Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Omni Releases OmniWeb 4.5 Using Safari Engine

Posted by pudge on from the omni-lovin dept.

John C. Worsley writes "The Omni Group released version 4.5 of OmniWeb, based on Apple's WebCore and JavaScriptCore frameworks (the same KHTML-derived APIs that Safari uses)."

116 comments

  1. finally! by Frymaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    this is awesome. i've been using omniweb since when openstep was a valid os and continued with it through os x because ie was such a beast. but safari is so much faster and better at rendering. if omni keeps their feature list (notably page change notification) this will make them the 800 lb gorilla of mac browsers.

    --

    2 1337 4 u!

    1. Re:finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah, just a question, how is safari any better at rendering pages when they both use the same render engine?

    2. Re:finally! by hype7 · · Score: 5, Informative

      omniweb has some stuff that apple could do well to integrate into safari - but they won't!

      which is why I'm glad they've opened the engine up for third party use, because it means Apple can focus on speed and integration with the OS, and 3rd parties can get on with innovating.

      The coolest feature in omniweb has to be the ability to customise urls in the url line; for example, I've set it up so if I type
      fedex 574849
      then it goes to the fedex order tracking site, and tracks order 574849. You can set these up for google, imdb, and anything else that gives results based on variables stored in the URL. It's awesome, and I haven't seen anything implemented like it anywhere else.

      -- james

    3. Re:finally! by tdemark · · Score: 1

      It's awesome, and I haven't seen anything implemented like it anywhere else.

      Umm... you mean like keywords in Mozilla?

      I think they have been around since 0.9.

      Basically, you define a keyword for a bookmark and place '%s' somewhere in the bookmarked URL. When you type the keyword in the Location bar, anything that follows is used to replace the '%s'.

      - Tony

    4. Re:finally! by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 3, Informative
      how is safari any better at rendering pages when they both use the same render engine?

      He was referring to pre-4.5 release where OmniWeb had it's own render engine.

    5. Re:finally! by spencerogden · · Score: 3, Informative

      Konq also has this feature, with built in queries for many popular sites.

      --

      Spencer Ogden

    6. Re:finally! by Timothy+J.+Wood · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually ... checks CVS... (yes, I work for Omni)

      OmniWeb's shortcuts have been around since at least Apr, 1998 (compared to May, 2001 according to Old Mozilla Releases). They were around in less featureful incarnations back to 1996 or 1997, judging from what I see in CVS.

      Remember, OmniWeb is one of the oldest browsers still around:

      revision 1.1.1.1 date: 1994/02/16 21:53:53; author: kc; state: Exp; lines: +0 -0
      Here's OmniWeb!

      We love it when other browsers copy OmniWeb's features (and we've certainly copied features from other places). What is even better is that with WebCore/JavaScriptCore we have to spend less time futzing with web standards (if they can be called that) and can work on honest-to-goodness innovations.

    7. Re:finally! by Feztaa · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can do that in Mozilla, as well.

    8. Re:finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      omniweb has some stuff that apple could do well to integrate into safari - but they won't!

      There are some things that Omni can do that Apple simply can't. If Safari had the same ability as OmniWeb to kill banner ads, someone would sue Apple.

      Now that OmniWeb is based on WebKit, it's going to be my default browser again.

    9. Re:finally! by fm6 · · Score: 1
      which is why I'm glad they've opened the engine up for third party use, because it means Apple can focus on speed and integration with the OS, and 3rd parties can get on with innovating.
      Not as if they had a whole lot of choice, kHTML being open-source. Still there seems to be a lot of mutual admiration between the Safari and Konqueror teams, as reflected by friendly pronouncemnts and such.

      I've always liked the kHTML engine. I just hope that it gets "borrowed" even more than it is already.

    10. Re:finally! by SilentEchos · · Score: 1

      ah.. My bad.

    11. Re:finally! by ndogg · · Score: 1

      http://docs.kde.org/en/3.1/kdebase/konqueror/enhan ced-browsing.html

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
  2. still no Pogo? by boomerny · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I may be the only one wanting this, but there still seems to be no Mac OSX browser that is able to run Pogo games. Under 9 I could use IE, and it still works under Classic, but I prefer not to use Classic if I can help it. Oh well, just another gripe of mine.

    1. Re:still no Pogo? by shamino0 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I've been playing Pogo games successfully using Safari on my system.

      Mozilla also works for most games, but it is painfully slow for Word Whomp, which is one of my favorites.

      What problems are you seeing?

    2. Re:still no Pogo? by boomerny · · Score: 1

      word whomp is what I want to play, it is just way too slow to use. Most games are too slow, even the slots. The only two games I can really play are the crossword and word find. It may be my old Pismo is just too slow, but everything ran great under OS9.

    3. Re:still no Pogo? by jlower · · Score: 1

      My wife plays Pogo games (mostly Turbo 21) with Safari and Mozilla.

    4. Re:still no Pogo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may be my old Pismo is just too slow

      Yerp!

    5. Re:still no Pogo? by FaasNat · · Score: 1

      What version of the OS are you running? I had issues with Word Whomp being painfully slow. However, after the 10.2 update or one of the 10.2.x updates, it became decently playable (hmmm, that sounds weird). See if updating your system helps out (in case you haven't yet).

