4 ms·

Firefox 3 Brings Ugliness to the Mac

22 points by jacobbijani 18y ago

jacobbijani 18y ago
I've noticed this before but it is described well here. General sloppyness all around in Firefox.
Zev 18y ago
There's many other problems with FF3 on OS X then the basic GUI. Because Mozilla chose to use XUL for as much as possible instead of taking it from Cocoa or Carbon. Nor do they share the same keyboard shortcuts (when typing, to move to the front/end of a line in Safari, then in Firefox for example). By using Carbon, FF doesn't take any of the Accessibility features most other OS X applications have (like Voiceover). Not to mention the devs will have to rewrite these bits for 64bit support. Grubar did a write up of FF3 vs Safari 3 awhile ago: http://daringfireball.net/2008/04/firefox_3_safari_3 http://daringfireball.net/2008/04/firefox_3_safari_3 - other then the Background/Foreground bit at the very beginning, it's still accurate. Though there's still Background/Foreground issues if you look closely (the tab bar when there are no tabs looks like a foreground window no matter where its located for instance).
- krschultz 18y ago
  It is true, and I think it is short sited of the Mozilla devs, sure porting to use the standard toolkits would be a bitch, but basically they just re did all the work to copy the "Look" of the different kits. That doesn't scale well, instead of a project to make it native on a couple systems once that would take a lot of time NOW, they have a new system which will require getting upgraded with all the new OS version.
- jacobbijani 18y ago
  Yeah, aside from all the interface flaws the number one reason I prefer Safari is the text rendering. Text in Safari looks phenomenal.
- dcurtis 18y ago
  The background/foreground issue is still accurate. The window changes almost imperceptibly from active to inactive.
- jey 18y ago
  "Not to mention the devs will have to rewrite these bits for 64bit support." Huh? Why? "64bit" doesn't change the APIs, at most it should take a recompile to build against the x86-64 version of the libraries. And thanks to Universal (fat Mach-O) binaries one single executable can contain ppc, x86, and x86-64 versions bundled right into it.
  - Zev 18y ago
    Apple isn't going to support 64bit Carbon.
  - chrisbroadfoot 18y ago
    I think the real question is: Why the hell would you need a 64-bit browser?
    - Zev 18y ago
      If the rest of my OS is going 64bit, why shouldn't my browser? Besides, I would imagine (unfortunately I'm not as well versed in this area as I would like) that there would be a performance gain from using a native 64bit browser on a 64bit OS instead of a 32bit browser on a 64bit OS. True, some plugins for browser (I'm looking at you, Flash) aren't 64bit - yet - but that could be vendors dragging their feet because there's not enough of a demand. Or something else; I'm not privy to what goes on in the upper levels of Adobe. Or any other major company for that matter, but thats not the point of this post.
    - pmjordan 18y ago
      It gets really messy with plugins, Java, etc. Browser developers have had to jump through all sorts of hoops to get 32-bit plugins (aargh, Flash!) working in 64-bit browsers, (e.g. on x86_64 Linux distros) but it's presumably even harder to do the opposite, use 64-bit plugins from a 32-bit browser. My x86_64 Linux distro has 64-bit Java, for example, which won't work with 32-bit browsers. Aside from that, it won't be long until 64-bit operating systems take over even on the desktop, even in Microsoft-land, and the less 32-bit cruft that is dragged around, the better.
- makecheck 18y ago
  Regarding Carbon and Accessibility, VoiceOver, etc.: Every standard view on Mac OS X receives accessibility and VoiceOver support, whether it comes from Carbon or Cocoa. So Carbon isn't the reason this breaks in Firefox.
tlrobinson 18y ago
There's really no reason to choose Firefox over Safari any more. The only thing Firefox has on Safari is plugins, but the most useful of those, Firebug, is now essentially built into the new WebKit with it's excellent debugging tools. The JavaScript performance is blazing too. Just check out the WebKit nightly: http://nightly.webkit.org/ http://nightly.webkit.org/
- markbao 18y ago
  +1 for Safari. Develop > Web Inspector is a very good Firebug replacement. I only ever open Firefox to a) test it in the browser or 2) to use more advanced Firebug features.
- inovica 18y ago
  I use Google Gears for Google Docs and unfortunately it doesn't work with Safari, which is a shame so right now I need to use Firefox still.
  - tlrobinson 18y ago
    Yeah that's unfortunate, but they are working on a WebKit version, which I'm eagerly awaiting. Yahoo's BrowserPlus, on the other hand, supports Safari right out of the gate. Hmm...
    - inovica 18y ago
      Just had a look and found this post which seems that the webkit version is available? A little late here so I'll check this out in the morning: http://googlemac.blogspot.com/2007/05/google-gears-for-webkit.html http://googlemac.blogspot.com/2007/05/google-gears-for-webki...
- railsjedi 18y ago
  I tried to use WebKit debugging tools since I like Safari and Firebug is the only thing keeping me tied to Firefox. Webkit Debug is ok for dom inspection, but it's horrendously bad for the on the fly CSS modifications that Firebug excels at. It's also missing the js eval console and several other crucial firebug features (+ yslow & firecookie). It's really a poor substitute at the moment.
tokipin 18y ago
i don't know about on Mac or Linux, but on Windows the Safari font rendering is unacceptably ugly. it's fuzzy and blurry. it's the single reason i'm using Firefox instead right now i think Safari uses a custom font renderer, which on Windows is far worse than Windows' ClearType (which Firefox takes advantage of.) maybe Safari's rendering looks good on high res monitors, but on my 1280x1024 it looks like shit. it's almost as if it's doing three or four extra smoothing passes here's a couple side-by-side screenshots (note, there is some bug that makes the background of single-line text fields black): http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk63/temporaryupload/safari_ff1.png http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk63/temporaryupload/safa... http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk63/temporaryupload/safari_ff2.png http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk63/temporaryupload/safa... and yes, i messed around with the options. it doesn't matter what strength of font smoothing it's set to. it still looks fuzzy. in fact it looks worse on lower smoothing settings. maybe i'm missing something, and if so, i'm all ears. maybe i'm just experience a particular set of bugs :/ it's unfortunate because i like most of the rest of the package, especially the fast loading and JS.
- gnaritas 18y ago
  I use Safari on Windows because I think it renders fonts better than Windows normally does. The blurriness isn't a bug, it's a feature, it's rendering the font correctly as it was intended to be seen. Apple font rendering scales correctly when resized without suddenly getting darker or lighter like Windows fonts, which often look either bolded or too thin when resized. Apple and Microsoft have always disagreed on what's more important when rendering fonts, see http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html for an explanation. It's no mistake, Apple does this on purpose, I wish Windows rendered fonts as well as Safari.
- crescendo 18y ago
  It's really a matter of taste—i.e. whether you prefer typographic purity or optimization for screen. The Safari fonts look better to me even in your comparison screenshots.
  - tokipin 18y ago
christefano 18y ago
http://www.sanneblad.se.nyud.net/johan/?p=180 http://www.sanneblad.se.nyud.net/johan/?p=180
petercooper 18y ago
Firefox 3 works on the Mac. It looks fine, and it's amazing there are people dedicated to whining about the minutiae of a few pixels here and there. Get on with your work people.
- derefr 18y ago
  They're UI designers. That is their work.
josefresco 18y ago
Site is too slow for me to even finish the article (images won't load). Maybe Johan should spend a little less UI critique time and a tad more on web server/site optimization.
deathbyzen 18y ago
This is really, really nitpicking. I don't notice any of the things he listed.

