Firefox VS Safari


Recommended Posts

i think the only person that understands chad is...  chad.

chad: it's interesting you say apple has crammed "everything" into safari, and that it's behind omniweb and firefox, compared to all the features i'd call "bloat" in omniweb and firefox.  and no, as a keyboard junkie (one finger on the cmd key, four fingers hovering the keyboard, one hand on the mouse), it would save me perhaps a half a second to choose "Copy Image Location" over "open in new window" > cmd-l > cmd-c > cmd-w.

584753508[/snapback]

That's you. If you like keeping tracking of keyboard shortcuts thats on you, but the fact of the matter is that Copy Image Location is a standard browser feature found on every single brownser practically bar text based browsers and Safari.

That's you. If you like keeping tracking of keyboard shortcuts thats on you, but the fact of the matter is that Copy Image Location is a standard browser feature found on every single brownser practically bar text based browsers and Safari.

584753773[/snapback]

and cmd-l is a standard keyboard shortcut in every browser to send me to the address bar.

and cmd-c is a standard keyboard shortcut in every operating system to copy selected text.

and cmd-w is a standard mac os keyboard shortcut that closes the current window.

it's not "keeping track". it's being "computer literate".

and cmd-l is a standard keyboard shortcut in every browser to send me to the address bar.

and cmd-c is a standard keyboard shortcut in every operating system to copy selected text.

and cmd-w is a standard mac os keyboard shortcut that closes the current window.

it's not "keeping track".  it's being "computer literate".

584753854[/snapback]

Right, so you admit that there are across the board keyboard shortcuts that are a standard yet you don't see any reason why a common function should be a standard in everything bar Safari?

:rolleyes:

There's a lot more to being computer literate than remembering a bunch of shortcuts as well.

Right, so you admit that there are across the board keyboard shortcuts that are a standard yet you don't see any reason why a common function should be a standard in everything bar Safari?

:rolleyes:

There's a lot more to being computer literate than remembering a bunch of shortcuts as well.

584753901[/snapback]

i'm very sorry i'm not going to base my preference of browser on something as ridiculously small as one contextual menu item :rolleyes:

either way, no, there is a big difference between what one browser has vs. another and what the os maker has determined appropriate keyboard shortcuts. the closest comparison i can come up with right now is the little kid who has a shiny red tricycle, and one who doesn't. but they both recieve food, shelter, and all that other junk kids need, so what is the real difference?

is having that contextual menu item in firefox making your/chad's/the devs of firefox's e-penis bigger?

i won't get into your level of computer literacy at this point, but consider what you're arguing about right now. i certainly don't feel that one contextual menu item has any urgency in my life, but if that's what's important to you, then you have bigger issues to deal with.

i'm very sorry i'm not going to base my preference of browser on something as ridiculously small as one contextual menu item  :rolleyes:

584753970[/snapback]

No one is asking you to base your preference on anything. There are many reasons not to choose it but if someone actually uses copy image locationt a lot and its not there then arguing about how you would rather use keyboard shortcuts is rather stupid.

i won't get into your level of computer literacy at this point, but consider what you're arguing about right now.  i certainly don't feel that one contextual menu item has any urgency in my life, but if that's what's important to you, then you have bigger issues to deal with.

There you go again arguing on what you use it for and attacking other people for not having the same view. I'm not arguing about the oontexual menu item but I do see why other people would see it as being important and stated the reason why.

There you go again arguing on what you use it for and attacking other people for not having the same view. I'm not arguing about the oontexual menu item but I do see why other people would see it as being important and stated the reason why.

584754075[/snapback]

and imagine... we're back to where we were. whether it's you or the first person who whined about safari not having it, it's a ridiculous thing to base your browser choice on.

and another thing. that is far from "attacking people for not having the same view". :rolleyes:

Okay, so you say Safari is bloated, and then you say you want more functionality. I really don't get you Chad, I really don't. Safari is light, fast and really much better than Firefox on OS X. Firefox on Windows is nice. It's the best Windows has, but in the Mac scene, we have better. I'm sorry, but "Copy Image Location" doesn't make Firefox better than Safari.

