Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
OS X Businesses Operating Systems Software Apple

OmniWeb Announces 5.0 Browser 129

Posted by pudge from the i-ll-buy-that-for-a-dollar dept.
wcbrown writes "OmniGroup, makers of the popular Mac OS X browser OmniWeb have announced the upcoming beta of their next-generation browser. There's going to be tabs and they're not like any other browser out there. There's going to be a way to save and share your browsing state so you can restore your window locations and the URLs in them. There's going to be some cool nice-to-haves like integrated RSS reading, per-site preferences, and search shortcuts. The beta will be available February 2, 2004."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OmniWeb Announces 5.0 Browser More

OmniWeb Announces 5.0 Browser

Comments Filter:

  • Tabbing system (Score:5, Informative)

    by xyrw ( 609810 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @02:57PM (#7874280) Homepage

    When I first saw the way Omni had implemented tabs in OW, I thought they were trying to be different for its own sake.

    On this thread [macnn.com], Tim2, who's on the team at Omni, explains the reasoning behind their tabs implementation (vertical tabbing, drawer as opposed to hotlist a la Mozilla). I reproduce it here:

    So, there have been some people wondering why we chose to use a drawer instead of just doing the more traditional Safari/Mozila thing. Here's the deal with the drawer:

    • I've found that thumbnails generally convey much more useful information than page titles. Most page titles are junk anyway (go to eBay and you'll see what I mean). I can switch between tabs much more accurately when I can actually see the page I'm switching to. And in those cases where the thumbnail really is not a distinguishing factor, such as when multiple tabs are open to these forums, then the page title is usually enough supplimentary information for me to figure it out.
    • The tabs were put vertically in a drawer for a number of reasons:
    • First, you can get more vertical space in a drawer than in an in-window sidebar. This is because the drawer overlaps the main window's toolbar, while a view inside the window could only stretch from the bottom of the toolbar to the bottom of the window. That's like 50 extra pixels.
    • Second, they are oriented vertically instead of horizontally so that you don't have to deal with truncated page titles if you don't want to. If you load fifty tabs in Safari, they will have incomprehensibly short titles and will run off the end of the window. OmniWeb does not have this problem. It's also easier on your eyes to scan a list of items that are arranged in rows (as opposed to Safari's single row, multiple column implementation). On top of all that, you can view more tabs at once than you can with Safari -- In OmniWeb's list mode, I can create 20 tabs in a single window before a scroll bar appears (this is on my dinky 12" PowerBook). In Safari, however, I can only fit 11 tabs in a window before they start running off the screen into that annoying menu thing.
    • And finally, you can hide and show a drawer without having to resize the content area of the window. If we put the tabs in an in-window side bar, then we would have to resize the page every time the tab sidebar was hidden or shown. This can have detrimental effects on page layout and can make the user feel cramped, especially when reading pages which lay out best when the window is wide.

    Essentially, the Omni implementation scales better with a large number of tabs. This is the first great improvement to tabbed browsing that I have seen in a long time. I can definitely see myself $30 for this thing.

    • Re:Tabbing system (Score:4, Insightful)

      by pudge ( 3605 ) * <slashdot.pudge@net> on Sunday January 04, 2004 @03:31PM (#7874444) Homepage Journal
      Those are all good reasons. But none of them matter on the issue of horizontal vs. vertical.

      My horizontal space is more valuable than my vertical space. Plus, a ton of space is wasted when you only have a few tabs, if you don't want/need thumbnails. If you can't have the standard tab format, as a horizontal bar, you lose. I am not saying this is a bad implementation -- on the contrary, I think it is the best thing I've seen in a browser since the introduction of tabs -- but I don't want to use it. Not on a regular basis, anyway.

      • Re:Tabbing system (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bnenning ( 58349 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @03:55PM (#7874630)
        My horizontal space is more valuable than my vertical space.

        Really? My impression is that usually the opposite is true, since screens are wider than they are tall, especially with the proliferation of widescreen aspect ratios. You may have a point since Omniweb's drawer will take up more horizontal space than normal tabs take vertical space, but I'm still looking forward to giving it a try.

        • Re:Tabbing system (Score:5, Interesting)

          by pudge ( 3605 ) * <slashdot.pudge@net> on Sunday January 04, 2004 @09:27PM (#7877136) Homepage Journal
          My impression is that usually the opposite is true, since screens are wider than they are tall, especially with the proliferation of widescreen aspect ratios.

          It's a side effect of having a wide screen. Because my (PowerBook 15") screen is wider than it is tall, on average, each individual window takes up all the vertical space (or at least, enough so that I can't have another usable window in the same x coordinates). There is additional space above and below the window, but not enough for another usable window.

          So, if I need to use two windows at once, I need to put them next to each other (or change their size, which is too time-consuming). If I keep my browser windows the same size as I normally do, OmniWeb windows will take up a lot more of my usable space, not just because they take up more space (they do) but because they take up the space I am actually using for something else, whereas adding a horizontal bar takes up more vertical space, which wasn't being used for anything anyway. Maybe I shrink the height of my browser windows a dozen or so pixels, but that is insignificant compared to having two windows side-by-side.

          And while I am sure I can close the Tabs drawer, I don't want to. I like leaving my list of tabs open. Opening and closing it when going back and forth between windows would be annoying, too. ... I'm still looking forward to giving it a try.

