Slashdot Mirror

1. Open your Preferences panel. 2. Click on JavaScript 3. Set "Scripts are allowed to open new windows:" to "only in response to a link being clicked"

Odd, seems to work fine in Omniweb, which everyone always complains has bad javascript support.

On the browser you use. For instance, my favorite browser, Omniweb [http://www.omnigroup.com/products/omniweb/] has some really nice ad blocking features. Not only can you block out images from ad related sites, with a built in filter, but you can also disable pop up and pop under ads whilst still leaving JavaScripting enabled. And, even in the beta release that I currently use, Omniweb actually feels nicer than a lot of commercial browsers out there. Additional: For those who aren't aware of Omniweb, it should be noted that it's Mac OS X only. It would be nice to see if they'd port it to other OSes, but that might involve a port of Cocoa as well.

Yes, I'm sure we all agree that popups are truly a pain, but we also run into some other issues with this: at what point do you draw the line between annoying and helpful?

What if a page is designed to use window.open() in a helpful way? Is disabling it in this scenario beneficial?

This was most of the reason why <blink> disappeared (mostly... now it's available in CSS): There weren't ANY ways to use it without being obnoxious.

That's funny. When I post to Slashdot, I get client-side spell-checking right there in the text box.

Of course, I'm using the best web browser on the best platform, so your mileage my vary.

It's not a Linux browser, but OmniWeb for Mac OS X does this..

OmniOutliner

StickyBrain

And I swear I've seen it in a few others. I don't think Microsoft has a particular claim on that UI widget.

They're right. Almost. It feels a little slow to me, but not unbearably so. Perhaps my tolerance is too high, but I don't feel like I'm sitting around waiting for the system. Or perhaps (since I've been using Mac OS X since the first day of the public beta and Mac OS for several years!) I'm so impressed with the overall improvements to my "computing experience" that have come with Mac OS X that I don't notice *all* of the warts. Frankly, I've had my performance complaints, and the browser hasn't been one of them. Don't get me started on the Finder...

My system is an iMac DV G3/400MHz with 512MB RAM and a 27GB internal HD. Certainly not a performance champ... in fact, except for the RAM it's rather low-end. My point of reference for Wintel is my work PC, an IBM thinkpad 1GHZ, 392MB/32GB running RedHat 7.2 and occasionally booting into Win2k (when I need to edit someone else's MS Project or Visio files). For most operations (checking e-mail, running MS Office, browsing) I don't find that the iMac *feels* slower. Most days, I work from my home office with the two machines sitting side by side. I don't find myself turning to the Thinkpad for browsing; in fact, it's rather the opposite. I do much of my office correspondence on the iMac due to the superiority of the Office implementation for Mac OS X.

Perhaps the reason I don't find it so slow, though, is that I seldom use MSIE. I am not morally opposed to MSIE; I do use office after all, and actually like office V.X. (It's the first version I've liked since the version with Word 5 (Office 4.0?), though I found Office 98 tolerable.) MSIE is just not the best browser for Mac OS X. Its rendering engine is buggy, and it's *SLOW*. By that, I mean that it feels significantly slower than the other browsers I use. I find that I use 3 browsers:

1. Mozilla - It's reasonably fast. My main complaint is that it takes almost 15 seconds to launch! Once it's launched, I find page loading to be fast and stable. It takes a few seconds to open the preferences panel, but that's no different from Moz on my Linux box, which is faster than my Mac.
2. Omniweb - It's probably in fact slower than IE, but it feels faster because the threading is better. It doesn't block while it's loading a page, and pages look great because it uses Quartz rendering. It's still slower than Moz, though, even when I compile Quartz rendering into it, and Mozilla has less trouble rendering pages with CSS and Javascript.
3. Chimera - This one is going to be the best, hands down. It's fast as blazes, even on my hardware. It's the first browser I've used on any other platform that felt as fast as Galeon. It's in a very early dev version, though, and far from feature complete. I like it a lot, so far.

All that said, though, IE is the default, and it's IE that the Mac will be judged on. I think the Moz crew has proven that the performance hit is not all apple's fault, though. Even so, Apple and MS would be well served to ensure that IE and Office are really snappy on Apple's newest hardware and OS combinations. I don't doubt that they will, now that OS development seems to have stabilized somewhat.

