Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Safari 3 vs. Firefox 2 and IE7

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the not-worth-it dept.

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.'"

15 of 559 comments (clear)

  1. Pshhh... by Mockylock · · Score: 5, Funny

    I prefer Netscape Navigator 1.0. Simple, yet barely useable.

    --
    "Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
    1. Re:Pshhh... by jdray · · Score: 5, Funny

      Links? Slacker! In my day, we read the HTML document raw. We had to interpret the tags ourselves. No DNS, either. We kept lists of IP addresses written on shirtsleeves. And they weren't our shirtsleeves, either. We had to steal them from our neighbors...

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    2. Re:Pshhh... by molarmass192 · · Score: 4, Funny

      IP addresses ... we used to dreeeeeeeeeeam of IP addresses. We had to dial into the site modem ... and we didn't have a fancy monitors or modems either, we had to screech into the handset and listen for the raw HTML raw ... in EDCDIC!

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
    3. Re:Pshhh... by oliverthered · · Score: 5, Funny

      You had it easy, back in my day we had to post all our data on punch cards, send them off, wait a week, hope there wasn't a error in our request and then read the HTML back one like a time

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    4. Re:Pshhh... by Lillesvin · · Score: 5, Funny

      $ telnet slashdot.org 80
      GET / HTTP/1.0
      Host: 127.0.0.1

      ...

      Human parsing FTW! :-p

      --
      "Live free or don't."
    5. Re:Pshhh... by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Funny

      I just figured it was trying to type out those sounds he was screeching into the modem. Kinda hard to tell somebody they mispelled yow-yow-buh-sh-sh-ti-shhhhhhhhh.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    6. Re:Pshhh... by Lemmeoutada+Collecti · · Score: 5, Funny

      Shoot kid, back when I started using these computer things, we had to send a fox to the guy with the server, with or without a rock (we called em bits) tied to it's back. With a rock was one bit, without a rock was 0 bits. Then he would send the fox back, with or without the bit on it's back.

      Sometimes the fox would lose the bit, that was a dropped bit. We had a lot of dropped bitsback then. And man in the middle attacks, those danged nobles liked to hunt our foxes and take our bits for themselves. We quickly learned not to send coins as bits, as those financial transactions were always targets of those horse riding hackers.

      All that foxing back and forth was great high tech stuff, though. It meant that we could find out what happened to the hero in our latest serial we were following. Stories over fox took a while to load, but no longer than a torrent does now days... about two weeks to the chapter.

      Then some smarty came up with a bit bag, which we could put several bits in at a time, and send the whole packet with the fox. Then packet loss became a bigger problem, but bit loss pretty much disappeared.

      You kids now days with your quality of service and TCP/IP. You don't know how good you have it!

      Now get off'n my lawn!

      --

      You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
    7. Re:Pshhh... by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 5, Funny

      In my day, we read the HTML document raw. We had to interpret the tags ourselves.


      So that's what the blink tag was for...
      --

      Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

    8. Re:Pshhh... by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 4, Funny

      we read the HTML document raw
      After a while you don't see the code, but a women in red, a brunette, a blonde, ...
  2. Is he kidding? by d474 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Since when are Safari's ever "bug free"?!?

    --
    Authority questions you. Return the favor.
  3. Firefox? Safari? IE? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Funny

    What about lynx, or better yet, telnet 80???

    Bonus points for running the javascript in your head.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  4. Re:Safari, and Mac OS X, are better. by s4ck · · Score: 5, Funny
    Come October, Mac OS X will serve everyone with one price, one version, one install: one vision of simple 64-bit desktop goodness.

    one faith, one land, one volk, one fuhrer!! zeig heil!

    Does it come with a brown shirt?

  5. This is the first Safari with Windows by ciaohound · · Score: 4, Funny

    Historically, mosquito netting was the best you could expect to keep the bugs out. Hardly seems sporting, old boy.

    --
    Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
  6. Re:Horrid UI by Doctor+Crumb · · Score: 5, Funny

    Funny, all of my apps are well behaved, and only put a single entry in the logic part of my application menu. Maybe your apt-get is broken?

  7. Re:Horrid UI by truthsearch · · Score: 5, Funny

    What conventions? "I'm so great, I'll put shortcuts in your start menu, quick launch, two tray icons (including an autoupdater) and now I have a custom UI so I look special." That's every Microsoft app. Microsoft doesn't follow their own UI guidelines on their own platform, so why should anyone else?

    --
    Developers: We can use your help.