      --
      There's never enough when you have too little
  3. Not zactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    For the record, OmniWeb 4.5 does not use the "Safari engine." See, Safari is based on a framework called "WebKit." It's an Objective C framework. OmniWeb uses only WebCore and JavaScriptCore, open source libraries that are not really intended for public use.

    The correct course of action would have been for Omni Group to wait for WebKit's release, rather than using WebCore and JavaScriptCore themselves. Alas, they chose to do it the wrong way. The result will be compatibility problems and bugs, unfortunately.

    I applaud Omni Group for being really cool in many ways. This time, though, they really pulled a lame one.

    1. Re:Not zactly. by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      What's the difference between WebCore and WebKit? Some higher-level ObjC classes and interfaces? How is using WebCore going to cause the problems? It is still the "Safari Engine," although perhaps not all of it.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    2. Re:Not zactly. by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Omni Group isn't exactly "the public" when it comes to NSprogramming. There may be features that they would like to implement that require reaching in and grabbing stuff inside WebCore and JavaScriptCore. They wouldn't have that option with WebKit.

      I don't see why this would necessarily give rise to compatibility problems or bugs. The Safari and KHTML groups should keep both WebKit and WebCore updated just fine.

      Has anybody used the product? Is it the vast improvement that we all expected?

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    3. Re:Not zactly. by boomerny · · Score: 1

      it seems to be slower than Safari on my machines. The non-inclusion of tabs is a little behind the times. Even if you don't use tabs you should at least have the choice. It does seem a bit better at rendering than the previous versions that I've tried.

    4. Re:Not zactly. by jcr · · Score: 3, Informative

      This time, though, they really pulled a lame one.

      Well...

      I don't quite agree with you, there. Omni went ahead and used WebCore because it was available many months ago, and WebKit only became available at WWDC.

      Sure, it was more work for them to use WebCore directly, but they're the ones with a product and a time-to-market issue. I hope they'll decide to use WebKit in their next major rev, but I'm not going to dismiss OmniWeb 4.5 as lame, by any means.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  4. Still no tabbed browsing by Sick+Dave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When the hell will they add tabs? Everybody else is doing it, why can't OmniGroup?

    1. Re:Still no tabbed browsing by TwP · · Score: 1

      They're waiting for eveyone else to jump off a bridge first.

    2. Re:Still no tabbed browsing by kingLatency · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're waiting for eveyone else to jump off a bridge first. This is nonsense. I've met one person ever that didn't like tabbed browsing. Everyone else recognizes it for what it is, a very useful feature. Also, it's unobtrusive for those that wish not to use it. I think that if they added this, they'd get a lot more people to try (or come back to, in my case) to their browser.

      --
      "I've got to stop masturbating! It makes me too lazy! Stop it, Albert. Stop it." -- Albert Einstein
    3. Re:Still no tabbed browsing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I've met one person ever that didn't like tabbed browsing.

      Then you don't get out much. Use google if you must. Tabs are merely a poor substitute for a decent window manager.

    4. Re:Still no tabbed browsing by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      You mean, a window manager which recognizes gestures in every app?

      I use tabs mainly for the ability to change pages while browsing with just a rightclick-up-right gesture. And I haven't met yet a window manager which let me do that - namely, changing between windows in a same application with a gesture.

      Not to mention the wonderfull usefullness of having the title of all pages not mixed with the titles of other open programs.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    5. Re:Still no tabbed browsing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean, a window manager which recognizes gestures in every app?

      If you like gestures, use a window manager with gestures. They certainly exist, even fvwm has support for them, for heaven's sake!

      Not to mention the wonderfull usefullness of having the title of all pages not mixed with the titles of other open programs.

      I thought most window managers had that feature by now. I mean, even Windows does!

    6. Re:Still no tabbed browsing by Alex+Thorpe · · Score: 1

      Make that two, I don't care for them. I know they're available in Safari, but I've never tried enabling them, and wasn't impressed with them in Mozilla based browsers. I just click the thumb button on my mouse to close the foreground window, and tabs would just make things more complicated, less intuitive for me.

      --
      "Common Sense Ain't" -Unknown
    7. Re:Still no tabbed browsing by kingLatency · · Score: 1

      As you said, you can simply not use tabs if you don't like them. Therefore they're not intrusive as a feature to those who wont use them. I stand by my statement that having tabbed browsing would bring more users to (or back to) OmniWeb.

      --
      "I've got to stop masturbating! It makes me too lazy! Stop it, Albert. Stop it." -- Albert Einstein
    8. Re:Still no tabbed browsing by Juanvaldes · · Score: 1

      Very Simple. Omni has stated many times that 4.5 was ONLY going to change the rendering engin from their own to WebCore. There are no other features and if you already paid for OW this update does not cost any more money. The next version 5.0 should have tabs and other features in and will continue to use Webcore.

    9. Re:Still no tabbed browsing by Toraz+Chryx · · Score: 1

      well then, your problems have been answered, almost.
      by Expose
      change windows in the same app, or change apps, with the flick of a wrist :)

    10. Re:Still no tabbed browsing by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      No way. Those window managers have the titles hidden under a clickable button, not exposed side-by-side, which is the whole purpose of tabs in Mozilla.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    11. Re:Still no tabbed browsing by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      If you like gestures, use a window manager with gestures. They certainly exist, even fvwm has support for them, for heaven's sake!