          Me too!
          • Drawers can be bad. E.g. iCal drawers are very annoying, since most people want to keep their week/month calendars zoomed fullscreen, and then the drawers fly open and squash the view.

            But when I browse, I essentially never need the window zoomed horizontally.

            So, if I need to use two windows at once, I need to put them next to each other (or change their size, which is too time-consuming).

            I'm curious when you find you need two side-by-side; I'm trying to think of a situation and I'm failing... All my

            • I'm curious when you find you need two side-by-side; I'm trying to think of a situation and I'm failing... All my two-window needs are met by either command-tilde to flip back and forth or Expose.

              Do you ever need two pieces of paper side by side on your desk? Maybe a book and a piece of paper? I often will read from one browser window or email while typing in another. I do it all the time. Right now I am doing it, but I have two monitors; when I am away from my desk, I have only one.
            • All my two-window needs are met by either command-tilde ...

              Holy shit, THANK YOU.

              As a fairly recent Mac convert, I have been sorely missing the ability to switch between windows within a single application. Alt-Tab on Windows or Linux/KDE cycles between all open windows, where Cmd-Tab on OS X cycles between applications, not individual windows. Expose helps, but (Alt|Cmd)-tabbing is faster and preferred in a lot of cases. I never knew this shortcut, so I assumed it wasn't possible.

              • All my two-window needs are met by either command-tilde ...

                THANK YOU... I never knew this shortcut, so I assumed it wasn't possible.

                You're welcome! :)

                I also personally much prefer keyboard shortcuts. Apple is improving in this area, but it's still not where it should be. Panther has the first usable keyboard navigation for Open/Save dialogs. I think a bunch of shortcuts are listed in Finder Help. But some of us old converts have been trained by awful Apple Help performance not to ever ever hit the

        • ver 1.5 introduced a drawer to accomidate input of event data and so forth which was originally being 'handled' by a constant pop-up window. while i hated the prior method of having to repeatedly generate this magic do-it-all window i have now gotten better and turned my hatred to the loss of horizontal screen real estate and a new "smushed" view of my calendar. while i am not original enough to solve this problem i point out the similarity because i believe many people without widescreens were in a similar
          • i definitely prefer the pop-up window, just not iCals implementation of it. As a method for data entry into a calander database, I think a good pop-up window can be quick and easy for data entry. Now-Up-To-Date use to have great data entry windows--double click on a date and a single window popped up. You could resize it to make it smaller or larger; quickly add all basic event info--such as name, categories, date, time, alarms, etc. You could type in miles of notes, add contacts, etc. Better yet, you coul
        • > Really? My impression is that usually the opposite is true, since screens are wider than they are tall

          Irrelevant, it just means I can stick more sidebars on. The reason horizontal real-estate is more valuable is because I read left to right, top to bottom. If something scrolls off the right, I have to continuously scrub back and forth. Off the bottom, I have a number of interface elements in the scrollbar, mousewheel, and keyboard that let me scroll down, and I generally don't have to scroll back u

      • Re:Tabbing system (Score:2, Informative)

        by bar-agent ( 698856 )
        You must not have noticed that you can turn the thumbnails off, and just show the window titles in a vertical list.
        • You must not have noticed that you can turn the thumbnails off, and just show the window titles in a vertical list.

          You must not have read in my post where I wrote, "Plus, a ton of space is wasted when you only have a few tabs, if you don't want/need thumbnails" (the implication being that without thumbnails, it is just window titles, with a lot of empty space below them).
    • This tabbing design might be a good idea, but not for those reasons. Horizontal space is less valuble. When things take up horizontal space it means you have to scroll more. However, putting those same objects in vertical space means that you have to scroll less and the lines you are reading are shorter and easier to scan.
    • I've found that thumbnails generally convey much more useful information than page titles.

      Except that they don't.

      The way I read slashdot, I open up all the new stories in their own tabs, then I close each tab as I finish with it, until I'm down to the last tab, then I go somewhere else. If it's been a day or more since I've been here, there will be a lot of stories, and thus a lot of tabs. Every page on slashdot, when thumbnail-ized, will look essentially the same. Now you want me to try and find the sto

      • Re:Tabbing system (Score:4, Informative)

        by Graff ( 532189 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @09:39PM (#7877225)
        Now you want me to try and find the story I want by choosing one from a bunch of identical images? No thanks, the blurb in the page title is at least *unique*, I'd like to go by that, please.

        If you look at the implementation that OmniWeb 5 is using you will see that it gives you the choice of using either thumbnails or titles. This choice is good because there are many sites that use identical titles for their pages, even when the content is different. With the choice of thumbnails or titles, the user is in control of how they use the "tab" interface that OmniWeb 5 will have.
        • Yes, sorry. I hadn't read the article when I posted that, but I've watched the movies now. It looks pretty cool :)

          Actually, I think that their choice to put the tabs along the side instead of along the top is an improvement in itself. Monitors are naturally wider than they are tall, and 90% of websites are long but not wide (ie, you have to scroll vertically, but not horizontally). Granted, the tabs along the side *do* take up more space than the tabs along the top, it's possible that the horizontal space

    • Re:Tabbing system (Score:2, Interesting)

      by babbage ( 61057 )

      Thank ghod someone is finally doing this -- I've been hoping for almost exactly this kind of drawer based, thumbnail enhanced tabs implementation for over a year now, and posted about the idea both at Slashdot [slashdot.org] and MacSlash [macslash.org] last January. Others were writing about it, too [macslash.org]. I also submitted it as a bug in Safari and as an enhancement on Apple's feedback page -- but then apparently they're deluged with such reports, never read them individually, and can't do more than statistical analysis of things people are r

    • All valid points IF EXPOSE DIDN'T EXIST.

