firefox is slowing down, slow to load, even slow to close! It still is my #1 choice at work on a PC, but at home Safari is my #1, Camino #2, Firefox hardly registers on my radar...
Why use a web browser to access ftp? Why not use a ftp client? Or why not just use the Finder? I have been using the Finder to access FTP sites for years with no problems.
After my switch to Mac 9 months ago, I never even thought about installing Firefox however. I've always heard Macs billed as an 'all in one' solution, where the software is designed specifically for the platform.
About a week ago, one of my friends saw me running Safari on my Mac and asked why I wasn't using Firefox. It honestly had not occurred to me to do so! I hadn't seen any -need- for Firefox as I'm very pleased with Safari.
Thinking about the issue now, there are some sites I use that return a 'not tested with Safari' message. Now I'm considering installing Firefox for those sites.
Download Camino from mozilla.org. It's smaller, faster, has a cleaner interface, and will usually work when the site requires a mozilla browser.
This explains it.
just go to preferences and check the developer check box
it gives you complete control of the scripts running in a page
also with the activity menu you can do so much more than FF can
Safari is also customizable with third party plugins, head over to pimpmysafari.com
safari can do everything FF can and more
even with add-ons safari probably does 3/4th of wat FF does
and uses only a fraction of the memory,
but the those r things that most people can live without
Safari was built to be a bookmark browser
it handles bookmarks and address bar completions better than n e other browser
search is the only weakness but with inquisitor that too has been solved
it's just that
some Mac switchers like to use wat they have been using in Windows world{FF}
so they use FF instead, if they gave Safari or other Mac browsers a try{Camino,Shiira etc.}
even that minimum share of FF will be greatly reduced
I personally use safari even on my windows machines it's not as nice as the mac version
but still the implementation of bookmarks is eons ahead of IE and FF !
The Mac version's just looked and felt like a poor port of the Windows version until about version 3; to be fair, though, I've been using Camino for a few years and it's been my browser of choice. I'm using the FF 3.1 beta and it's a HUGE improvement over earlier versions, but it's still not as slick as Safari or Camino, so FF is still my third choice and tied with Opera - used when I encounter a non-compliant web site.
Most people aren't web developers, and most people aren't what the tech savvy would call 'tech savvy.' These are the reasons why Firefox continues to suffer a relatively low penetration rate.
I use more than 10 different browsers just for the heck of it
and in the end Safari always comes out on top !
it's just like Ipod's vs the ipod killers debate !
- by kcotham February 21, 2009 12:51 AM PST
- One clear advantage of Safari over Firefox, that I use ALL the time, is Safari's treatment of RSS News feeds. It's RSS implementation is worlds better than Firefox's. Why hasn't anyone else commented on this?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 2 of 3 pages (100 Comments)