# Only 6% of Mac users like Safari?



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

Well it seemed kind of odd... 

Mac market share nears 8%; Safari tops 6.3% - The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

The first paragraph:


> The Mac accounts for 7.94 percent of computers on the Internet, and Safari is the browser of choice for 6.31 percent of the same audience, so says marketshare.hitslink.com.


Now I could probably believe that Mac users only account for 8% of the internet, especially when you consider every other flavor of every thing out there. But To say that only 6.31 of the mac audience has Safari as their browser of choice. Personally I prefer firefox, but I thought the Safari number would be much higher, like say 80% of mac users using Safari or more (since most people use whatever browser comes with their computer). 

_Maybe they mean 6.31 out of 7.94... not 6.31% of the remaining 7.94%_

Also


> Jade attributes Safari's gains to the one time Windows "Software Update trick" that placed Safari in the list of apps to update, even if the user didn't have Safari already installed.


It's a Trick? How is it a trick? (could just say its updating your computer with new software ) Though what version of OSX ever came without Safari (prior to 10.3/4)


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I think that is 6.3% of internet users not Mac users. Personally I prefer Camino just cause it blocks not only pop ups but also banner ads. But suspect most users go with the default browser. 

Note I am pretty sure Safari was part of the Jaguar software.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
Jaguar (10.2.x) did not come with Safari, and Safari would only run on the final version of Jaguar (10.2.8).

Safari might have fallen off for some users: some use Firefox or Camino or another browser in it's place; hard core users are either Web Kit or Lynx; and for some, the lack of Safari updates leaves them with little choice than to go to other browsers. This does not just affect Safari, as Firefox has abandoned a great number of machines with FF3.

Plus, I am not sure about what they mean by the numbers, but overall, Mac users probably do use multiple browsers for a myriad of reasons. I can count perhaps eight on my own system: Safari, Firefox, Opera, Exploder, Flock, Shiira, Lynx, and iCab, that I can recall off the top of my head.

The "Windoze trick" only applies to the Windoze versions, and occurs if a user happens to install any other Apple software, like QuickTime or iTunes. Most Windoze users could care less, but it does upset the zealots of the Evil Empire who really do think their rendering bug riddled fake web browser is something to behold...


----------



## psxp (May 23, 2006)

hmm.. dunno - sounds very low 

I personally actually use Firefox 95% of the time


----------



## Macinguelph (Oct 27, 2007)

They are of course talking about 6% of internet users using safari. One has to be careful with statistics, they can be easily misunderstood.

I personally love Safari and use Webkit daily. Firefox is my browser of 2nd choice and my first choice on the Windows side.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> ^^^
> This does not just affect Safari, as Firefox has abandoned a great number of machines with FF3.


Windows not so much, But Macs, you're right in a way since FF3 does not run on anything older than Tiger. However FF2 is still available for download (and it'll probably be a good few months before all the themes, plugins and so forth are made for FF3). 

I've actually found out that Firefox was considered one of the most secured browser, primarily because most firefox users upgrade their copies whenever a new version or update comes out. (Safari was second to that reason).

Far as Safari, I rarely use it, but as long as the stuff I design/make in Firefox looks about the same on Safari I'm happy. (It's internet explorer that makes me want to castorate someone over the simplest things).


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i donno I'm pretty sure I was running Safari earlier than the final version of Jaguar.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

groovetube said:


> i donno I'm pretty sure I was running Safari earlier than the final version of Jaguar.


Well I know Safari 1.0 was out in June 20th 2003. Now just gota figure out when Jaguar came out.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I run Safari all the time. I dunno. Choosing a web browser is kind of like choosing a regular grocery store; all things being equal, you tend to go with the one where you know where everything is.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

fjnmusic said:


> I run Safari all the time. I dunno. Choosing a web browser is kind of like choosing a regular grocery store; all things being equal, you tend to go with the one where you know where everything is.


Fair enough just wish some wouldn't mess with the content within (*cough* IE *cough*) then I wouldn't have to code things 4 times over when it was already working for least 3 other browsers. (It's my opinion that webbrowsers in terms of content delivered should show everything the same, but that the 'differences' between browsers can be that of features such as faster, or better tab management, or security features etc).

Course guess that's what happens when everyone thinks their way is the right way.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

kb244 said:


> Well I know Safari 1.0 was out in June 20th 2003. Now just gota figure out when Jaguar came out.


Safari did not come with the retail version of Jaguar, and it does require a full update to 10.2.8 to run. Jaguar shipped with Interblech Exploder, and perhaps one of the ugliest user interfaces I have ever seen.

There was a Beta version of Safari which may have run on earlier versions of Jaguar, but I never used them, nor do I have a copy of it in my collection.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

ah. your information was misleading.

safari wasn't 'done' until the end of jagaur, but many were using it. I bought a dual G4 MDD, and it did indeed have it installed. I dont know how and when it did, but it was there.

Now that we've gotten over numbers stats and semantics, the OP question was about the 6%, which by now should be understood as 6% of the internet users.

However, this link Browser Statistics shows it at 2.6%.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

groovetube said:


> ah. your information was misleading.
> 
> safari wasn't 'done' until the end of jagaur, but many were using it. I bought a dual G4 MDD, and it did indeed have it installed. I dont know how and when it did, but it was there.
> 
> ...



Yea for the most part getting specific stats on the matter is going to depend on the data they are collecting. Kinda like you'd obviously find a higher % of Safari users if we checked Apple's server logs compared to say a popular blog space run by a bunch of ASP.Net developers.

But *most* of the numbers pretty much show IE being #1 in terms of coverage, followed by Firefox, then by Safari, then whatever else (most of the whatever else isn't more than a couple of percents) .

The one thing that annoys me about most the browser statistics is that while they do show you exactly which version of IE is in the stats (IE6, IE7 etc), but when it comes to firefox or safari, they simply say Firefox (not showing specific version), or Safari, or worse yet clump it as "Mozzilla". Course its safe to assume with the stats FF users will be running the latest version (part of the reason FF was considered saftest browser was due to most users upgrading whenever a patch or new version came out)

Where as Safari, I'd like to know how many people still use Safari 2 for example, since theres some obvious javascript/CSS changes from 2 to 3, where as FireFox 2 to 3, not so much from a developers point of view.


