Slashdot Mirror
Macworld Holds Battle of the Browsers
dumbArtMajor writes "Macworld has an article breaking down most of the available browsers for Mac OS X and evaluates speed, rendering, etc. Did your app of choice kick the other guy's ass?" I don't want to know which one kicked which other one, or where they kicked them. I just want one browser that works.
I subscribe to Macworld and read this article in the December issue. The coverage of Mozilla was very poor. The editors just don't "get it" when it comes to why you would choose Mozilla. They didn't cover any of the useful Mozilla-only features. They didn't cover the fact that you could report bugs directly and download daily updates that can fix your problems. They didn't cover anything about the value of open source. They didn't cover any of the cool plug-ins, like the preferences toolbar, mouse gesturing, or whatever. And worst of all, they didn't mention that Netscape removed the GUI control for allowing you to block pop-up windows. That feature alone would convince half the IE users to switch to Mozilla if they knew about it.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Notice that all of these cons are just what you'd expect in beta software -- in fact, improvements in all of these areas has been made since the release of 0.6.
This suggests to me that Chimera is going to be one awesome brower when it reaches 1.0
Die Menschen verhoehnen was sie nicht verstehen. -- Goethe.
The problem with side-by-side comparisons like this -- MacWorld is an especially egregious offender -- is that they strongly favor comparisons on quantifiable attributes, like feature matrices and benchmarks.
... look better. They're easier on the eye, scan faster, read faster, and are just ... pleasing. I defy even Tufte to quantify that.
Unfortunately, these things aren't what users really care about.
Most any modern browser will render most any web page at a perfectly acceptable speeds. I don't really give much of a shit about rendering times, unless some browser's are so incredibly bad that I actually notice them. (Perhaps I'm more patient than some users, but honestly, I really don't care. They'll all just fine.)
What I care about is the whole "browsing experience" -- and that's hard to quantify. A program's functionality is more than the sum of its features: it also involves how well those features work together, and the smoothness of the facade under which they fit. I don't actually want a lot of features -- I want very few powerful features that give me tremendous functionality.
This bake-off misses the subtle, truly important differences that make it worth switching. For example:
OmniWeb renders pages gorgeously. They just
OmniWeb (and, increasingly, Chimera) feel much more like OS X apps than the alternatives. They have great UIs. Apple goes a long way toward quantifying that in their HI guidelines, but really, it's a "feels good" thing.
Mozilla's tabbed browsing isn't just a feature in a checklist -- it's a wonderfully powerful and well-thought-out feature that's tightly, thoughtfully integrated with the app. Menus are keyboard shortcuts for tabs are there where you'd want them; tabs behave helpfully and sensibly. It's not the tabs that are exciting; it's the fact that they work so darned well.
Do keep trying, MacWorld. I'm glad that somebody at least acknowledges that there are alternatives!
Internet Explorer 5.2.1 [...] Most reliable renderer; good performance; great standards support.
.hqx files it would automatically execute them. Granted it doesn't do this anymore, but it shows IE has a bad track record.
Um, what? If this were true, then why would Apple make an article documenting the IE's shortcomings? Also, on the subject of verions, why do they test version 0.5 of Chimera? 0.6 is much better and has been out since November 4th. It's a month later! The tested version of IE is 5.2.1, but on my machine I have 5.2.2. The modification date is October 3rd. This article is dated.
Also why didn't the article address security? I seem to recall a problem with IE in that when it would download
Spoken like someone who hasn't used any of them.
I might rank Chimera and OmniWeb neck and neck, but probably not. Netscape 7 is completely, unabashedly unusable, and doesn't belong in any list of browsers people use.
IE renders more correctly than OmniWeb, but the user experience is sufficiently inferior that I only use it if it correctly handles something OmniWeb fails at (that is, one site a week).
I would love for OmniWeb to render websites more correctly. But, frankly, it does a good enough job. Does that limit web developers? Sure. I feel for them. But expecting users to use crap like Netscape 7 is simply insulting. Expecting me to use stuff like Chimera, which offers a "Cocoa" interface with all non-Cocoa widets for interaction, is also insulting. I'm using OS X for a reason.
Here's a quick test: is posting to Slashdot pleasant in these other browsers? No. Only OmniWeb can spell check my text as I enter it, and only OmniWeb and IE have text entry that is reasonably fast. Why would anyone use a browser that obviously pauses for each character I enter into a text field?
--Matthew
There's really no "best" browser. Each has its strengths and weaknesses.
I use Chimera/Navigator almost exclusively now. The Flash instability problems seem to be a thing of the past, and even the nightly builds are useable. It's damn fast, and renders better than IE or OmniWeb. Preferences are still a bit spartan from the UI, but you can always edit the preference file by hand if you want tweaks. I've enabled HTTP pipelining and some other things in that manner. There are also pointy clicky utility programs like Chimerchanga that will do this for you if a text editor is inconvenient.
Mozilla for OS X handles certain Javascript better than Chimera. It's more mature, but it's slower and doesn't feel like an OS X app. It's a good choice for those who prefer suites to standalone browsers. The mail program is quite serviceable.
Netscape 7 is a bit clunky and cluttered. It's great if you access Netscape webmail, or if you need a spellchecker within your mail program.
OmniWeb is a very respectable browser: fast and pretty, and quite stable. Like Chimera, it has a support community around it. I recently loaded OmniWeb and spent a few hours seeing how it has come along. A very nice ride, but I miss tabbed browsing. I understand tabs will make it to OmniWeb soon.
IE for OS X is a much better browser than its Windows counterpart. I keep it on my drive to access our company's internal websites, which all require IE. It handles tables poorly. Don't bring it to Slashdot.
Opera has a huge following: it feels light and was the first with tabbed browsing. You can set it to identify as pretty much any browser right from the toolbar. I've never liked its rendering, but a lot of folks think it's great.
iCab does nothing to my satisfaction, but has its own faction of supporters.
In my view, it's a great time to be an OS X user. We have a ton of great browsers. My top 3, in this order: Chimera, OmniWeb, and IE.
All bets are off if Apple delivers a branded browser. It would almost certainly be based on Chimera/Navigator. Would be nice to see a commercial distribution of an already terrific product.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.