      That doesn't solve the specific problem of browsing through a strongly packed set of web pages as well as tabbed browsing does.

      If you defer gestures recognition to the window manager, gestures will change through whatever application you have open in that virtual desktop.

      You could add gestures to change only through current application, true (does fvwm have that feature?); but you still don't have all related page titles exposed in a single consistent place. For me, a "decent window manager" would be the one that implements tabs, which is the exact solution that I like.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    12. Re:Still no tabbed browsing by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      Yes, I knew of Expose. It doesn't solve the same specific problem of quickly changing through related pages which you already know where are.

      But for general application-switching, it certainly may be great. I haven't tried it though, I don't have Mac OS X.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    13. Re:Still no tabbed browsing by kingLatency · · Score: 1

      Then you don't get out much. Use google if you must. Tabs are merely a poor substitute for a decent window manager. Apparently, the definition of 'getting out' to you is discussing the merits of features of web browsers. But I won't judge you for your social life. If you hadn't noticed, OmniWeb is an OS X browser. You can't use this browser in X11 with the window manager of your choice. You are forced to use it in Apple's windowing environment. Anyways, I still say that tabbed browsing doesn't get in the way of those that don't use it. If I haven't gotten out enough and that turns to be false, so be it. Go use OmniWeb or Internet Explorer, but you'll notice that the number of non-tabbed browsers is shrinking.

      --
      "I've got to stop masturbating! It makes me too lazy! Stop it, Albert. Stop it." -- Albert Einstein
    14. Re:Still no tabbed browsing by Toraz+Chryx · · Score: 1

      Expose can switch between the various windows of the same app, in much the same manner as it switches between multiple apps.

      the 'flick of the wrist' factor plus it being visual identification rather than having to read something gives it an edge IMO.

    15. Re:Still no tabbed browsing by Onan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And allow me the honor of being the next in a long line of people you'll meet who dislike tabs. They are a poor solution to the problem, and unquestionably implemented at the wrong layer.

      If what you want is a single-gesture way of switching linearly through the windows in the current application, you want command-~, something all Cocoa applications get for free.

      And tabs do have a cost to those who don't use them: the opportunity cost of the development time spent on them. Tabs don't implement themselves, and I'd almost certainly rather have whatever other feature those developers were creating instead.

  5. Kudos for a good decision by HotButteredHampster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Way to go, Omni Group! IMHO, nothing can kill a small company faster than trying to reinvent the wheel. HTML rendering is a commodity. The public expectation is that it will happen correctly. Do it wrong (like OmniWeb used to with annoying frequency) and people will jump all over you. Let a bigger group/company do it for you and reap the rewards!

    That way you can spend your developer time creating the application experience, which is where OmniWeb has excelled in the past and will continue to in the future. I expect to see great things, maybe great enough to make me part with $29.95!

    HBH
    --
    "Smart is sexy." -- D. Scully ("War of the Coprophages")
  6. Nice, but not quite ready to replace Safari for me by RalphBNumbers · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I haven't seriously used omniweb since before OSX was released. The speed was just too slow on my admittedly sluggish 233mhz G3.
    I've got to say, 4.5 is a *huge* improvement in the speed department, but there are still a lot of things I'd like to see improved before I would replace Safari as my everyday browser. (much less. before I would pay for it)

    For starters, it needs tabs, I've gotten addicted to them from various mozilla variants and Safari.

    Then they need to support java 1.4.1, they're still using the old 1.3.1 carbon version, which just isn't up to par anymore imho. (Although, to be fair Omniweb does seem to work around alot of the problems the old carbon plugin had in Safari, IE, and Mozilla.)

    They also need to provide for custom user style sheets, which I couldn't find an option for.

    That said, there are some things OmniWeb does really well that I'd like to see in safari.
    For instance, spell checking forum input as I type without my needing to manually request it (I can't believe they still haven't fixed this in Safari).
    Also, auto checking and updating bookmarks would be nice.

    --
    "The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
  7. Re:Works on all recent Mozilla variants by justMichael · · Score: 2, Interesting

    being lazy I have a keyword for PHP

    php function_name

    works like a charm.

  8. Why would I want to use this??? by gooru · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Safari: free with Jaguar and an awesome browser
    Mozilla: free and not quite as awesome
    Internet Explorer: free but dead
    OmniWeb: $29.95 based on same engine as Safari
    Opera: still clueless as to why my friends pay for it

    Furthermore, I can put together a web browser in less than five minutes with all the basic functionality I ever use (except tabs) using XCode, IB, and the WebKit. Why would I want to pay someone $29.95?!?!?!?

    1. Re:Why would I want to use this??? by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why would I want to pay someone $29.95

      There were three main reasons for me.

      1) Cookie control. "Take the cookie and toss it when I quit the app" is a great thing.

      2) Killing banner ads.

      3) Showing me when pages have changed. Big time-saver for me.

      YMMV, but for my money, OmniWeb would be worth $50, easy.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:Why would I want to use this??? by demonic-halo · · Score: 1

      I definatly love these features. I wouldn't mind paying for them if I had a 6 figure income. Bur for now with my measly 5 figures, I'll just put up with the unregistered message.