----------



## James L (Jun 7, 2007)

kb244 said:


> Well it seemed kind of odd...
> 
> The first paragraph:
> 
> ...


They are saying that the Mac accounts for 7.94 percent of all computers on the internet (according to their stats), and that Safari is used BY 6.31 percent of ALL computers on the internet... not just Macs.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

James L said:


> They are saying that the Mac accounts for 7.94 percent of all computers on the internet (according to their stats), and that Safari is used BY 6.31 percent of ALL computers on the internet... not just Macs.


They said 6.31 of the same audience, so that means Safari on Macs then. 
(Besides probably would only bump the % up .2 or so if they also included windows anyways).


----------



## James L (Jun 7, 2007)

kb244 said:


> They said 6.31 of the same audience, so that means Safari on Macs then.
> (Besides probably would only bump the % up .2 or so if they also included windows anyways).


Nope.

They said:



> The Mac accounts for 7.94 percent of computers on the Internet, and Safari is the browser of choice for 6.31 percent of the same audience, so says marketshare.hitslink.com.


The "*audience*" is the "*computers on the internet*".

Of those people (The "*audience*"):
- 7.94% use Macs
- 6.31% use Safari


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

James L said:


> Nope.
> 
> They said:
> 
> ...


So basically there may be even fewer than 80% of mac users using Safari if the other portion of the 6.31% is windows users of safari. 

What I'd like to find out is, out of all the Safari users, how many are currently on Safari 3.


----------



## James L (Jun 7, 2007)

kb244 said:


> So basically there may be even fewer than 80% of mac users using Safari if the other portion of the 6.31% is windows users of safari.
> 
> What I'd like to find out is, out of all the Safari users, how many are currently on Safari 3.


Remember that internet traffic statistics can be insanely skewed. For example, on each of my sites people using Macs to browse make up about 5.1% of my traffic.

On this site, a Mac fan site, it would be WAY higher.

There's lots of sites that detail browser statistics. The best thing to do is to average a bunch of them out. Here's one as an example:

OS Statistics
Browser Statistics
Browser Display Statistics


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

James L said:


> Remember that internet traffic statistics can be insanely skewed. For example, on each of my sites people using Macs to browse make up about 5.1% of my traffic.
> 
> On this site, a Mac fan site, it would be WAY higher.
> 
> ...


None of those tell me which version of Safari is being used among those mac users. I wonder if ehMac has any browser stats to share.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

kb244 said:


> But *most* of the numbers pretty much show IE being #1 in terms of coverage


Only because one is forced to use it, or at least have it installed, on all Windoze systems, so they count that. Same with the way they count the user base for Windoze, by counting the number of processors that Intel pumps out, whether or not the end user even bothers with fooling with Windoze, or goes straight to Linux.



> Where as Safari, I'd like to know how many people still use Safari 2 for example, since theres some obvious javascript/CSS changes from 2 to 3, where as FireFox 2 to 3, not so much from a developers point of view.


There will be a slice of OSX users that are still using Safari 1.2, because Apple has never provided an update path, except for throwing out perfectly good machines and replacing them with brand new machines.

This will be the same for Firefox, where some people will be running 2 (older machines as well as people that can't stand the LCD rendering bugs in the new version) - while others will end up on 3.

And it does not factor in the other fact, that many people, if not most people, have multiple browsers these days. Where my girlfriend works, they have IE because they are Windoze based, but they also have Netscape, because it is corporate policy to use Netscape for any remote logins (and though she could use something like Firefox technically, doing so would lead to disciplinary measures, removal of remote access, or termination).

I find that I always need to have two browsers. I use Safari for non-tabbed browsing for my research work, and Firefox for tabbed browsing for everything else. I know that I could in fact, use Preferences to toggle between tabbed and non-tabbed, but it is inconvenient to do so, and I can run Safari simultaneously with Firefox.

I only point this out because the surveys do not count people who use multiple browsers - and really, many Mac users do use Safari and FireFox, and perhaps Opera or Camino, or whatever. It's all about choice, and the surveys do not take that into account.

Some people just do not like Safari, and there is nothing wrong with that as people do have a choice.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> Only because one is forced to use it, or at least have it installed, on all Windoze systems, so they count that. Same with the way they count the user base for Windoze, by counting the number of processors that Intel pumps out, whether or not the end user even bothers with fooling with Windoze, or goes straight to Linux.


 Not any more forced than having Safari on OSX 
Also that would only be how many machines have been *sold* with windows on it, the only other way to track it is to check the machines hitting windows update for example, or if a customer actually registers with microsoft (which most do since its all there at the beginning and activation is problematic if you don't). 

Far as the Intel bit, its been quite a few years since intel has incorporated that chip tracking technology especially after a lawsuit that forced them to allow the users the option to turn it off in the bios on past chips. Also that would only track usage of intel processors, I doubt Intel calls up microsoft and says "this is how many windows users you have". I wonder what the percentage of windows machines are pirated copies.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> There will be a slice of OSX users that are still using Safari 1.2, because Apple has never provided an update path, except for throwing out perfectly good machines and replacing them with brand new machines.


Yea that doesn't help



EvanPitts said:


> This will be the same for Firefox, where some people will be running 2 (older machines as well as people that can't stand the LCD rendering bugs in the new version) - while others will end up on 3.


Well that actually doesn't bother me, and I have no clue what this LCD rendering bug is, I've yet to see it on my macbook, or on an apple studio display. 

Reason some people sticking with 2 doesn't bother me is because for the most part the javascript routines and CSS understandings between 3 and 2 are relatively the same and all the past sites I designed for 2 work fine in 3. 

On the other hand What works good in FF2/3 normally works fine in Safari 3, I've never been able to test Safari 2, but I know Safari 1.* pretty much craps out on just about any javascript framework I have. But I try not to worry bout it too much because not even google maps works right for Safari 1.*, but I would like to know the % especially of people who still have Safari 2 (sorry but Safari 1.* users are out in the cold). 



