Friday Mac Release Roundup

OO.o still requires X11 by Vandil+X · 2004-07-02 00:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

As much as I enjoy using OO.o, I really hope an OSX-native version comes out some day.

A lot of people who install OSX for themselves never get around to installing X11.

--
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START

Re:OO.o still requires X11 by otuz · 2004-07-02 01:05 · Score: 5, Informative

The native version is postponed to the 2.0 release.
It will be released in late 2005 or early 2006.
Re:OO.o still requires X11 by Aram+Fingal · 2004-07-02 01:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

The NeoOffice/J version of OO is much more OS X integrated than the main OO.o. It is still dependent on x11 but it allows cutting and pasting with other applications outside of x11 and runs much faster. The reason for OO.o's slowness is not x11, it's JAVA. Try out The GIMP in x11 on OS X. It's quite snappy, even on my 400 Mhz G3 PowerBook (Pismo). In fact, it seems faster than Photoshop 7 for some operations. I suppose that it would be better not to depend on x11 because it would allow for a UI more familiar to the average Mac user and because of the extra install but NeoOffice/J is quite usable.
Re:OO.o still requires X11 by squiggleslash · 2004-07-02 01:51 · Score: 1

Try NeoOffice/J. This is a workable, usable, version of OO.o which is built upon Java. While it's as butt-ugly as the X11 version, it at least doesn't require starting X11 seperately. It feels fractionally more like an OS X app.
The eventual aim of the NeoOffice people is to produce a genuine OS Xified OO.o, so it's a project worth following. They have a technology preview of that branch of the project called Flaming Yeti, which you can play with, but it's far from being complete. Don't download it if you were one of the people who played with early versions of Mozilla and wrote Mozilla off as a result.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:OO.o still requires X11 by squiggleslash · 2004-07-02 01:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

The NeoOffice/J version of OO is much more OS X integrated than the main OO.o. It is still dependent on x11 but it allows cutting and pasting with other applications outside of x11 and runs much faster.
NeoOffice/J doesn't need X11.
I'm not sure that OO.o's slowness has anything to do with Java or X11, it's just slow. It's slow under Linux and under Windows and was slow when it was StarOffice and had nothing to do with Java. I suspect over time the code is going to be reviewed and this particular issue resolved.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:OO.o still requires X11 by GreatDrok · 2004-07-02 02:27 · Score: 1, Informative

One of the major benefits of 1.1.2 over 1.0.3 is that the speed of the app has improved dramatically. With both 1.0.3 and NeoOffce/J the start up time on my 933 G4 was pushing a minute. With 1.1.2 I can be editing a document from clicking on the icon within about 10 seconds. This is now the same sort of speed as MS Office X on the same machine. While I am also disappointed that we still don't have a proper aqua version of OpenOffice I understand their reasons and once 2.0 comes out for Windows and X11 they will be able to do the job properly. At that point, I expect MS will do the same as they did with Internet Exporer and drop Office for Mac as they will have real competition and we know how much they like that! Besides which, the supposed benefits of Office on the Mac is the compatibility with Office on the PC and frankly, that is simply not true. I had a doc that I created on the Mac and Office 2K on the PC had problems with a table so I fixed them, saved the file and loaded it back into the Mac to find that yes, the table was also OK but now all the courier font text had changed to arial! The funny thing was, the emulation of Office in OpenOffice was so good that it had exactly the same problem with the table even when I opened it using OpenOffice on the Mac! I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple pitch in fully with OpenOffice 2.0 just to break the last link with MS.

--
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
Re:OO.o still requires X11 by Aram+Fingal · 2004-07-02 02:29 · Score: 1

> NeoOffice/J doesn't need X11.

I just checked and you're quite right. I was mistaken about that. It has a UI which resembles X11 more than Aqua which is why I thought so.

> I'm not sure that OO.o's slowness has anything to do
> with Java or X11, it's just slow. It's slow under Linux
> and under Windows and was slow when it was StarOffice
> and had nothing to do with Java. I suspect over time
> the code is going to be reviewed and this particular
> issue resolved.

