MozillaZine Readers Give Their Verdict on Safari

Sunday February 2nd, 2003

Last time, we asked you what you think about Apple's new KHTML-based Safari browser for Mac OS X. 1,979 readers shared their opinions with some interesting results. In a close call, 10% of you think that Safari is better than Chimera, while 11% believe it's not as good. Meanwhile, 23% want to know where the tabs are, reflecting the popularity of what many now see as an essential browser feature. A worrying 13% of you are sticking pins in your Hyatt voodoo dolls, perhaps suggesting that you're taking this all a little too seriously. Finally, 40% of you want one of Apple's new PowerBooks, which were also introduced at Macworld San Francisco. While this doesn't tell us whether the 17-inch or 12-inch model will be more popular, it does possibly indicate that many MozillaZine readers are largely apathetic towards Apple's new browser.

Our next poll was suggested by me (that's someone calling themselves 'me', not me as in the person writing this article). We want to know which of the components of the main Mozilla suite you use. Obviously we can't cover every possible combination, so pick the option that most closely matches your usage pattern. This poll also features the return of the 'telnet to port 80' option, which is back by popular demand. Get voting and keep watching the latest results to see what others think.

#68 nope

by jgraham

Friday February 7th, 2003 1:34 AM

You are replying to this message

So , your new position is this:

Upon launching the Mozilla project, Netscape should have fired a large fraction of its development staff who were working on the email client and other non-browser features for the 4.x suite, rather than keeping them on and 'weighing down' the development of Mozilla. This would have had the effect that: The same number of people were working on the browser part of the project anyway (after all the same people would be working to write the same code). The product would have taken just as long to release and wouldn't have provided feature parity with the 4.x releases making it an unsutiable replacement for companies using that line of products.

Your position is: a) Nonsensical (everyone keeps telling you this) b) Useless (it focusses entirley on events in the past) c) Irrelevant to the future (Phoenix seems to address all of your concerns)

If you wish to develop a browser using KHTML, go ahead. Everyone admits that it is, at present, easier to understand than Gecko. However there is (I believe) work going on to simplify and rearchitecture.