EvanPitts said:


> And it does not factor in the other fact, that many people, if not most people, have multiple browsers these days. Where my girlfriend works, they have IE because they are Windoze based, but they also have Netscape, because it is corporate policy to use Netscape for any remote logins (and though she could use something like Firefox technically, doing so would lead to disciplinary measures, removal of remote access, or termination).


I keep several on my machine

Safari 3 and Firefox 3 (on windows and mac)
Internet Exploder 7 and the IE8 Beta
Safari 4 (Developer Preview) on the bootable drive on my external HDD (it can be run from that partition without having to boot into it, so it works just didn't want it to replace my existing safari 3)

But I use Firefox 99.99% of the time.



EvanPitts said:


> I find that I always need to have two browsers. I use Safari for non-tabbed browsing for my research work, and Firefox for tabbed browsing for everything else. I know that I could in fact, use Preferences to toggle between tabbed and non-tabbed, but it is inconvenient to do so, and I can run Safari simultaneously with Firefox.


You running Tiger or Panther or something? Safari 3 last I checked has tabbed browsing, or is it simply not a desirable effect in Safari to have tabbing turned on all the time? (any tab can be a new window if need to be). 



EvanPitts said:


> I only point this out because the surveys do not count people who use multiple browsers - and really, many Mac users do use Safari and FireFox, and perhaps Opera or Camino, or whatever. It's all about choice, and the surveys do not take that into account.


While it does not take into consideration multiple browsers, it does take into consideration which browsers are being used the most by those users at certain locations.



EvanPitts said:


> Some people just do not like Safari, and there is nothing wrong with that as people do have a choice.


I never got used to Safari myself, but I'd like the stats on Safari 2 so I can least project if the effort is worth finding Safari 2 and testing sites against it for compatibility, or if the % is high enough that I should just concentrate on Safari 3 and tell clients they need to upgrade if they expect to see it as designed. Which I already do if someone calls me about something not working right in Internet Explorer 5, or Internet Explorer 6. (even had one person complain they couldn't get something working on internet explorer 4.5 on mac not even a few months ago...)


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

groovetube said:


> ah. your information was misleading.
> 
> safari wasn't 'done' until the end of jagaur, but many were using it. I bought a dual G4 MDD, and it did indeed have it installed. I dont know how and when it did, but it was there.
> 
> ...


My Jaguar retail disks do not have Safari on it - but the disks are an earlier version of Jaguar that I bought from a friend of mine who was an early adopter. There may have, or should I say, there was probably a Beta version that was widely available for Mac users, though my collection does not have a copy of it. The Safari I have (1.2) will not run until the system is updated to 10.2.8. I ended up stiffed with crummy IE for a while when I got my machine, though I do have to admit that IE on the Mac was a much better experience than IE on a Windoze box. I still have IE on the system, and it does get used on occassions when some broken web site is IE only.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

can get Safari 1 from here but they don't got 2 listed.
evolt.org - Browser Archive


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

_Update_

Checking google and all that bit, seems that anyone complaining of "rendering" in firefox 3, are either talking bout a slightly poor design in CSS on the website itself, or they're talking bout a font rendering problem that was existant on the beta version (and some linux copies). 

I haven't found anything yet regarding an LCD rendering bug for the final release of Firefox 3 on OSX.

And if people just simply don't like the look of the psudeo-OSX copy firefox did there are literally hundreds of replacement themes.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

kb244 said:


> Well that actually doesn't bother me, and I have no clue what this LCD rendering bug is, I've yet to see it on my macbook, or on an apple studio display.


The screen rendering in FF3 is handled by the Cairo layer, and Cairo had any number of issues in rendering LCD screens, though these have probably either been ironed out, or subverted in order to allow the release of a non-beta FF3.



> ...I know Safari 1.* pretty much craps out on just about any javascript framework I have. But I try not to worry bout it too much because not even google maps works right for Safari 1.*


I have never had a problem with Javascripts or Google Maps on Safari 1.2. In fact, I was using Google Maps yesterday and I has no problem.



> You running Tiger or Panther or something?


Definitely Panther. I have considered Tiger only because some software is no longer Panther compatible, but the caveats of Tiger are a deal killer for me.



> Safari 3 last I checked has tabbed browsing, or is it simply not a desirable effect in Safari to have tabbing turned on all the time? (any tab can be a new window if need to be).


Safari 1 has tabbed browsing - but I need to have non-tabbed browsing for my research, and it is a hassle to toggle between tabbed and non-tabbed. Two browsers end up being a better deal, as I can be downloading data with Safari, while using Firefox for other things. And that is only an example. Most people end up needing to use multiple browsers for any number of reasons - and I only pointed that out because the surveys never take that into account.



> Which I already do if someone calls me about something not working right in Internet Explorer 5, or Internet Explorer 6. (even had one person complain they couldn't get something working on internet explorer 4.5 on mac not even a few months ago...)


This is something you really have to expect, since there is such a large base of entirely usable computers out in the real world. Not everyone can afford to buy the latest and greatest new machine every six months, and it is even worse with Apple since their older machines were well made and can last for many years without problems. One can still download IE 5:mac, as it is the end of the line as far as IE goes. IE 6 for Windoze was a horror show...

I think that if a web designer wants to have as many users as possible, they will make sure to construct a site to the lowest common denominator. Plus, some web designers are entirely certain that people want to have to suffer through crummy endless flash video or crummy animations - when really, people just want to get to some information. I can't tell you how many sites are so poorly written that one can not even find anything of use, though I suppose they may look cute if I had high-speed Internet that could download the pages in under five minutes. But the availability if high-speed Internet is another topic altogether.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> Only because one is forced to use it, or at least have it installed, on all Windoze systems, so they count that. Same with the way they count the user base for Windoze, by counting the number of processors that Intel pumps out, whether or not the end user even bothers with fooling with Windoze, or goes straight to Linux.