    3. Re:Why would I want to use this??? by Mikey-San · · Score: 1

      What, what?

      How does Mozilla (Camino included, since you didn't bother to distinguish) get a "not quite as awesome" rating?

      If anything, Moz/Camino is just as good as Safari. (At least I can rearrange the toolbar in Camino.)

      --
      Mikey-San
      Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
    4. Re:Why would I want to use this??? by Alex+Thorpe · · Score: 3, Funny

      5 figures? I look forward to the day when I have 5 figures again...

      --
      "Common Sense Ain't" -Unknown
    5. Re:Why would I want to use this??? by Juanvaldes · · Score: 1

      You say that as if you HAVE to pay for OW. You don't. You just get a funny little nag message like Quicktime.

    6. Re:Why would I want to use this??? by valkraider · · Score: 1

      1) You can do this with all the Mozilla flavors. Set "limit lifetime of cookies to current session" in the Privacy-Cookies section of the preferences. I go one step futher and limit cookies to originating sites only.
      2) You can add this to Safari for Free via PithHelmet.
      3) I don't know about this one because I don't use it. ;)

    7. Re:Why would I want to use this??? by numpins · · Score: 1

      Those are good reasons, but how about shortcuts? They are so great that I know actually don't like when other browsers make me surf the web. How lazy is that? *grin*

      Instead of surfing to VersionTracker, waiting for it to load, clicking in the search box, typing "omniweb", and hitting return, I type "vt omniweb" into the location field and OmniWeb will replace it with a string that searches VersionTracker.

      I have shortcuts for FedEx, UPS, eBay, dictionary.com, MacOSXHints.com, and more. They are a great way for you to get to information within seconds. Try shortcuts out -- I bet you will love them.

    8. Re:Why would I want to use this??? by va1entino · · Score: 1

      Yeah, no one is going to pay for a browser anymore. If Omni Group made the browser free and added tabbed browsing, then more people might consider it.

  9. Omniweb's Unique Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    (1) Live-Searchable History
    (2) Form Spell Check (I'm Soaking in it)
    (3) Self Updating Bookmarks Through The Dock
    (4) Self-Fixing Bookmarks
    (5) Superior Cookie Management (Three Levels)
    (6) Programmable Address Bar Searches (Google, VersionTracker.. etc)
    (7) Ad Blocking (And Yes OmniWeb Has Pop-up Blocking Too)
    (8) Unbeatable Download Manager (Never seen it's Match)
    (9) Extensive Source View, Edit, Publishing Capabilities
    (10) Fully Voice Activated Interface and Link Navigation
    (11) Speakable Pages (Useful When Your Eyes Just Can't Read Anymore)
    (12) Browser Compatibility Settings
    (13) JavaScript Compatibility Settings (Can Tie in or out With #11)
    (14) JavaScript Bookmarklets
    (15) Application Helper Settings For Downloads
    (16) Network Activity Monitor (Similar to Mail.app's)
    (17) Much More that I'm Overlooking

    1. Re:Omniweb's Unique Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (1) Live-Searchable History
      (2) Form Spell Check (I'm Soaking in it)

      These are in Safari. Just, you know, so you know.

    2. Re:Omniweb's Unique Features by Mikey-San · · Score: 2, Insightful

      (2) Form Spell Check (I'm Soaking in it)

      I write my posts, etc., in text editors first, and then paste things in. I find text editors are more stable (and manipulate text better) than Web browsers. (And OmniWeb does like to crash, you know.)

      (3) Self Updating Bookmarks Through The Dock

      What do you mean? Are you cluttering up your Dock with bookmarks? More info, please. :)

      (4) Self-Fixing Bookmarks

      I seem to recall typing "www.slashdot.org" for a bookmark and Camino asking if I wanted to redirect it permanently to "slashdot.org" once the URL resolved.

      (5) Superior Cookie Management (Three Levels)

      No more complex than Mozilla. Deny, accept, accept and discard at end of session. You can also whitelist/blacklist sites so you don't get cookies from anywhere you don't want to get them from.

      (6) Programmable Address Bar Searches (Google, VersionTracker.. etc)

      http://www.google.com/search?q=%s -- Create a new bookmark with that as the location and the title as "google". Type "google string" to search what you want from the URL bar, exactly like OmniWeb. Repeat for other sites with %s as your variable.

      (7) Ad Blocking (And Yes OmniWeb Has Pop-up Blocking Too)

      Hey.

      (9) Extensive Source View, Edit, Publishing Capabilities

      You haven't seen Hydra, I take it.

      (10) Fully Voice Activated Interface and Link Navigation

      Voice recognition sucks on computers, and you look dumb when you do it. Not a feature.

      (11) Speakable Pages (Useful When Your Eyes Just Can't Read Anymore)

      Other browsers do this, too, via the Services menu. Highlight text and click "Start Speaking".

      (12) Browser Compatibility Settings

      (13) JavaScript Compatibility Settings (Can Tie in or out With #11)

      (14) JavaScript Bookmarklets

      Don't even begin to pretend like other browsers don't have these features.

      (15) Application Helper Settings For Downloads

      This rocks harder.

      (16) Network Activity Monitor (Similar to Mail.app's)

      What activity are you monitoring?