Hi, I like how omnigroup lets you try out their software. No registration, instant download, you can get a trial version as often as you like (its only valid for one day). Look at their store to see what I mean.

Totally hassle free. If you need the software, you'll buy it (eventually).
CU
Christian

Not entirely Free Software...

If it weren't for the no-sale clause in section 3 of the license ("3. You may not charge a fee for the Software...") it could qualify as a non-copylefted Free Software license. As it is, it's not Free Software at all.

Not entirely Free Software, but go to their website and you can download the frameworks that OmniWeb uses. Very useful stuff.

This great OS is the foundation on which Apple and the Mac will be built on for years to come

oh, for chrissakes. the mac survived for over 15 years without a hint of heritage from NeXT - in fact, it was quite the opposite, NeXT was founded by Jobs after his ousting from Apple. NeXT was hampered by typically "Steve" problems that were possibly ahead of their time, like a network-booted OS and lack of a disk drive in their NeXT cubes.

regardless, only in OS X's "yellow box" or "cocoa" or whatever the hell you want to call it does Apple show some sign of latter-day NeXT inheritance. WebObjects is still largely proprietary, and is only used as a medium-sized in house business solution. Objective-C is nice, but only in writing "Cocoa" apps that can take advantage of OS X-specific features like antialiased text and the Services menu and so forth.

Java is well-supported on the platform and the majority of the OS X native apps being produced today are using the Carbon APIs, not Cocoa. The mach microkernel, darwin, Java, Classic support and Carbon... there's more to the OS than NeXT legacy, and there's more to Apple than OS X.

I'm all for cleanly-written slick Objective-C apps like OmniWeb, but this is by no means the future of the Mac.

1. the first time you used any Unix?
2. the first time you switched to Linux?
3. the first time you used OS X?

I'm not the original poster, but here's a related comment: possibly my most joyful moment in using OS X was when I switched from an Aqua application (running locally, obviously) to an X-Windows application (running remotely on a Solaris/SPARC box) without even noticing it. That's a spicy meatball.

And, honestly, the experience of using UNIX for the very first time could never be described as joyful. Interesting? Yes. Powerful? Yes. But joyful? C'mon now....

As for a top-five list, personally I think leaving out the GUI is, well, pretty stupid. Face it: a GUI is one of the most important facets of how usable a computer is. That said, here's my crack at it:

1. Installation. It takes 10 minutes from "Insert CD" to "Play MP3's streaming from the Internet". I've got RedHat down to about 25 - 35 minutes, but it's a chore.
2. Development. My professional job is developing software for Solaris/SPARC, and the Carbon/Cocoa API's take out a lot of the hassle. Plus, you get a full-featured IDE (ProjectBuilder) and scores of professional-grade development tools for free. Yes, they're based on the GNU compiler suite, but the stuff you get on top of that (packaging & UI-building tools in particular) are excellent.
3. Laptop fanciness. I do my development (both for work and personal stuff) everywhere and anywhere that I can (network connection provided, that is). For 3 years I ran Linux on a laptop with varying levels of satisfaction. Getting it to do somewhat simple things (sleeping when I closed the lid, etc etc) was a challenge. Sometimes I enjoyed the challenge, but sometimes I just wanted the damn thing to work. Oh yeah, and the batteries last 5 hours per charge.
4. Main-Stream programs. All hate-mongering aside, MS Office is useful (and necessary for some people). Adobe Acrobat (not just the reader) is great. I like being able to run Palm Desktop when I need complicated appointments, and 'cal' from the command line when I'm just looking for a date.OmniGraffle is quite possibly the best diagramming program to date. Using OS X (with its MacOS history of having strong graphical programs), I can produce documentation that blows the door off of anything I could create with StarOffice/KDE Office/Gimp. I'm not discounting the usefulness of these open-sourced (and very competent) apps -- the OS X ones are simply better. Yes, more expensive, but it's worth the cost to me.
5. Top-end hardware support. Bluetooth, firewire, CD-RW, DVD, etc etc. It's all built in to a point that you don't even think about using it. You can burn a CD by drag-and-drop from the desktop for crissake.

