[Sharky K.]

Originally posted by davidb224:
<STRONG>

I watched OW 4.1 sp56 on Process Viewer just now. It was as high as 16% but usually lower than that. It was usually only using about 5%. If I hid OW it went down to 0 right away. I think that this is what its supposed to do.</STRONG>

Offtopic... some big signature you have there
please make it smaller...

[KidRed]

Originally posted by tobster:
<STRONG>I'm sorry if this has already been discussed here - the thread is long and hard to search in it.

Does OmniWeb 4.1 support iFrame? I'm making a site that a lot of OmniWeb users will be reading, it has to work

If not, is it planned?

- tobs</STRONG>

Last I heard is no support, no sure about future releases.

[Simon Mundy]

Originally posted by KidRed:
<STRONG>

Last I heard is no support, no sure about future releases.</STRONG>

Sure hope it is - it's a HTML 4.01 standard!

[Rickster]

Was going to post this to the "OmniWeb and AltiVec" thread, but that got closed after being moved to the OS X - Software forum:

Our rendering code stands to benefit very little from vector processing (AltiVec). The problem with sluggish rendering/scrolling/resizing on our current engine is twofold:

• Text layout depends on Apple code which must be executed in the main thread. Since we can't run much of our rendering code in background threads, the UI thread becomes overworked and is unresponsive to user input.
• In our current architecture, almost every element in most HTML pages is a full-fledged Cocoa view object. To understand why this is a performance penalty, consider an analogy to an app like Photoshop (or Illustrator): If you make a large image with lots and lots of layers (or paths), it'll start getting really slow to render when you zoom in or out, and it'll be difficult to move all the layers (or paths) at once. If you merge them all into a single layer, things will go much faster.

Both issues will be addressed in 5.0, which will feature a completely-new-from-scratch rendering layer.

Of course, now the question on everybody's mind is, "Why haven't you done that already?" Well, the process has begun, but it takes man-hours -- our supply of those is limited to what we can afford based on people paying for our products, and there are other facets of development which need attention too. For 4.1 we focused mostly on JavaScript, Java, and plugin compatibility so that in the short-term future people can maximize OmniWeb's usefulness as much as is possible under the current rendering architecture.

The only parts of OmniWeb which could really benefit from us customizing code for AltiVec would be stuff like the image decoder libraries for PNG and JPEG and such. But those are well more than fast enough even on the slowest supported machines, and the performance gain from AltiVec would be so small it wouldn't be worth it -- we'd have to spend more of our time making sure that our AltiVec patch for those open-source libraries stayed up-to-date and functional. (Actually, we already get many minor performance boosts from Apple's use of AltiVec in standard system libraries.)


And on another note: no, the IFRAME tag isn't supported in 4.1. Yes, it's on the priority list for future versions.

[asxless]

Originally posted by Rickster:
<STRONG>...For 4.1 we focused mostly on JavaScript, Java, and plugin compatibility so that in the short-term future people can maximize OmniWeb's usefulness as much as is possible under the current rendering architecture...</STRONG>

I think this is exactly the right priority. Compatibility 1st, then improved rendering speed.

FWIW I switched to Mozilla as my main browser because of its better compatibility, not because it is faster. And I plan to switch back as soon as OmniWeb works with all of the sites I frequent, regardless of speed differences.

asxless in iLand

[asxless]

Originally posted by Sharky K.:
<STRONG>Offtopic... some big signature you have there
please make it smaller...</STRONG>

Since you mentioned sigs and several people have recently mentioned high CPU usage while OmniWeb is "idle"...

Here's an interesting test. View page 15 of this thread with your preferences set to "Animations: Play forever" and check your CPU usage after you scrolled to the bottom of the page and let it settle down. Then set "Animations: Don't play", reload the page and check that CPU monitor again. (Actually, you can just hit Apple+. to kill the animation.)

BTW one of the great features of Mozilla is the ability to just right click an Image and add that site to your "don't load images" list. OmniWeb has a similar feature but it isn't as easy. Long threads (like this one) are MUCH easier to read when you kill all the graphic sigs (particularlily the large/animated sigs).

asxless in iLand

[ 03-12-2002: Message edited by: asxless ]

[davidb224]

Originally posted by Sharky K.:
<STRONG>

Offtopic... some big signature you have there</STRONG>

I thought that spinning Earth was pretty cool....

[Neo.cmg]

OW v. sp 57 has been posted. I can't tell any differences, though it may be a bit more unstable. Upon launching it and heading over to macnn's site, it crashed.