These browser usage statistics are based on the browser people actually use to access the web and not what is installed on their computers.
Or better, based on the "browser information" the browser sends to the web sites.
If you look at the original study for example, you will not find Camino on the list because it reports itself as 'Mozilla'.
And if Safari is set up to look like IE to access a particular website, these statistic gatherers will count that as Internet Explorer.

If you look at the original statistic the linked article in the first post is based on, it's pretty obvious that the 6% Safari number is based on ALL internet users sampled regardless of OS used.

And BTW - I saw statistics just recently that the installed base of Macs is now around 12% of all PCs.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> The screen rendering in FF3 is handled by the Cairo layer, and Cairo had any number of issues in rendering LCD screens, though these have probably either been ironed out, or subverted in order to allow the release of a non-beta FF3.


But you see, that's what annoys me, first someone says that many aren't going to it because of such and such bug, then send me off on some research to try to figure out why I haven't had a problem, only to have the person update and be like "oh, yea it was just the beta". Some people probably never bothered to upgrade to FF3 just cuz they heard there was a bug and didn't confirm one way or another. 



EvanPitts said:


> I have never had a problem with Javascripts or Google Maps on Safari 1.2. In fact, I was using Google Maps yesterday and I has no problem.


We have a G4 in the office running 10.3.9 with the latest version of Safari 1.* google maps looks like it went thru a blender (oddly the same way google map looks on internet explorer 8 beta). Usually because the browser was unble to execute the AJAX style javascript framework. 



EvanPitts said:


> Definitely Panther. I have considered Tiger only because some software is no longer Panther compatible, but the caveats of Tiger are a deal killer for me.


Was there something Tiger introduced, that would have been better left to Panther?



EvanPitts said:


> Safari 1 has tabbed browsing - but I need to have non-tabbed browsing for my research, *and it is a hassle to toggle between tabbed and non-tabbed.* Two browsers end up being a better deal, as I can be downloading data with Safari, while using Firefox for other things. And that is only an example. Most people end up needing to use multiple browsers for any number of reasons - and I only pointed that out because the surveys never take that into account.


Never heard of the "New window" command or Command+N ? (likewise Command+T for new tab), you could in essence have one window with some tabs and the other one as a new window with just what you want.



EvanPitts said:


> This is something you really have to expect, since there is such a large base of entirely usable computers out in the real world. Not everyone can afford to buy the latest and greatest new machine every six months, and it is even worse with Apple since their older machines were well made and can last for many years without problems. One can still download IE 5:mac, as it is the end of the line as far as IE goes. IE 6 for Windoze was a horror show...


Oh I already expect it, and usually thats why I want to know percentage, because sometimes a problem between say Safari 2 and 3 for example might just be a single line of CSS code, and I can work around that if it opens up another subset of viewers. But if the % is too low its not usually worth the time wasting trying to fix it or research it. I know some of the clients do have older browsers (Which theres no excuse why they can't upgrade it if its on windows for example), and usually have to explain to them... do they want it to look right for just them... or for the customers they hope to attract?



EvanPitts said:


> I think that if a web designer wants to have as many users as possible, they will make sure to construct a site to the lowest common denominator. Plus, some web designers are entirely certain that people want to have to suffer through crummy endless flash video or crummy animations - when really, people just want to get to some information. I can't tell you how many sites are so poorly written that one can not even find anything of use, though I suppose they may look cute if I had high-speed Internet that could download the pages in under five minutes. But the availability if high-speed Internet is another topic altogether.


I very very very very very very very rarely ever incorporate flash into my design, and even with websites I try to keep all the graphic design elements and so forth clean and small as possible while still being aesthetically pleasing. Course the sites are targeted towards broadband usage, but not to a ridiculous extent.

I try to keep the front page load under 300K if all possible which is usually quite fast for for even low end broad band (though a little bit of fun for dialup users going at 6 to 12K/sec, but out target demographic isn't dialup users unless we're specified to make a lo-band version of a site) Usually once the front page has loaded each additional page usually has no more than 20 to 70K of data most of which being design elements if necessary. Fortunately most browsers and webservers now days support data compression on the fly.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

krs said:


> These browser usage statistics are based on the browser people actually use to access the web and not what is installed on their computers.
> Or better, based on the "browser information" the browser sends to the web sites.
> If you look at the original study for example, you will not find Camino on the list because it reports itself as 'Mozilla'.
> And if Safari is set up to look like IE to access a particular website, these statistic gatherers will count that as Internet Explorer.
> ...


Yea, in the settings of firefox (you gota go thru the developer console) you can actually change the HTTP-Agent to send a different kind of string to the server which would get counted as unknown or a different type of browser. 

But thats exactly what I was getting at earlier, not what browsers were installed (since just bout every windows user gona have IE),but what browsers they were actually viewing with. 

I have webstats installed on my hosting but it doesn't specify between versions of Safari. To make matters worse, it seems any version of Safari prior to 2007 had an http-agent string declaring it as Mozilla (Konquerer did the same thing). So several browers could be mashed up into one category far as statistics go. I might just have to download the Raw logs for the last 60 days and build my own script.

I could however tell you exactly what version, and subversions of internet explorer visited my site though. But not like that really matters much I'm having to fix sites for IE anyways for every single site. (I'm getting really good however to know what CSS and DocType declaration tweaks I need to do before hand to minimize problems with IE).


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

So, let's review, shall we?

1. Despite the kind of poorly-written lead, the actual article makes clear that nearly eight percent of all web surfers are using Macs, and that six and a half percent (or about 80 percent of the Mac audience) are using a browser that reports as Safari.

2. Karl seems to want to know what percentage of the 80% are using Safari 3. At present, I don't believe that's it's possible to get a reasonably objective answer to that question. Currently the best method is simply to find out how many surfers are on 10.5, as that is almost exclusively where Safari 3 is used (yes, I know its also available for very late-release Tiger, but very VERY few Tigers users update their browser unless forced to).

3. It is broadly true that WHATEVER default browser is shipped on a given computer, 80% or so of those users will use that browser. Sometimes this is due to work rules, but generally its user laziness.