Wow... looks like I'd better get off of the soap box before it breaks from all my gushing.... Basically, in my mind, OS X is an phenomenal accomplishment. It makes my life easier, and it re-taught me to appreciate the beauty of Unix again.

--Mid

Apple realizes that it is converting UNIX engineers (like me) to the Mac platform with OS X. They're simply trying to get more UNIX folks to convert by placing ads in key technical publications

It is odd that IE isn't in the Dock, but the Microsoft Office X suite is well-represented in the Dock.

Apple has a valuable partnership with Microsoft. Sure, there's some rough edges, but for the most part it's a good team. Microsoft even formally announced that it will continue supporting the Mac, even after it's settlement contract expires.

Microsoft apps for the Mac aren't much like their Windows counterparts. They're generally more sensibly written, and the MacBU team seems to pay closer attention to what the user actually wants, instead of what Microsoft thinks they want.

A bigger question may be why they don't have any of the Omni Group's [goatse.cx] software in the Dock. In my humble opinion, Apple is paying too little attention to these people who've been around for years and years (think NeXT) developing great, solid applications.

Not everything is a conspiracy.

The concern about viruses is, I think, a very legitimate one. I'm just glad I use Opera [opera.com], which wouldn't let them do that, I think. Other browsers (Mozilla? Konqueror?) might be just as good, but I haven't tried them.

OmniWeb for Mac OS X has the BEST feature I have ever seen (and haven't seen it replicated in other browsers):

Javascript is:

• Enabled
• Disabled

• always
• only in response to a link being clicked
• never

Of course, not using Windows (and IE) will save you from most of the horrors of the Internet.

Free, only runs Javascript when you specifically click on a link (no pop-ups or pop-unders), filters out those big ads (like the ones on /.), fa-diddily-ast, and only for OS X.

I wish I could share with you how great it is. Go buy a Mac and get Omniweb and find out for yourself.

So what you're saying is, dissent is not allowed in the People's Republic of Open Source.

Hey, I like Mozilla, but it's ugly as sin -- personally, I like OmniWeb. Its speed is merely ok (but getting better) but the text rendering, ooh, the text rendering.

~jeff

One of the thing that is impressive about applications that are written natively for OS X is the installation procedure: it usually involves a complex procedure called "copying". All hyperbole aside, it is that easy.

For instance, I installed MS Office on my laptop a while ago (still waiting on Sun & Apple to resolve their differences & build StarOffice for the Mac). The entire procedure was:

1. Insert Office CD
2. Drag-And-Drop a folder onto my hard drive
3. Start using it.

Installing applications from the Internet is even easier. I'm a happy registered user of OmniGraffle, a diagramming and graphical tool that makes other programs like it feel worthless. The installation process for that is:

1. Download the file, which unpacks as a disk image & it automatically mounted.
2. Drag & Drop the application.
3. Start using it.

Another nifty feature is that, to the high-level graphical interface, an application appears as a Bundle, and therefore it looks like a single executable file. To the regular user, this is a far more intuitive presentation of what an "Application" is. However, if you whip up a terminal & go poking around a bundle, you'll see that it's really a collection of every file the application needs to work.

Mark my words, the Winblows platform will be emulating this behavior within their usual UI 5 year lag.

--Mid

double HA HA: Best Possible OS and Incredibly Beautiful Browser your crap slides right off, foo.

You might have found OmniDiskSweeper handy too.

Ran through the OSX registration procedure

He complains about being forced to register... this has already been commented on. But having no true option is stupid.

Big dialogue box came up: "You need an Administrator password to install the software." Below this, icon of a padlock: "Click the lock to make changes." Totally baffled. What do I do now? No clue how to enter administrator password.

Yeah, that can be confusing. You don't know that your password is an administrator password (it never tells you about the concept of administrators, or that you're it).

Just so you know, he actually took three days to finish Alice (and that was in Easy mode and with a couple of hints on how to beat the bosses. Plus liberal use of cheat keys in final battle.)

I'm better at Alice than he is.

Getting more experience working with new Finder. No longer feel totally mummified, but still not comfortable. Column view -- bleah. (Remember using NeXT boxes in college. Didn't like column view then either.)

