Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

huxbnw · May 14, 2004, 06:37 PM

Please, someone tell me why this app is so revered on this board. I just don't get it. Makes me feel like I'm missing out.

cpac · May 14, 2004, 07:13 PM

if you're just looking for OW evangelizing/bashing, there's already been plenty on both sides.

The single best thing you can do to learn about it is to download a copy and try it out.

That said, there are many reasons people on these boards admire it so much: the first cocoa browser, multi-threaded, extremely responsive and polite developers, great UI, power features unavailable in other browsers, etc.

The standard flames are that it's not as fast as other browsers, and/or not as standards compliant as other browsers (which used to be more true before it switched to using a customized version of web-core).

Bottom line though? It all boils down to personal preference. If you try it and don't like it, then stick to whatever else you might prefer.

Tim2 at Omni · May 14, 2004, 08:03 PM

And every time you launch OmniWeb, an angel gets her wings.

Uh, actually, that's not true. I'm just supposed to encourage people to use it

Diggory Laycock · May 14, 2004, 08:08 PM

In the old days when OS X was new there was no Safari and Omniweb was the most mac-like browser.

I paid for v4.

Now I suppose people like the useful added features. (per-site UserAgent switching , workspaces, RSS newsreader etc..)

I personally find Safari to be good enough for me though.

mitchell_pgh · May 14, 2004, 08:31 PM

Historically, OmniWeb has been the undisputed heavyweight champion of OS X.

Then OS X came out for free from Apple, but it lacked MANY features (GUI being only one of them). So OmniWeb was still a good seller.

As time has gone on, the appeal of OmniWeb has been reduced (as Safari has started catching up).

Now it's more of a preference issue. There are naturally some things where OmniWeb are better, but for the most part, Safari is just as good.

CharlesS · May 14, 2004, 09:49 PM

I admit I've found myself using Safari more and more often lately, due to its speed.

However, OW has some great features such as toolbar keywords and type-ahead find. Yes, these features can be found in Mozilla, but not with such a nice interface. And Mozilla's toolbar keywords don't support POST, just GET, whereas with OW you can set up a keyword for any search field just by right-clicking on the field and choosing an item from a context menu.

Cadaver · May 15, 2004, 05:00 PM

The killer feature IMHO is the per-site preferences. You can specify minimum font size, text magnification, font style, user agent, ad blocking, pop-ups, cookies, etc. Absoluetly brilliant. Well worth the price of admission alone.
Can't wait for the stablized final (5.1.x).

mrmister · May 15, 2004, 06:45 PM

Camino, Camino, Camino.

Macola · May 16, 2004, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by mrmister:
Camino, Camino, Camino.

Angus_D · May 16, 2004, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Historically, OmniWeb has been the undisputed heavyweight champion of OS X.

Except when it actually came to rendering any real-life sites.

Then OS X came out for free from Apple, but it lacked MANY features (GUI being only one of them). So OmniWeb was still a good seller.

I hope you mean Safari came out for free from Apple

Montanan · May 16, 2004, 11:36 AM

It's pretty clear, I think, that a substantial majority of MacNN members aren't OmniWeb users ... it's just that there's a small and very vocal minority of OmniWeb fanatics who hit the post and refresh buttons here at a frenetic rate.

Me, I used OW 4.x for a while before the arrival of Safari (and the improved Camino) made OW superfluous. IMHO, the current OW betas are pretty clearly just quintessential examples of bloatware.

larkost · May 16, 2004, 12:42 PM

Montanan: Care to explain what features of OW5 you feel are bloatware?

"You keep's usin' that word. I don'a think it means what you think it'a means"

Now, Word could be considered bloatware because most people will never use most of its features (most people don't even exhaust the features of TextEdit). But with the exception of voice control (a long standing feature), bookmark syncing (don't have server for it yet), and workspaces I use pretty much every feature of the application.

OmniWebs additional features (over other browsers) don't tend to get in the way, and in fact many people don't even discover some of them. None of this describes a "quintessential example[sic] of bloatware".

Care to explain your position?

JKT · May 17, 2004, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by Angus_D:
Except when it actually came to rendering any real-life sites. I hope you mean Safari came out for free from Apple

Except it costs $129 if you want the latest version.

JKT · May 17, 2004, 05:33 AM

FWIW, OW was also the only browser prior to Safari that supported all the features of OS X (such as Services, systemwide spelling checking, native widgets in browser windows, etc) which some of the other heavyweights still don't do.

