OS X saavy Mozilla

in Mac Software edited January 2014
I've fallen in love with Mozilla. I don't know why but IE just doesn't cut it anymore (lol and I've only had my Mac for 5 days! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> ). The only thing that I don't like is the *bland* Netscape interface it uses. That's the only thing IE has going for it IMO and that is fancy, transparent, pulsing buttons. Anyway I'd like to see a more OS X aquafied version of Mozilla what about you? Unless of course there is already something that I don't know about... :confused: <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" />


  • Reply 1 of 24
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 2 of 24
    Chimera is a brand-spanking-new browser for OSX that uses Mozilla's Gecko rendering engine, but uses Cocoa as a native front-end to manage the interface (rather than that yucky XML). It's still in *early* development, but has the potential to be the best browser for X. You can get info and download it at <a href="http://chimera.mozdev.org"; target="_blank">http://chimera.mozdev.org</a>;

    The interface is going through lots of changes, but here's a shot with the new widgets from the upcoming version 0.2 (0.2 will also officially change the name from Chimera to Navigator):

    [ 03-27-2002: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>
  • Reply 3 of 24
    thegeldingthegelding Posts: 3,230member
    when did, or is, 2.0 coming out??...thanks g (using netscape 6.2.2)
  • Reply 4 of 24
    anandanand Posts: 285member
    Wow starfleetX , that looks amazing, is that available? I have been using Mozilla and love it. What is nice is that when you are downloading and minimize the window, all you have to do is place the mouse over the window and it will tell you how much is loaded. Nice. But that looks great - can't wait!
  • Reply 5 of 24
    I do have Chimera already and it is very very fast. The only problem is it has no features on it. Obviously it's still very early in development so I can't complain about that and I agree that it will probably grow into the nicest and fastest browser for OS X. I've tried OmniWeb 4.0 and it's OK but some pages I go to don't support it. Also Mozilla feels faster than it. I guess what I'm looking for is Mozilla 0.9.9 with aqua (their next upgrade maybe??? :confused Maybe I'll try OmniWeb 4.1...
  • Reply 6 of 24
    [quote] sneakypeek is essentially a beta, but pretty decent for beta. Gets updated every couple days.<hr></blockquote>

    actually OW hasn't been updated in over 3 weeks. either it has and the built-in updater doesn't know it, or it hasn't been updated.
  • Reply 7 of 24
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 8 of 24
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]Originally posted by I like Macs:


    actually OW hasn't been updated in over 3 weeks. either it has and the built-in updater doesn't know it, or it hasn't been updated.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    I got a message yesterday that a new version was availible.
  • Reply 9 of 24
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    I got sp63 yesterday. I wish I would have stayed at 39, though, b/c that was the last time phpmyadmin worked right in it. Back to IE for me for a while. (Anyone know where I can get sp 39?)
  • Reply 10 of 24
    [quote]Originally posted by torifile:

    <strong>(Anyone know where I can get sp 39?)</strong><hr></blockquote>You can get any of the old sp's from the sp archive directory:

    <a href="http://www.omnigroup.com/ftp/pub/software/MacOSX/.sneakypeek/releases/archive/"; target="_blank">http://www.omnigroup.com/ftp/pub/software/MacOSX/.sneakypeek/releases/archive/</a>;
  • Reply 11 of 24
    yo EmAn, whats the version number in the about box
  • Reply 12 of 24
    I like Macs:

    The current sp is 4.1 sneaky peek 63 (v374)
  • Reply 13 of 24
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    Nevermind. starfleetX answered the question.

    [ 03-28-2002: Message edited by: EmAn ]</p>
  • Reply 14 of 24
    By the way, if you're getting the newest "nightly" build on a regular basis, you should try the <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/kgerich/pinstripe.html"; target="_blank">Pinstripe theme</a>. I think it makes the Mozilla interface look much better in OSX. The current theme requires a 0.9.9+ build.

  • Reply 15 of 24
    I downloaded OmniWeb 4.1 and like it ALOT more then 4.0. I also got this Pinstrip theme on Mozilla and it's pretty nice. Thank you very much. Now all I have to do is decide between OmniWeb and Mozilla...

    PS- Chimera .2 looks very nice. Hopefully it will maintain its speed and have more features.
  • Reply 16 of 24
    roborobo Posts: 469member
    starfleetX - where did you get the 0.2 build of Chimera? Did you build it yourself?

    It looks great.

  • Reply 17 of 24
    Yeah, I just built "Navigator 0.2.0" myself. I pulled and compiled Fizilla and Chim fresh from the CVS this morning and it took about two or three hours to complete. It *looks* really nice with the pretty icons and splash screen, but is extremely unstable and buggy as hell. It's less stable than any of 0.1.x were! I can understand why they aren't ready to release it yet... still no plugin support, no CoreGraphics AA, no downloading, no contextual menus, etc. Of course, they could have some code that hasn't made public yet, which I suspect.

    Hrrrmph. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

    You can get the build I made this morning if you're interested.

    <a href="http://brad.project-think.com/downloads/navigator020.dmg.gz"; target="_blank">Download Navigator 0.2.0 build 2002032915</a> (8.6 MB)

    Note: the Personal.prefPane has to be in the same folder at Navigator to work.
  • Reply 18 of 24
    stimulistimuli Posts: 564member
    [quote]when did, or is, 2.0 coming out??...thanks g (using netscape 6.2.2)<hr></blockquote>

    Probably not for another three years or so. But 0.2 should be out any day..

    Hey starfleet, what are your machine's specs? It puts compile time into perspective.
  • Reply 19 of 24
    Dual 500 G4 with 832 MB RAM and DSL 1.5 Mbps (1202 kbps according to DSLreports.com).

    Of course, it was compiling in the background while I was listening to iTunes and surfing the web. So, it didn't get full use of the processors.

    [ 03-31-2002: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>
  • Reply 20 of 24
    stimulistimuli Posts: 564member
    Ah... Unix. Gotta love compiling software without breaking stride. Listen to tunes... read some web pages...
Sign In or Register to comment.