584753269[/snapback]

I never said anything about Safari and functionality. I was mocking people who don't use firefox because it doesn't use the osx ui...so they choose looks over functionality...get it?

The difference between Firefox/Omniweb and Safari is HUUUUGE. Safari hasn't been "light, fast and really much better than Firefox on OS X" since 1.0. If you think so, you're just kidding yourself. Each browser has a ton of features, but Firefox and Omniweb are years ahead of Safari in terms of what they have or what you could install (FF with extensions). Sure, Safari has some nice features, but Apple decided they wanted to go with a browser with some stuff in it, and sacrifice the nice, light browser they started out with. Sure, they could have both, but they don't. Safari is a pos browser. They probably COULD make it nice and light again while retaining the features, but they haven't.

If you think Safari is nice and light and fast and cool, or whatever....you haven't tried FF or Omniweb...or tried them long enough.

and no, as a keyboard junkie (one finger on the cmd key, four fingers hovering the keyboard, one hand on the mouse), it would save me perhaps a half a second to choose "Copy Image Location" over "open in new window" > cmd-l > cmd-c > cmd-w.

584753508[/snapback]

Don't forget cmd-v...or are you just going to copy it and not download it? :rolleyes:

I don't care how much you use the keyboard...the contextual menu IS faster than hitting 4 keyboard combos. Let's see right click (or cmd-click), then a left click to dl the image, or 4 keycombos with a couple "enter" hits in there. Tough one.

I've used Safari on campus lab machines, and I have to agree with Chad's comment about Firefox being much more functional and extensible (Firefox is my primary OS on Windows; I'm don't own a Macintosh). Even if the base browser doesn't have some feature that you'd want, there are so many extensions available, most of which are very innovative and really make commonly performed tasks faster and easier.

That's not to say Safari doesn't have some of its own little strong points - the "snapback" feature is one example of a feature that would be nice to have in Firefox.

In the end though, if I had to choose between the two, I'd go with Firefox, no doubt about it. Its strengths far outweigh the minor weaknesses like using non-native UI widgets, in my opinion.

Each browser has a ton of features, but Firefox and Omniweb are years ahead of Safari in terms of what they have or what you could install (FF with extensions).

584756087[/snapback]

So what are you basing this on? I bet if Apple decides to go with extensions in the next version of Safari, it would take only weeks, if not sooner, for developers to come up with extensions that are currently available for FF.

The difference between Firefox/Omniweb and Safari is HUUUUGE.  Safari hasn't been "light, fast and really much better than Firefox on OS X" since 1.0.  If you think so, you're just kidding yourself.  Each browser has a ton of features, but Firefox and Omniweb are years ahead of Safari in terms of what they have or what you could install (FF with extensions).  Sure, Safari has some nice features, but Apple decided they wanted to go with a browser with some stuff in it, and sacrifice the nice, light browser they started out with.  Sure, they could have both, but they don't.  Safari is a pos browser.  They probably COULD make it nice and light again while retaining the features, but they haven't.

584756087[/snapback]

Right, so it's just a coincidence that Safari loads and is faster than Firefox (which I currently have no extensions loaded in). :rolleyes:

I've tried both Firefox and OmniWeb, and while I kinda liked OmniWeb, it was not small-screen friendly. My issue with Firefox is the Gecko engine. While great in comparison to Internet Explorer's, not what I was looking for. I use CSS a lot, and I like being able to use and see attributes like text-shadow.

So I've been reading the Firefox vs Safari thread with interest. I wanted to ask in there how Opera compared to the two since that is what I mainly use, yet I didn't want to send the thread off-topic. It doesn't seem like I see too many people talk about Opera.

How do you think Opera compares to Firefox and Safari?

So I've been reading the Firefox vs Safari thread with interest.  I wanted to ask in there how Opera compared to the two since that is what I mainly use, yet I didn't want to send the thread off-topic.  It doesn't seem like I see too many people talk about Opera.