Horsepoo!!! · May 17, 2004, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by JKT:
Except it costs $129 if you want the latest version.

Yeah but you also get lots more. I think of it as a combo deal that is worth it.

iNeusch · May 17, 2004, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by Montanan:
IMHO, the current OW betas are pretty clearly just quintessential examples of bloatware.

That's what you feel...

I needed an RSS reader, and I was going to buy on software to read RSS, plus a Safari add on to stop adds, plus a bookmark synchroniser between the different macs here...

And then I trie OW 5... and I payed the upgrade fee

If it's bloatware to you, leave it to others.

iNeusch · May 17, 2004, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by mrmister:
Camino, Camino, Camino.

Played with nightlies for a LONG time
Now I stopped, because every time I have a problem with OW, I email them, and I get an answer fast... and it gets fixed !

I understand some may prefer Camino, but I still prefer OW's Finder integration...

TimmyDee51 · May 17, 2004, 08:27 AM

I completely agree -- I have yet to find a feature in OmniWeb that I couldn't find a good use for. Even those that I don't currently use, I can imagine using them in the future. Take Workspaces; I don't currently use them (although saved states can be considered a subset of that feature), but I can imagine times where I need to do a lot of concurrent research. Workspaces would be a great feature to keep me organized.

And that's just one feature. I use ad blocking, cookie management, RSS, OmniTabs, saved states, searchable history, and site preferences. Plus, OmniWeb is the only web browser that I've found that lets you set a window size and position preference and then actually sticks to that.

JKT · May 17, 2004, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
Yeah but you also get lots more. I think of it as a combo deal that is worth it.

My point was that Safari can't truly be considered to be free - you have to pay something to get it, even if it does come with added "features" like a great OS

. The only truly free browsers are the open source ones.

absmiths · May 17, 2004, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by JKT:
My point was that Safari can't truly be considered to be free - you have to pay something to get it, even if it does come with added "features" like a great OS . The only truly free browsers are the open source ones.

If you are going to make that distinction then no software is free (including Linux/FreeBSD/Darwin, etc) since they all require some hardware to run on which isn't free - it had to be paid for at some time (unless someone out there has built his own microprocessor out of bamboo growing wild in a field owned by noone . . .)

Safari was free because one day Apple posted a link and said all who want a browser for Mac OS X may download it.

sniffer · May 17, 2004, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by Montanan:
It's pretty clear, I think, that a substantial majority of MacNN members aren't OmniWeb users ... it's just that there's a small and very vocal minority of OmniWeb fanatics who hit the post and refresh buttons here at a frenetic rate.

I think you are forgetting that in the beginning there was only one browser for OS X, namely Internet Explorer - a carbon port of the OS 9 version. It sucked and it still does. OW was the first alternative browser IIRC, and it was simply beautiful, pure cocoa, and 100% mac-like. I think a first impression like that doesn't fade. It showed dedication from its creators and it arrived in a time where a good alternative browser was sorely needed. At least most of us old timers know what OW meant for our platform. Personally I haven't used OW for years, but the positive memories are still there for what ever it's worth.

ginoledesma · May 17, 2004, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by iNeusch:
That's what you feel...

I needed an RSS reader, and I was going to buy on software to read RSS, plus a Safari add on to stop adds, plus a bookmark synchroniser between the different macs here...

And then I trie OW 5... and I payed the upgrade fee

If it's bloatware to you, leave it to others.

I agree. Opera 7.5 can be considered "bloatware" since it comes with an email client AND an IRC client. But it doesn't "feel" bloatware since its snappy.

I'm still playing with Omniweb, as back when it was first introduced for Mac OS X, it was the prettiest browser (in terms of rendering), bar none.

Toyin · May 17, 2004, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by sniffer:
I think you are forgetting that in the beginning there was only one browser for OS X, namely Internet Explorer - a carbon port of the OS 9 version. It sucked and it still does. OW was the first alternative browser IIRC, and it was simply beautiful, pure cocoa, and 100% mac-like. I think a first impression like that doesn't fade. It showed dedication from its creators and it arrived in a time where a good alternative browser was sorely needed. At least most of us old timers know what OW meant for our platform. Personally I haven't used OW for years, but the positive memories are still there for what ever it's worth.

For sure! I remember those days. In fact I would use Omniweb or Internet Explorer in classic mode. I like the new OW, but I find that I don't need the added features. I'm just not a "power surfer". It is much faster than OW 4 series and on my system (1.5ghz Pb), it's as fast as Safari. It actually resizes windows pretty nicely.