22 points by jacobbijani 18y ago

I've noticed this before but it is described well here. General sloppyness all around in Firefox.

Zev 18y ago

There's many other problems with FF3 on OS X then the basic GUI. Because Mozilla chose to use XUL for as much as possible instead of taking it from Cocoa or Carbon. Nor do they share the same keyboard shortcuts (when typing, to move to the front/end of a line in Safari, then in Firefox for example). By using Carbon, FF doesn't take any of the Accessibility features most other OS X applications have (like Voiceover). Not to mention the devs will have to rewrite these bits for 64bit support. Grubar did a write up of FF3 vs Safari 3 awhile ago: http://daringfireball.net/2008/04/firefox_3_safari_3 http://daringfireball.net/2008/04/firefox_3_safari_3 - other then the Background/Foreground bit at the very beginning, it's still accurate. Though there's still Background/Foreground issues if you look closely (the tab bar when there are no tabs looks like a foreground window no matter where its located for instance).

krschultz 18y ago
It is true, and I think it is short sited of the Mozilla devs, sure porting to use the standard toolkits would be a bitch, but basically they just re did all the work to copy the "Look" of the different kits. That doesn't scale well, instead of a project to make it native on a couple systems once that would take a lot of time NOW, they have a new system which will require getting upgraded with all the new OS version.
jacobbijani 18y ago
Yeah, aside from all the interface flaws the number one reason I prefer Safari is the text rendering. Text in Safari looks phenomenal.
dcurtis 18y ago
The background/foreground issue is still accurate. The window changes almost imperceptibly from active to inactive.
jey 18y ago
"Not to mention the devs will have to rewrite these bits for 64bit support." Huh? Why? "64bit" doesn't change the APIs, at most it should take a recompile to build against the x86-64 version of the libraries. And thanks to Universal (fat Mach-O) binaries one single executable can contain ppc, x86, and x86-64 versions bundled right into it.
- Zev 18y ago
  Apple isn't going to support 64bit Carbon.
- chrisbroadfoot 18y ago
  I think the real question is: Why the hell would you need a 64-bit browser?
  - Zev 18y ago
    If the rest of my OS is going 64bit, why shouldn't my browser? Besides, I would imagine (unfortunately I'm not as well versed in this area as I would like) that there would be a performance gain from using a native 64bit browser on a 64bit OS instead of a 32bit browser on a 64bit OS. True, some plugins for browser (I'm looking at you, Flash) aren't 64bit - yet - but that could be vendors dragging their feet because there's not enough of a demand. Or something else; I'm not privy to what goes on in the upper levels of Adobe. Or any other major company for that matter, but thats not the point of this post.
  - pmjordan 18y ago
    It gets really messy with plugins, Java, etc. Browser developers have had to jump through all sorts of hoops to get 32-bit plugins (aargh, Flash!) working in 64-bit browsers, (e.g. on x86_64 Linux distros) but it's presumably even harder to do the opposite, use 64-bit plugins from a 32-bit browser. My x86_64 Linux distro has 64-bit Java, for example, which won't work with 32-bit browsers. Aside from that, it won't be long until 64-bit operating systems take over even on the desktop, even in Microsoft-land, and the less 32-bit cruft that is dragged around, the better.
makecheck 18y ago
Regarding Carbon and Accessibility, VoiceOver, etc.: Every standard view on Mac OS X receives accessibility and VoiceOver support, whether it comes from Carbon or Cocoa. So Carbon isn't the reason this breaks in Firefox.