How do you think Opera compares to Firefox and Safari?

584756355[/snapback]

I don't think you want to get me started on Opera. :x

Right, so it's just a coincidence that Safari loads and is faster than Firefox (which I currently have no extensions loaded in). :rolleyes:

584756307[/snapback]

If we're comparing load times, there's virtually no difference. BUT...Safari, the app, slows down trememdously after some usage. I'm not saying the page loading suffers, but the app as a whole is sluggish.

If we're comparing load times, there's virtually no difference.  BUT...Safari, the app, slows down trememdously after some usage.  I'm not saying the page loading suffers, but the app as a whole is sluggish.

584756375[/snapback]

Sorry, I've never experienced that. The only slowdown I notice is when I'm browsing an animated GIF-heavy page.

So what are you basing this on? I bet if Apple decides to go with extensions in the next version of Safari, it would take only weeks, if not sooner, for developers to come up with extensions that are currently available for FF.

584756198[/snapback]

What am I basing this on? Well it's obvious...current functionality of each app.

Yeah, IF Apple went with extensions. I'm not arguing what if's here. Hell...even without extensions, Firefox still has more to it than Safari, and doesn't suffer from the bloat.

So what are you basing this on? I bet if Apple decides to go with extensions in the next version of Safari, it would take only weeks, if not sooner, for developers to come up with extensions that are currently available for FF.

584756198[/snapback]

It's not a question of what's possible; it's what's already available. We're comparing currently available versions of each product.

If Microsoft decided to support extensions, it would take no time for devs to come up with extensions for that either, considering the fact that it's still the most-used browser even today. Does that make the current version of IE any better than Firefox? Of course not; at least not in my opinion.

If you want to compare the two products taking future plans for each one into account, you should know that the Firefox devs have explicitly stated that Firefox will blend in much better with the native look-and-feel of OS X post-1.0. Apple, on the other hand, has made no claims that they plan to include support for third-party extensions to Safari.

If we're comparing load times, there's virtually no difference.  BUT...Safari, the app, slows down trememdously after some usage.  I'm not saying the page loading suffers, but the app as a whole is sluggish.

584756375[/snapback]

I'll have to agree with that, but it seems as if Mozilla has had a problem with their latest release on Mac. It crashes randomly, yet I still have to see this happen on my pc. :huh:

I don't think you want to get me started on Opera. :x

584756367[/snapback]