Montanan · May 18, 2004, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by sniffer:
I think you are forgetting that in the beginning there was only one browser for OS X, namely Internet Explorer - a carbon port of the OS 9 version. It sucked and it still does. OW was the first alternative browser IIRC, and it was simply beautiful, pure cocoa, and 100% mac-like. I think a first impression like that doesn't fade. It showed dedication from its creators and it arrived in a time where a good alternative browser was sorely needed. At least most of us old timers know what OW meant for our platform. Personally I haven't used OW for years, but the positive memories are still there for what ever it's worth.

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly how I feel ... I was really pleased with the 4.x versions of OmniWeb, which were a real breath of fresh air compared to Internet Explorer. But for the arrival of Safari and Chimera/Camino, I'd still be happily be using OW 4.x.

And I don't want to get dragged into a semantic discussion of the term "bloatware" with the OW evangelists ... especially since it's definitely the sort of word that every serious computer user's going to have his own definition for. The current OW exemplifies that term for me ... but if it doesn't for some of you, than that's definitely fine. The Mac browser market has a really refreshing amount of quality and variety in it these days -- more so than the Windows platform, in many ways -- meaning that each of us can happily choose the browsing experience that we prefer.

juanvaldes · May 18, 2004, 02:00 AM

great feature full browser that have very responsive Mac OS X developers who have been doing Cocoa since forever. Their products routinely get awards and have excellent UI's. First browser that "felt" like a OS X app and supported many OS X only tech (services, spellcheck etc...) and has by far the most features of any browser I have used. The only problem with OW before 5.0 was the engine was sorely out of date and rather slow. But Webcore fixed that right up.

But really, download and play with it yourself and make up your own mind.

iNeusch · May 18, 2004, 02:07 AM

Originally posted by Montanan:
And I don't want to get dragged into a semantic discussion of the term "bloatware" with the OW evangelists ... especially since it's definitely the sort of word that every serious computer user's going to have his own definition for.

JKT · May 18, 2004, 04:00 AM

Originally posted by absmiths:
If you are going to make that distinction then no software is free (including Linux/FreeBSD/Darwin, etc) since they all require some hardware to run on which isn't free - it had to be paid for at some time (unless someone out there has built his own microprocessor out of bamboo growing wild in a field owned by noone . . .)

Safari was free because one day Apple posted a link and said all who want a browser for Mac OS X may download it.

Sigh, you can't get the latest version of Safari for free - it is impossible and therefore it is a mistake to say that Safari is a free browser. You have to buy Panther to do so. Undoubtedly, the same will happen with Tiger. It is the direction Apple is heading (just look at iLife) along with Microsoft and the tying of IE into Windows.

If I want the latest version of most software, I generally (not always of course) don't have to buy an OS to go along with it.

iNeusch · May 18, 2004, 04:06 AM

Originally posted by JKT:
Sigh, you can't get the latest version of Safari for free - it is impossible and therefore it is a mistake to say that Safari is a free browser. You have to buy Panther to do so. Undoubtedly, the same will happen with Tiger. It is the direction Apple is heading (just look at iLife) along with Microsoft and the tying of IE into Windows.

If I want the latest version of most software, I generally (not always of course) don't have to buy an OS to go along with it.

I'm not sure the version of OmniWeb with the lastest webcore will work on 10.1, like it was the case for Safari (correct me if I'm wrong)
So it's pretty the same case, latest software may require latest OS...

ratlater · May 18, 2004, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by iNeusch:
I'm not sure the version of OmniWeb with the lastest webcore will work on 10.1, like it was the case for Safari (correct me if I'm wrong)
So it's pretty the same case, latest software may require latest OS...

I think you are correct. OmniWeb 5 and 4.5 will not work with 10.1. It is interesting though that OmniWeb will be brining webcore v125 to 10.2 when they release 5.1. Apple won't allow 10.2 users to enjoy the benefits of v125 in Safari, so if you are still using 10.2 OmniWeb will be the most advanced webcore browser available soon.

-matt

larkost · May 19, 2004, 09:57 AM

Montanan: I notice that you didn't say what you consider "bloatware" about OmniWeb. I don't think the problem is semantics, because all I asked was for you to define why you said this. To me bloatware has a clear definition: applications that suffer due to having to many features added to them, without noticeable user benefit (for most users). I don't really see that there are common uses of the word that differ from this definition.

