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.
Something that may be less obvious now (but equally painful whenever I hear people go on about the fact that Mozilla is a suite of programs), is the fact that Mozilla.org was created primarily to drive the development of the Netscape product. The Netscape product was a suite of programs: Web Browser, Mail / News Client, HTML editor. How is Mozilla.org going to provide a codebase for the future of the Netscape product (which had a very respectable market share) if it can't provide equivalent functionality?
Back when Mozilla was beginning to turn into a usable product (M16+ I guess) the big thing that people were complaining about was feature parity with Netscape 4.x. People were saying that the browser was cool but they couldn't replace 4.x yet until Mail / News was usable. Now we hear people complaining about the fact that it's a suite with so many (in many cases independently developed) programs. That's fine if that's your opinion, but understand that Mozilla had a mandate from day one to be a suite of programs, there was nothing to be "figured out". If you want to compalin about misguided vision, you need to point that criticism at the people who came up with the "Communicator" concept, not Mozilla.org.