Slashdot Mirror
Next OmniWeb to be based on Safari Engine?
An anonymous reader writes "A MacFixIt article includes a quote from the Omni Group's CEO Ken Case: 'The wonderful news for OmniWeb is that Apple has based it on a fast, compatible (and small!) rendering engine which is tuned for Mac OS X, and which they are making available to the entire Mac OS X development community! [...] This means that we may be able to reach our compatibility and speed goals for OmniWeb much more quickly than when we were working alone, and then return our focus to doing what we do best: providing a rich browsing experience. Thank you, Apple!'"
Ok so Omniweb is going to make a browser based off of Apple and Open Source work which is cool (like chimera based off of mozilla), would windows developers build better and different browsers based off of Explorer if Microsoft were to open its source and if so how would that hurt MS, I mean chimera to me actually enhances Mozilla (love them both). Thanks for any comments.
So will OmniWeb's developers begin working with Safari code now, or wait until Apple refines it? Safari is still very much a beta browser and its compatibility, one of the features Omni seems to value, needs a lot of work. As mentioned in the article, some sites crash it outright.
I would think Omni would wait until a more stable (non-beta) release is produced before changing its own browser's direction.
Also, what engine is OmniWeb based on now? I used to use it, and it kept up with Explorer moderately well. Safari and Chimera would blow it away, of course.
Twelve fingers or one, its how you play. ~Gattaca (Vincent)
mainly because I like the way its rendering engine looks. Seems to me Omni is throwing away their main competitive advantage by using Safari's.
I'm using Safari right now, and the only thing I don't love about it is that the text doesn't look quite as perfectly polished as Omni's.
I'll miss OmniWeb's nicer looking text if that's really the direction they'll take.
Safari is my favourite user interface right away. Even though I understand the old-style ones, I particularly like their slick error messages. They're written in high-quality, clear language that even a novice is going to have no trouble understanding. For a choice example, try refreshing a page with a submitted form on Safari, and then try doing it with any other browser.
D
...has always been that they're behind the curve on standards. I don't blame them, they have a small team and do a good job with that they can render; it just doensn't render the most modern stuff.
Their application is second-to-none, but I use Mozilla because I need to render the latest stuff (oh, and tabs). I would send in my registration fee if their renderer was current.
This is a great move for them. If the guys who wrote their renderer are reading - you did a great job, it's just that customers ask the impossible of a small team.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The implication of this quote is that the underlying renderer Omniweb 5.0 was supposed to have wasn't as far along as many thought. Presumably they are keeping their high level interface stuff. But to completely switch rendering engines at this stage is a fairly significant change.
He is being silly, Mac users make up closer to %45 of the consumer market.
IF you were meant his number was too high-- well, its worth noting that it is a far more supported number than the claim that they only make up %5 of the market-- an out right lie, and fabrication that has no basis in reality.
The Nazis found that if you repeat the same lie often enough, people start believing it-- so we have the same thing here-- Windows is "%95 of the market", taxes are not theft, social security has a "trust fund", the government helps the poor (poverty is government's greatest triumph) etc.
And all these statements sound absurd to people who believe what they are told to believe-- even when these beliefs contradict objective reality. And they do.
Its amazing how well that works, though.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
After using Safari for a day, my view of tabs has completely changed. This is the first non tabbed browser I have used that allowed easy creation of new windows (apple+click or apple+shift+click) when following new links. It is also the first browser I have used that doesn't use a meg and a half of memory per window, or take longer than a 10th of a second to make a new window. With these features, tabs become redundant in Safari, I'll explain why below.
.4 second affair, and really ate on the system resources. Also switching between windows in the same app on may operating systems is a nontrivial task. On osx one can simply use apple+` to switch windows in the same app. Tabs are really an optimization so you only have to have "one window", they are not in any way a document organization metaphor. How many times have you actually organized similar tabs in the same window? I'm guessing never. How many tabed browses out there even let you drag tabs between windows? I'm not noticing many. The real benifit of tabs are load-behind loading, and load-on-middle click. The other benifit is "group bookmarks". None of those traits are specific to tabs. I conclude then that the overwhelming love of tabs has more to do with the redicioulus cost of multiple window interfaces in most browsers/os's that are not relevant to Safari/osx. Thus it would be in apples best intrest to leave them out, and make the interface the most efficent web browser out there!
If you really think about it, tabs are an optimization seeking a metaphor. Origionally tabs were added when making a new browser window was a >
I live in a giant bucket.