safari vs.Firefox

In article ,
rlaughton.TakeThisOut@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

 > Only Explorer offers a print preview with which one can manipulate to
 > print just what one needs, for example leave out the ads, change text
 > size in real time, etc..


I guess you have not seen iCab's Print Preview.
 >> Stay informed about: safari vs.Firefox 

Hi Ray,

 > Only Explorer offers a print preview with which one can manipulate to
 > print just what one needs, for example leave out the ads, change text
 > size in real time, etc..

.... ok, THIS of course is a completely different requirement. IMHO it's
one that is not supposed to be in print preview at all because the
preview should show the document exactly as it is printed which it
does. Preprocessing the document before printing is the task of the
program that wants to print it. But I guess that's a matter of taste.
--
cul8er

Paul
paul.foerster.TakeThisOut@gmx.net
 >> Stay informed about: safari vs.Firefox 

Madwen wrote:



 >
  > > Only Explorer offers a print preview with which one can manipulate to
  > > print just what one needs, for example leave out the ads, change text
  > > size in real time, etc..
 >
 >
 > I guess you have not seen iCab's Print Preview.

I tried iCab in the 90's, was not too impressed.
Did they finally move to OSX?

ray
 >> Stay informed about: safari vs.Firefox 

Paul Förster wrote:

 > Hi Ray,
 >
  > > Only Explorer offers a print preview with which one can manipulate to
  > > print just what one needs, for example leave out the ads, change text
  > > size in real time, etc..
 >
 > ... ok, THIS of course is a completely different requirement. IMHO it's
 > one that is not supposed to be in print preview at all because the
 > preview should show the document exactly as it is printed which it
 > does. Preprocessing the document before printing is the task of the
 > program that wants to print it. But I guess that's a matter of taste.

Its more than a matter of taste, its essential and its saves a lot of
paper.. WYSIWYG came from Apple, its a shame they dont offer it for
printing with Safari.
Although I generally avoid MS products, the printing thing was one thing
Microsoft did right in Explorer, so I shall keep it until the
competition come up with something better.
I also noticed how slow Safari became lately, one spends more and more
time watching the spinning wheel.. Firefox is a bit quicker, but it
seems to have a few of the quirks that got me to drop Netscape some time
ago.



ray
 >> Stay informed about: safari vs.Firefox 

In article ,
rlaughton.DeleteThis@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:


 >


  > >
   > > > Only Explorer offers a print preview with which one can manipulate to
   > > > print just what one needs, for example leave out the ads, change text
   > > > size in real time, etc..
  > >
  > >
  > > I guess you have not seen iCab's Print Preview.
 >
 > I tried iCab in the 90's, was not too impressed.
 > Did they finally move to OSX?
 >
 > ray

There is a Mac OS X version of iCab. I used to use it on Mac OS 9,
because it was fast and used very little memory, had pop-up blocking,
and I was using a memory and CPU starved Mac at the time.

I only fire it up on Mac OS X if I need to find a browser that will
access some web site that causes other browsers to die, or just now work
right. When this happens I'm often times trying every browser I have
and iCab is one just one of the bunch.

My current bowser is mostly Firefox, and that is only because I found
that it worked better with Google Mail keyboard navigation. Firefox is
bad by itself, but if it wasn't for the Google Mail thing, I would most
likely still be using Safari. It will be interesting to see how Safari
changes with Tiger.

Bob Harris
 >> Stay informed about: safari vs.Firefox 

Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:30:18 +0200, dirk.huesken.RemoveThis@student.uni-tuebingen.de suggested:
: In article ,
: Chris Brown wrote:
:
:>In article ,
:>Paul Förster wrote:
:>>Hi Howard,
:>>
:>>On 2005-03-30 17:56:55 +0200, "Howard" said:
:>>> I'm interested in know about the differences between these browsers.
:>>> Thanks.
:>>
:>>... Safari is more vulnerable to resize/maximize and other nasty window
:>>operations than is FireFox. Safari looks better, tho. But FireFox
:>>can display a number of pages at least halfway correctly that Safari
:>>miserably fails at.
:>
:>Safari is also hideously slow on eBay on my iBook G3, especially with tabbed
:>browsing. Firefox is adequate in the same situation.
:
: Try turning off JavaScript. That helps a *lot*.

Not really an acceptable solution, though.

--
agreenbu @ nyx . net andrew michael greenburg
 >> Stay informed about: safari vs.Firefox 

Fri, 8 Apr 2005 19:20:56 +0200, rlaughton.RemoveThis@invalid.com suggested:
:
: Neither Firefox nor Safari offer print preview, its the only reason to
: hang on to Explorer..

....and is dwarfed by the reasons not to. It would be nice if IE rendered
standards-compliant web sites correctly, but since they discontinued
development on the Mac version, that's out of the question.

--
agreenbu @ nyx . net andrew michael greenburg
 >> Stay informed about: safari vs.Firefox 

On 2005-03-30 18:07:43 +0200, Paul Förster said:

> Hi Howard,
>
> On 2005-03-30 17:56:55 +0200, "Howard" said:
>> I'm interested in know about the differences between these browsers.
>> Thanks.
>
> ... Safari is more vulnerable to resize/maximize and other nasty window
> operations than is FireFox. Safari looks better, tho. But FireFox
> can display a number of pages at least halfway correctly that Safari
> miserably fails at.
>
> Example: http://www.tcs.ch
>
> A typical microcrap site. Try this with both Safari and FireFox and see
> for yourself.
>
> Hope this helps.

I agree with Paul,
Firefox is more productive
 >> Stay informed about: safari vs.Firefox 

hello wrote:
> On 2005-03-30 18:07:43 +0200, Paul Förster said:
>
>> Hi Howard,
>>
>> On 2005-03-30 17:56:55 +0200, "Howard" said:
>>> I'm interested in know about the differences between these browsers.
>>> Thanks.
>>
>> ... Safari is more vulnerable to resize/maximize and other nasty window
>> operations than is FireFox. Safari looks better, tho. But FireFox
>> can display a number of pages at least halfway correctly that Safari
>> miserably fails at.
>>
>> Example: http://www.tcs.ch
>>
>> A typical microcrap site. Try this with both Safari and FireFox and see
>> for yourself.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>
> I agree with Paul,
> Firefox is more productive
>

Don't see a difference looks Identical with SeaMonkey, FireFox, Safari,
iCab, Opera, OminiWeb, Safari.

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net mailto:pjones1@kimbanet.com
 >> Stay informed about: safari vs.Firefox