It’s the add-ons that make Firefox so unique! :P

PS. For my previous comment, I meant the cache (or database as Safari calls it) was only 5MB.

Eddy.

As for Snapback, I don’t really need one in FF with SnapLinks & CoolIris Preview addons! ;)

For pro users, even if FF is a memory hog, the uber-powerful addons make up for it.
My fav is the PicLens Addon:
http://www.piclens.com/site/firefox/

Safari isn’t the most complete browser… why would anyone want a snapback button? When I press the back button - I obviously don’t want to reload the previous page!(It should be the other way round - back button=back, snap-back=reload

Having a snapback button makes Safari… incomplete? I would think that would be a plus for it, on the contrary! Anyway… The snapback is very useful if you know when and how to use it.

Imagine that you are checking search results. What you would do is, open each link in a new tab, verify the result, and come back to the tab where your results are displayed. Well, you can do this much more quickly with snapback.

Mark the search results page as the snapback page. Open each link in the same tab and navigate as far off as you wish. When you want to come back to your search results, just press the snapback button, and you will be taken right back.

Snapback is not the same as reload. You do have a Reload button, if that is what you want to use. Apple has made clever use of the toolbar space by not having separate Reload and Stop buttons; the Stop button turns into a Reload button once the page is fully loaded.

Although Safari passes the Acid3 test completely, pages look better on FF3 - even if Safari has better CSS handling, most of its CSS capabilities are never used! :(

There is no logic to this statement. Safari has better CSS handling, surely this is a good thing. If designers are liberated from the constraints of the browser and have more CSS features to play with, they will create better web sites.

Safari is far too simplistic, used for light-browsing just like a mobile browser (btw Nokias use Webkit). For anyone who has used Firefox, life would be impossible without add-ons

Simplicity, yet with a full feature set, is what the majority of users want. For someone who has used Firefox, I prefer to confine it to the sole purpose of emulating user-agents when testing mobile web applications at work :-)

Eddy.

I loathe memory-hogging Firefox.

Acid3 Test Results:
Safari (with Webkit): 100/100
Firefox 3 RC1: 71/100
Firefox 2: 51/100
Opera 9.27: 46/100
Internet Explorer 7: 12/100

Sunspider Benchmark Results:
Firefox 3 RC1: 5944.2ms
Safari (with Webkit): 8410.6ms
Opera 9.27: 29434.0ms
Firefox 2: 54267.8ms
Internet Explorer 7: 127445.8ms

Safari isn’t the most complete browser… why would anyone want a snapback button? When I press the back button - I obviously don’t want to reload the previous page!(It should be the other way round - back button=back, snap-back=reload)
Although Safari passes the Acid3 test completely, pages look better on FF3 - even if Safari has better CSS handling, most of its CSS capabilities are never used! :(
YouTube.com crashed the first time I loaded it on Safari - but it hasn’t crashed since… ;)

Safari is far too simplistic, used for light-browsing just like a mobile browser (btw Nokias use Webkit). For anyone who has used Firefox, life would be impossible without add-ons. :)

• Colour profile awareness, which allows your pictures to be displayed in true colours.
• Fastest JavaScript interpreter in a browser
• Fastest page renderer

What makes you think it is the worst browser?

Eddy.

Eddy.

While googling about adding images to CheckBoxLists, I came across your reply linking to an entry of yours. That link is dead. Any chance that entry is still sround?