XENOPHILE  What's with the negative ratings on this comment? The reviewer posted a simple, verifiable fact, and apparently it hit a nerve amongst the Firefox Fanboyz here.  
(Version 3.5rc2)

TWEETY_  Don't care ;) I use Firefox on my dual G4 Mac because Safari crashes a lot. And I'm happy with Firefox, it never caused me any problems.  
(Version 3.5rc2)

ERUNNO  http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pNgBCwWdyRTT2JeiZn4B2Yw&gid=0

Looking at the spreadsheet you'll notice that Firefox 3.5 mostly fails in SVG related tests, none which should be relevant in the near future. Plus, full standard compliance implies Acid 3 conformance, not the other way around. That's a common mistake people seem to make (i.e. 100/100 doesn't mean that a browser is fully standard compliant).  
(Version 3.5rc2)

CHRISWAN  Does it really matter? 93 vs 100?

I almost never have problem using Firefox, and it's customizbility beats the cr*p out of Safari  
(Version 3.5rc2)

GABBLE  ERUNNO, if you read at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3

you'll see:

ECMAScript Conformance (subtests 81-96)

Data URI scheme (subtest 97)

XHTML 1.0 Strict (subtest 98)

HTTP 1.1 Protocol

SVG tests are:

SVG 1.1 (subtests 74, 78)

SVG 1.1 Fonts (subtests 77, 79)

In any case:

"Firefox developers had been preparing for the imminent release of Firefox 3, focusing more on stability than Acid3 success. The resulting 3.0 release consequently gained a score in the 70s. The performance of Firefox has been improved in version 3.5, which scores 93/100. The current trunk builds of Firefox score 94/100 with the default configuration and 96/100 with svg.smil.enabled set to true."

Aaaannd: :-)

"Microsoft, developers of the Internet Explorer browser, said that Acid3 does not map to the goal of Internet Explorer 8 and that IE8 would improve only some of the standards being tested by Acid3. IE8 scores 20/100 and has some problems with rendering the Acid3 test page."

Surely Firefox is a terrific browser, it only could be a bit better in standards compliance.

Happy browsing! :-)  
(Version 3.5rc2)

ERUNNO  @Gabble

What makes you think that the numbering of the tests is the same as the order they are executed? For instance, subset 79 (SVG fonts) is not implemented yet. This feature will be release with Gecko 1.9.2:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=119490

Your assertion about the numbering is wrong.  
(Version 3.5rc2)

O5220803  Well, if it's 93/100 or 100/100 either score is fine with the rest of us, when you consider how far FFx has come in is development life-cycle. This release of the FFx is truly the best yet. Kudos to the Mozilla Development Team for a browser very well done!  
(Version 3.5rc2)

ST00P!D M0NK3Y  G4? How can you still stand using those dinosaurs?  
(Version 3.6b1)

ST00P!D M0NK3Y  Oh I'm sorry... did I offend you people using G4s? I tried using my old G4 iMac a few weeks ago and I would rather remove my fingernails than use that slow piece of garbage again. But yes I agree, Firefox runs terribly on old G4s. It's almost unbearable. I was genuinely asking how you could stand being on a G4 these days. All the modern websites I throw at my old G4 bring that thing to its knees.  
(Version 3.5.5)

DEMOLITION  @ ST00P!D M0NK3Y

The people who modded down your comment may be reacting to its insulting tone, rather than its content. Next time, word it in a less inflammatory manner and you will likely get a more positive reaction.  
(Version 3.5.5)

KKNOPP  Heh the funny thing is, I have a dual Intel mac at work, and a 1.25 GHZ G4 tower (Towers are a bit different than iMacs) at home. I can BARELY tell the difference in browsing on both of them using Safari. The only time I can tell the difference is when Java/Flash loads. However with Firefox, I can tell a BIG difference between the two.   
(Version 3.5.5)

JON555  "Windoze"? Really? I'm surprised you didn't replace the "z" with a dollar sign or something.

Grow up.  
(Version 3.5.5)

CANADIANPJ  Agreed. It is not clever. At all. Firefox has had its share of issues but overall I find the stability of the browser to be higher than IE.  
(Version 3.5.5)

DAVE BROCK  While I'm nearly in tears that you took exception to how I spell crap, I mean to say "Windows", regardless of your opinions regarding how clever or stupid my misspelling happens to be; neither one of you actually addressed any content that my message contained.

The single statement thus far is, "Firefox is more stable than IE!" While that's quite thrilling (and something I acknowledged in passing), I'm unclear what it has to do with a review of the Mac version of Firefox.