      (17) Much More that I'm Overlooking

      Uh-huh.

      I'm not saying Omni is a bad browser. It isn't. I used it for a long time, and loved it, but honestly, it doesn't have anything worth $30 that other browsers or programs have for free or less money.

      --
      Mikey-San
      Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
    3. Re:Omniweb's Unique Features by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1, Informative

      Safari's implementation of 'live-searchable' is laughable compared to OmniWeb's. With Safari, you have to type 'sla' etc. to get 'slashdot.org. With OmniWeb, I could type 'dot' and it would be listed as an option. It also checks the title of pages, rather than just the URL. For complex or obscure page names, this is an absolute Godsend and I frequently find myself longing for it. I'm very much torn between this (and the general awesomeness of the OmniWeb features and interface) and Safari's ability to use tabs. Grr.

    4. Re:Omniweb's Unique Features by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 2, Informative
      I write my posts, etc., in text editors first, and then paste things in. I find text editors are more stable (and manipulate text better) than Web browsers. (And OmniWeb does like to crash, you know.)

      Text editors can be overkill sometimes, especially if you're just typing something short.

      (7) Ad Blocking (And Yes OmniWeb Has Pop-up Blocking Too)

      Hey.

      The solution you suggested would not be used by 99% of users and is a pain to set up. With OmniWeb, all you need is a couple of clicks within the GUI. Simple.

      You haven't seen Hydra, I take it.

      Hydra is a rendezvous enabled collaborative text editor, AFAIK. OmniWeb allows you to view source of a page, with nice formatting and colour coding and then allows you to edit and save the update, all within the browser. How is Hydra relevant here?

      What activity are you monitoring?

      Page components being downloaded. And of course generic downloads. Can be handy for troubleshooting if a page is having trouble loading, if you're not sure if OmniWeb has frozen, or if you just want to tinker.

      I used it for a long time, and loved it, but honestly, it doesn't have anything worth $30 that other browsers or programs have for free or less money.

      There was a lot of love and a lot of effort put into OmniWeb and it shows, especially in the interface which I maintain is the best of any browser I've ever seen. If I had a job, I'd pay for it. But I'm stuck on a less than 4000 student loan in my final year on uni. My living expenses go up and my loan goes down. Grr.

    5. Re:Omniweb's Unique Features by Mikey-San · · Score: 0

      TextEdit isn't overkill. It's fast and small. BBEdit isn't really overkill if you're just typing, and if you suddenly need to add a line break or closing P to the end of a line, it takes two seconds.

      Hydra is relevant because it does syntax highlighting just like OW does. It does everything OW does, I think.

      Mozilla can block banner ads with a right-click, if you're not into /etc/hosts modification.

      --
      Mikey-San
      Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
    6. Re:Omniweb's Unique Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You're not talking about searchable history at all. You're talking about URL autocomplete. The original AC was right: Safari has live, searchable history. It has a different sort of URL autocomplete from OmniWeb's.

      In the future, please try to be more precise. It'll alleviate a lot of confusion if you refer to things by their proper names.

      Thanks.

    7. Re:Omniweb's Unique Features by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      TextEdit isn't overkill. It's fast and small. BBEdit isn't really overkill if you're just typing, and if you suddenly need to add a line break or closing P to the end of a line, it takes two seconds.

      Let's say you're only typing one or two sentences - does it really make sense to switch to another app? Especially just to stick a line break in?

      Hydra is relevant because it does syntax highlighting just like OW does. It does everything OW does, I think.

      But then you need to open another program. With OmniWeb, you don't have to. Al the functionality is already there. If a browser will let you look at source code, it should do it well and allow you to save your changes. That's the great thing about OmniWeb. Once again, another app is overkill sometimes.

      Mozilla can block banner ads with a right-click, if you're not into /etc/hosts modification.

      So wouldn't it have been a good idea to mention it instead?

    8. Re:Omniweb's Unique Features by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Ah, the auto-complete uses the history as well, so I assumed that was what he meant. What did he mean then?

      and in the future, please try to be a little less condescending.

    9. Re:Omniweb's Unique Features by Mikey-San · · Score: 0

      Mozilla has a composition component, too. If you're writing code, why not use a program that's designed for it, anyway? One app for one job.

      Sorry, I should have assumed you'd done no research into other browsers before declaring all the things I need to pay for in a browser.

      Little, if anything, OW does can't be had by other, less costly or free, and at least as easy to use programs.

      --
      Mikey-San
      Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
    10. Re:Omniweb's Unique Features by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 2, Informative
      Mozilla has a composition component, too. If you're writing code, why not use a program that's designed for it, anyway? One app for one job.

      Mozilla is bulky and slow and a full web page designer is overkill sometimes. If all I want to do is change a link or update some text, which makes up the majority of what I've needed to do the last wee while, then OmniWeb is perfect for the job.

      Sorry, I should have assumed you'd done no research into other browsers before declaring all the things I need to pay for in a browser

      When did I declare you needed to pay for all these things? Perhaps you should check the author of comments. Then you'll see that the original list of 17 was not by me. I merely disagreed (with good reason) with some of your points. Please stop making assumptions before you even think about starting them.

      Little, if anything, OW does can't be had by other, less costly or free, and at least as easy to use programs.

