OmniWeb 4.1b released

cosmo

Has anyone been able to try this? I cannot seem to download it right now (operation timed out).



Anything new that wasn't in the SP releases?



<a href="http://www.versiontracker.com/moreinfo.fcgi?id=3253&db=macosx"; target="_blank">Versiontracker page</a>



edit: added link



[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: Cosmo ]</p>

logan cale

I downloaded it a few days ago and it's a lot faster and stuff like that.

sinewave

Yeah I got it a couple days ago .. really nice.

neutrino23

This is great! Response is very snappy. Rendering is good. Works even with a difficult site that previously only worked with Netscape.



Likely to become my main browser for now.



One annoyance. When creating a new window it always defaults to a small size rather than duplicating the size of the current window. Is this standard behavior or am I doing something wrong?

ybot

You have to tell it to 'remember browser size and position', I've forgotten where that option is. I'll check and post it back.

ybot

Aha, found it.



Under the Browser menu, choose "Save window size" once the window is sized properly. Odd that you have to tell the app to remember the window size, but at least it works.

bobthetomato

I just downloaded it and in a few minutes of playing it does seem sprighlier than I remember 4.06 being.

I like to keep both IE and Omniweb running that way when one bogs down I can just switch over to the other and keep going (don't you love preemptive multitasking)



One quirk with the download, in IE 5.1 I had to right click the "download now" link and choose "save link to disk" or else IE would try to open it as a web page (what strange gibberish) instead of downloading it. If you can't get it still, you might snag a copy of <a href="http://www.igetter.net"; target="_blank">iGetter</a> and then copy the link to the clipboard and let iGetter have a crack at it (you can use iGetter for free 14 days). When I surfed primarily on OmniWeb I used the prerelease version of iGetter for my downloads, much better speed and it can pick up broken downloads where it left off (usually).

moogs

OW 4.1b1 is pretty sleek for a beta product. Renders pages at least as quickly as IE and renders them in a more easily readable fashion to boot. GUI is well thought out, though I wish there was a preferences widget you could add to the toolbar as with IE. Also, for some reason when changing the font size on a page, command-minus works but command-plus does not - you have to use the toolbar widget for that. This bug was present in the last version as well, but my recollection is that they planned on eliminating it for this version (eventually I guess).



I have a feeling by the time this thing goes final it will provide some stiff competition for IE. Especially since the main problem with previous versions (slow rendering) seems to be a non-issue at this point. One feature I also really like is the ability to tell the browser how to identify itself to web servers. You can choose from several different "strains" of IE, Netscrape, and the like. Web designers will surely like this feature too.



This is going to be a rock-solid product for OS X.



[ 12-27-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>

moogs

Update: 4.1b hasn't wigged out on me all day and flies through many sites I thought it might drag out. It's now my default browser...and just when I thought MS might dominate my dock until spring. :cool:

hekal

Doesn't work on hotornot.com

revs

[quote]Originally posted by Moogs ?:

<strong>... command-minus works but command-plus does not - you have to use the toolbar widget for that. ...</strong><hr></blockquote>



Well it does work - sort of - you just have to press apple + shift + +/=. Otherwise I think it takes it as pressing apple + =.

revs

[quote]Originally posted by Moogs ?:

<strong>... command-minus works but command-plus does not - you have to use the toolbar widget for that. ...</strong><hr></blockquote>



Well it does work - sort of - you just have to press apple + shift + +/=. Otherwise I think it takes it as pressing apple + =.

rambo47

Interesting, but I'm sticking with IE 5.1 for now. Its faster than before but still slower than IE 5.1. I've used it on an iBook 500 MHz, Ti667, and on an upgraded B&W (1 GB RAM, Sonnet Encore G4 500 Hz). At least its a better alternative than any of that Netscape/Mozilla crap.

sinewave

[quote]Originally posted by hekal:

<strong>Doesn't work on hotornot.com </strong><hr></blockquote>



Heh I am sure they are running to get this fixed.

horned_frog

[quote]Originally posted by MacAgent:

<strong>I downloaded it a few days ago and it's a lot faster and stuff like that.</strong><hr></blockquote>



It's still slow as molasses for me . Maybe it is my crappy 56k connection. No DSL availability here. Ah well. It is a NICE browser nonethless. Great features, much more customizable than IE. And prettier, too. Once it goes GM and if it is snappier (for me) I will more than likely pay for it...

fantastic happy dinner man

[quote]Originally posted by Horned_Frog:

<strong> It's still slow as molasses for me . Maybe it is my crappy 56k connection. No DSL availability here. Ah well. It is a NICE browser nonethless. Great features, much more customizable than IE. And prettier, too. Once it goes GM and if it is snappier (for me) I will more than likely pay for it...</strong><hr></blockquote>



It's not the connection. Both IE, & Opera (which I've just today tried-know it lacks some things) actually load without dropping the ball, load right, and do it NOW. OmniWeb 4.1b "b is for better" isn't there yet. When it is, I'll buy it too. But I gotta wonder why is it taking so long?



[ 12-29-2001: Message edited by: yablaka ]</p>

buonrotto

Omni has only two to three people working on it, no more than 80-120 hours a week combined.

rok

hey, did anyone see the awful interchange between a reader and editor for macworld regarding their "review" of omniweb recently? absolutely shameful on macworld's behalf, especially in response to the omnigroup's defense letter-to-the-editor (it essentially boiled down to "well, we still don't agree with your point, and therefore we are still right.").



they have copped this attitude several times, and just recently (like within the past six months), and i, for one, am sick of it. omniweb is a DAMN solid product considering they do not have the bottomless bank account of microsoft. and did anyone see the exhaustive article comparing microsoft office to "competing" products, which painted office as the only solution you'll ever need. excel vs. mesa?!? and they compared word to a couple of text editors... WHAT THE HOLY F*CK?!?! perhaps the paradigm of "apple to oranges" comparisons. at least appleworks got a nice plug as the "next best thing" - but it was far from impartial...



hmmmm... i think i need to rant about macworld in the general discussion forum... anyone want to join me?



[ 12-29-2001: Message edited by: rok ]</p>

applenut

rok, was it in the mag or on the net?

rok

in the magazine... basically, the omnigroup pointed out to macworld that using a random assortment of web sites is not an accurate way to test their browser, unless those sites are guaranteed to by compliant with correct standards, since many sites will write code "wrong" to make it appear in internet explorer (mac & win), since therein lies the majority. omnigroup, being essentially a two-person team, has to make very specific choices about what to support in order to release the browser in a timely fashion (or else run the "eternal beta" game like icab - my words, not theirs). macworld ignored the good points made, and said that there wasn't any excuse for poorly rendered pages.



re: the office comparison, i think it may have been in the same issue, and i was fuming after they pointed out how great excel v. x was in comparison to mesa for things like "os x compatibility." if they had done one simple, 2 minute search through their partner versiontracker.com, they would have found that mariner software has been kickin' ass with updates to their product mariner calc, which is feature-for-feature on par with excel, generates great graphs, uses a pittance of ram, and is, lo and behold, os x compatible.



is you read the past several issues' letters section, you'll find several times when macworld has used as a venue of "getting the last word in" on reviews and such, which i just find ridiculous.

buonrotto

Andrew Stone pointed out a dumb mistake when they reviewed Create, and the reviewer's comment was "Well, it's not what I'm used to." The problem was the reviewer couldn't figure out how to edit text in Create. Stone said to double-click.



I've had a pretty good time of it with OW. The remaining problems are with Java (Apple's problem at that point -- IE won't even attempt DigiChat) and some occasional oddities with JavaScript -- a known issue.