tlrobinson 18y ago

There's really no reason to choose Firefox over Safari any more. The only thing Firefox has on Safari is plugins, but the most useful of those, Firebug, is now essentially built into the new WebKit with it's excellent debugging tools. The JavaScript performance is blazing too. Just check out the WebKit nightly: http://nightly.webkit.org/ http://nightly.webkit.org/

markbao 18y ago
+1 for Safari. Develop > Web Inspector is a very good Firebug replacement. I only ever open Firefox to a) test it in the browser or 2) to use more advanced Firebug features.
inovica 18y ago
I use Google Gears for Google Docs and unfortunately it doesn't work with Safari, which is a shame so right now I need to use Firefox still.
- tlrobinson 18y ago
  Yeah that's unfortunate, but they are working on a WebKit version, which I'm eagerly awaiting. Yahoo's BrowserPlus, on the other hand, supports Safari right out of the gate. Hmm...
  - inovica 18y ago
    Just had a look and found this post which seems that the webkit version is available? A little late here so I'll check this out in the morning: http://googlemac.blogspot.com/2007/05/google-gears-for-webkit.html http://googlemac.blogspot.com/2007/05/google-gears-for-webki...
railsjedi 18y ago
I tried to use WebKit debugging tools since I like Safari and Firebug is the only thing keeping me tied to Firefox. Webkit Debug is ok for dom inspection, but it's horrendously bad for the on the fly CSS modifications that Firebug excels at. It's also missing the js eval console and several other crucial firebug features (+ yslow & firecookie). It's really a poor substitute at the moment.

tokipin 18y ago

i don't know about on Mac or Linux, but on Windows the Safari font rendering is unacceptably ugly. it's fuzzy and blurry. it's the single reason i'm using Firefox instead right now i think Safari uses a custom font renderer, which on Windows is far worse than Windows' ClearType (which Firefox takes advantage of.) maybe Safari's rendering looks good on high res monitors, but on my 1280x1024 it looks like shit. it's almost as if it's doing three or four extra smoothing passes here's a couple side-by-side screenshots (note, there is some bug that makes the background of single-line text fields black): http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk63/temporaryupload/safari_ff1.png http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk63/temporaryupload/safa... http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk63/temporaryupload/safari_ff2.png http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk63/temporaryupload/safa... and yes, i messed around with the options. it doesn't matter what strength of font smoothing it's set to. it still looks fuzzy. in fact it looks worse on lower smoothing settings. maybe i'm missing something, and if so, i'm all ears. maybe i'm just experience a particular set of bugs :/ it's unfortunate because i like most of the rest of the package, especially the fast loading and JS.

gnaritas 18y ago
I use Safari on Windows because I think it renders fonts better than Windows normally does. The blurriness isn't a bug, it's a feature, it's rendering the font correctly as it was intended to be seen. Apple font rendering scales correctly when resized without suddenly getting darker or lighter like Windows fonts, which often look either bolded or too thin when resized. Apple and Microsoft have always disagreed on what's more important when rendering fonts, see http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html for an explanation. It's no mistake, Apple does this on purpose, I wish Windows rendered fonts as well as Safari.
crescendo 18y ago
It's really a matter of taste—i.e. whether you prefer typographic purity or optimization for screen. The Safari fonts look better to me even in your comparison screenshots.
- tokipin 18y ago

christefano 18y ago

http://www.sanneblad.se.nyud.net/johan/?p=180 http://www.sanneblad.se.nyud.net/johan/?p=180

petercooper 18y ago

Firefox 3 works on the Mac. It looks fine, and it's amazing there are people dedicated to whining about the minutiae of a few pixels here and there. Get on with your work people.

derefr 18y ago
They're UI designers. That is their work.

josefresco 18y ago

Site is too slow for me to even finish the article (images won't load). Maybe Johan should spend a little less UI critique time and a tad more on web server/site optimization.

deathbyzen 18y ago

This is really, really nitpicking. I don't notice any of the things he listed.