      Really, what the fuck is the point of tabbed browsing on OSX in a post-Expose world?

      Still, I'm hoping Omniweb will remain my browser of choice - it's security, shortcutting and bookmarking are still the best by MILES.
    • A lot of what they announced seems remarkably similar to what was discussed at MacNN [macnn.com] prior to Safari being released.

      I must admit that now I've become used to Safari, the ideas we discussed then don't seem quite as exciting as they once did. I find that when I have too many tabs with Safari I simply open up a new window. I do wish Safari allowed tabs to be rearranged and drug between windows though. However that may infringe upon Adobe's patent. (Although Microsoft has a similar interface in some appli

    • Now that we have Expose, do we even need tabs (be they textual or graphical)?

  • OmniWeb Tabs (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ike6116 ( 602143 ) * on Sunday January 04, 2004 @03:14PM (#7874360) Homepage Journal
    They look quite weak from that video. They aren't nearly as useful as regular tabs (a la Mozilla, Safari et. al), as a matter of fact Omni's take on "tabs" reminds me of a glorified "Page Holder" from IE 5 for Mac OS 9. My real question is what does OmniWeb have to offer? It's using Apple's WebKit last time I checked, so it's not a new rendering engine that they have to give, no *REAL* tabbed browsing (which is what I want) so no dice there. I understand more choices are good yadda yadda yadda and all that jazz, but my question still stands, what does OmniWeb have to offer the end user?
    • Omniweb has that save state thing. Think of it as 'sleep on close' and 'wake on open', except with web browsing : )

    • Re:OmniWeb Tabs (Score:3, Interesting)

      by FosterKanig ( 645454 )
      Actually, some of the implementation looks pretty good. I spend most of my online time on my laptop, which means for "Open in a new tab" I have to do the Control-Click contortion, while this seems to allow me to drag and drop for the same effect.
      BUT, I don't want to have the damn drawer open all the time reducing screen space. So, I guess I have no point. But I will at least try out the beta. It'll take a lot for me to pay, but I am willing to give them a chance.
      • I spend most of my online time on my laptop, which means for "Open in a new tab" I have to do the Control-Click contortion, while this seems to allow me to drag and drop for the same effect.

        Mozilla Firebird allows you to drag a link to the tab bar to open the link in a new tab if you want. No contortions required - unless you really want to do them...
        • I'll try that. My first experience with Firebird was less than stellar, but that was on a Windows machine. I guess it is time to try it on my home computer. Thanks.

        • Safari does this as well. The catch is that Safari has two modes of handling this behavior. If there is blank space on the tab bar and you drag a link onto that blank space, Safari will open a new tab onto that page. On the other hand, if you drag a link over an existing tab -- and if you have more than half a dozen or so tabs open, the bar is full and you have nothing but filled tabs on your tab bar -- then the new link will be opened in place of that other page. This, in my mind, kind of negates the point

          • Safari does this as well. The catch is that Safari has two modes of handling this behavior. If there is blank space on the tab bar and you drag a link onto that blank space, Safari will open a new tab onto that page. On the other hand, if you drag a link over an existing tab -- and if you have more than half a dozen or so tabs open, the bar is full and you have nothing but filled tabs on your tab bar -- then the new link will be opened in place of that other page. This, in my mind, kind of negates the point

            • Oh yeah, I agree that the behavior makes sense -- the misfeature in Safari is that it doesn't leave that null space for opening new tabs. Firebird gets that right, but Safari could do for a revision there...

      • Actually, some of the implementation looks pretty good. I spend most of my online time on my laptop, which means for "Open in a new tab" I have to do the Control-Click contortion,

        In Mozilla and Firebird, you can drag links up to the tab bar and they'll open in a new tab.

    • Re:OmniWeb Tabs (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      If you have to ask that question, you've obviously never used Omniweb. I can search google for x by typing in 'google x'. If I want it in Japanese, it's 'googlej x'. I can search amazon.com by searching 'az x'. Etc. It cuts down on browsing time by at least 50%, since my hands never have to keyboard, ever (I have memorized all of the useful keyboard shortcuts, and even added some of my own).

      If that doesn't entice you, OW has ridiculously customizable popup/ad blocking capabilities, a downloads window th
      • If you have to ask that question, you've obviously never used Omniweb. I can search google for x by typing in 'google x'. If I want it in Japanese, it's 'googlej x'. I can search amazon.com by searching 'az x'. Etc. It cuts down on browsing time by at least 50%, since my hands never have to keyboard, ever (I have memorized all of the useful keyboard shortcuts, and even added some of my own).

