Safari 3 vs. Firefox 2 and IE7

Bobcat writes "Ars Technica has a 'first look' at Safari for Windows, which is interesting because it's written from the perspective of someone new to Safari. It was tested against Firefox 2 and IE7 and aside from the slightly faster page loading, Ars didn't find much to recommend it to Windows users. 'The modest increase in rendering performance is hardly worth the deficiencies, and Safari's user interface simply doesn't provide the usability or flexibility of competing products. If the folks at Apple think that providing Windows users with a taste of Mac OS X through Safari is going to entice them to buy a Mac, it's going to take a better effort than the Safari 3 beta. Even if the final release is more polished and completely bug-free, it still won't be as powerful or feature-loaded as Opera or Firefox.'"

Comments

Re:Safari, and Mac OS X, are better.

[Anonymous Coward]

And every time it makes me want to buy a Mac less and less. lawl u noob

That computer is for gays

[Anonymous Coward]

faggot.

Re:Review summary: "It's not the same as FireFox"

[Zonk (troll)]

No, that's not what he said. He said that Safari ignores most Windows conventions. That's bad. If the Windows conventions were good, I'd agree with you. However, anything is an improvement over Windows conventions.

Hell, do any Microsoft applications follow them? It seems every Microsoft product has a very different ui. IE7, WMP10, WMP11, VS.NET 2003/2005, Microsoft Office, etc, are all very different.

Re:*WHOOOOOSH*

[AKAImBatman]

In fact, they have no reason to download anything at all because they happily use Internet Explorer and have no need or desire for anything else.

1. IE7's interface sucks.

2. Users are tired of getting shafted by security holes in IE.

3. Third parties are starting to recommend alternative browsers to view their HTML applications.

4. I'm sure that Safari will be an "optional" part of the iTunes/Quicktime bundle soon enough. ;-)

* #3: I can't say what application it was, but I was just talking with a coworker yesterday who was recommended by the vendor to view the documents on the CDROM with Firefox.

Re:Oh really?

[UbuntuDupe]

Are you kidding? Firefox has great, USEFUL features:

1) Sometimes, when downloading a large file, I don't think my computer is using enough of its cycles. Whenever I choose to download a large file, Firefox does me the great service of hogging memory to the point that it's unusable for thirty seconds. Would IE do that? Hell no.

2) Firefox places previously-visited URLs in the URL bar in increasing order of frequency of use. So, that makes me take extra time to pan down and click the ones that I go to the most, giving me more time to pause and think about life.

3) Firefox helps me be extra cautious about what URLs I want to go to. When I click on a URL in the URL bar in IE, it takes me there *right away*. With Firefox, it just puts that URL in the URL bar without loading, so I have to hit "enter" or click "go" to make it load. This gives me a great "double-check" to make sure I *really* want to go to that site. And, to fend off charges of copying IE, they've deleted all proof that previous versions worked like IE.

4) Javascript whitelisting. That way, if I go to a new site, I have to authorize it to use Javascript. It blocks a lot of the potentially harmful content before I authorize. Of course, it continues to block that content even if I do authorize, which means extra security.

5) It lets me load URLs in IE. Very helpful.

6) Whenever I type an entry into a form on a site I've been to before, it pops up a menu populated with the entries I've given before on remotely-related fields on all similar, blocking out the form buttons below. This also helps make me take my time, which is vital for avoiding errors.

Re:Review between a beta and final...

[Anonymous Coward]

what a surprise.

an apple fanboi trying to defend another lack luster apple product.

get over it, fanboi! apples suck!