Bah, column view was something I always wanted in the Finder. It's good, get used to it :P It's better if you have more folders than files (it's good at finding files deeply nested, and makes it more convenient to have your files deeply nested).

Hit cmd-F to search partition. Oh, no. Sherlock. Forgot how awful Sherlock has become

Sherlock is a bane on the Mac's usefulness. Stupid Steve.

[Dock:] Can click app icon, wait for window list pop-up -- but this is slow and confusing. All Terminal windows have same name anyway

You can Get Info on a Terminal window and change the name. Very useful. Otherwise they have the ttyp# in the name.

Only missing UI element: configurable Apple menu. Or some way to do pop-up menu with hierarchical structure showing a directory tree. Needed for One True Way MacOS structure.

Well, get used to column view, and you've got it. Try this:

1. Click Finder icon in the Dock.
2. Hit Command-opt-F. This brings up Favorites. Set it to Column View.
3. Close window now.
4. Hit Command-opt-F. The finder should remember that that folder should be in Column View (it will also remember the window size, for when you open up a new window, instead of navigating from an existing window).

This animation takes approximately 0.75 seconds. After approximately 0.375 seconds, I am banging on computer top, screaming "Get move on!!"

Yup, there's too much stupid animation in OS X. A lot of it is warranted and doesn't get in your way, a lot of it (like hitting Command-S(ave), return) takes too damn long as the sheets come and go.

How hard would it be to write a freeware Dock item which navigates folder tree, without delays?

Dock menus pop up instantly if you control-click. Or if you have a two button mouse and right click. He finds that out later, but not the two-button thing. I'm happy with one button... I use two at work because I got one there.

Spent more time selecting fonts. Font selection is annoying.

Font selection is pretty awesome, the Font panel resizes. When the panel is small you get popup menus for your fonts. At a bigger size you get scrollable lists. You can organize fonts into your favorite groups (like Monospace fonts, it doesn't do it for you). And you can set your Favorite fonts, and while you're browsing your favs you get a nice little custom UI for it (favs include bold/point size in one click).

More generally: Carbon and Cocoa apps have different font-rendering.

Actually, CoreGraphics (Quartz 2D) and QuickDraw have different font rendering. The Finder is a Carbon app. Some (many) Carbon apps don't want to jump to Quartz because (a) the developers know QuickDraw and (b) Quartz 2D isn't on OS 9, so the app won't run on both platforms.

(Five minutes later: Selected "Get Mac OS X Software..." from Apple menu. Nothing happened. The hell? I've got menu option eating space in Apple menu, can't get rid of it, and it doesn't work? Stupid Steve!)

He deleted IE, and has not set his default web browser (IE is always the fallback browser if it can't find the preferred web browser). Until he goes to Internet prefs and sets his browser of choice, it (and anything else that wants to launch an http url) won't work.

I've deleted IE, the OS X version is an amazing pile of do-do; absolutely busted functionality. OmniWeb, Mozilla, and Chimera rulez.

On the other hand, have sworn off using Help system anyhow, due to annoying animations.

And it takes about 30 seconds to load.

After moving to Mac OS X, I was becoming frustrated with iCab. It's the best on OS 9, but on OS X, it seemed to have issues with event-locking (all of the windows in iCab would be unresonsive while page was in it's last stage of rendering). I used to use OmniWeb in my NeXTSTEP/OpenStep/Rhapsody days, so gave that a try. After running it for a few weeks, there seemed to be some sort of rotting going on, and getting progressively slower. OmniWeb displays pages absolutely beautifully, and initially did so at a satisfactory speed.

So, I thought I'd try Mozilla. This was after 0.9.8. I tried both that release, and a bunch of nightly builds, including ones that people said were "fast and stable." Man, Mozilla still blows. Under Slowaris and OS X, it still uses a huge amount of RAM and CPU time. I very disapointed.

Then I found Opera for OS X. It was great on all fronts except stability. At least a few times a day, Opera just crashes out of nowhere. Not surprising, considering it is a beta version. But this was getting annoying- everytime it'd crash, I'd loose any new bookmarks I made in the session.

