Anything your browser can do, mine can do better.

Max Gene said:
So, while I'm happily browsing the internet, I don't want Safari to be quietly "updating" itself with, QuickTime, SimIphone, or any of a number of other things I didn't want it to.
Click to expand...
Well if that's your only objection you should download Safari and see if you like it, since that won't happen. The Apple Software Update program will offer to install Safari for iTunes users (Quicktime comes with iTunes) but if they uncheck the box when they run the update, it won't download Safari, quietly or otherwise.
I do think, however, that it's slightly ludicrous to call it a piece of crap...
Click to expand...
Firefox is a shitty browser, especially on an Apple, where it behaves nothing like an Apple application. Firefox on Windows doesn't really act like a real Windows app either, but it's not so bad because a lot of Windows developers don't give a shit, so Firefox gets lost in the noise. On my Mac, where every application behaves exactly the same, Firefox is like vandalism. Especially since when I use it, I get nothing I didn't have with Safari in the first place.

I have a feeling that IE8 is going to destroy Firefox on Windows and I don't think it ever made significant headway on the Macintosh platform. I guess for lunix users though, it's not such a bad choice.
As for your question about hostility- I suppose the thread title might've biased me against the whole thing to begin with.
Click to expand...
That's just me messing around, though. It should be obvious.
I still hold your post that I quoted contains just as much of it as my earlier one.
Click to expand...
I can't see the problem here. I posted that Firefox 3 fails, and also that I think it sucks. You come at me with a lot of rargh-web-standards-mean-nothing-to-me garbage, and somehow I'm an instigator.

I mean seriously. Firefox is trash.
 
Nomad Terror said:
Also it is worth mentioning that the latest webkit does not actually completely pass
Click to expand...
That's true. I believe that may actually be reflected in the status bar of the first image I posted where it says "completed 15 of 22 items." At least, I took it to mean that. Clearly it displays, but it's failing some other tests for now.
Not that this bodes any less impressively for webkit.
Click to expand...
Not at all. I think what's most impressive is the speed of development. Acid3 only showed up a few weeks ago, and as you said it's not even complete. It's good to see that they've made this sort of thing a priority.

I should say that what I've heard of IE8 is really encouraging as well. It'll be the first version of Internet Explorer that really focuses on this. If they can get security nailed down (which I honestly never saw as a problem, although maybe I had keyloggers scanning all my credit card numbers for years and never knew it,) they'll be in great shape to take back a lot of market share.

In the end as long as new browsers take off and replace the IE6/7s and Firefox2s of the world, I'll be happy.
Nomad Terror said:
Latest nightly of Firefox3 does 70/100
Click to expand...
70 is pretty good. Real Safari 3.1 bails out around there:

safari3_acid3_03272008.png
 
I'm ultimately wondering what the purpose of the test is other than a speed test for browsers. No sane person designing a web page would make it this complex unless it was intentional.
 
epiphany on linux should pass with 100/100 as it now uses webkit as the backend. Firefox is a resource hogging POS
 
Max Gene said:
You?
And offhand, if I have to look for my browser to break then I'm not having a problem; If I don't have to look, but it breaks on its own, then firefox is out of business.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you might not even know that your browser has broken. But you might only see half of a page. Or a very crappy one. Any you will be blaming it on the web designer or the content writer, while in fact it is you who should upgrade.

Its like the mentality of bad webdesigners that build pages like this: "It displays in IE so I am done."

The question is if anyone besides an artificial benchmark will ever use a single one of the funcions in the benchmark. Something I cannot answer, but it is quite unlikely that noone ever will.
 
cff said:
The question is if anyone besides an artificial benchmark will ever use a single one of the funcions in the benchmark. Something I cannot answer, but it is quite unlikely that noone ever will.
Click to expand...
I think that's mostly irrelevant. The aim is simply to make standards compliance a goal for everyone, and whatever comes from that is just fine. The idea isn't to make everyone try hard to break browsers, it's to make browsers do everything right so that I know if my markup checks out, it'll display correctly. No checking the design in every version of every browser, no browser-specific hacks; just write it once, validate, and go live.
 
The problem is that you might not even know that your browser has broken. But you might only see half of a page. Or a very crappy one. Any you will be blaming it on the web designer or the content writer, while in fact it is you who should upgrade.
Click to expand...

In all fairness, a good web designer should be making sure his site works with the popular browsers even if they're technically broken. This test should be telling browser developers that they need to work better... but it isn't necessarily much of a message to the end user. IE6 is still the locked standard for millions of office workers -- and that won't change for quite a while, no matter how many technically amazing super secret Safari daily updates are invented that can display a bar graph correctly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top