There's probably more than one reason for the slowness. I was just pointing out that The GIMP is an example which shows that X11 apps don't have to be slow on OS X.
Re:OO.o still requires X11 by caseih · 2004-07-02 03:25 · Score: 1

There is a version of OpenOffice called NeoOffice/J that uses java to do the rendering, thus eliminating the dependence on X11. However this is a not a native-looking app. It still looks exactly like the X11 version, but runs without X11. So it's not ideal, but it works.
Re:OO.o still requires X11 by .com+b4+.storm · 2004-07-02 03:35 · Score: 4, Informative

I'd like to point out that there is a semi-native hack for OpenOffice called NeoOffice. It wraps OpenOffice in Java, which means you don't need to run X11 first, you can use native key bindings for everything, the system clipboard works properly, and (best of all) the native OS X print system is used.

Sure, the UI is still an ugly Windows-esque menu-in-the-window scheme, but it's better than nothing. :) I've been using it for my work and school papers, and found it to be as stable as an official OpenOffice build for OS X. It also seems to be a lot faster... initial startup time (because of Java) is as crappy as ever, but once it's running, it's a lot smoother.

--
"Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
-- Ryan Stiles
Re:OO.o still requires X11 by soullessbastard · 2004-07-02 08:10 · Score: 3, Informative

Just an FYI, the slow startup time isn't actually due to Java. It's still 98% C/C++, and the slow startup time is actually due to inefficiencies in "ucb" and writing out an initial temporary registry database. That step is written in C++ and takes about 3 seconds by itself. Another large chunk of time is spent loading the hundreds of megs of shared libraries, all of which are written in C++.

The parts of it that are Java are actually on par, if not faster then their X11 equivalents. Feel free to break out Shark and take a look for yourself :)

ed
Re:OO.o still requires X11 by Ilgaz · 2004-07-02 20:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

I have bought pure java office suite (thinkfree) as I got fed-up with OO problems (really, tried and tired)

It launches faster than X11 OpenOffice or MS Office :) Also made some evil tests while I was on trial, e.g. downloaded 400 page word docs, reformatted them etc, no speed problem while running.

So, your point must be right. Also if I understand it right (not a developer here) only "fast" launch time will happen when they move to 2.0 , e.g. native so it will be prebinded.

OO.o people, if you want to impress Mac users and really set an END to MS Office tyranny on Mac, go native. Real native I say. More native than MS Office even.

Good to see... by plj · 2004-07-02 01:02 · Score: 2, Informative

...that OOo finally reached 1.1 on Mac, too. It has been pain for me to always print a PostScript file and then throw it to Preview just to get a PDF.

Btw, does anyone on /. have any suggestions for Windows/Linux/OS X cross platform office suite? We're currently planning to migrating most of our Windows desktop to Linux, but as we have to leave few boxes for specific purposes at least in the beginning, we will need cross-platform compatibility - and we also have Macs, which have to stay, although they need to be upgraded to OS X first.

OOo just isn't quite there, as I really can't force X11 apps down our Mac users' throats - they just feel way too different, and I haven't been able to find anything else, either. We could use different software for Macs, like we are actually doing now, and wait for OOo's upcoming Aqua-based 2.0 -version, but if anyone here does have better suggestions, I'd be glad to hear them.

--
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus

Re:Good to see... by Johnny+Mnemonic · 2004-07-02 02:28 · Score: 2, Informative
Here's two options; I haven't tried either (but at one time the Apple Stores were selling ThinkFree office, if that means anything):
- AbiWord; appears to require X11, although the pages aren't clear from a skim.
- ThinkFree Office; java based. I think it might be ok, but only you know if it has the sophistication of features that you need.
  
  FWIW, a place to look for this sort of stuff is the Apple Products Guide as they'll list pretty much anything that works on the Mac. That means a lot of crap in the hits, but it's better than doing a "macintosh word processor" in Google. Usually.
--

--
$tar -xvf .sig.tar
Re:Good to see... by Quobobo · 2004-07-02 02:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm not sure I completely understand (I might be totally off on this), but if you're printing that postscript file from the same Mac, couldn't you just save it as a PDF from the print menu, and bypass the middleman?
Re:Good to see... by plj · 2004-07-02 03:01 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, if OOo would be an Aqua app, I could. But OOo as an X11 app has whatever print dialog it has, and no such an option. 1.1.2 should fix this, though, as it is able to create PDFs on its own, although release notes mentioned some limitations in compatibility of those PDFs.

