Forums | MacLife

Agreed. That is just lame.

There are going to be problems, it is a beta.  But it is faster even in this state than IE.

I know I am in the minority when it comes to geeks, but I am just not a fan of FF.  Casual users tend to use what is already on their machine, so it is safe to say that many if not most Mac users use Safari.  Everyone I know who is not a geek does. Even many of the geeks do.  It will we be a challenging pitch for Apple.  But they do have a significant advantage over FF/Moz.  People know who Apple is.  If they pitch it through iTunes/iTMS they will instantly get larger audience than FF ever could.  If those people like their iPods, iTunes and the experience it gives, and Apple makes it a one-click install from iTunes, they could do very well.

Neither of my Parents know or have a clue what FF is.  But they both use iTunes/iTMS regularly.  Were they on Windows (something I would not allow), there is a good chance they would download and use Safari, and would stick with it if it stays faster and gets stable.

I use Safari too.

Though I do likes me more than one FF extension.

Scott wrote:

Agreed. That is just lame.

There are going to be problems, it is a beta.  But it is faster even in this state than IE.

I know I am in the minority when it comes to geeks, but I am just not a fan of FF.  Casual users tend to use what is already on their machine, so it is safe to say that many if not most Mac users use Safari.  Everyone I know who is not a geek does. Even many of the geeks do.  It will we be a challenging pitch for Apple.  But they do have a significant advantage over FF/Moz.  People know who Apple is.  If they pitch it through iTunes/iTMS they will instantly get larger audience than FF ever could.  If those people like their iPods, iTunes and the experience it gives, and Apple makes it a one-click install from iTunes, they could do very well.

Neither of my Parents know or have a clue what FF is.  But they both use iTunes/iTMS regularly.  Were they on Windows (something I would not allow), there is a good chance they would download and use Safari, and would stick with it if it stays faster and gets stable.

Firefox has fantastic functionality but the display feels like a bad linux port... ever used Firefox on Linux? Blech... I really hate the way text inputs half disappear on a white background.

Safari feels good...

reefdog wrote:

I would say "blech", but this will actually make my life easier. I've been many-times bitten by a designer requiring, say, white-text-on-black-background input fields, and Safari only applying the text color. Handy! Doesn't Nielsen always say white on white is "usability++"?

I would generally agree, but there are times I would like better control over the appearance of text fields.  Those samples were slapped together in about a minute to see what I could do.  Though I have been experimenting with dark layouts recently.

I just installed Fedora 7, complete with XGL/Beryl and it still just doesn't look right. I don't understand how they can get the fonts right on OS X and Windows (or at least very very close) but fail so badly on Linux...

I will say, though, that I've been having fun with Scribus and Inkscape on Linux... now if only something could upset the Gimp and deliver decent image editing.

When I'm done with vacation, you can bet your arse I'll be installing this beta on my work XP machine...and probably in my Parallels VM.

Scott wrote:

InkScape isn't bad, it is getting there.  I like that it has been improving.  I just don't see it as a replacement for Illustrator/Freehand on a professional level yet.  Though more an more I am convinced that it could make it there sooner than Gimp would (for photoshop).

It's gonna be damn hard for any project to upset Adobe's headlock on the graphics market... damn hard.

Gipetto wrote:

Scott wrote:

InkScape isn't bad, it is getting there.  I like that it has been improving.  I just don't see it as a replacement for Illustrator/Freehand on a professional level yet.  Though more an more I am convinced that it could make it there sooner than Gimp would (for photoshop).

It's gonna be damn hard for any project to upset Adobe's headlock on the graphics market... damn hard.

Gippy, you've heard of my undying love for the open source graphics market, but I've found it's only efficient if you're on Linux.
Inkscape and Scribus, in particular, need ghostscript, or at least Scribus is dependent on it, iirc, and I couldn' So t get either to recognize my ghostscript install on OS X, I'm guessing due to OS X's unique file hierarchy, which of course, is different from a standard 'nix install. Of course, you can edit a file or two to link them, but it's not worth it, considering they run like dirt on Apple PPC compared to their Intel/standard 'nix counterparts and optimized Adobe apps.