4. Firefox is a fine browser. Safari is a fine browser. They make for serious competition with each other.

5. Pre-2005 version of Safari reported as Konqueror, not Mozilla. This is because it is pre-Webkit, when the KHTML engine's roots were more prominent. KHTML is still at the core of Webkit, but it now reports as itself to distinguish Safari users from Konqueror (etc) users.

6. I cannot find documentation of it now, but Safari on Windows use is statistically insignificant (ie below Linux browsers in popularity).


----------



## Quicksilver G4 (Jan 29, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> Safari did not come with the retail version of Jaguar, and it does require a full update to 10.2.8 to run. Jaguar shipped with Interblech Exploder, and perhaps one of the ugliest user interfaces I have ever seen.
> 
> There was a Beta version of Safari which may have run on earlier versions of Jaguar, but I never used them, nor do I have a copy of it in my collection.


Please don't do that again, I was about to search for Interblech Exploder in google! I was like "Huh?"

Internet Explorer was a good browser in its time, today it's not much use but it was a really nice browser in my opinion. Today, web pages don't display correctly in that browser but, again at its time it was pretty good.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

As for #6 I would have to guess because most the time those using Safari on windows are likely already Mac owners, then you have to take into account how many Mac users will even run windows on their machine, let alone know or bother to download Safari for windows. (someone like myself may not bother if windows is only being installed for development purpose for the most part, and would be used with the intention of using internet explorer for testing purposes). 

Its probably reasonable to assume that as you said that any Safari reported are most likely 2+ since 1 would have likely been reported as Konquerer. But far as upgrade path, at least users of Tiger can download themselves Safari 3. (Kinda wish I could find Safari 2 as a stand alone app to try)

Anyways... I found this on Apple's developer site



> 2. What is the Safari user-agent string?
> 
> The complete user-agent string for Safari 2 and below running on Mac OS X with a PowerPC or Intel processor:
> 
> ...


So as of 2 they will least say what version of Safari they are even if in general they're reported as Mozzilla to a typical web statistics engine. (If I'm desperate enough I can just parse the raw logs). 

I basically use these browsers in testing/designing. 

- Firefox 3
- Safari 3 (99% of the time it works like Firefox, the javascript being very close, CSS rarely but sometimes needs a tweak for layout dimensions)
- Internet Explorer 7 (I don't think I have to tell you the % of time spent making compliant javascript and CSS work identically in IE)

I'll check Opera 9 on occasion but if something don't work I usually don't worry about it. CSS for the most part seems to be fine on Opera 9 in the way I write it for FireFox/Safari, but javascript expecially ajax/prototype/scriptaculous doesn't always work in Opera and its too much effort to make it work, and too little % of viewers to bother.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

Quicksilver G4 said:


> Please don't do that again, I was about to search for Interblech Exploder in google! I was like "Huh?"
> 
> Internet Explorer was a good browser in its time, today it's not much use but it was a really nice browser in my opinion. Today, web pages don't display correctly in that browser but, *again at its time it was pretty good.*



You'd probably have a slightly different set of opinions if you were a developer with several government contracts (mostly state level) at the time, being required to make a website that had javascript interactivity, and it had to look and work the same in both Nutscrape 3 and Internet exploder 4. I managed to do it, but not without boiling the blood from time to time. 

... Doesn't even look like they changed the logo or graphics since I left back in 2001/2002 : WebSARAS (Basically its an ASP web application that I had to write some VC++ and VB activex classes for to allow the ASP site to access a couple billion records of employment data from either oracle or microsoft SQL server, but at the same time had to make the front part of the site work with IE and Netscape.) If you went to Tools then multiple print, that was the bit that was *really fun* to make work in both browsers identically and to mark all those check boxes automatically and submit the data to the ASP, course now days with the newer browsers I'd have a much easier approach to that. (seems the way they left it doesn't even work in FireFox 3)

But back in that day, if the site had any interactivity at all, or needed to develop complex (respectively speaking) scripting and didn't want to slow speed of Java (keep in mind dialup will still prominent even then, especially among people who would be working for the state), internet explorer was usually the only browser you supported.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

kb244 said:


> Some people probably never bothered to upgrade to FF3 just cuz they heard there was a bug and didn't confirm one way or another.


Actually, the bug is still inherent, and the writers of Cairo are still trying to iron out the rendering bugs, while the Firefox writers have a working runaround for it in place. Some people will not convert for any number of reasons, this among them. I think it would be bad practice to write a web site based on Firefox 3 usage, as it puts many people out in the dark; but then, it is up to the web site author to decide whether or not they want their site to be usable.



> We have a G4 in the office running 10.3.9 with the latest version of Safari 1.* google maps looks like it went thru a blender (oddly the same way google map looks on internet explorer 8 beta).


Very strange, as I have never seen that problem at all. Are you sure you have the latest Java update on that system?



> Was there something Tiger introduced, that would have been better left to Panther?


Too many things that should have been options that can not be turned of or just not installed. The biggest deal killer is Spotlight, and turning it off clobbers the Find command. But I was never a fan of widgets - Konfabulator was entirely adequate for those who wanted them, and it should be entirely optional. I also really am repulsed by the poor graphic design of Dashboard, perhaps the ugliest thing I have seen since Windoze. I think the other thing is that you couldn't purchase a CD installable version without going through the whole sending disks and money away to Apple. Tiger would be an upgrade path if it wasn't for these system resource wasting items.



> Never heard of the "New window" command or Command+N ? ...


Of course, but I need (and prefer) to have a non-tabbed browser for doing my research.



> do they want it to look right for just them... or for the customers they hope to attract?


And that is why it is important to keep a site as basic as possible - because the inclusion of too many frills will simply see people not bothering to stay on a site. But that is up to the company, they either want to have as many users as possible, or they may choose only to go with the select elite who live in the right neighbourhoods and who have access to high speed services and the fanciest new machines.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> I think it would be bad practice to write a web site based on Firefox 3 usage, as it puts many people out in the dark; but then, it is up to the web site author to decide whether or not they want their site to be usable.