        While this is a very useful feature, it is by no means unique to OW. Even IE has had this feature for several year

        • If you have to ask that question, you've obviously never used Omniweb. I can search google for x by typing in 'google x'. If I want it in Japanese, it's 'googlej x'. I can search amazon.com by searching 'az x'. Etc. It cuts down on browsing time by at least 50%, since my hands never have to keyboard, ever (I have memorized all of the useful keyboard shortcuts, and even added some of my own).

          While this is a very useful feature, it is by no means unique to OW. Even IE has had this feature for several yea

  • Obligatory Opera comment (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @03:19PM (#7874391) Homepage
    I must say I am impressed... I had never thought Opera would be eclipsed in cool features, but there it is. Many of these things Opera should be doing right now.

    Workspaces, for example. Opera has an integrated system for easily saving and restoring web sessions, and even features an undo for closing windows (yay!). But this feature is buried in a menu somewhere, requires an open / save dialog box, and generally could be a lot more intuitive. Despite having been in several iterations of the browser, few people have found it.

    Site-specific preferences. People have wanted this for a long time now, and I'm glad to see someone is implementing it. Pity it wasn't Opera. Opera supports preference sets, and many of them contain site-specific information, but in no way can all preferences be set on a site-specific basis. From the description it sounds like you could, for example, set your Slashdot home page to be your user page. I may be reading this wrong... only February will tell.

    Adding searches... This is just plain cool. While opera allows you to use one of many pre-defined searches through a variety of means (including typing "g " + subject into the address bar), adding any search would be a powerful and useful ability. Of course, Opera's more flexible interface would have to find ways to deal with this (an individual search bar? the agregate search bar? the address search method?), but it shouldn't be too difficult.

    Sharing bookmarks on a LAN is both great and troublesome. How do you implement this easily and quickly in a Windows environment without Rendezvous?

    Tabs aren't as big of a deal, honestly. Usually either you have few enough pages open that you can keep track of them by name, or you have so many open that thumbnails would be too cumbersome to use.

    I've always been envious of OmniWeb's History Search ability, website update notifications, and inline spell checker. That latter is being addressed in opera 7.5 [computercops.biz], along with a few nifty other features. While I will continue to use Opera, not the least of which because I have a PC, OmniWeb appears to be shaping up to quite the must-have app. OmniWeb was originally slated to ship as the default browers for OSX. Now it looks like that was a great idea.
    • Sharing bookmarks on a LAN is both great and troublesome. How do you implement this easily and quickly in a Windows environment without Rendezvous?

      You use IE along with a shared directory, since bookmarks are stored as simple files
      *GRIN*!
    • Sharing bookmarks on a LAN is both great and troublesome. How do you implement this easily and quickly in a Windows environment without Rendezvous?

      That's easy. Port it. [porchdogsoft.com]
    • While opera allows you to use one of many pre-defined searches through a variety of means (including typing "g " + subject into the address bar), adding any search would be a powerful and useful ability.

      Mozilla/Firebird does this too. I love it, I have my browser set up so if I type php + searchterm in the address bar, it'll search php.net

      See here on how to make your own:
      http://www.joeyday.com/archives/individual/0 00560. php
      • While opera allows you to use one of many pre-defined searches through a variety of means (including typing "g " + subject into the address bar), adding any search would be a powerful and useful ability.

        IE has done this since around version 4 with an (albeit not well advertised) addon from microsoft.
    • Yeah... adding searches has been standard fare in Mozilla for a while now. Mycroft.mozdev.org anyone?
  • heh, ServiceHolder ( http://www.serviceholder.com ) did it first. Funny.

  • Mirror (Score:2, Informative)

    by CowboyMeal ( 614487 )
    omniwebtabs.mp4 [rit.edu]
    workspaces.mov [rit.edu]

  • A lesson for the non-khtml world. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @04:15PM (#7874780) Homepage Journal
    Omniweb 4.5 uses the WebCore and JavaScriptCore frameworks from Apple - the same technology used in Safari for rendering web pages.
    Cool! It appears that Apple has decided to repay the KHTML community in kind, by promoting the general use of the KHTML component on their platform, not just in Safari. Good for them. Though the Webcore web page [apple.com] seems to say that OmniWeb has jumped the gun by using the current version of Webcore, which still lacks a stable public API.

    Apple does seem to have gotten sloppy with terminology once again. They can't call a component "JavaScriptCore" -- technically and legally, "JavaScript" can only describe the Netscape implementation of the language. The generic term is ECMAScript [mozilla.org]. Anyone taking bets on how long before Time-Warner's lawyers notice the trademark infringment?

    There's a lesson here for those of us stuck with Gecko, Opera, or the mysterious combination of undocumented engines that is Internet Explorer. You want standardization, you gotta have open-source components. W3C puts a lot of work in defining standards for HTML [w3.org], CSS [w3.org], and SVG [w3.org]. These standards have a lot of unbelievably cool features, with much more in the pipe. But nobody can use most of them, because they're not widely implemented. What's the point of working so hard to create good standards if nobody uses them?

    We need a reference web engine that will drive standards-based web development, just as the reference implementation of Java, with all its flaws, drove the adoption of the Java platform. Microsoft probably wouldn't use it, but it would provide some small pressure for them to be more standards compliant. W3C could develop such a comonent from scratch, or they could use Gecko; but KHTML seems to have the code base that's closest to a real tipping point.