      There are things it does better and the point is that it can do all of them - you don't need a dozen different programs. And in my experience, the UI is considerably better than most apps. Though that is of course a matter of opinion.

    11. Re:Omniweb's Unique Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I have no idea what he meant. I know what he said, but evidently what he said isn't what he meant.

      Also, there's no such thing as condescension. If you perceive condescension, it's just a side-effect of your inferiority complex.

      Buck up, little camper. Someday you're be a real boy.

    12. Re:Omniweb's Unique Features by inertia187 · · Score: 1, Funny

      (18) ...
      (19) Profit!

      --
      A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
    13. Re:Omniweb's Unique Features by reiggin · · Score: 2, Informative
      (18) No tabs.

      boo. hiss. boo.

      Or did I miss something? I can't find them.

    14. Re:Omniweb's Unique Features by dwightk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      (2) Form Spell Check

      Is not one of Omniweb's unique features... (at least all the forms can be spell checked for ME in Safari)

      --
      Like anyone can even know that
    15. Re:Omniweb's Unique Features by singularity · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You claim these are "unique" features, but I would say that several of them are found in other browsers.

      I listed several features in a post recently that talked about the feature set beween iCab, Opera/Mac and OmniWeb.

      While OmniWeb was a nice browser, it was missing a lot of the features that makes iCab "a control-freak's dream".

      Right now I am using Safari+PithHelmet as my primary browser, and I still definitely miss the control that is offerred by iCab.

      I have not had a chance to try out OmniWeb 4.5 yet, but I am guessing it is still not where iCab is in terms of flexibility and control.

      --
      - (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
    16. Re:Omniweb's Unique Features by valkraider · · Score: 1

      For those interested, a link to PithHelmet.

  10. Re:Page change notification? Are you nuts? by davebo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Um, I hate to break it to you - but Omni's page change notification system is hopelessly broken. It relies on websites returning a "304" response to indicate pages haven't been changed since a certain date, and a "200" response if they have. This worked back in the 90's. It doesn't anymore.

    Many many many web sites now always return "200" no matter what. Google? 200. Any blogs you happen to read at Xanga, Blogspot, etc? 200. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, Slashdot, Yahoo, Apple? 200. Always. Without fail. Check every second - check every half-second, the website will still say it's been updated.

    Don't believe me? Go through and set some of your bookmarks to check every minute, rather than the every couple of hours they're set at now. Then come back and tell me how great Omni's update checking is.

    Builds of Camino existed with this feature. It matched Omniweb's behavior exactly. The feature was pulled because it was found to be worthless.

  11. Re:Java 1.4.1 by davebo · · Score: 1

    yes, it would be nice if browsers besides Safari used the 1.4.1 JavaCocoaPlugin. It would also be nice if Apple released some sort of documentation on how to call it. I *think* you can load it as a normal bundle, then call it just like the old Carbon plug-in, but it'd be nice to have something written someplace to back this up.

  12. Re:Page change notification? Are you nuts? by Timothy+J.+Wood · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think this was true several years ago, but we've been using the word count of the page (after stripping markup) for a long time now (since at least Apr 2000 according to CVS).


    This approach generates some false positives, but in general, it's pretty good. Still, this is something that we'll be able to improve upon now that we can leave a bunch of the ugly stuff to Apple's WebCore/JavaScriptCore.

  13. Re: Major upgrade in rendering by Alderete · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yes, OmniWeb 4.5 is a major improvement in terms of quality of rendering and compatibility with more sites. And, as suggested, OmniGroup has indeed implemented features in their browser which would probably be impossible if they only used WebKit. This is a trivial one, but they automatically render hanging punctuation, rather than inline.

    Go to http://www.happycog.com/lectures/dwws/ in both OmniWeb and Safari, and look at the placement of the opening quotation mark for the body copy to see this.

    Minor feature only typographers will likely notice, but I'm sure there are many more instances where OmniGroup has added "fit-and-finish" to the raw materials provided by Apple.

  14. Looks good but.. by CoolCat · · Score: 1

    .. I perfer brushed metal look and safari. Only thing I miss is mouse gestures, hopefully they will include it in the next version or Ill just wait for opera 7 for OSX...

    1. Re:Looks good but.. by ihatewinXP · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "or Ill just wait for opera 7 for OSX..."

      Youre going to be waiting quite some time. There is absolutely no room for another browser on the mac platform. I wish there was room for OmniWeb and I hope it suceeds - but Opera? Sorry but 1. its an ugly port and 2. they burned any credibility they had in the mac community when they bashed Apple for not licensing their HTML Engine.
      And btw, mouse gestures can be added to any cocoa app (which OmniWeb is) just do a search for gestures on Versiontracker and im sure you will find it.

      --
      ---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
    2. Re:Looks good but.. by CoolCat · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the gestures tip, it works great.

      Im too lazy now to find any links but opera first said that they will no longer support osx, then a few weeks later they said they will support it because maromedia will use operas engine in their tools (studio mx)...

  15. Re:Nice, but not quite ready to replace Safari for by Paradox · · Score: 1

    spell checking forum input as I type without my needing to manually request it (I can't believe they still haven't fixed this in Safari).