Not really since in my testing of FireFox 3 beta, just bout every site I've written appeared identically under FF3 as it did under FF2. Worse case scenario, I'd have FF2 on one of the boot camp installations, or off my external bootable drive.

By the way bout the font rendering thing, if you could least provide me a link to where you're getting this info, otherwise I'll just have to consider it hearsay as I could not find anything myself.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> Too many things that should have been options that can not be turned of or just not installed. The biggest deal killer is Spotlight, and turning it off clobbers the Find command. But I was never a fan of widgets - Konfabulator was entirely adequate for those who wanted them, and it should be entirely optional. I also really am repulsed by the poor graphic design of Dashboard, perhaps the ugliest thing I have seen since Windoze. I think the other thing is that you couldn't purchase a CD installable version without going through the whole sending disks and money away to Apple. Tiger would be an upgrade path if it wasn't for these system resource wasting items.


Programs like OnyX and such can turn off dashboard completely so you don't even have it. Not to mention do similar things to spotlight (though there are applications that rely on spotlight, it can however be easily removed from the finder bar leaving the underlying system intact). Although spotlight does take reasources indexing a drive, it actually helps future task become faster. 

In fact I used OnyX to pretty much turn off all animation on leopard, as well as revert the dock to 2D and so forth.


----------



## Iqueld (Jul 5, 2008)

One of the things that bug me about FF3 are that the devs left out some keyboard shortcuts that I kinda miss, like ctrl+F12 to undo close tab


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I used to like Safari a lot but it would always get miscellaneous errors on YouTube and eBay for some reason since they forced us to move up to Safari 3 with the release of Leopard. I've been oh so patient and just dealt with it over the past few months hoping that they would fix it but we're at 10.5.4 and still nothing. And with Firefox 3 going leaps and bounds above Firefox 2 which I thought was slow and too PC like, it has now become my browser of choice with massive speed improvements, interface improvements, and doesn't scream "I'm ported from PC/Linux!"


----------



## Quicksilver G4 (Jan 29, 2008)

Yeah, occasionally I get errors when browsing eBay too.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Quicksilver G4 said:


> Yeah, occasionally I get errors when browsing eBay too.


With eBay one never knows if the problem is the browser or the web site.

eBay constantly screws around with their web site; their designers don't seem to know what they are doing or perhaps the site is just too big to manage.
I often find that things that worked just fine yesterday no longer work today - nothing to do with the browser.
I can try Camino (my default) or Safari or Firefox or Opera - all have the same problem.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

krs said:


> With eBay one never knows if the problem is the browser or the web site.
> 
> eBay constantly screws around with their web site; their designers don't seem to know what they are doing or perhaps the site is just too big to manage.
> I often find that things that worked just fine yesterday no longer work today - nothing to do with the browser.
> I can try Camino (my default) or Safari or Firefox or Opera - all have the same problem.


Course don't forget eBay is a lot like MySpace in a way, sellers can like MySpace users insert their own HTML as well as CSS. It's CSS that can cause the problems since you can redefine the look of something on the entire page.

For example a seller could inadvertently type (or cut and paste, take your pick)


```
<style>
img { border: 2px solid blue; }
</style>
```
hopeing to put a border on their embeded pictures, but what they don't know is that rule will be applied to every element on the page (as opposed to using something like .mypic class), as a result every graphic button, etc etc will have a 2 pixel border around them upon visiting that auction .


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

kb244 said:


> Course don't forget eBay is a lot like MySpace in a way, sellers can like MySpace users insert their own HTML as well as CSS. It's CSS that can cause the problems since you can redefine the look of something on the entire page.


True enough, but I was thinking of basic ebay software not html code a specific ebayer may have included in a listing.

For example: when I buy things in Europe, I usually pay via bank transfer since that is the quickest, easiest and cheapest for me and for the seller.

Ebay is supposed to automatically provide the banking information for that if the seller has provided this to ebay.
That used to work just fine, then a few months ago it stopped working and no banking information at all was displayed.
After complaining to ebay a few times, I now receive partial banking information, just the account holder's name and account number, but not the bank ID, so it's still useless.

Another example is ebay's latest Beta software. Someone decided to revamp everything to such a degree that it has become very cumbersome to find things.
One basically has to guess under what links certain information is located to be able to get there.
I change my shipping address quite regularly depending which country I buy from. With the current "my ebay" page, there is a direct link to my shipping addresses - with the new beta that link has disappeared and it's anyone's guess where it is located now.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

krs said:


> True enough, but I was thinking of basic ebay software not html code a specific ebayer may have included in a listing.
> 
> For example: when I buy things in Europe, I usually pay via bank transfer since that is the quickest, easiest and cheapest for me and for the seller.
> 
> ...


Well also keep in mind, eBay owns paypal, and they discourage if not flat out tell sellers/buyers that anything other than paypal (especially bank transfers, or western union etc) are considered unsafe, or in some case against policy on ebay. So depends on the actual manner of payment, but basically if its not paypal or a check ebay considers it unsecure. (and if its not paypal, ebay severely limits your protection as a buyer). 

As it is right now I really don't care for ebay, they ruined pretty much most of the small businesses thriving off it, not with just hike in fees, but now making it where buyers cannot receive negative or neutral feedbacks, but sellers can. (on paper it looks good for the buyers, but the buyers in the end will suffer the most when most sellers pack up and leave because ebay favors only the high bulk out-of-china mass sellers).

PS: There's a reason why its called _Beta_, users are of course able to opt out of the beta, but keeping in mind that when it becomes final you'll only be able to use the interface for so long. Just like last time.


----------



## mgmitchell (Apr 4, 2008)

The heading grabbed me. Am I really in the minority, using Safari, about 95% of the time? Should I be on Firefox?
Small world, by the way, another Belleville Mac'er. The odds must be slim.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
No, nothing wrong with Safari, it just doesn't handle some of the popular add ons that Firefox has, like FlashBlock / AdBlock, which in this day and age makes web browsing bearable. Safari is getting long in the tooth, it's been a long time since it has been updated, and I don't think it will ever get an update - but it does have it's place. Plus, there is no problems running multiple browsers on a Mac, each with a purpose...