    • Re:A lesson for the non-khtml world. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Cool! It appears that Apple has decided to repay the KHTML community in kind, by promoting the general use of the KHTML component on their platform, not just in Safari. Good for them. Though the Webcore web page seems to say that OmniWeb has jumped the gun by using the current version of Webcore, which still lacks a stable public API.

      Where have you been? This is exceedingly old news. Apple's been promoting it in that fashion from the start. The developer tools even include a 'simple browser' example.

      T

    • Re:A lesson for the non-khtml world. (Score:5, Informative)

      by shawnce ( 146129 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @07:34PM (#7876107) Homepage
      Apple made Web Kit a public framework as of Mac OS X 10.2.7/8 (around Oct. 2003).

      This page [apple.com] covers how to use it.

      As of Panther you can even create a functional web browser in Cocoa without writing a single line of code, this includes backwards/forwards navigation controls, other common controls, etc. To do this you simply drag and drop elements into a window/view in Interface Builder and wire up a few things graphically... you don't even need to compile it to use it. (I tried it myself for the fun of it, it takes less then 5 mins)

      Apple is also using Web Kit for various things other then Safari in Panther, like the help viewer, Xcode, etc. Third parties are also quickly starting to use it for imbedded HTML display.

      Rather cool.
      • There's a difference between WebKit and WebCore. WebKit is a very high-level framework that most apps will wind up using (e.g. drag, drop, and WebKit takes care of most of the work). For the finer control that Omni Group requires of the HTML core, they use the WebCore/JavaScriptCore frameworks, which operate at a much lower level and are not public/supposed to be used. My guess is that Omni is using their own custom version though, which means that they can do whatever the heck they want. ;)

    • Apple does seem to have gotten sloppy with terminology once again. They can't call a component "JavaScriptCore" -- technically and legally, "JavaScript" can only describe the Netscape implementation of the language. The generic term is ECMAScript. Anyone taking bets on how long before Time-Warner's lawyers notice the trademark infringment?

      Actually, ECMAScript and JavaScript are not the same language. The link you provide says that JavaScript 2.0 is a slight superset of the ECMAScript 4 proposal. ActionSc

  • Omni has some strange ideas... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I really like how OmniWeb's so-called tabbed browsing looks. The problem comes with how much space that's going to use up. Doesn't the Omni Group realize that most people out there expand their browser window to be as big as possible? On your average 15" or so monitor (laptops, 15" panels, even the 17" monitors) space is at a premium. As for the workspace thing? It looks stupid. Who keeps little browser windows all over their desktop? I'll stick with Safari, or even Camino.

    • Re:Omni has some strange ideas... (Score:4, Funny)

      by larkost ( 79011 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @06:25PM (#7875569)
      Actually one of the developers has been saying that he bas been working a lot on the program on his 12" iBook, and has been saying that both the tabs and the workspaces help him better manage his screen real-estate. Of course that means he was also using XCode on a 12" iBook, and you have to be a contortionist to do that well....
      • Well, not to be picky but I use Xcode on a 12" PB and I have no trouble at all. With decent hotkeys set up I barely even use the mouse.

        Come to think of it, I develop both on my 12" PB and on a nice g4 tower running at 1600x1200 and frankly I feel more comfy on the laptop; but that's mainly because I prefer the keyboard there, and because I get my best hacking done in coffee shops.

        It's all a matter of perspective. I've used laptops so long I don't feel the need to gripe about screen size.
    • -- Doesn't the Omni Group realize that most people out there expand their browser window to be as big as possible?

      I don't. I'm sure other people don't as well.

      Your UI usage patterns != my UI usage patterns
      • I don't either. If my browser is larger than about 80% of my screen it's because some idiot hardcoded their website, or a link opened a window hardcoded to my resolution.

        I typically run about 70% of the screen I think; but thats a single screen on a dual monitor setup.

        I watched the video for the new version of OmniWeb and wasn't particularly impressed. The preview consumes a lot of space, space I use for other things. (Sometimes it's just so I can have access to the windows behind, but hey, thats how I wo

  • block partial conent? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AssFace ( 118098 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `77znets'> on Sunday January 04, 2004 @06:07PM (#7875427) Homepage Journal
    My three reasons for sticking with Safari are:
    1) The Google Toolbar (although not implemented in the same full and correct way as the real thing on Windows).

    2) Ad blocking

    3) Pith Helmet - it allows ad content (or really any content) in a web page to be blocked. So banners and images can be stopped and not downloaded - saving my slow connection from having to bother with them, as well as not even seeing the ads.

    I also like the bookmark bar, but I suppose many of the browsers have that now.

    I know little to nothing about OmniWeb, will have to check it out more.
    • OmniWeb has all of these features, if I'm not mistaken. You should probably check it out.
      • Yes indeed - I made it over to their site and browsed through all of it - and watched the movies in the links in this /. article. Very impressive.

        The nice thing about Safari is that it is free, and I paid for Pitch Helmet to encourage the development of it.

        Didn't see if there was any Google Toolbar functionality - but one could probably very weakly fake it with the OmniWeb shortcut thing.

        I might have to wait until 5.0 - very nice stuff. Curious to see if it crashes as much as Safari does for me under Pan
        • "Didn't see if there was any Google Toolbar functionality - but one could probably very weakly fake it with the OmniWeb shortcut thing."