Then a friend pointed me to OmniWeb's SneakyPeek releases, which are more or less weekly builds. Compared to OW 4.0.6, the last two SPs I've been running have been really great- faster and more stable than all previous OmniWeb versions I've run. I'll be sticking with it, even. :)

Seeing as my using OmniWeb to view arena.net resulted in a quick glance at the requested page (which looked fine) and then a bounce to ArenaNet Error: Unsupported Browser, I thought I'd respond in kind (note: I didn't actually send HTML email; I had to replace some of the hyphen characters with just bolding the topics so that I wouldn't get blocked by the lameness filter):


To: webmaster@arena.net
Subject: ArenaNet Error: Unsupported Webmaster

Why am I getting this instead of a friendly, congratulatory email?

You are here because the webmaster you are using is apparently too lazy to create pages that work in most browsers, regardless of their support for the full HTML 4.0 specification, including Cascading Style Sheets (CSS).

Most likely, you're losing a decent hunk of viewers because of this.


Why does that matter?

In the pursuit of giving web surfers the kind of experience that you want them to have, as opposed to simply letting them control the experience for themselves (as would tend to be suggested by the HTML and CSS standards), you tried to use the best technology available, which I heartily commend. HTML 4.0 and CSS are examples of some of the best and most widespread standards-based technology available for presenting interactive media to the world. However, you have decided that, rather than simply using these technologies and letting the user decide if and how to implement them on the client-side, your webserver will detect browsers that you haven't tested with and will send the user of said browser to a completely useless page rather than actually delivering the content that the user requested.


What should I do?

If your webmaster can't figure out how to get pages to display at all in browsers other than those created by Netscape and Microsoft, you might want to hire a better one.

If you are running a smart webmaster who has simply gone astray from the vision of the web, you will want to either ask them to change their policies or follow the advice above.

On a positive note, I have actually clicked on relevant banners (not that most sites have them) and more importantly, I have clicked on text links to advertisers. Without relevant (to the website) ads, I never would have found Small Dog Electronics, RamJet, and even CD Now. All of which I have plunked down a large chunk of change at, as well as some other sites. Problem most websites have is that they don't use targeted ads, or they just have a banner that is for a site, instead of like MacInTouch and MacNN that have text links announcing deals for those web sites surfers when they click the links (which I have received some great deals by doing so).

I have banner images turned off in OmniWeb, manly because banner ads are typically junk, but I like relevant text links, or text ad boxes, because advertising works (and I want it to work) when advertisers do a good job. Text links require better targeting, and are more likely to be clicked.

• 468x60 images (the standard size for banner ads), and I can specify other sizes to exclude
• Images that are not on the same server as the html file that called them
• Any URL matching certain reg expressions (like /.*\.doubleclick\.net/ and /graphics4\.nytimes\.com/ads/)

You'll never see that feature in IE or Netscape because Microsoft and AOL own lots of content sites that depend on ads. If you do use OmniWeb, please buy it and show the Omni folks you appreciate their innovations.

• 468x60 images (the standard size for banner ads), and I can specify other sizes to exclude
• Images that are not on the same server as the html file that called them
• Any URL matching certain reg expressions (like /.*\.doubleclick\.net/ and /graphics4\.nytimes\.com/ads/)

You'll never see that feature in IE or Netscape because Microsoft and AOL own lots of content sites that depend on ads. If you do use OmniWeb, please buy it and show the Omni folks you appreciate their innovations.

iCab is a browser that isn't on your list. You might want to give it a try. I prefer OmniWeb -- it's a shame you're having trouble getting it to work, because it really takes the MacOSX UI to heart. Try the latest nightly build (Omni calls them sneakypeaks). It might help.

To get at the OmniWeb 4.1 prereleases, go to:

http://www.omnigroup.com/ftp/pub/software/MacOSX/. sneakypeek/

and follow the instructions there.

Bah, I did it the true Mac geek way and used the Summarize service from OmniWeb:

With a quantum increase in processing power, an ultraefficient new system architecture, next-generation 3D graphics, the revolutionary DVD-R/CD-RW-burning SuperDrive and Mac OS X, the dual 1GHz Power Mac G4 is designed to put your workflow into fast forward.

The dual 1GHz PowerPC G4 processors -- with a combined performance of 15 billion floating point operations per second, or 15 gigaflops -- put this fearsomely fast Power Mac G4 squarely in the lead as the ultimate high-end graphics workstation.