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

mgmitchell said:


> The heading grabbed me. Am I really in the minority, using Safari, about 95% of the time? Should I be on Firefox?
> Small world, by the way, another Belleville Mac'er. The odds must be slim.


No, no, Safari is very good. You have chosen wisely, my child.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> ^^^
> No, nothing wrong with Safari, it just doesn't handle some of the popular add ons that Firefox has, like FlashBlock / AdBlock, which in this day and age makes web browsing bearable. Safari is getting long in the tooth, it's been a long time since it has been updated, and I don't think it will ever get an update - but it does have it's place. Plus, there is no problems running multiple browsers on a Mac, each with a purpose...


Not to mention from a developer's standpoint *most* of everything that works in FireFox seems to work in Safari, so not like web compliant code is alienating Safari either. (not to mention in a way FireFox is very developer friendly when you consider the plugins).


----------



## mgmitchell (Apr 4, 2008)

Thanks for this! Useful thoughts, all. Indeed, Spock. I'll stay with Safari. I don't much need all the fancy-pants stuff. I'm just a regular surfer without the tan; music, news sites, sports sites, podcasts. The "add-ons" - whatever they are - not really a necessity for me. I do have Firefox on the dock if need be. Should I be upgrading to 3?


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

mgmitchell said:


> Thanks for this! Useful thoughts, all. Indeed, Spock. I'll stay with Safari. I don't much need all the fancy-pants stuff. I'm just a regular surfer without the tan; music, news sites, sports sites, podcasts. The "add-ons" - whatever they are - not really a necessity for me. I do have Firefox on the dock if need be. Should I be upgrading to 3?


one of the reasons Firefox was considered 'most secure' was because nearly 85% of it's users upgrade to the latest version when it becomes available. I would least copy Firefox3 to a new folder, and give it a try first just to make sure you don't have problems. I haven't had a problem at all, but meh always good to check first. 

As a developer I use the following add-ons
- LittleFox theme (much nicer/simpler looking than the OSX-look alike they attempted with the default theme)
- FireBug (a javascript/etc debugger for firefox, shows you javascript actions, outgoing post/get request, ajax stuff, etc ,as well as modify or observe active cookies)
- AdBlock, blocks just bout any ad and easy to add stuff to the block list, but also just as easy to tell it to white list a site (such as ones you may be developing). 
- Inspect This - Similar to Safari's Inspect ability.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

mgmitchell said:


> I'm just a regular surfer without the tan; music, news sites, sports sites, podcasts. The "add-ons" - whatever they are - not really a necessity for me.


The AdBlock plug in gets rid of annyong ads and beg screens, and can also do a number on pop-ups, pop-unders, pop-wherevers. I use it pretty heavily because some sites are too slow to render with all of the junk.

FlashBlock gets rid of annoying Flash video that some sites are plagued with.

I also like to run iFoxMetal, which makes the interface somewhat acceptable (the default looks like some grade 2 kid designed it); AutoStopPlay, so I don't have to listen to someones annoying web site music when I am listening to iTunes; and FlagFox, which gives me a hint of where a web site is operating.

You do not need these for browsing - but for me, it makes browsing tolerable. I do prefer the more professional interface, and some of the other neat features that Safari has on sites like archive.org...



> I do have Firefox on the dock if need be. Should I be upgrading to 3?


Firefox 3 is for fancy new systems, so if you are fancy new, you can reap benefits. The speed of the underlying Gecko engine is somewhat improved, and downloading is no longer broken and brain damaged. But if you run older hardware and good versions of OSX like Panther, it will be a no-go. It's for Tiger or Leopard only.

But you should try it out because it is better at rendering some sites that spew out rendering bugs.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> The AdBlock plug in gets rid of annyong ads and beg screens, and can also do a number on pop-ups, pop-unders, pop-wherevers. I use it pretty heavily because some sites are too slow to render with all of the junk.
> 
> FlashBlock gets rid of annoying Flash video that some sites are plagued with.


Seem to be doing double there, AdBlock can hide/disable flash just fine, just point it to the specific flash file (or block all swf files on a site). 




EvanPitts said:


> Firefox 3 is for fancy new systems, so if you are fancy new, you can reap benefits. The speed of the underlying Gecko engine is somewhat improved, and downloading is no longer broken and brain damaged. But if you run older hardware and good versions of OSX like Panther, it will be a no-go. It's for Tiger or Leopard only.
> 
> But you should try it out because it is better at rendering some sites that spew out rendering bugs.


FF2's downloading was broken and brain dead? Really? I never noticed...


----------



## mgmitchell (Apr 4, 2008)

Loads of interesting thoughts, thanks for this.


----------



## webterractive (Jun 13, 2008)

Safari's ok I prefer Camino better


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

kb244 said:


> Seem to be doing double there, AdBlock can hide/disable flash just fine, just point it to the specific flash file (or block all swf files on a site).


It's more rigamarole to just use AdBlock rather than using the combo, because there are times that I want to see something that is Flash - so all I have to do with FlashBlock is click on the giant F and I can watch it. With AdBlock, I could block it, but then I would have to unblock it to watch, then I would have to block it once again...



> FF2's downloading was broken and brain dead? Really? I never noticed...


FF2 can not resume a download if the session is broken for any reason; and you can not download a series of files by dragging from a list from a text file, like you can easily do in Safari. It's also harder to extract certain downloads out of a web page because of the lack of an Activity Viewer, something that even ancient Exploder could do but FF couldn't. FF2 is fine on a straight HTTPGet, so you may not have ever noticed the brain damage.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

webterractive said:


> Safari's ok I prefer Camino better


I was trying out Camino, but the method for changing the theme is quite dumb. I had downloaded the theme I wanted, then the stupid program starts downloading every theme possible, including the communist pinko ones that I don't want.

If they want to gain some users, their program will have to become a bit more professional in look and use.


