Forum Posts Feed
New look at old, boring controversy
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Stephen R. Diamond
Mar 22, 2008 at 10:38 PM
With the OS X progression proving more competent than Windows Vista and the sequelae, everyone suffers platform anxiety. Or platform smugness, if you’re on the other side. Apple today made available it Safari 3.1 browser for Windows, in a manner too sly and intrusive for some competitors’ tastes. But whatever the ethics or etiquette of delivery, I can see why Apple did it. It changed my mind, anyway, in that on at least one important dimension—maybe the most important one—Apple software simply runs better. As if it runs on code somehow ‘better,’ because what else could be involved. This version of Safari is written for Windows, so no excuse about the advantages of a younger operating system succeed.
I am using it now, as the speed for me makes up for the lack of features. Firefox 3, beta 4 is supposed to be almost as fast, but I find no comparison. Safari is instantaneous. I don’t know whether the bottleneck in all the other products—from IE 8 to Opera 9.5 (second to latest beta) to the aforementioned Firefox 3, lies in the speed of reading html or the speed of connection [could that be?] . If it derives its speed _from_ it lack of features, that would be somewhat disappointing.
This being the kind of flagship product that sets a model for developers, it sets a very high standard for software performance. It also conveys a very deep-seated minimalist design philosophy. Personally, I find the aesthetics boring, compared to what I can supply on Windows with Window Blinds. But the minimalist design philosophy cuts much deeper than that. Efficiency is prized over power. I think that might be of the essence of what you buy into when going Macintosh, the emphasis extending even to hardware design, where minimalist mouse-design tradition now means that the user must hold down the control key to open in a new tab with one click.
But it is possible that software that runs well is more important than features. With regard to browsers, that’s my momentary sense.
Posted by Daly de Gagne
Mar 22, 2008 at 11:36 PM
Stephen, I think the controversy just got a lot less boring (grin)!
Safari is noticeably faster than anything else I have seen.
My only complaint is that when I brought in my bookmarks from Firefox and tried to put them on the toolbar, somehow they all got Google-ized addresses, and I had to go through and change each one by hand.
But the speed…! It is an unbelievable difference.
And I don’t think Mac’s marketing is anything worse than the M’Soft’s approach. At least the CEO of Firefox’s kid had the option given to her of downloading Safari.
I find the new Explorer has more emphasis on looks than efficiency, even if it does have tabs.
Recent Firefox versions have been more buggy than previous ones.
And as for Opera, ever since trying to get help on one of their so-called “community” forums run by, and having to deal with, some of the most arrogant and obnoxious folk I have ever met on-line, I really lost any respect for their efforts (of course that was also after I had lost all my mail using the Opera client).
So I wish Mac well as it overtakes the competition.
Thanks for the tip, Stephen.
Daly
Stephen R. Diamond wrote:
>With the OS X progression proving more competent than Windows Vista and the sequelae,
>everyone suffers platform anxiety. Or platform smugness, if you’re on the other
>side. Apple today made available it Safari 3.1 browser for Windows, in a manner too sly
>and intrusive for some competitors’ tastes. But whatever the ethics or etiquette of
>delivery, I can see why Apple did it. It changed my mind, anyway, in that on at least one
>important dimension—maybe the most important one—Apple software simply runs
>better. As if it runs on code somehow ‘better,’ because what else could be involved.
>This version of Safari is written for Windows, so no excuse about the advantages of a
>younger operating system succeed.
>
>I am using it now, as the speed for me makes up for
>the lack of features. Firefox 3, beta 4 is supposed to be almost as fast, but I find no
>comparison. Safari is instantaneous. I don’t know whether the bottleneck in all the
>other products—from IE 8 to Opera 9.5 (second to latest beta) to the aforementioned
>Firefox 3, lies in the speed of reading html or the speed of connection [could that be?]
>. If it derives its speed _from_ it lack of features, that would be somewhat
>disappointing.
>
>This being the kind of flagship product that sets a model for
>developers, it sets a very high standard for software performance. It also conveys a
>very deep-seated minimalist design philosophy. Personally, I find the aesthetics
>boring, compared to what I can supply on Windows with Window Blinds. But the
>minimalist design philosophy cuts much deeper than that. Efficiency is prized over
>power. I think that might be of the essence of what you buy into when going Macintosh,
>the emphasis extending even to hardware design, where minimalist mouse-design
>tradition now means that the user must hold down the control key to open in a new tab with
>one click.
>
>But it is possible that software that runs well is more important than
>features. With regard to browsers, that’s my momentary sense.
Posted by David Dunham
Mar 23, 2008 at 12:08 AM
Stephen R. Diamond wrote:
>where minimalist mouse-design
>tradition now means that the user must hold down the control key to open in a new tab with
>one click.
I can’t speak for the Windows version, but Mac OS X has always supported (though not required) two-button mice.
I can use the two-finger click on a MacBook to open a tab with one click (this is equivalent to right-clicking, which should work if you have a mouse rather than a trackpad).
Posted by quant
Mar 23, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Stephen R. Diamond wrote:
>delivery, I can see why Apple did it. It changed my mind, anyway, in that on at least one
>important dimension—maybe the most important one—Apple software simply runs
>better.
“Apple software simply runs better.” - pleeeeeeeeeeaze ...
>I am using it now, as the speed for me makes up for
>the lack of features. Firefox 3, beta 4 is supposed to be almost as fast, but I find no
>comparison. Safari is instantaneous.
I never get this speed thingy, are you people just clicking on the links all the time or are you actually sometimes read the context of the websites you browse?
Posted by Stephen R. Diamond
Mar 23, 2008 at 08:28 PM
In IE, Firefox, and Opera for Windows, one would usually assign the middle click (third button), where Apple uses control-click. The right-click brings the context menu in Windows and Safari 3.1 for Windows. Using Safari, I am mostly using the context menu to open in a new tab. A solution would be to make the assignment to the third mouse button using third party software.
David Dunham wrote:
>
>
>Stephen R. Diamond wrote:
>>where minimalist mouse-design
>>tradition now means
>that the user must hold down the control key to open in a new tab with
>>one click.
>
>I
>can’t speak for the Windows version, but Mac OS X has always supported (though not
>required) two-button mice.
>
>I can use the two-finger click on a MacBook to open a tab
>with one click (this is equivalent to right-clicking, which should work if you have a
>mouse rather than a trackpad).