...In the 933MHz and dual 1GHz Power Mac G4 models, faster-than-light processor speed gets an additional boost with an advanced cache memory architecture that provides ultrafast, dedicated memory with massively enhanced throughput. Accessing data from main memory is significantly faster than accessing data from the hard drive, and in these two models the system architecture takes this concept one step further with an even faster level of memory called L3 cache.

...You also get the benefit of built-in Gigabit Ethernet for shooting large files across your LAN at previously unheard of speeds, 56K modem, AirPort Card slot, two 400Mbps FireWire ports and four USB ports (two on the computer, two on the keyboard). Incidentally, FireWire, PCI expansion (four full-length 64-bit, 33MHz PCI slots with 215MB per second throughput) and Gigabit Ethernet are integrated directly into the main system controller, reducing latencies and providing superior I/O performance.

The Power Mac G4 comes with 40GB (800MHz model), 60GB (933Hz model) and 80GB (dual 1GHz model) 7200-rpm Ultra ATA hard disk drives and three 3.5-inch hard disk drive expansion bays--with support for up to two internal ATA drives, three internal SCSI drives, or a combination of two ATA and one SCSI drives for a total of 232GB of internal storage. And since the SuperDrive-equipped Power Mac G4 models come with iDVD 2, you can burn data CDs and DVDs--with point-and-click ease--to archive your work minutes after you take your new system out of its box.

...The 108-key Apple Pro Keyboard features full-size cursor keys for those times when you want zip up, down and sideways to race through image retouching tasks, change direction in games, or jump from place to place in a document.

Services just kick ass. Anyone need anything Defined in OmniDictonary or Searched for in Google?

I've never heard of MORE.. Is it anything like Omni's OmniOutliner?

The mouse had only one mistake originally, it lacked a way to orient it. This was later fixed (a small indent on the button).

Once you've used it for a while, most people seem to like it:

At the risk of incurring the wrath of the group, I have to say I actually rather like the round mice.

At first I hated them, like everyone else seems to. But after a while, I stopped getting the thing the wrong way up and watching the pointer go the wrong way, and I became pretty neutral.

After a few more months, I noticed I was finding the round mice much more comfortable to work with. I'm not sure why - I think the small size gives me more room to move the mouse up and down with my fingertips, without bumping into my palm or losing touch with the buttons. Anyway, I'm not looking back now - it's round mice for me.
Post by Malcolm Cleaton

Those who argue that the round mouse is probably very uncomfortable for experienced mouse users are probably correct. I found it quite horrid for the first 2 to 4 weeks.

But now, it's *great* to use. Those who argue that it simply isn't ergonomic and is therefore completely unfit for use as a mouse are wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Having persevered, I find this the most comfortable and easy to use mouse I've ever used. It's different - but better. It provides effortless fingertip control of the pointer. I use it for hours and hours on end and love it.

Perhaps I wouldn't have come to enjoy the earlier variety - the type without the subtle but completely effective button indent (for orientation) at the top - with it, this USB puck is a delight.
Post by Bahi Para

I was a critic also once (without having used it). But I'm convinced now. Also by the fact that there has been research which shows a round mouse to be optimal.

The mouse had only one mistake originally, it lacked a way to orient it. This was later fixed (a small indent on the button).

Once you've used it for a while, most people seem to like it:

At the risk of incurring the wrath of the group, I have to say I actually rather like the round mice.

At first I hated them, like everyone else seems to. But after a while, I stopped getting the thing the wrong way up and watching the pointer go the wrong way, and I became pretty neutral.

After a few more months, I noticed I was finding the round mice much more comfortable to work with. I'm not sure why - I think the small size gives me more room to move the mouse up and down with my fingertips, without bumping into my palm or losing touch with the buttons. Anyway, I'm not looking back now - it's round mice for me.
Post by Malcolm Cleaton

Those who argue that the round mouse is probably very uncomfortable for experienced mouse users are probably correct. I found it quite horrid for the first 2 to 4 weeks.