--
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
Re:Good to see... by scruffyMark · 2004-07-02 06:58 · Score: 1

The development version of abiword (2.1.3 at the moment) runs on OS X without X11. The stable branch doesn't have an OS X specific binary - I guess you could probably just build from the standard unix source.

--
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
Re:Good to see... by Ilgaz · 2004-07-02 21:00 · Score: 1

I am licensed user for Thinkfree and I am really happy. Especially messing up with Oo.org for days to DISPLAY turkish chars, Thinkfree came with Turkish interface :)

It integrates system well and launches real fast. You don't need to buy it to try, can use it for 15 days or so, as trialware.

Hansoft acquired them lately, biggest sw house in South Korea I heard... As I remember early versions of Thinkfree was working inside browser even and knowing how freaky fast lines Koreans have... :) Seems they have a plan to make it work inside with latest Sun Java as well...

Also, now its a South Korean company, there is NO chance of losing international friendly attitude of code.

Another reason... I switched to Mac, will NOT use any MS thing here when I have chance.
Re:Good to see... by Quobobo · 2004-07-02 21:05 · Score: 1

Ah, okay. Yeah, I didn't understand, I thought you meant that you were doing this from another app, and now switching to OO because it could do it. Apologies.

RealPlayer is actually quite nice by TomorrowPlusX · 2004-07-02 01:36 · Score: 5, Informative

You know, we all here have a tradition of saying nasty things about Real player...

Well, I want to stand up, stick my neck out, and say "Sorry! You guys seem to have made up for it!"

As a Cocoa programmer who just doesn't understand why big companies don't dive in and *properly* port their software, I'm impressed that Real has written what seems to be a real, honest-to-god cocoa app. The preferences window is a *real* Mac OS X prefs window. The app behaves like a proper document-based app, where the program won't shut down if you close all the files. And so on, and so on; I'm really impressed.

And, while I have no idea what it's like on windows ( I haven't touched a windows box in at least a year ), real player is being quite nice about not stealing your file associations, unlike what I remember a few years ago on Win2K. It doesn't hide anything as far as I can tell, and the default associations are not only few, but reasonable.

Good show, real. I think I'm *finally* going to pay for your product.

--

lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet

Re:RealPlayer is actually quite nice by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-02 01:43 · Score: 0

How about if someone makes a comment about how awful their codecs are? Oh wait, I just did.

Nice app, sure...but it still looks digital garbage bit rot.

Take it sleazy...
Re:RealPlayer is actually quite nice by TomorrowPlusX · 2004-07-02 01:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

I want to add something regarding porting software to native mac OS X. Last year I ported a program I've been working on which allows for development of behavioral AI for robots in a relatively nice physics simulated environment. The whole thing isn't that big, about 50 kloc, ( not including the physics engine, which I got from http://ode.sf.net ).

Anyway, when I ported it from Qt/KDE on linux, I decided to go native, and wrote a full cocoa gui.

http://home.earthlink.net/~zakariya/files/TooCom pl ex3.png
[the filename refers to my current project to refactor the gui]

Not only was it not hard at all, but the overall design of cocoa makes separation of core logic from presentation relatively easy. My simulation, my core APIs and so on were completely unchanged. All I really did was write some new interface code. In fact, Cocoa made it so damn easy my Gui became richer and and order of magnitude more complete.

My smooth and comfortable experiences doing this make me frustrated when I see shoddily written ports to Mac OS X. Cocoa is like mana from heaven. You get to keep your core C/C++ and just make a binding to the UI. Who can complain about that? Plus you get to use one of the most beautiful procedural languages available ( IMNSHO ) Objective-C.

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents.

--

lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
Re:RealPlayer is actually quite nice by Midnight+Thunder · 2004-07-02 04:26 · Score: 1

I want to add something regarding porting software to native mac OS X. Last year I ported a program I've been working on which allows for development of behavioral AI for robots in a relatively nice physics simulated environmen

Looks good. Are you planning on making it available to the public? I would be ineterested to check it out on my computer.