Neo.cmg

[JKT]

Originally posted by asxless:
<STRONG>
BTW one of the great features of Mozilla is the ability to just right click an Image and add that site to your "don't load images" list. OmniWeb has a similar feature but it isn't as easy. Long threads (like this one) are MUCH easier to read when you kill all the graphic sigs (particularlily the large/animated sigs).

asxless in iLand

[ 03-12-2002: Message edited by: asxless ]</STRONG>

Maybe I'm not using that feature correctly, but it seems very, very limted to me in comparison to OW's or iCab's image filters. E.g. I wanted to block ads at the Register.co.uk so I used the feature and I now can't see half the buttons at the site. Is there some way to make it any more specific than "Block images from this Site"? I also don't like the way that it doesn't signify that an image is blocked - it just leaves a totally empty space so that it can sometimes be difficult to know exactly what has been blocked by the filter.

N.B. This is actually with Moz 0.9.9 in OS9 - I use OW almost exclusively in OSX and haven't tried Moz for X yet.
FWIW, iCab's filtering options are by far and away the easiest and most flexible to use. Omniweb's took a little getting used to and are highly unintuitive, but now I know how to set them up they work very well.

This is for Rickster or Ken:

If Javascript compatability was a priority for 4.1, I'm interested to know why the iTools website is still impossible to use?

Seriously, newbies to Apple, OSX and OmniWeb are very likely to want to use iTools (e.g. through things like iPhoto). To me it seems that getting 4.1 to function properly with the Homepage etc sites would be eminently sensible and should be very near the top priority now, otherwise you are likely to turn away a lot of people trying OmniWeb for the first time. Also, if you can get iTools working it would also probably solve a lot of issues with other sites too.

[ 03-13-2002: Message edited by: JKT ]

[Sharky K.]

I like the mozilla banner hiding... all these websites look very very ugly with that 50% transparent blue with a privacy icon... hope OmniWeb will fix this soon! (or for god sake, make it an option)

[Sharky K.]

Originally posted by davidb224:
<STRONG>

I thought that spinning Earth was pretty cool....</STRONG>

yes it is cool but you could make it just smaller...

[JKT]

Originally posted by Sharky K.:
<STRONG>I like the mozilla banner hiding... all these websites look very very ugly with that 50% transparent blue with a privacy icon... hope OmniWeb will fix this soon! (or for god sake, make it an option)</STRONG>

No way should they default to the system used by Moz... it is necessary to know that there is an image holder there (one e.g. so you don't accidentally click the area and get jumped to another site altogether and one you didn't want to go to either).

Option maybe, default no.

Anycase - is there a way for Moz to filter images more intelligently than block ALL images from e.g. www.macnn.com??

[asxless]

Originally posted by JKT:
<STRONG>Maybe I'm not using that feature correctly, but it seems very, very limted to me in comparison to OW's or iCab's image filters. E.g. I wanted to block ads at the Register.co.uk so I used the feature and I now can't see half the buttons at the site.</STRONG>

As usual the combination of Mozilla's ease of use (e.g. just right clicking the annoying graphic) with OmniWeb's more configurable filter (e.g. blocking based on standard ad size) would be nice My comment was meant to spur OW to improve the UI for ad blocking, not to reduce OW's flexibility.

I agree with Sharky K. that a 'blocked graphic place holder' should be an option. The beauty of Mozilla's method is that the block graphic sigs are completely collapsed away. This often doubles the number of posts/page! The beauty of OW's method is preservation of complex page formatting, etc. Once again a combination of the features would be nice.

[flame retardant]
Frankly, I view graphic sigs as a form of advertisement. They are often interesting once. After that, they are simply annoying screen real estate wasters. If this view offends people who have graphic sigs... please accept my apology in advance.
[/flame retardant]

asxless in iLand

[ 03-13-2002: Message edited by: asxless ]

[Brazuca]

Originally posted by JKT:
<STRONG>

If Javascript compatability was a priority for 4.1, I'm interested to know why the iTools website is still impossible to use?

Seriously, newbies to Apple, OSX and OmniWeb are very likely to want to use iTools (e.g. through things like iPhoto). To me it seems that getting 4.1 to function properly with the Homepage etc sites would be eminently sensible and should be very near the top priority now, otherwise you are likely to turn away a lot of people trying OmniWeb for the first time. Also, if you can get iTools working it would also probably solve a lot of issues with other sites too.

[ 03-13-2002: Message edited by: JKT ]</STRONG>

I wholeheartedly agree. It's embarrassing to try to make my girlfriend switch from IE to OW only to have to make excuses when OW doesn't work with iTools.

[Gregory]

I've run into how OmniWeb behaves when there is a dialogue waiting for me to accept or reject cookies that halts other windows and operations.