          Hardly weakly! I type "google britney spears annulment" and I'm THERE - no fucking about whatsoever, Who needs "Snapback" when you have instant access via an English statement?

          You can set-up OW's shortcuts to suit yourself perfectly, it's the best implementation I've ever seen.
          • I keep repeating myself on this one:

            The actual Google Toolbar - as it is implemented by the good folks at Google - has many features beyond just allowing you to type in a word and have it shoved off to their search page.

            What I want is not the ability to do the search pass off - that is easy - what I want is the extra functionality that I have mentioned multiple time (although perhaps not in this thread, but in this story - I have lost track).

            The actual Google Toolbar (the real one) creates a button for e

    • Re:block partial conent? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by larkost ( 79011 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @06:20PM (#7875520)
      1) OmniWeb has had this for a long time... it just doesn't proclaim itself (and is a lot more configurable). Just type "google this and that" and it will return the results page of a google search for "this and that". You can make your own queries for any site you would like. In 4.5 this can only be a get query, but in 5 it can be a POST one as well. From the screenshots 5 will also have the option of having a separate field for this.

      2) OmniWeb has had this since version 3. By size, not from same domain, or by a regular expression. I am not sure if Omni or iCab was the first to have it, but it was one of those two.

      3) see 2...

      Bookmark management has been one of OmniWeb's strengths, and it looks like they are running that ball again in 5. Having bookmarks check themselves at user definable intervals is really nice.

      Cookie management is also a strong point, and the per-site preference mechanism will make this easier to use.

      Take a look at OmniWeb. You can use it for free without restriction. It just asks you to register it on startup, and if you leave a window untouched for long enough it gets an "unregistered" banner cross it until you touch it again. And if you are really interested, check out the OmniWeb-l list, the developers are really responsive.
      • Just getting an easy Google search is less desirable to me (still great, don't get me wrong) than having the toolbar functionality where the words you typed in to the search show up on the toolbar and then if you click on them, it will go to that word in the text. You can also turn on/off via a button highlighting the search terms in the text in different colors.
        It helps you find exactly the parts of a page that you are interested in if it is text heavy.

        Do you have to pay to be a developer for it?

        OmniWeb
        • Pay for being a developer? I am not sure I know exactly what you mean, but if you are asking if you have to do something to make your own shortcuts (what Omni calls the google-bar thing), then no. You just have to go into your preferences and define your own shortcuts.

          Highlighting might be nice, but is not something that has been implemented. But there is always the text-search in the page available.
          • I was asking if in order to be one of the developers - making plug-ins and whatnot required one to pay.

            As for the text hilighting - it is in the Windows version of the real Google Toolbar and it is extremely useful.

            I'm trying out OmniWeb now and it is very very nice. Looking forward to version 5.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @09:11AM (#7880147)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • I just don't know (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rixstep ( 611236 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @09:07PM (#7876992) Homepage
    I just don't know. Omni have been around for ages, and in the NeXT camp, but their browser has been around for ages too, and crashing for ages, and was totally eclipsed there for a while until they came up with the idea of using the same code as Safari to rejuvenate and refurbish their own product. And yes, that is the essence of the GPL, but what irks me is that prior to the introduction of Safari, Omni could not get a stable browser out the door.

    There is no doubt in my mind that D Hyatt and Co could make this Omni browser if they wanted - but they ostensibly opt not to, and for reasons which are not that hard to fathom. A lot of people like - even prefer - Safari for its simplicity - and for its relative stability.

    I prefer good coding. I don't care much what great new UI gizmos a company dreams up. I want dependability and stability, and without disparaging anyone unnecessarily, it seems that these two virtues have been difficult to achieve for the Omni Group, and I see no indication they're suddenly going to get any better.

    • Re:I just don't know (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Graff ( 532189 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @10:00PM (#7877379)
      what irks me is that prior to the introduction of Safari, Omni could not get a stable browser out the door.

      OmniWeb 4 was actually pretty stable and rendered fairly well even before they switched to using WebCore. The only thing that was really missing was some of the CSS support and some of the JavaScript stuff. The main problem the Omni Group had was that they were spending a lot of time chasing sloppy coding that worked in Internet Explorer because people only checked their code in Internet Explorer or they coded to some of the quirks in IE and that broke the rendering in other browers.

      The Omni Group finally realized that they were trying to master too many disciplines and they were spending time re-inventing the wheel. They made a smart choice and decided to let someone else worry about rendering web content while they concentrated on solid UI and application design. The merging of the Omni Group's great UI-sense and KHTML's excellent rendering is a dream and they combine to make a wonderful product that is well-worth throwing a few bucks at. Not to mention that you can use the product indefinitely for free and all you'll see a single funny nag message out of a series of a dozen or so every few days.
      • The Omni Group finally realized that they were trying to master too many disciplines and they were spending time re-inventing the wheel.

        I'm guessing they already knew this. As has been pointed out elsewhere, these guys are NeXT coders from wayback, and code re-use for quick development being such an important part of the whole NeXTStep/OpenStep/Cocoa system. I think the only thing stopping them prior to Safari and WebCore is that the frameworks didn't exist to allow them to just make use of the system H

        • I think the only thing stopping them prior to Safari and WebCore is that the frameworks didn't exist to allow them to just make use of the system HTML renderer (what were they going to do, use the renderer from the pre-Panther Help viewer? Talk about slow and buggy...).