--
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Re:RealPlayer is actually quite nice by RdsArts · 2004-07-02 05:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

Since you like Cocoa, you might also want to look at GNUStep on the GNU/Linux and *N*X side of things. It attempts to provide the next-step-after-OpenSTEP UI toolkit, and even brings some of the Cocoa APIs as well.

Best of all, I hear taking code from it to OS X is just a quick recompile for a native experience, which is always nice. You can see screenshots of a app that does just that here.
Re:RealPlayer is actually quite nice by Ilgaz · 2004-07-02 20:46 · Score: 1

Slashdot people will kill me or something :)

I used Realone for Windows back in my XP days, 7 months ago, before my P4 box literally burned and I moved to Mac G5.

As I was "radiopass" member for listening to Knac.com radio , it became "plus". I really liked it but after all, I thought of privacy people :) Well, they have good reasons to hate it but I am NOT telling stuff about "spyware"

The "stealing" of file associations exist since, every mmedia app in windows including Quicktime has to mess with evil little BillG somehow manages to steal all files to OS itself! So, as last resort they had to put a little app to memory to keep file associations intact.

About privacy, well in 2 days many people will start calling it spyware, they added webbrowser in app, there you go :) I don't believe you don't have ANY kind of privacy unless you unplug from Internet so, if that app has feature they invented, to show Artist info/bio playing, I will click on that link as I do in iTunes :)

Camino is fantastic by Lewisham · 2004-07-02 01:38 · Score: 3, Informative

To all those people who, for some reason, seem to enjoy insane load times and lack of real nativity at the Altar of Firefox, please try Camino. It is actually now quicker at rendering than Safari (or at least it appears to human usage), and is written in full Cocoa. Do try it if you're using anything else. If development keeps apace, I don't think even Safari 2 would make me change.

Re:Camino is fantastic by chromaphobic · 2004-07-02 01:52 · Score: 1

Does is support firefox extensions?

I'm guessing not, even Firefox doesn't support Firefox extensions properly on the Mac side. I wish it did, I so really want to use Firefox instead of Safari, but there's a couple features (that can be added via extensions that don't work on the Mac side) missing that keep me away.
Re:Camino is fantastic by Lewisham · 2004-07-02 02:20 · Score: 1

Sadly it doesn't. I've found a lot of extensions aren't that great for Firefox anyway. The search box is customizable, and Mike Pinkerton, the lead guy on Camino, is very open to suggestions. *fingers crossed on the always open new windows in new tabs :)*
Re:Camino is fantastic by plj · 2004-07-02 02:52 · Score: 1

Yay! They actually fixed the tab shortcut problem I complained previously.

Now, when they'd just yet fix the certificate thingy, then I'll switch.

But what is really cool in Camino compared to Safari is, that it's not metal! ;-)

--
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus

The problem with Camino by metamatic · 2004-07-02 01:54 · Score: 1

The Adblock plugin doesn't work in Camino.

Until that's fixed, it's useless.

Pity, it looked good.

--
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak

Re:The problem with Camino by squiggleslash · 2004-07-02 02:00 · Score: 1

But the middle button does work in Camino and not in Firefox! It's so difficult to decide which to use!
(They're both great browsers and, in my view, vast improves on Safari which itself is fairly nice. I hope they fix the issues in both of them.)

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:The problem with Camino by OmniVector · 2004-07-02 03:34 · Score: 1

download a userContent.css file with ad blocking. put it in the folder ~/Library/Application Support/Camino/chrome

was that so hard?

--
- tristan
Re:The problem with Camino by metamatic · 2004-07-02 04:11 · Score: 1

What is this "middle button" thing of which you speak? :-)

--
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Re:The problem with Camino by DarkVader · 2004-07-02 04:12 · Score: 1

What do you want to do with the middle button that it won't do in Firefox?