We may disagree about whether OmniWeb (or any other application) is bloatware, but I don't see much room for disagreement about the definition of the word.

All I asked for was your reasoning. Instead you simply re-stated that you thought OmniWeb "exemplified" this property. I don't understand your basis for this opinion at all. If you are going to make statements like that, support them.

iNeusch · May 19, 2004, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by larkost:
If you are going to make statements like that, support them.

Seems you're pretty mad...
I agree with both of you :
I love OW, and use it as default everytime
I feel that some time the features seem to be non related (I still can't get a use of the workspace feature) and that may look like bloatware compared to "simple" browsers like Safari.
After all I think it's the only way a company can be sure to differenciate.

Maybe that's why he used that word...
Maybe it's not that negative

JKT · May 19, 2004, 11:28 AM

A thousand words about workspaces:

Not to mention that you can e-mail them to other OW users. Perhaps not for everyone (afterall, not everyone opens hundreds of sites per session like me), but once you start using them, they are sorely missed in other browsers.

iNeusch · May 19, 2004, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by JKT:
A thousand words about workspaces:

Not to mention that you can e-mail them to other OW users. Perhaps not for everyone (afterall, not everyone opens hundreds of sites per session like me), but once you start using them, they are sorely missed in other browsers.

Whow, in fact i'm interested by that
Now I understand the use

larkost · May 19, 2004, 12:50 PM

iNeusch: I am not mad, I just hate it when people come onto web-boards/mailing lists and make blanket negative statements (especially ones written not as opinions, but as obvious facts) and then refuse to elaborate on them. This case may be about OmniWeb, and I am a bit partisan, but what I wanted was reasoning. I don't think that others always will, or should, share my opinions, but I do feel that if you are going share your opinion in a public space, especially a negative one, you should be willing to back it up with reasoning.

Montanan did not do this at all. But instead just used a buzzword without supporting it at all. To me this is rude, and thus my ire.

itai195 · May 19, 2004, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Angus_D:
Except when it actually came to rendering any real-life sites.

Yeah, that's pretty much how I felt too. I saw the appeal behind OW in the early days, but in actual use I thought it was pretty awful (slow, poor rendering). I stuck with IE, then Mozilla, and now Safari. The new features in OW5 are intriguing -- I'm not saying I wouldn't love to use them -- I just happen to think that Safari and other 'free' solutions are good enough.

The obsession about OW on this forum has always somewhat amazed me, but I think in general Mac users have a fascination with great software. I noted the same back when DiskWarrior for OS X came out -- I was surprised how excited people were for a disk utility. I think that's one of the cool things about being a Mac user... At the same time, it's probably also what pushes many people away from the platform.

Dimitri · May 19, 2004, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by larkost:
I just hate it when people come onto web-boards/mailing lists and make blanket negative statements (especially ones written not as opinions, but as obvious facts)

IMHO, the current OW betas are pretty clearly just quintessential examples of bloatware.

O stands for opinion.

CharlesS · May 19, 2004, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by itai195:
The new features in OS X are intriguing -- I'm not saying I wouldn't love to use them -- I just happen to think that Linux and other 'free' solutions are good enough.

Fixed.

itai195 · May 19, 2004, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Fixed.

Touche

I do like Linux, but Gnome's penchant for freezing the screen and locking the keyboard on my laptop render the OS somewhat below 'good enough' status. And KDE isn't a solution

larkost · May 19, 2004, 03:44 PM

Dimitri: I did notice that... but look at the rest of the sentence you quoted, and then look at the rest of the Montanan's posts in this thread. "pretty clearly" "quintessential", these are stronger phrases that try to sway people purely on emotion (the implicit "you are dumb if you don't agree with me"). This is a fairly common rhetorical technique that I generally detest (a lot of political debate operates on this level... when you start listening for it it is quite disturbing).

My question was trying to get Montanan to move the comments away from this rhetorical level and make solid criticisms. He decided not to do this.

JKT · May 20, 2004, 04:08 AM

Another point that makes OW popular on this forum is that we the public have always had a fairly integral role in the development of the browser, initially through the sneaky peek programme for version 4.x and now with the public betas for OW5. Tied with the fact that the OmniGroup developers themselves respond to us and even incorporate our feature suggestions when they make sense. This is obviously also largely the case for Moz and the other OS browsers too, but it isn't for Safari to any great degree or the other commercial browsers.