Firefox 5 faster than ever
It seems like only yesterday that I was downloading Firefox 4. And now Firefox 5 is out. Better get used to it. New versions of the open source web browser are now being cranked out faster than ever.
And speaking of fast, Firefox 5 does feel faster in my so-far-limited testing. Let’s hope it lasts. Other new features aren’t exactly eyepoppers, but we’ll take what we can get:
» Support for CSS animations.
» Better visibility for the Do-Not-Track header preference.
» Improved canvas and JavaScript support.
» Better standards support for canvas, HTML5, XHR, MathML and SMIL.
» Better tuned HTTP idle connection logic.
The easiest way to upgrade is by clicking on Firefox —> About Firefox. You should find a button there offering to check for updates.
Posted Tuesday, June 21, 2011 in Web-browsers
Flock flies the coop
I’m not really all that surprised that the Flock web browser has been discontinued.
In a way it seemed to be ahead of its time, with built-in social media features, including Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Flickr, Blogger, WordPress, and more.
You’d think that would have made it popular. But instead, it just made it seem bloated.
What people appreciate most in a browser is speed. I know I would gladly give up some of the features in, for example, Safari if I thought it would make it run faster. I’m looking at you, Top Sites.
In fact, Safari has been slow getting started lately, and Chrome is so much more nimble. That alone is enough to make me consider switching.
Then there’s the social media thing. Sure, a lot of people are into social media these days, but they aren’t into all the social media. I use Twitter quite a bit, but I’m happy to use a separate app so that it doesn’t bog down my browser.
Flock was a noble experiment, but failed because it tried to be too many things to too many people.
Posted Tuesday, April 12, 2011 in Web-browsers
The new Flock
What’s so new about the new Flock? Mainly, it has a new rendering engine. Users complained that it was too slow, so developers made the switch from Gecko (used in Firefox and Camino) to Chromium — the code that drives Google’s Chrome.
A Chromium version for the Mac has just been released, so we now have a chance to see if it is indeed speedier. And yes it is — but only if you compare it with Firefox. The latest beta of Firefox 4 has made great strides in the speed department, but Chrome — and now Flock — still have the edge.
So why not just use Chrome? Flock’s advantage is that it has feeds and social streams built in. Click on an icon to slide open the sidebar and you have instant access to Twitter, Facebook, RSS feeds and more. You can comment, reply, share or post.
The neat thing is that you can create groups, then drag-and-drop your friends into them. It’s a great way to get your social life organized, because you can have friends from different streams mingling together. No longer must Twitter and Facebook be isolated.
In addition, you can create an account with Flock that allows you to share what you’re doing on the web. Your profile page lists favourite websites, photo uploads, updates to Twitter and more. If you decide to go public, people can see your profile from my.flock.com/username.
Flock has been around for a few years now, trying to carve a niche for itself as a social web browser. We have to give them an A for effort, because there is plenty of competition not only from other web browsers but also from specialized apps. Would you, for example, really want to give up Tweetie for the Flock interface?
On the other hand, I can see where Flock would definitely be helpful if you had a surfeit of social streams to sort out. The ability to create groups is especially compelling.
And as much as I have an appreciation for Firefox, I have to say it was a good idea to make the transition to Chromium. If you’re going to have social-media features bolted onto a browser, you’d better make sure they don’t bog things down.
All in all, it’s gratifying to see the new Flock make to the Mac. It just might be the thing to get your online social life in order.
Posted Tuesday, November 30, 2010 in Web-browsers
Firefox tabs move to the top
Tabs on top — Safari got in on the trend, then dropped out. Chrome jumped in, did it better, and stuck with it. Now here comes Firefox 4.
But before we look at what Firefox is up to, let’s take a stroll down memory lane. Here’s what Safari looked like with tabs on top.
Safari with tabs on top
The tabs went all the way up to the top edge — and this was their downfall. People would grab at the top of the browser window if they wanted to move it, and in the process click on a tab they didn’t want. And if you wanted to move a tab, you had to zero in on a grab bar at the right — another nuisance.