But now, it's *great* to use. Those who argue that it simply isn't ergonomic and is therefore completely unfit for use as a mouse are wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Having persevered, I find this the most comfortable and easy to use mouse I've ever used. It's different - but better. It provides effortless fingertip control of the pointer. I use it for hours and hours on end and love it.

Perhaps I wouldn't have come to enjoy the earlier variety - the type without the subtle but completely effective button indent (for orientation) at the top - with it, this USB puck is a delight.
Post by Bahi Para

I was a critic also once (without having used it). But I'm convinced now. Also by the fact that there has been research which shows a round mouse to be optimal.

Then use OmniWeb.

Omnigroup's Omniweb browser (for OSX) gives very simple choices:

Javascript is enabled disabled

Scripts are allowed to open new windows...

• always
• only in response to a link being clicked
• never

• do security checks
• display panel for errors
• show debugging console

Omnigroup's Omniweb browser (for OSX) gives very simple choices:

Javascript is enabled disabled

Scripts are allowed to open new windows...

• always
• only in response to a link being clicked
• never

• do security checks
• display panel for errors
• show debugging console

Mozilla on OS X still sucks nuts, mostly because it looks like a freakin windows app.

Here we've got this amazingly cool window server that moz can't make use of.

Wrap a cocoa ui around gecko and I'm sold. Omni group, I'm looking in your direction...

A good solution to this problem is having the browser identify itself to the HTTP server as what it really is (so that it will be logged correctly) and identify itself to JavaScripts as another browser (so that the site will work correctly). This feature is in the prerelease versions of OmniWeb 4.1.

There is also OmniWeb, if you are using MacOS X. OmniWeb is by far the most beautiful web browser I have ever seen. It uses MacOS X's Quartz Engine to produce very clear anti-aliased text and crisp graphics. It's lacking very little, needs a bit more work on CSS and InScript/JavaScript but it's very usable for 99% of the web sites out there.

I would say that if you use MacOS X then you should be using OmniWeb. OmniWeb can masquerade as Internet Exploiter to fool sites which "require" you to be using IE so you will only need IE for the few sites which are broken for any browser except IE.

Shame on that woman for hoarding all the rare and valuable AOL disks, when this poor sick little girl is trying to break the Guinness record.

Of course, if you were using a real browser, you could just give it a list of regexes.

And have it not load images sourced from different domains than the html. And have it not load images of very common banner sizes.

But of course, that'd require running a real operating system...

Lots of Mac browsers do, including OmniWeb, iCab, and the Mac version of IE. I doubt Apple has any desire at all to sue over it.

Here's a link to OmniWeb
on Mac OS X checking the speeling of a post as it's typed.

Because Opera makes my teeth itch and I haven't gotten Mozilla to compile yet.

When I'm at home, I use OmniWeb.

I tried to run the page through the HTML validator but noticed that it just checks the page suggesting IE so I download the source using the OmniWeb, and ran validator on that. I got 20 errors.

Some of my favorite browsers can do that, others can't. How frustrating.

I do occasionally use IE, when hitting one of those pages designed by MS only shops

Really? I just uninstalled IE altogether.

Omniweb is a really beautifully designed program, probably the finest web browser I've used. I really recommend it to OS X users who haven't tried it out yet.

It's frustrating that Apple doesn't bundle Omniweb w/OS X. I'm sure that there is no M$ arm-twisting involved, though....

...or OmniWeb (beautiful plumage!)

...or Mozilla (hey, it runs!)

:)

I can't think of a better case for Mozilla or OmniWeb (the way cool browser that came over from the NeXT world).

You're using Mac OS X, why have *anything* to do with Microsoft?? Forget MSIE and use Mozilla or OmniWeb.

Though.... I have to admit that MS Office X looks kinda neat. I just hope Corel hurrys up and makes a "Corel Office Suite X".

I do occasionally use IE, when hitting one of those pages designed by MS only shops, but most of my browsing time is in OmniWeb (www.omnigroup.com). Problem solved.

As an added benefit, OmniWeb has options to disable banner ads (sorry VA), kill javascript popup windows, and it's just a generally nicer browser with more intelligent design decisions. And it keeps web pages from looking like NASCAR with all the bloody ads and popups. Did I mention how it kills ads and popups? Although I will admit IE is wicked fast under 10.1, OmniWeb is plenty fast enough.