And don't get me started on Cinepaint... such a great app with great potential, but they've nearly abandoned 'nix altogether for Windows.

My next machine is going to be a MacBook Pro... maybe then, with a dual-boot OS X/Ubuntu install I'll return to them.

And, does anyone here still use Freehand for much? It was a great little app, but Illustrator does everything it does now... and I would imagine Adobe has killed its development since buying Macromedia.

Last edited by Antonio (2007-06-16 10:51 pm)

FutureDreamz wrote:

Antonio wrote:

Scott wrote:

I know I am in the minority when it comes to geeks, but I am just not a fan of FF...

Agreed.
Firefox becomes more and more bloated with each release.
I'm excited to see Safari on both platforms, because maybe it will receive more webdev love and become a better browser. I love its CSS support and rendering. Right now, the majority of my development, for both my steady and freelance gigs is for Firefox, and what works on FF works equally as well on Safari with a little code tweaking. Developing for IE is a pain in the ass, considering MS won't simply play nice with W3C standards. They have to have exceptions to all the rules established by the rest of the world.

Hopefully, this period will be one of great maturity for Safari as a browser, and maybe it's safe to assume it will be, now that it's multiplatform.

Exactly! Now the people that refuse to Use a Mac to see how the webpages render can still view them with WebKit.
and the higher amount of Windows Safari users will also force the web-spinners to conform to standards

Well, I'm not so sure about that...
Many web designers are just that: designers... not coders. This is why there's such disdain for Frontpage and Dreamweaver. A lot of web designers are only designers, not coders or programmers. They couldn't care less about writing clean code which also validates... so long as it works in most browsers and pays their rent without much in the way of writing code without a GUI.
Most designers who are purely so that I  know of know little to nothing of backend languages or even CSS (ironic, considering CSS was developed for designers in particular).

I don't think anything will force most web-spinners to conform to standards, and I doubt MS will while they can get away with it, and they can so long as it comes bundled as an integral part of their OS, which most of the planet uses.

However, one can always hope, then wait and see.
I for one would just like to see the Safari market grow, as an excuse to cater more to it for the sake of more elegant design with quality codework and sophistication, and hope that the resultant competition would result in Firefox and Opera being as standards-compliant or nearly so, so that same code would be as effective in those browsers with little to no tweaking. As for IE -I've given up hope at this point.

FutureDreamz wrote:

Antonio wrote:

FutureDreamz wrote:

Exactly! Now the people that refuse to Use a Mac to see how the webpages render can still view them with WebKit.
and the higher amount of Windows Safari users will also force the web-spinners to conform to standards

Well, I'm not so sure about that...
Many web designers are just that: designers... not coders. This is why there's such disdain for Frontpage and Dreamweaver. A lot of web designers are only designers, not coders or programmers. They couldn't care less about writing clean code which also validates... so long as it works in most browsers and pays their rent without much in the way of writing code without a GUI.
Most designers who are purely so that I  know of know little to nothing of backend languages or even CSS (ironic, considering CSS was developed for designers in particular).

I don't think anything will force most web-spinners to conform to standards, and I doubt MS will while they can get away with it, and they can so long as it comes bundled as an integral part of their OS, which most of the planet uses.

However, one can always hope, then wait and see.
I for one would just like to see the Safari market grow, as an excuse to cater more to it for the sake of more elegant design with quality codework and sophistication, and hope that the resultant competition would result in Firefox and Opera being as standards-compliant or nearly so, so that same code would be as effective in those browsers with little to no tweaking. As for IE -I've given up hope at this point.

web designers, web coders, same difference.

No, I definitely prefer putting a distinction in there.
I know web developers who are part of a team and know nothing of design concepts (which is why they are on a team with others, others who are good with markup languages and CSS) and graphic designers who move into web work because that is where the market lead them and know little to nothing of actual codework (say, just enough to put things together piecemeal) who rely heavily on WYSIWIG editors to get their work done.

I wasn't shooting you down, though; I like where your thoughts were going.
Something of quality within the industry will come, in time, from Apple's move into the browser market.

Wow... y'know, all these add-ons, and we're stuck with the same tiny core set of web-safe fonts we've had for years...
Sorry, that just popped into my head recently. Has anyone esle noticed this?