If Apple coudn’t get it right, then who could? How about Google. First of all, the tabs in Chrome don’t go all the way to the top, so you still have grabbing space. Plus, you can click anywhere on a tab to move it. And to top things off, an X to close the tab is always visible. With Safari, you have to hover to find it — a leftover from its tabs-on-top days.
Chrome
Now we have Firefox joining in with the beta version of the upcoming version 4. As is often the case, Firefox has a utilitarian feel to it. The tabs have two rounded corners — the minimal effort needed to indicate that they are indeed tabs. Chrome’s tabs are more stylin’, but that’s not just eye candy. The tabs overlap each other slightly to make it more obvious which one is in the foreground.
Firefox 4
On the other hand, the Firefox tabs stay well away from the top edge of the window, giving you a good 24 pixels to glom onto. Chrome only allows about half this amount. That extra space in Firefox also allows for insertion of the name of the site. Chrome is too cramped for this feature.
But there are tradeoffs. Chrome, overall, takes up less space with its tabs, tool bar and bookmarks bar, leaving more space for the content below. We’re talking about a difference of about five pixels less than Firefox and Safari. Is this enough to be considered a feature? Hard to say.
Another tradeoff is that the Firefox tabs fit under the traffic lights in the top left corner. This means you have more horizontal space for open tabs to march across the window.
Firefox 4 vs. Chrome — widget positioning
Firefox 4 and Safari do have one thing in common. If the name of a website is too long, they will cut it off with an elipsis. Chrome uses a nice fade. One last touch in Chrome’s favour is that hovering over a tab highlights it.
Safari 5
Firefox currently stands out from the crowd when it comes to moving tabs. Instead of a simple slide, a thumbnail image appears as you start moving the tab. You can then move the image to the position you prefer, as indicated by a blue vertical line that appears between other tabs. It’s an interesting idea — you get to literally see what it is you’re moving. But I find it more disturbing than helpful.
Moving a Firefox 4 tab
So is Firefox getting it right? They’re close, but they could learn a few tricks from Chrome. The best idea is keeping the tabs below the top-left widgets, leaving space for window grabbing, the name of the site, and more tabs. But it would be nice to see highlight-hovers and a bit more overlap for the foremost tab. And dump the thumbnails for tab moves.
Posted Wednesday, September 22, 2010 in Web-browsers
NoMoreiTunes
Here’s a must-have Safari extension that you won’t find in Apple’s gallery — NoMoreiTunes. When you click on a link to an iTunes item, it’s supposed to open on a web page. It does, but it also fires up iTunes and opens it there as well. What a pain in the patootey. The next version of Safari might fix this glitch, but in the meantime stop iTunes in its track with NoMoreiTunes — more than 10,000 downloads already.
Posted Tuesday, September 21, 2010 in Web-browsers
Camino 2.0
Like I’ve always said — it’s just likely Firefox, only better. Version 2 has a raft of new features, but I’m especially intrigued by enhanced annoyance blocking, which lets you choose whether to allow Flash to display.
Posted Thursday, November 19, 2009 in Web-browsers
Google Chrome first impressions
When Google came out with a “developer release” of Chrome for the Mac, I couldn’t resist having a look. I’m all too aware that it’s not even beta — it ate the first version of this post — but the download should still give some idea of where we’re headed.
The first thing I noticed is that it’s snappy, as if it were trying just a little bit harder to render the websites I visited. Of course, this always seems to be the case with a new browser or new version of a browser. It’s good to see, though, that Google is determined to give Apple a run for its money when it comes to speedy browsing.
I’ve grown accustomed to using Safari’s bookmarks sidebar over the years, so it was one of the things I immediately missed in Chrome. It quickly imported all of Safari’s settings, but you’re forced to drill down from a menu to find the bookmark you want.
I know all the cool kids are typing in the URL field these days, but what if you can’t remember the name of a site or just want to browse what you’ve bookmarked? Here’s hoping the final version does bookmarks in a way similar to — or better than? — Safari. At least we can hope it will be better than Firefox’s poor implementation.