Yes I do - I am asking for reasons why I rarely see Opera mentioned. Something must be wrong with it if everyone picks other browsers. Surely it's not just because they don't like the thin ad bar in the free version.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Google begins rolling out its post-Epic Play Store billing model next week by Karthik Mudaliar Google has confirmed that its redesigned Play Store billing and fee structure will take effect on June 30, 2026, in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Economic Area. The changes will let eligible developers offer their own payment systems or send users to an external website for purchases, while separating Google’s platform service fee from the cost of using Google Play Billing. The rollout puts concrete dates and detailed rate cards behind the broader Android policy overhaul Google announced in March. That announcement followed a proposed settlement with Epic Games intended to resolve their long-running disputes over app distribution and payments, although the U.S. portion of the agreement still requires court approval. Under the new billing choice program, developers selling digital content or services can display an alternative payment option alongside Google Play Billing. They may also direct users to their own websites to complete a purchase. Developers can use Google’s standard payment-choice screen or design one that complies with the company’s user-interface rules. Choosing another payment processor does not eliminate Google’s cut altogether. The company will continue charging a service fee for transactions associated with apps distributed through Google Play, regardless of whether payment is handled by Google, an alternative provider, or a developer’s website. Google argues that this fee covers the value and infrastructure provided by Android and the Play Store. For developers earning up to $1 million annually, the service fee will generally be 10 percent. That rate also applies to auto-renewing subscriptions. When Google Play Billing is used in the U.S., U.K., or EEA, Google will add a separate 5 percent billing fee, and developers processing payments elsewhere will not pay that additional charge. This means Google’s familiar flat 30 percent commission is disappearing, but developers will not necessarily see a dramatic reduction on every transaction. An in-app purchase from an existing user processed through Google Play Billing can still reach a combined 30 percent. The biggest savings are likely to come from subscriptions, smaller developers covered by the $1 million tier, and companies able to move customers to their own payment infrastructure. Google is also offering lower rates through its Apps Experience and revamped Games Level Up programs. Apps and games that satisfy the company’s requirements can qualify for 15 percent service fees on new-install transactions and 20 percent on existing-install transactions. The criteria include performance and reliability standards, support for additional Android device categories, and selected platform features. Those program rates are scheduled to become available in the initial markets and Australia on September 30. For consumers, the immediate effect will depend on whether developers adopt alternative payments and pass any savings on through lower prices. For developers, however, June 30 begins a more flexible but considerably more complicated Play Store economy in which distribution, billing, install dates, revenue thresholds, and program participation can each affect Google’s final cut. Google is also separately developing a Registered App Stores program designed to simplify the installation of qualifying third-party stores. That initiative is expected to arrive with a major Android release later in 2026 and will launch outside the U.S. first. Google says the rest of the world will receive the changes by September 30, 2027, although billing rates for markets outside the US, UK, and EEA have not yet been announced.
    • 38% off a super insane price is still an INSANE price.
    • 1TB Samsung T9 and Samsung 9100 PRO SSDs are now selling at great prices by Fiza Ali Amazon is now offering the 1TB variant of Samsung T9 and Samsung 9100 PRO SSD at great prices with limited-time 38% and 39% discounts, respectively, so you may want to check them out if you have been looking to upgrade your storage solution. The Samsung T9 connects via a USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 (20Gbps) interface and delivers sequential read speeds of up to 2,000MB/s and sequential write speeds of up to 1,950MB/s, making it suitable for transferring large files, backing up data, and handling high-resolution media content. When it comes to the security features, the SSD includes AES 256-bit hardware encryption to help protect sensitive data. Designed for portability, the drive is reportedly resistant to drops from heights of up to 3 metres. Furthermore, it operates within a temperature range of 0°C to 60°C and can be stored at temperatures between -40°C and 85°C. Samsung Magician Software is included for drive management, firmware updates, performance optimisation, and health monitoring. Finally, the T9 is certified to multiple international standards, including CE, FCC, UL, UKCA, and RoHS 2 compliance, and is backed by a five-year limited warranty as well. 1TB Samsung T9 SSD: $179.99 (Amazon US) - 38% off The Samsung 9100 PRO uses the M.2 2280 form factor and connects through a PCIe 5.0 x4 interface with NVMe 2.0 support. Built with Samsung V-NAND TLC flash memory, an in-house controller, and 1GB of low-power DDR4X cache memory, the 9100 PRO is engineered for high-performance computing and gaming workloads. Furthermore, the SSD delivers sequential read speeds of up to 14,700MB/s and sequential write speeds of up to 13,300MB/s. Random performance is rated at up to 1,850,000 IOPS for reads and up to 2,600,000 IOPS for writes, depending on system hardware and configuration. The drive supports TRIM, S.M.A.R.T monitoring, automatic garbage collection, and device sleep mode to help maintain performance and efficiency over time. In terms of security features, it includes AES 256-bit encryption, TCG Opal support, and IEEE 1667 compliance. The 9100 PRO operates within a temperature range of 0°C to 70°C, is rated for 1.5 million hours MTBF, and can reportedly withstand shocks of up to 1,500G for 0.5 milliseconds. Finally, Samsung Magician Software is also included for firmware updates, performance monitoring, drive management, and optimisation. 1TB Samsung 9100 PRO SSD: $206.99 (Amazon US) - 39% off Alternatively, you can also check out other SSD deals here. Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • This is about the already discredited 2025 announcement. Not the current one, which I've heard nothing negative about in the academic literature.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
    • One Year In
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      464
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      81
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!