(my middle button does exactly what I want it to do - open a link in a new tab. You just have to map the middle button to send a command-click.)
Re:The problem with Camino by cmodcmodcmod · 2004-07-02 04:22 · Score: 1

If camino wants to become more mainstream, then yes, downloading an obscure file and moving it to an obscure location is too hard for most users.
Re:The problem with Camino by aptenergy · 2004-07-02 04:26 · Score: 1

Or you could just use Firefox's excellent userContent.css file. I've never had a problem using this, and someone takes care to update it every once in a while with new rules. Most likely your version is an older copy.

With Safari, I just tell Safari to Camino's userContent.css file as its style sheet and ads are gone on Safari as well.
Re:The problem with Camino by squiggleslash · 2004-07-02 04:29 · Score: 1

The middle button does not open a link in a new tab on Firefox for OS X. I'm not sure what you mean "map the middle button to send a command-click", if you mean "use third party tools to reverse the command-click/middle-click relationship", then that's about the last thing I want to do! Firefox needs to work properly, I shouldn't need to hack my OS to get Firefox/Mozilla to work...

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:The problem with Camino by Steve+Cowan · 2004-07-02 04:45 · Score: 1

"Middle mouse button" (often pressing scroll wheel) opens link in a new tab. Works in Safari, too.
Re:The problem with Camino by hunterx11 · 2004-07-02 04:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

What's bizarre is that the middle button works in Safari, despite the whole one button mouse policy. I'd like to know if Steve Jobs actually uses an Apple mouse :)

--
English is easier said than done.
Re:The problem with Camino by Johnny+Mnemonic · 2004-07-02 05:43 · Score: 1

Try mapping your extra buttons to Expose functions. That'll make you REALLY wonder if Apple System Engineers use Apple mice.

If only third-party BlueTooth mice didn't suck so much. Microsoft's mouse, normally good, will periodically fail to connect and then I'm mouseless for a day or so.

--

--
$tar -xvf .sig.tar
Re:The problem with Camino by DarkVader · 2004-07-02 08:36 · Score: 1

I don't know what kind of third party mouse you're using (it's not an Apple mouse - they only have one button) but most third party mouse drivers have an option to set the type of click sent by the middle button.

My mouse is a Logitech, and the Logitech Control Center has the option to assign a command-click to the middle button. I also know the option also exists in most other mouse driver software.

A command-click is the standard command for opening in a new tab in Firefox. You shouldn't need to hack Mozilla/Firefox to have your third-party mouse work as you want it to.
Re:The problem with Camino by metamatic · 2004-07-02 09:00 · Score: 1

Oh, I just keep my left hand near the modifiers.

Or my right hand, depending on which one I'm mousing with.

--
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Re:The problem with Camino by .com+b4+.storm · 2004-07-02 09:43 · Score: 1

I don't see what's so "bizarre" about the middle button working in Safari. After all, the right mouse button works all over the place for context menus. I think it fits in nicely with the OS X attitude of keeping things simple, but allowing for some flexibility for those that are aware of it or need it. Witness multi-button support, AppleScript GUI scripting, the underlying UNIX core, etc.

--
"Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
-- Ryan Stiles
Re:The problem with Camino by squiggleslash · 2004-07-02 11:21 · Score: 1

Most third party mice, my own included, do not come with "drivers". Logitech may include them, but the vast majority of manufacturers expect the operating system to already include support for mice, and they build devices that conform to HID specifications so that they "just work".
Besides which, why the hell would I want my middle mouse button to emulate command-click? That's not going to go down well for well behaved Mac OS X apps now is it? It'll certainly mess with X11.
The Mozilla team recognizes that this is an actual bug (#151249), I've voted for the bug in bugzilla, we're just waiting now to see a release of Mozilla and Firebird with the proposed bug fix in place.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:The problem with Camino by Moofie · 2004-07-02 20:36 · Score: 1

"Drivers". How quaint!

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:The problem with Camino by TravisWatkins · 2004-07-03 20:32 · Score: 1

Well, OS X is based on NeXTSTEP and that ran on computer with multibutton mice, so it makes sense that they would be supported. I believe only Cocoa apps support middle click, not Carbon.