Chrome definitely comes out ahead of Safari with tabs. Apple tried putting them on the top, but did it in such an awkward way that they were forced to backtrack. Chrome’s tabs are done in a manner that leaves plenty of room for you to grab the top of the window, and there’s no confusion over a single tab acting differently from multiple tabs. And all this is done without sacrificing any of the viewport’s vertical height. Good work.
Overall, the look of the interface is one that Mac users will find acceptable, if a bit “toyish.” Already, it looks better than Firefox, which has struggled to fit in with the Mac experience. Strangely, Google felt compelled to offer various themes for Chrome. You can easily choose and install them from a gallery. I tried about 20, and couldn’t find anything that improved on the default. They look fine by themselves, but once applied they’re awful.
In the end, the developer preview isn’t much to go on at this point. But if this is a sign of things to come, Mac users should soon find themselves with another serious option for day-to-day web browsing. Looking forward to it.
Posted Monday, October 26, 2009 in Web-browsers
Opera 10
Opera has taken the wraps off the latest version of its innovative web browser, and ars technica has a first look. Besides the usual performance tweaks, the most dramatic change is the addition of thumbnail pictures in the tabs. How useful is this? The test will be whether other browser makers copy — or don’t copy — the idea.
Posted Tuesday, September 1, 2009 in Web-browsers
The little web browser that could
Of all the major web browsers available, Opera is an anomaly because it exists in and of itself to make money for the company that creates it. But how?
Apple, Google and Microsoft all offer free browsers, and make money from them indirectly. Apple, for example, likely hopes that having a kick-ass browser on the iPhone and iPod touch will attract more developers, more apps and more customers.
They also likely wanted to ensure that Mac users had at least one great browser to choose from in the absence of support from Microsoft, and so continue to sell Macs. (Of course, in recent years we’ve had a blossoming of options for the Mac.)
With Firefox, an open source effort, there is no attempt to make a profit, although some revenue is generated through Google searches to offset costs.
But let’s get back to Opera. It looks great and works great. Version 10 is in beta, and promises lots of awesome features and innovations. I especially like the look of the visual tabs. Clearly, development is going full speed ahead.
Still, what keeps them going? Look at these recent figures for market share — they’re hardly inspiring. Overall, Internet Explorer is holding its own. Firefox, Safari and Chrome are making small gains. And at the tail end is Opera, hovering around two per cent. Even Chrome, which was released only a few months ago, has surpassed it.
So how can they possibly be making money? An artlicle at ZDNet UK attempts to answer this question in an interview with Opera chief executive Jon von Tetzchner. Basically, they bring in most of their revenue by providing a free browser for mobile devices and generating cash through deals with “content partners” — which are listed on the Opera business site as Google and Yahoo.
So, it turns out, Opera’s main business model is not much different from that of other browser makers — ads from Google searches.
In the end, only the people who run the company know whether this will be enough to sustain them. In a way, Opera reminds me of Apple before the iPod made it a huge success. A small band of loyalists kept it going through its darkest hour, and they continue to promote it even now. Nowadays, we have blog posts from fans like this, which should ensure that Opera always has at least a small but important role to play in browser development.
Here’s hoping.
Posted Friday, August 14, 2009 in Web-browsers
SeaMonkey 2.0 Beta 1
Development of SeaMonkey is moving right along with improvements to its browser and mail components. Most notably, the browser is now uses the same technology as Firefox 3.5.1.
Too bad about the other components, though. SeaMonkey also contains a newsgroup client, IRC chat client, and HTML editor. There is no word on improvements — if any at all — to these parts. It would be especially nice to see the HTML editor beefed up as a good open source alternative to apps such as Dreamweaver. It’s a tall order, but still . . .
Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 in Web-browsers
Follow thriftmac
|
|
|
Dive into the collection
The thriftmac guarantee
You'll find nothing here but 100 per cent, totally free software for Mac. There are no demos, no crippleware, no "freemiums." The only exceptions are for programs supported by tasteful ads. In some cases, developers ask for a donation — and we encourage you to make one if you find the program useful. Let us know if you find an app here that is not totally free, and we'll delete it. And if there is a program that deserves to be here — but isn't — we'd like to hear about that, too.
