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)."

22 of 116 comments (clear)

  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 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

    2. 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.

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

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

      --

      Spencer Ogden

    4. 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.

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

      You can do that in Mozilla, as well.

  2. 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 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.
    2. 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."
  3. 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 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
  4. 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")
  5. 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
  6. 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 Alex+Thorpe · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      --
      "Common Sense Ain't" -Unknown
  7. 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

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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>
    ...