--

"But I'm still right here, giving blood and keeping faith. And I'm still right here."
Re:The problem with Camino by grrrl · 2004-07-04 15:58 · Score: 1

if you use usb overdrive x you can map each mouse button for individual programs - i have a 5 button belkin mouse and have a variety of functions mapped to the 3 extra buttons in different applications (check mail, copy, paste, close window, change tabs etc - its fantastic)

this doesnt fix your gripe with the mozilla bug, but it wont mess up middle clicking for any other apps

Web browser? by vorpal22 · 2004-07-02 01:55 · Score: 1

It has a web browser built in? Wasn't Real already bloated enough? Does everything these days need to have a built-in web browser?

Re:Web browser? by beholder77 · 2004-07-02 03:30 · Score: 1

Built in web browsers don't usually add much to the final weight of the code. Normally they're just linked components to something that already exists in the OS. Most likely Real is embedding a Safari component, much like IE gets embedded on things in the windows world.

--
Success is as dangerous as failure, hope as hollow as fear.
Re:Web browser? by PsychoSpunk · 2004-07-02 03:40 · Score: 2, Informative

Yeah, that part about using Apple WebKit means that it's using the framework automatically provided by the OS.

--
ALL HAIL BRAK!!!
Re:Web browser? by Ilgaz · 2004-07-02 20:37 · Score: 1

Its Real for OS X lol, it definately lacked a web browser. I am a radiopass member and I was sick of messing with www browsers (especially, evil IE) to launch a radio.

I couldn't put radio to favorites even since OSX (thank god) cleared the temp folder... So, radio was cleared too :)

I had to feedback to Omnigroup for instance to fix the radio links, at v5 beta build, it was displaying a text file since Real sent some strange data to browser... :)

So, thanks Realnetworks AND Helix Opensource volunteers... It was cool already, now its better...

Open Office timeline? by amichalo · 2004-07-02 02:28 · Score: 1

If there is one thing I don't like about Open Office, it is that they don't do much PR/Marketing because it is very difficult to find info on their site about the plan for OS X support.

Does anyone know the projected timeline for OO.o on OS X, specifically whent eh Carbon version is targeted for release?

Also, how well does OO.o work with the latest version of MS Office.mac?

--
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.

Re:Open Office timeline? by Johnny+Mnemonic · 2004-07-02 02:50 · Score: 1

Does anyone know the projected timeline for OO.o on OS X, specifically whent eh Carbon version is targeted for release?

Here is a timeline.

Bottomline: Projected OS X native availability of OpenOffice.org 2.0 is currently Q1 2006.

Yeah, I'm not holding my breath. OSS guys that are projecting 2 years out? Unlike a commercial dev, they are inclined to let RL get in the way. + this article was last updated 8/03, so it's an even further out projection that it is today. So basically, no telling. Unless someone has an up-to-date timeline? Any chance these guys are ahead of schedule?

--

--
$tar -xvf .sig.tar
Re:Open Office timeline? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-02 11:24 · Score: 0

Best place of OO.o on OSX is

http://trinity.neooffice.org

there are the developers for OO.o for mac, as well as the Neo/J versions (which uses Java instead of X11)

-j
Re:Open Office timeline? by oldosadmin · 2004-07-02 18:54 · Score: 1

OOo has a --very-- active marketing project. Just with Mac OS X port... there is nothing to market.

AFAIK most of the voluneer Carbon guys have quit -- that is probably the biggest need in OOo right now -- carbon developers.

--
Jay | http://oldos.org

Seconded by kingLatency · 2004-07-02 02:59 · Score: 1

I'll second the "Camino is fantastic statement." I picked up the 0.8 beta a couple weeks ago and I quite like it. I haven't gone back to Safari yet. I've been considering trying Firefox, but I think Camino is just too slick. Great app.

--
"I've got to stop masturbating! It makes me too lazy! Stop it, Albert. Stop it." -- Albert Einstein

Re:Camino is fantastic - at Javascript! by glawrie · 2004-07-02 03:10 · Score: 1

Camino 0.8 is hugely good, and better than earlier versions. But one area that it really shines is in processing of Javascript pages.

I used the BenchJS benchmark from the 24fun.com web site to test Safari , Firefox, and Camino on my 12" Powerbook (837Mhz) Here's what I got:

Safari (1.2.2) - 171.29 seconds
Firefox (0.91) - 132.34 seconds
Camino (0.8) - 29.93 seconds

That's five to six times quicker!