    Err? I don't (nor have I ever) had this problem? Every cocoa text input widget supports spellchecking as you type. It should stay that way once you use the context menu to set it. Is this status of that option resetting itself common?
    --
    Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
  16. In Panther this will be less of an issue by Paradox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've rapidly been discovering that in Panther, I need tabs less and less. Expose really is a great way to deal with multiple windows and multiple apps. More and more, I find myself using Expose and a lot of windows instead of tabs, because tabs provide no visual recognition besides a title, which can very frequentlh be identical over multiple pages.

    So maybe that trollish AC that replied below this about tabs being a stopgap for a bad window manager is partially correct, if somewhat socially inept. Between app hiding, app switching, and Expose functions for all apps, and-in my opinion, far more useful-just one app, tabs are actually more of an annoyance.

    --
    Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
    1. Re:In Panther this will be less of an issue by OmniVector · · Score: 1

      i agree with you, having used expose. however, there is absolutely no elegant replacement for some of the benefits you get out of tabs. one such benefit (albet funny but a perfectly valid example) is porn. when i have a page of 20 thumbnails, by god i want to cmd+click all 20 and let them load in separate threads, all isolated to one convient minimizable/closable window. a feature like this might be replicable with a complex system of open new window under (so the window doesn't lose focus) or some other bizzare workaround, but the simple fact is tabs are here to stay in browsers. it's like releasing a browser without bookmarks -- it's practically expected and it's practically a standard. if IE 7 with longhorn doesn't have tabs, you can gleefully take joy in the fact that microsoft's browser war will lose horribly.

      --
      - tristan
    2. Re:In Panther this will be less of an issue by macmurph · · Score: 1

      There is a great Java app (available for OS X) called Page Sucker. It will grab those images for you. Its basically a front end to the wget command in the terminal... but easier to use. Of all of the wget front ends Ive used, Page Sucker is the best. Unfortunately its Java, slow and imperfect.

      http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macos x/ 13307

    3. Re:In Panther this will be less of an issue by furballphat · · Score: 1

      Or, even better, there's this wonderful perl script I wrote to do it all automaticly. It needs to be running on a *nix system with wget, and perl ninjas will all complain that the code looks like shit, but it does the job.

      here

    4. Re:In Panther this will be less of an issue by dswensen · · Score: 1

      And if you don't have Panther, what then?

      Because an OS feature makes up for it doesn't mean it's not a vital feature in a browser. I use tabbed browsing extensively on both my Windows and OS X machines, and I won't use a browser that doesn't have it if I don't have a choice. If Omniweb provided tabs as a feature, I might give it another look (tried it already -- didn't like it), but I don't have Panther or Expose -- so I need my tabs.

    5. Re:In Panther this will be less of an issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are still too many bugs in Panther for it to make up for the efficiency of tabs.

      I seriously hope by release that Apple fixes the problems with Expose (and Panther in general) when it comes to dual-monitor setups... laptops... and so on.

  17. Re:Page change notification? Are you nuts? by davebo · · Score: 1

    It appears as if I've craftily tricked you into revealing your update calculation algorithm :)

    And you're right - I notice now that Google, for example, isn't marked as updated when checking. Two of us missed that completely in testing, which is somewhat embarrassing. Perhaps the feature will get re-stolen . . . .

  18. Re: Major upgrade in rendering by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

    This is a trivial one, but they automatically render hanging punctuation, rather than inline.

    Ah, so that's what that's called. I noticed this feature immediately and thought it looked kind of odd. So much of typography has been lost in the transition to digital that when it comes back it looks weird.

  19. Re:Nice, but not quite ready to replace Safari for by RalphBNumbers · · Score: 1

    Hmm... my mistake.
    This used to be a problem in the betas, but apparently it got fixed at some point before Safari 1.0, and I just didn't notice because the default left as you type checking disabled.
    Now if only as you type checking worked for INPUT TYPE="text" fields as well as TEXTAREAs...

    --
    "The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
  20. Need Gestures??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Cocoa Gestures is your answer... works in all cocoa apps -Rocks!!!

  21. Re:Page change notification? Are you nuts? by Timothy+J.+Wood · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, you could have looked at an OmniWeb bookmarks file :)

    My bookmarks file has, for example:

    ...

    <dt><a href="http://slashdot.org/" lastCheckedTime=68508144 wordCount=12088 checkFrequency=4h>Slashdot.org</a>
    ...
  22. MOD THIS DOWN PLEASE by zpok · · Score: 1

    Cheers.

    --
    I think, therefore I am...I think.
  23. Anyone else get a laugh out of this..? by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 2, Funny
    The default OmniWeb 4.5 page, near the small ads for their other products, has this gem:

    Attn: ad dept. Put the corny "heartfelt plea for filthy lucre" text here.

    I guess that copy was approved.

    --
    If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
  24. Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    I hope that this is a bot, or a script of some kind, posting this to every apple topic.

    The idea of some poor embittered fuck, pasting this out of a textfile he rendered from his misplaced nerd-fuelled bile -- is just too stupendously pathetic to even be considered amusing.

  25. Competing on features masks competing on freedom. by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    As you point out, Mozilla has tons of features, but it competes in a much more future-proof way: software freedom. Competing on features can sometimes hide denying users software freedom. I don't want to lose the opportunity to leverage a free market for getting things changed the way I want them. I've used lots of non-free software before and I'm not ready to put my software freedom on the line like that anymore.