If both of you are such big fans, could you please, coherently and succinctly explain why exactly? I understand the plug-ins and add-ons or I will die people, but Firefox is at best a 3rd rate app on OS X. 5+ years without figuring out how services work? Does Firefox somehow run faster and use less memory for the two of you, in the special universe you inhabit, that makes it more appealing than Safari or Chrome?

I don't get it... Why do you like it, or what are you reviewing that I'm not seeing? Polite, genuine question.  
(Version 3.5.5)

DANMARC  Agree with your assessment and the many constant minor upgrades are starting to grate on me. Fine that they improve stability and security but it feels now that just going for a quick brows on internet leads to spending time upgrading either latest version and/or plug ins (no I do not have many) and restart.

Still a great browser, me I use Safari for main browser as I find it clean and fast and no real issues with sites (if I have I just find alternative). I really like the Themes and plug ins so yes I use it: I would give it one more star than you did ; ) just opionion.

I also agree with your comment and feel it´s a bit unfair of the others specially including the IE comment as it really isn´t related to a comment on a Mac version (you really using IE on Mac ? : ) )

I write Windoze all the the time specially in speed related issues : )  
(Version 3.5.5)

ST00P!D M0NK3Y  I'm sorry, but your Safari fanboy bandwagon rant sounds just as bad as the Firefox crowd. Now granted, your word choices are more eloquent than those complaining about your review, but you still sound biased, nonetheless. I personally use Safari as my #1 browser, but there are still a few websites that do not work at all in Safari that work perfectly in Firefox. For example... when posting an ad on Craigslist.com, when you are all finished with the ad and go to submit, a CAPTCHA verification page will appear to confirm the ad. This does not appear in Safari (I have tried every means imaginable to make it appear, trust me), but it does appear in Firefox. This is a rare instance in which a site just simply does not work in Safari, but I use that site on a daily basis, so I wish Apple would address that issue with Safari ASAP. So... both Safari and Firefox have their pros and cons, but don't belittle other people because you can't comprehend why they'd want to use Firefox over Safari because that defies all logic that encompasses your existence. Use what you like... that's all that matters, anyway. That's why there is diversity. That's why there is competition. That's why there is choice. If there wasn't any competition, we wouldn't see as many innovative ideas as we do now. Competition breeds creativity.  
(Version 3.5.5)

ERUNNO  I've already stated the reasons why I think that Firefox suits me better than the competition even without the myriad of extremely useful extensions. The list was written with Safari in mind so obviously some points do not apply to Chrome (although many do):

1) Bookmark tags, which tremendously help in case you quickly want to recover a bookmark among hundreds. Also allows to safe searches like with Spotlight.

2) Automatic session recovery, which also restores tab history and even remembers the position on a site (very useful when reading long single sites across several sessions).

3) Fine-grained privacy control for those who care.

4) Better keyboard control (tab switching, switching to private browsing, etc.).

5) Non-modal save password dialogs.

6) Basic download manager which supports resuming for servers which allow it.

7) Firefox can differentiate whether to open new windows for pop-ups or redirect new windows into tabs automatically. With Safari it's even with the hidden preferences all or nothing.

8) You can add different search engines even without an extension if the site supports it.

9) The AwesomeBar :-) although it seems to be a love or hate thing. As a heavy keyboard user I can't live without it anymore.

10) A maximize window functionality. :-)

11) You can restore closed tabs and windows.

And probably some other features as well which I can't remember right now. ;-)

It's not really difficult to be better than Safari if one has little use for the OS X features as it probably the most under-featured major browser on the market. The Chrome beta leaves it in the dust as a native browser replacement although it's only slightly over one year old and the Mac port even younger.  
(Version 3.5.5)

SPHERICAL CUBE  Firefox is just... old and starting to creak. Try loading up Google Wave in Firefox, the experience is like... go make coffee and grow old and die, while waiting for a page to load. Now try the same thing in Safari, Webkit, or Chrome, it's instant.   
(Version 3.5.5)

MECHAMANIA  Here's a news flash, monkey: opinions are biased by definition.  
(Version 3.5.5)

ERUNNO  Dave Brock wrote:

"If you really absolutely want the Gecko rendering engine for some reason, then Camino stomps all over this dinosaur."