----------



## RC51Pilot (Mar 26, 2004)

Macinguelph said:


> I personally love Safari and use Webkit daily. Firefox is my browser of 2nd choice and my first choice on the Windows side.


ditto


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

RC51Pilot said:


> ditto


With the release of Safari 4 Beta, I'm in love, especially with the 100% CSS3 compliancy. Shame the rest of the browsers aren't even close, cuz I'd love to design just for webkit but... I got the other 80% of the web I gota consider.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

RC51Pilot said:


> ditto


ditto ditto


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Quicksilver G4 said:


> Please don't do that again, I was about to search for Interblech Exploder in google! I was like "Huh?"
> 
> Internet Explorer was a good browser in its time, today it's not much use but it was a really nice browser in my opinion. Today, web pages don't display correctly in that browser but, again at its time it was pretty good.


I find that's the problem with MicroSoft products in general. They were designed for a long time ago. A general lack of innovation means always playing catchup with Apple products. Witness the Zune, for example, or Internet Explorer, or Windows Mobile. Of course, the Surface and the Sphere were innovative…


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> IOf course, the Surface and the Sphere were innovative…


Well, they were different. I don't think I'd call them innovative, since they basically jury-rigged a way to imitate the iPhone's conventions.

But even claiming they were innovative, how many have you actually seen around? The "Surface" computer debuted two years ago now; the Sphere a year and a half ago. Indeed, when was the last time you heard of any news regarding these products?

Meanwhile, millions of people all over the world are pinching zoom or shrink, using fingers to move documents and photos around, etc ... on the iPhone/iPod Touch.


----------



## G-Mo (Sep 26, 2007)

chas_m said:


> Well, they were different. I don't think I'd call them innovative, since they basically jury-rigged a way to imitate the iPhone's conventions.
> 
> But even claiming they were innovative, how many have you actually seen around? The "Surface" computer debuted two years ago now; the Sphere a year and a half ago. Indeed, when was the last time you heard of any news regarding these products?
> 
> Meanwhile, millions of people all over the world are pinching zoom or shrink, using fingers to move documents and photos around, etc ... on the iPhone/iPod Touch.


You are talking out of you ass on this one Chas... Surface development began in 2001 and the concept was used in the movie Minority Report (2002) after consultation with the director and Microsoft. Apple's foray in to touchscreens and gesture computing came significantly later!

Surface is not available for general consumers... "Initial customers will be in the hospitality businesses, such as restaurants, hotels, retail, public entertainment venues and the military for tactical overviews. The preliminary launch was on April 17, 2008, when Surface became available for customer use in AT&T stores. The Surface is also being used in the CBS series CSI: Miami, where the crime lab uses it for investigation purposes; the MSNBC coverage of the 2008 US presidential election; Disneyland’s future home exhibits; and various hotels and casinos. As of March 2009, Microsoft had 120 partners in 11 countries that are developing applications for Surface's interface." (Microsoft Surface - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Surface is only in it's infancy, but it's growing!!


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

G-Mo said:


> Surface is only in it's infancy, but it's growing!!


Call us (with a Surface Phone) when it's out of diapers and walking and stuff.


----------



## G-Mo (Sep 26, 2007)

HowEver said:


> Call us (with a Surface Phone) when it's out of diapers and walking and stuff.


Please! It's hardly a "Surface Phone"... While the iPhone touch gestures are in more common use, Surface is way more powerful...


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

G-Mo said:


> Please! It's hardly a "Surface Phone"... While the iPhone touch gestures are in more common use, Surface is way more powerful...


I was referencing the availability of the iPhone vs. surface-anything. I can, and have, obtained an iPhone.

I guess I can watch Minority Report or CSI: Miami over and over if I want to experience Surface.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

Wow, that makes for 94% of Mac users that don't enjoy speed (faster browser on the Mac), security (most secure browser on Mac OR PC), and people that don't use RSS feeds? heh heh okay I LOVE RSS and do understand that most have no idea how it works, but still....

Silly silly people, maybe they are recently switch and just can't let some of the faulty PC software go?


----------



## G-Mo (Sep 26, 2007)

HowEver said:


> I was referencing the availability of the iPhone vs. surface-anything. I can, and have, obtained an iPhone.
> 
> I guess I can watch Minority Report or CSI: Miami over and over if I want to experience Surface.


Surface "computing" isn't for the home yet... probably why Apple hasn't released an official touchscreen "computer"...

(iPhone and iPod touch, while technically computers, aside...)


----------



## spiffychristian (Mar 17, 2008)

.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

spiffychristian said:


> firefox all the way!


I stopped using FireFox 3 when i it started to get ungodly slow for me, I do not like having to wait 5 to 10 seconds just to type a url. Safari can pull up recent history and suggestions without locking up my cursor.

Otherwise FF would still be my #1 choice, as it is right now, not only is FF too slow for me, it also doesn't fully support CSS2 and even CSS3 like Safari 4 can.


----------



## G-Mo (Sep 26, 2007)

kb244 said:


> Otherwise FF would still be my #1 choice, as it is right now, not only is FF too slow for me, it also doesn't fully support CSS2 and even CSS3 like Safari 4 can.


CCS3 is still under development and hasn't even been finalized yet...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

G-Mo said:


> The Surface is also being used in the CBS series CSI: Miami, where the crime lab uses it for investigation purposes; the MSNBC coverage of the 2008 US presidential election; Disneyland’s future home exhibits; and various hotels and casinos.


Yeah, pretty hard core testing of the Surface, seeing the relative importance of such technology when it comes to solving crimes in CSI: Miami; and considering the number of people that watched MSNBC election coverage, not many people have even seen a Surface being used for such things.

Looks like a dud to me.


----------



## G-Mo (Sep 26, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> Yeah, pretty hard core testing of the Surface, seeing the relative importance of such technology when it comes to solving crimes in CSI: Miami; and considering the number of people that watched MSNBC election coverage, not many people have even seen a Surface being used for such things.
> 
> Looks like a dud to me.


You look like a dud to me.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

G-Mo said:


> CCS3 is still under development and hasn't even been finalized yet...


either way, still has better CSS support even for CSS2.1, and also lets consider ... CSS been defined/introduced back before 2000... yet its taking this long just to implment it


----------