By comparison:

Firefox 0.91 on my Athlon XP2400 based WinXP Pro system took 41.09 seconds
MS Explorer 6 on same system took 28.73 seconds

Hope Oracle actually ships it by wandazulu · 2004-07-02 03:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

I was really burned when Oracle failed to deliver a production quality "we stand behind it" version of 9i for OSX. I had been trying to convince my bosses that OSX could be a real contender for our back-office apps because not only was it an industrial-strength Unix, but that it also had Oracle (which is our DB).

They said they'd wait till it actually shipped, but it never did. There's a ton of stuff Apple provides with the XServe that we could use (XSan definately springs to mind), but whereas we don't do cool rendering or whatnot, we want the boxes for more mundane, database-driven stuff.

On this I sort of blame Apple too, they seem to push the XServes as great for scientific or graphics crunching, but seem to neglect the possibility that their hardware could be used for decidely less sexy roles like serving up text-based data to thousands of users. I am *this* close to convincing the powers-that-be that not every Mac has to run Photoshop, but without the database (specifically Oracle), it won't even be considered.

Re:Hope Oracle actually ships it by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-02 06:54 · Score: 0

It looks much more polished than the previous release, so there may be hope.

This one actually uses a proper Oracle Universal installer, has standard company format documentation (instead of a bare bones PDF doc), and they released separate CDs for the client, server, and supplemental documentation, just like they do for production releases.

The 9i release looked much more like some engineer's proof of concept tarball than a released product.

Re:Camino is fantastic - at Javascript! by OmniVector · 2004-07-02 03:37 · Score: 1

the safari 1.3 beta is quite a bit faster. my results came out around here:
Camino 0.8 - 41 sec
Safari 1.3 preview - 42 sec

--
- tristan

Pudge, I really like this by azav · 2004-07-02 04:19 · Score: 1

A weekly Mac round up is a great idea.

Kudos, beer and swedish bikini team models are being sent your way.

--
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...

Camino? Use Firefox instead. by bahamat · 2004-07-02 04:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

Ok, I love Aqua. My main gripe about Firefox is that it uses GTK widgets and not native Cocoa widgets.

I've given both Camino and Safari their due attention and a very fair chance to become my default browser. Safari gets an extra point because I like the brushed metal. Camino gets an extra point because of type-ahead find. But so far nothing beats the AdBlock extention for Firefox.

If could get AdBlock type blocking on Safari I'd finally make the full leap.

Re:Camino? Use Firefox instead. by Isbiten · 2004-07-02 07:34 · Score: 1

There's always PithHelmet Safari ad blocking. It works great.

--
I fought the corporate America, and the corporate America bought the law.
Re:Camino? Use Firefox instead. by Bombcar · 2004-07-02 07:51 · Score: 1

Let the great and powerful Google lead you to happiness.

I have found it, and will give it to you, since you asked so nicely.

PithHelmet

It's like adblock for Safari, but nicer.

--
Fellowship 9/11
Re:Camino? Use Firefox instead. by aptenergy · 2004-07-02 08:18 · Score: 1

I refer you to my other post in this thread:

http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=113155&c id=9592916
Re:Camino? Use Firefox instead. by bahamat · 2004-07-02 09:22 · Score: 1

Ok, you guys rock. PithHelmet is sweet. Now if we could only get type-ahead find...
Re:Camino? Use Firefox instead. by Jedrys · 2004-07-02 09:44 · Score: 1

Try PithHelmet for adblocking in Safari. It's free and really works!

Oo.o 1.1.2 installation by Ford+Prefect · 2004-07-02 04:42 · Score: 1

I downloaded and tried installing the recent OpenOffice.org the other day, but the installation program broke. It virtually finished, got to 'Converting fonts' and then hung. The little progress bars were wibbling away, but nothing was happening - I left it for an hour, hoping it would finish, but nothing happened.

Anyone else had this problem? What should I do?

I'm now investigating the latest NeoOffice/J - I've got an older version, and it's pretty good, apart from it being very, very slow. If this one breaks too, I think I'll cry...

--
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?