I'm sorry for being blunt but you have no idea what you are talking about. The current stable Camino version 1.6 uses a completely outdated Gecko 1.8 and even the new Camino 2.0 will use the outdated 1.9.0 version. FYI Firefox 3.6 will use Gecko 1.9.2 which received massive improvements since the initial major revision was released. Camino currently is technically no alternative to people who want or need Gecko powering their browser.  
(Version 3.5.5)

K. VAUGHAN  I don't understand what gecko or whatev is, or care much. I use Camino when there is some site that will not load no matter what on Safari, like some other person said here before. Firefox is very ugly and slow on my Mac (iMac 27" with 8GB ram) compared to safari or camino which is also slow but at least looks like a Mac program.

Where do I find google Chrome? I don't see it anywhere linked from this site, when searching it doesn't find it. thanks.  
(Version 3.5.5)

HORACE GREELEY  Firefox is important as a open source project that exists, that's about it, but it's a big, important reason. I don't trust anything by Google not to constantly spy on me and send statistics back to Google and would be very hesitant to install Chrome before the final release and reading some technically knowledgeable reviews of what it's really doing or sending back to Google.

Firefox existing, constantly forces the other big browsers to keep improving and getting better, which is great for everybody.

Other then existing, I too only use Firefox as a backup when Webkit fails, in the current browser wars saying Firefox is trailing by a wide margin is a nice way of saying it's dead in the water and an outdated speed-bump unless some massive effort to improve its performance comes along. It's so much slower it's becoming sad. Honestly Firefox 3.5 is so much slower it's terrible, but I've heard good things about 3.6 to let's hope.

It's probably far more important that Firefox exists on the Windows platform, then any special reason on the Mac other then the people who love all the addons and there seem to be lots of those.  
(Version 3.5.5)

ST00P!D M0NK3Y  This is probably the first time in MacUpdate history that I'm seeing good points on both sides being discussed. It's refreshing and everyone is making valid points. But you're right, opinions... by definition... are a little biased. I just can't tolerate the "you're an idiot for using this over this" crowd. I keep switching between Firefox, Safari, and Camino. I wish they could combine all 3 to create some super dooper ultimate browser. That'd be nice.  
(Version 3.5.5)

DMNELSON  I have gone back and forth, using virtually every browser under the sun as my default at some point or another since the mid 90's -- including both Safari and Firefox. Both apps excel at being a browser. Either one beats Internet Explorer hands down. But as they say, the devil's in the details.

To me, the issue of Safari vs. Firefox is a debate of form vs. function. Both have their place, and the ideal is a balance of the two -- a blend of aesthetics and utility. With its ability to add extensions, Firefox leans toward the "function" end of the spectrum. Safari leans more toward the "form" end of the spectrum with its sleek appearance and native feel.

Personally I mostly use Safari because all I want is a browser, no extra add-ons. Both do that just fine but Safari is prettier so I choose it. But some people need extensions that are available for Firefox, so they have good reason to favor it instead.

In the end there is no right answer. Just two apps that have a similar core purpose but differ in their priorities. I comes down to which one is a fit for your needs and preferences.  
(Version 3.5.5)

ST00P!D M0NK3Y  I just make those comments for the completely random negatives that people give others for no reason whatsoever.  
(Version 3.5.5)

KKNOPP  I was just pointing out that the things you claim to be annoyed by, you do as well. And as far as your G4 comment. You really think you shouldn't have been negged down?

I have my own issues with MacUpdate and it's system. But this instance isn't one of them.   
(Version 3.5.5)

THE GRAPHIC MAC  The problem is you, not the software. First off, this isn't a "release" version, it's a beta version. It clearly stated that on the download page, and a number of other places. Your expectations are too high - it's supposed to be for testing purposes, not everyday use. Just because many of the betas work perfectly, doesn't mean they all will.  
(Version 3.1b2)

KOBALT  graphic mac, although i agree with your sentiments regarding the use of betas, i think that if you look carefully, you'll see that the comment to which you have just commented was regarding v3.0.4 (not a beta) and made last month prior to the v3.1beta having been released ... would you like cream or icecream with your slice of humbleberry pie? ;)  
(Version 3.1b2)

KOBALT  oh, and let me add my (belated) annoyance with v3.0.4 as well ... i installed it, used it, crashed it more than once and replaced it with v3.0.3 ...

v3.0.4? what a dog!  
(Version 3.1b2)

KKNOPP  Anymore? I don't think it ever was. At least not in the Mac world.   
(Version 3.5.5)

ILGAZ  They didn't add colorsync support even while Apple could help them, for years. They never figured the concept of font rendering is different under OS X and even a single-double pixel glyph/hint issue bothers this userbase...

Whatever, their fans will bite me now, no need...  
(Version 3.5.5)