          Well, nothing was stopping them from using the KHTML libraries or one of the other open-source HTML rendering libraries that were out there even before Apple decided to do so. I mean, that's what Apple did. Apple had their own renderin

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
            Comment removed based on user account deletion

            • ..and they had the best rendering on the platform. If you have access to a Puma (10.1) system, have a look at IE and OmniWeb side by side.

              The rendering was great, I won't dispute that. The problem was the handing of non-standard HTML coding practices. The special cases of buggy code or people writing to IE-specific display errors was the Achilles heal of OmniWeb's (and many other's) rendering. It is extremely difficult to guess exactly what a HTML author wanted the page to look like, given the errors

          • They were definitely looking at using Gecko and indicated in interviews that 5.0 would probably be based on it because they were spending too much development time on their rendering engine. When Apple announced Safari, they realized that WebCore was a much better engine for integration than Gecko and so they switched over.

            Furthermore, they are still using some of their own rendering engine. If you look at a page in Safari and OmniWeb, you'll notice that they're different looking though basically the same.

            • If you look at a page in Safari and OmniWeb, you'll notice that they're different looking though basically the same. I believe OmniWeb does some font work or something like that.

              I believe most of the differences are because they are both using a different set of default fonts. I've copied over the font settings that are used in OmniWeb and Safari and now the two look pretty much 100% identical to me. It looks like Lucidia Grande is just a much better font for the job than whatever it was that Safari us

          • There is nothing wrong with that, but you can't say that rendering frameworks didn't exist prior to WebCore because there were several.

            I'm not saying that other rendering engines didn't already exist (i.e., gecko, KHTML), but rather there wasn't a framework for one included with the system before Apple released WebCore. So whatever choice Omni had made regarding which rendering engine to use, either their own or somebody else's, it would have required a not insignificant amount of programming time to be

    • Re:I just don't know (Score:3, Insightful)

      by baruz ( 211342 )
      I believe that, coming out of the whole NeXT tradition that invented the web browser [w3.org], OmniWeb used a real SGML engine to parse the HTML applications that are called web pages, as you could tell by reading the status bar as pages loaded (SGMLObject parsing, or something; I've since updated to OW 4.5, with WebCore). True, this engine had trouble with many pages--that is, it did not accept as liberally as it could have--but I think that the twists and contortions that people put HTML through [pastiche.org] would have made ev

      • Re:I just don't know (Score:3, Interesting)

        by psleonar ( 99125 )
        At least in early versions, OmniWeb tried using a 'pure' object-oriented approach to render web pages. They wrote an object that converted HTML into SGML, then another one to convert SGML into RTF -- which was a native format for NextStep to display. Although elegant in architecture, these many conversions delayed the display of the web page quite a bit.

        To make matters worse, until OS4.2, the low-level Next-supplied Text Object was not multi-threaded. (No real reason for it to be, until web browsers ca

  • Stingy Location Bar (Score:3, Troll)

    by rixstep ( 611236 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @09:19PM (#7877086) Homepage
    I don't like the way they just let content run off the bottom of the page. They've always done that, and I don't like it. They should, IMHO, put a discreet narrow white space at the bottom. I don't know. I know it just doesn't look right for me the way it is - it feels 'half baked'.

    Their location bar, with all the other doodads they've already got up there, is about wide enough for 'apple.com' but no more. I suspect this is going to be a real pain for users of the new version.

    And I've had no joy with ever getting OW to run for more than a few minutes without crashing all over the place - and not when rendering web pages, but when trying the possible in configuration settings and the like.

    And all the Omni PR people have had to say about that is: 'a lot of our users don't experience crashes'. So wow - that's how you deal with crashes at Omni Group support?

    No thanks. I got Safari if I want, and Safari is an honest effort, and Safari is not playing leap frog or riding on the tails of anyone else's efforts. Omni should first attempt to get their own browser out the door without crashing all over the place; when they've demonstrated they too can write solid code, then they can do what they want.

    Creating a souped-up version of Safari might give them back a market niche, but it's not honest the way they're going at it, IMHO. Show you can write a browser first - then worry about the doodads. I for one will not go near OW5 until I hear the word that Omni have suddenly learned how to produce good, stable code.

    • Re:Stingy Location Bar (Score:5, Funny)

      by hysterion ( 231229 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @11:42PM (#7877991) Homepage
      it's not honest the way they're going at it, IMHO.

      Safari is not playing leap frog or riding on the tails of anyone else's efforts. Omni should first attempt to get their own browser out the door without crashing all over the place; when they've demonstrated they too can write solid code, then they can do what they want.

      You're so right. How dare they build on open code, implementing open standards?!? These guys are hijacking the web, pure and simple!!!

      Omni should first attempt to design their own markup language and transfer protocol. Once they've demonstrated they too can write a good network stack and lay their own backbone fiber, then they can do what they want.

      Anything short (including their sickening use of public roads to drive to work!!!) is just sheer piracy on their part.

    • I actually prefer content able to run to the bottom of the window. With the option to turn on an off a status bar, ala Safari.