Re:Oo.o 1.1.2 installation by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-02 08:10 · Score: 0

I ran into this myself.. it was having problems converting all of the Vera* fonts. If you feel ok using a command-line, you can ps -ax to see the processes running, look for the sh /bin/mv <stuff> process, and kill it with kill <pid>. Rinse, repeat, about a dozen times for all of the related (bold,mono,italic) fonts.

Eventually, the install finishes "gracefully".
Re:Oo.o 1.1.2 installation by Ford+Prefect · 2004-07-03 01:59 · Score: 1

I'll have a look into that, thanks!

I have got the Bitstream Vera fonts installed (the monospaced ones are great for programming) - a common theme?

Soullessbastard: Thanks for all the links, too!

--
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?

Re:Camino is fantastic - at Javascript! by phaxda · 2004-07-02 06:21 · Score: 1

a less scientific test--if you play poker on pokerroom.com (the only poker place that 'supports' macs by offering a java interface), you'll definitely want camino! it's much faster at loading all that gamblin' stuff up.

overall though, i still prefer firefox--in part because i am addicted to the 'smoke' theme. i like the simple elegance of it...kinda like the rest of my mac.

Re:Camino is fantastic - at Javascript! by Bombcar · 2004-07-02 07:45 · Score: 1

Hmm. Mozilla 1.7rc1 on Linux 2.6 (2.4 GHz) 111.36 seconds (status bar test climbs 1 by 1)

Firefox 0.8 OS X 10.3.4 (1.33GHz) 36.08 (but the first test seemed to jump by 100s.)

Safari 1.2 (same Mac) 44.98 seconds (but there is NO STATUS BAR to update!)

Camino 0.8 (same Mac) 11.31 seconds (but no red windows, no status bar update)

Camino is teh Winnar!

--
Fellowship 9/11

Read the Installer FAQ by soullessbastard · 2004-07-02 08:04 · Score: 2, Informative

The first place to start would be to read through the official OOo 1.1.2 Installer FAQ which has answers to this as well as other support issues and questions. There are a number of other FAQs on trinity that can help you address problems.

Also don't be afraid to post and browse through the online support forums where users exchange hints, tips, bug reports, and the like.

All of us volunteers have put up extensive OOo support resources for Mac OS X users, and there are links to all of them on the "Support" section of our website and even in the README included with the installer itself! We spend a lot of time helping users get things working. If something doesn't work, why not try taking advantage of all the written documentation and live volunteer support? It seems that open source is no different then commercial apps...people still don't read the manuals ;)

ed

(PS: the answer to your problem is that OOo is already installed by that point in the install process...you may just be missing one or two fonts, but it works just fine)

There is no Java in OOo by soullessbastard · 2004-07-02 08:55 · Score: 4, Informative

(Disclaimer: I'm the lead volunteer for OOo Mac OS X)

There is no Java in OpenOffice.org. It is just horribly inefficient C++. The only time Java is used in OOo Mac OS X is during the build process to validate some XML configuration documents; at runtime it doesn't need Java at all. That's why it's possible to run on DarwinPPC even though you can't compile it on DarwinPPC.

Remember, it wasn't written by Sun, but by Star Division. It was started back in the mid to early 1990s and was definitely back in the day before the AWT was anywhere near stable or cross platform. It may have even been started before Java, but I'm unsure of the timelines.

ed

Mac geeks, leave Firefox to win32/linux users by Ilgaz · 2004-07-02 20:28 · Score: 1

and download, help Camino. Its the ONLY browser can impress mac average user and its native.

At least services aren't grayed out, UI is quartz accelerated and the developer is friendly. Of course, its a native thing.

Attention Radiopass subscribers! by Ilgaz · 2004-07-02 22:16 · Score: 1

OK, best is to post AFTER you install the app.

Currently I can't listen to any of those premium radios (acid jazz etc) via RealOne browser itself. It plainly crashes. Also, THANK YOU people calling Real spyware, I can't send crash report to Realone networks like windows version. Or, Omniweb I use here...

I use Real since 1.0 release, first time I see application crash when I try to access premium content. Only change I remember is, Opensource code...

Sorry, bit frustrated since can't access to content I paid for and have to downgrade first time on Mac..

75 comments