    --
    Digital Citizen
  26. you must not have a slow web connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the best things about tabs is that you load several other webpages while you're still reading a different one. You can't do that w/o tabs w/o a lot of window switching.

  27. buggy BBEdit Lite by bodrell · · Score: 1
    I like BBEdit a lot, except for one particular bug-- when I have more than one document open, and I try to save or close one of them, sometimes the action affects one of the other open docs. It's really, really annoying, and I'm a little pissed that BareBones dropped support for BBEdit Lite. No new versions, no fix for this problem.

    So are you using the Pro version?

    --
    Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
    1. Re:buggy BBEdit Lite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BBEdit Lite was replaced with TextWrangler. I think Bare Bones was losing money on their free version, which made development kinda hard.

  28. Text-Selection Problem by RadRafe · · Score: 1

    But did you notice that in hanging-punctuation lines, text selection goes funny? Try selecting some text on one of these lines and you'll see what I mean: selection acts as if the punctuation were inline, so that any text you select is one character out of phase! They certainly need to fix that if hanging quotes are here to stay.

  29. Re:Works on all recent Mozilla variants by SiMac · · Score: 1

    Does it take that much longer to do php.net/function_name ? It's only a few extra characters, and it'll work in any browser.

  30. In short by dswensen · · Score: 1

    I downloaded it, installed it, ran it.

    The browser window didn't render correctly -- squashed-looking fonts, cut-off address bar, and the first few pages I browsed too were a similar mess. Massively buggy rendering.

    Closed it, uninstalled it. I'll try again next version. I wouldn't even use this app for free, much less $30.

    Incidentally, I went through this same procedure with OmniWeb a few months ago.

    1. Re:In short by webfiend · · Score: 1

      I feel for you, really. Not being able to see your favorite sites is enough to make you toss the browser aside immediately. I've done the same thing plenty of times. One thing that would be really nice to know, though: what sites were causing you these troubles?

      Also: cut-off address bar? Cut off by what?

      This isn't intended to be poking at you in any way. It's just that I do tech support, and like to see specific complaints whenever possible.

    2. Re:In short by dswensen · · Score: 1

      Glad to oblige. I've put three screenshots from my Omniweb session into this directory.

      The first screenshot (and I think, the worst) is CNN.com. You can see for yourself what happens up by the address bar. It's a mess. The second screenshot is one of Omniweb's own pages... if you look in the middle under the address bar, you can see where the fonts are squashed together and illegible. That isn't a page, that's Omniweb's own window. The third page is that same corruption repeating on Omniweb's own page.

      So that's my problem with Omniweb. And I do admit my version of OS X is slightly modified; however, I've used Safari, Camino, Mozilla, Firebird, IE, and Omniweb in an attempt to find the perfect browser for me, and of these only Omniweb has these problems, or anything near it.

      I hope that's helpful.

    3. Re:In short by webfiend · · Score: 2, Informative

      For some strange reason, OmniWeb and Metallifizer don't get along. The best workaround is to add OmniWeb to Metallifizer's "Exclude" list.

    4. Re:In short by jcr · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call this Omni's fault.

      It looks like whatever's mangling your scrollbars isn't compatible with OmniWeb.

      Sorry, but when you use third-party hacks to munge the standard controls, you can get unpredictable results with some apps.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  31. Pathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's it - one word does it: pathetic. Asing money for a bag of bugs that crashes left and right, and never fixing it - now you borrow someone else's engine so you can still squeeze money out of people. These are the darlings of Apple? If so, Apple is in worse trouble than anyone knows. There is only one word: PATHETIC.

  32. A fairly minor quibble... by Millennium · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "Apple hardware is for real computer lovers."
    "It's no hassle to use a plethora of keyboard combos to make up for the patronising one-button mouse. Despite the fact that my hands have FIVE fingers, and multiple-buttons make Web browsing so much more pleasant, I prefer my computer to be treat me like a special-needs child."

    Anyone who uses vi or emacs has no right whatsoever to complain about a plethora of keyboard combos (DISCLAIMER: At various points in my career, I have used both vi and emacs on a day-to-day basis, and it is not my intent to complain about the many useful keyboard shortcuts).

    Meanwhile, if you want a multibutton mouse, go get one. I use a four-button trackball myself, and I enjoy complete support for it in OSX. The multibutton mouse, while useful, has been proven time and time again to be a confusing interface for novice users; OSX gives you the option of having such an interface without forcing it on everyone. What, pray tell, is the matter with that?

  33. nim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lmao

  34. Well, what do you expect? by mbessey · · Score: 2, Informative

    You're running Metallifizer, which attempts to change the appearance of running applications by loading code into them. I'd hardly consider that an OmniWeb problem. On a normally-functioning OS X system, OmniWeb renders fine.

    1. Re:Well, what do you expect? by dswensen · · Score: 1

      None of my other applications have any problem with Metalifizer, just OmniWeb. I'll stick with Safari.

    2. Re:Well, what do you expect? by mbessey · · Score: 1

      That's certainly your choice to make. It's interesting that none of the other applications you use have problems. That's the nature of cool hacks like that, though...

      -Mark