      OmniWeb 4.5 is still too crash prone for me which is why I still use a version 4.2.1 for stuff that crashes my other browsers (eg keenspot.com). Most of the crashes I've seen also effect Safari and appear to be in webcore's handling of JavaScript background processing. (My main browser is Safari. If OmniWeb 5 is crash free enough, I will switch back, but chances are I'll wait to upd

    • Re:Stingy Location Bar (Score:4, Insightful)

      by doughmein_dot_net ( 565078 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @01:08AM (#7878516) Journal
      and Safari is not playing leap frog or riding on the tails of anyone else's efforts.

      But doesn't Safari do just that? Apple didn't write Safari's rendering engine from scratch. Apple chose to use WebCore, which was derived from KDE's KHTML code. They've been very good citizens by contributing code back to the KDE project, but they're still utilizing code that was developed by another group.

      So why is it okay for Safari to "leap frog" and build upon the efforts of the KHTML development team, but not OmniWeb? What makes Safari an "honest effort" when they re-use code in the same way as Apple? Why should OmniWeb have to re-invent the wheel when there is already a stable rendering engine available for them to utilize?

      If you want a web browser with a "niche market" that uses a proprietary rendering engine, look no further than Opera or Internet Explorer. But the re-use of WebCore makes OmniWeb a credible product, and frees up their developers' time to do other worthwhile things, such as fixing bugs and working on the stability of their program. Why should they have to waste time writing their own rendering engine?

      I can understand your dislike for OmniWeb for their past track record of stability, but if you're going to critique their re-use of open source code, you'll need to come up with some far more convincing arguments.

    • Re:Stingy Location Bar (Score:5, Insightful)

      by EricHsu ( 578881 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @02:44AM (#7878930)
      And all the Omni PR people have had to say about that is: 'a lot of our users don't experience crashes'. So wow - that's how you deal with crashes at Omni Group support?
      If you have a crash, a Crashcatcher app opens and mails a crash log to Omni. What more do you expect, a handwritten certificate of apology? (This happens for registered versions... your unregistered mileage may vary.)
      No thanks. I got Safari if I want, and Safari is an honest effort, and Safari is not playing leap frog or riding on the tails of anyone else's efforts. Omni should first attempt to get their own browser out the door without crashing all over the place; when they've demonstrated they too can write solid code, then they can do what they want.
      Are you serious? Safari is 'riding on the tails' of the entire KHTML team and indirectly the efforts of many other open source developers. This is how it should be.

      And we shouldn't forget. Omniweb was there first. Back when OS X was just out, there was only the hideous hideous IE5 (tragic since IE5/OS9 was the best browser of its time) and a nightmarish Netscape. OW was gorgeous and fast and showed everyone what a browser really should be like. Yeah, it had occasional crashes, but it was the best of the bunch. Except for the sick task of reverse-engineering all of IE's bugs. Leading to...

      Creating a souped-up version of Safari might give them back a market niche, but it's not honest the way they're going at it, IMHO. Show you can write a browser first - then worry about the doodads.
      That's right, why use a standards-compliant free Apple standard Toolkit, when you can completely reinvent the wheel for no good reason other than to impress about ten people in the world who probably won't even register your product and will complain about how your URL field isn't adjusted right in your demo movie. While their at it, they should have written their own compilers, the cheating bastards.

      This isn't macho CS major dueling here. This is about creating useful software. Most of us are delighted they are using Webkit for rendering and thinking about other interface issues instead of wasting their time on rendering (which incidentally was killing their development efforts).

      If you don't like it, don't use, or don't try it. But please don't try to say it's somehow dishonest or wimpy to use system toolkits.

      • -- This is about creating useful software.

        And if using Webkit means that the folks at Omni have time to make more interesting user features like Workspaces and their tab implimentation then I'm all for it.

        I'm actually quite excitied about this new iteration of the browser.
    • for your rendering needs in omniweb. Omniweb uses webcore, the rendering engine for Safari, which is based on KHTML, the HTML redering engine in KDE.

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @09:04AM (#7880103)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • I submitted the story on January 1st. It was delayed for some reason.
    • Those of you who aren't familiar with Omni's other apps, check them out. These guys are some of the best software developers in the business.

      Abso-freakin-loutly. If you've never seen OmniGraffle (their diagramming application) [omnigroup.com], check it out. I put together graphical representations of a theoretical computer cluster in about 5 minutes that is thoroughly impressive. Ditto for a quick sketch of UML. And a street map to get to my house. And so on. Basically, if I have to think about anything for more th
  • Why doesn't anyone ever talk about iCab?

  • Drawer vs. Panel (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rthille ( 8526 ) <web-slashdot@ran g a t .org> on Monday January 05, 2004 @01:44PM (#7882286) Homepage Journal
    I really don't like the inflexibility of the drawer model. A drawer is nicely associated with it's window, but always takes up the screen space whether the window is 'key' or not. I much perfer the the 'panel' approach of NeXTStep. In NeXTStep, you'd have one or a few panels per application, they could hide (or not depending on implementation) when the application wasn't 'front'. The content of the panel would change to track the 'key' window. and the panel could be moved where ever you'd like on the workspace. Given a multi monitor setup, that flexibility can be very very useful.

Slashdot Top Deals

THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE

Close