In one case, a link on MACOSXHINTS opens a new window (forums) and the accept/reject cookies is waiting and is NOT in front but now hidden.

Where is the multi-thread capability if a single event affects other threads and events?

the dialogue should be 'owned' by the page that needs a response. Sometimes it is not obvious if the page is not directly behind the cookie request.

[Sharky K.]

@ www.tweakers.net the text in the menu's should be black instead of gray.

[JKT]

Originally posted by asxless:
<STRONG>

As usual the combination of Mozilla's ease of use (e.g. just right clicking the annoying graphic) with OmniWeb's more configurable filter (e.g. blocking based on standard ad size) would be nice My comment was meant to spur OW to improve the UI for ad blocking, not to reduce OW's flexibility.
</STRONG>

No arguments from me - iCab already pretty much has that combination... if Omni (and the Moz developers) could get both on a par with the ease-of-use *and* flexibility of iCab in this regard I would be more than happy.

However, OW's method is slightly more flexible than iCab's in that it allows the use of wildcards (*) which reduces the number of filters you need to set up in the first place (I have about ten altogether and they block 99% of the ads I come across whilst browsing).

[jokell82]

Originally posted by Brazuca:
<STRONG>

I wholeheartedly agree. It's embarrassing to try to make my girlfriend switch from IE to OW only to have to make excuses when OW doesn't work with iTools.</STRONG>

In the Browser Compatibility Preferences, switch "Identify to HTTP Servers as" to Internet Explorer 5.1 (Mac OS X). Voila! iTools now works.

[Rex]

With SP 57 scrolling java applets finally work! Was I missing something?

[JKT]

Originally posted by jokell82:
<STRONG>

In the Browser Compatibility Preferences, switch "Identify to HTTP Servers as" to Internet Explorer 5.1 (Mac OS X). Voila! iTools now works. </STRONG>

Volia... no it doesn't. I'm not complaining that I can't access iTools (I know that I can), it is the fact that I can't do anything once there. PhotoAlbums don't show up in the Homepage section and therefore can't be edited. Also, viewing Homepage slideshows is less than ideal (windows don't size correctly and the titles don't show), counters don't show up etc. This needs to be fixed ASAP IMHO.

[triangle]

Originally posted by Sharky K.:
<STRONG>@ www.tweakers.net the text in the menu's should be black instead of gray.</STRONG>

Ach ik lees toch nooit tweakers net

(sorry had to get this back to Sharky)

[ 03-13-2002: Message edited by: triangle ]

[unfaded]

Originally posted by triangle:
<STRONG>

Ach ik lees toch nooit tweakers net

(sorry had to get this back to Sharky)

[ 03-13-2002: Message edited by: triangle ]</STRONG>

Damnit, I'm half dutch, moving to the Netherlands, and don't know a damn bit of Dutch.

sp57 looks okey dokey to me. Mozilla's too ugly, Explorer looks to OS9, iCab...don't get me started, and Opera...same as iCab. So I use OmniWeb. It may be a bit sluggish at times and a bit incompatable, but at least I feel like I'm working on a Mac.

[Jan Van Boghout]

Originally posted by JKT:
<STRONG>

Volia... no it doesn't. I'm not complaining that I can't access iTools (I know that I can), it is the fact that I can't do anything once there. PhotoAlbums don't show up in the Homepage section and therefore can't be edited. Also, viewing Homepage slideshows is less than ideal (windows don't size correctly and the titles don't show), counters don't show up etc. This needs to be fixed ASAP IMHO.</STRONG>

Titles ? What titles ? And counters ? What counters ?
I guess I have been using OmniWeb for so long I didn't even now there were titles in an iTools album ... I did know there were counters , though

[Sharky K.]

Originally posted by triangle:
<STRONG>

Ach ik lees toch nooit tweakers net

(sorry had to get this back to Sharky)

[ 03-13-2002: Message edited by: triangle ]</STRONG>

[yellowdog]

If the plugins for flash and Quicktime are event handled correctly, what is holding back the implementation of the OS X Windows Media Player plugin. If they all work correctly with IE and conform to OS X standards, why then not in OW? I like to browse news sites that require media player for playback. If I am to use OW for my browser, it has to be able to handle this task. No MS bashing please - this is a real world requirement.

RICTSTER -- this has been asked several times on this forum without any serious response. Windows Media Player works under OS X. Any updates on the schedule/problem for integrating this plugin for OW???

[Rickster]

If Javascript compatability was a priority for 4.1, I'm interested to know why the iTools website is still impossible to use?

The problems with iTools are not with JavaScript alone. The "file chooser" super-widget you see in HomePage and Make Your Own iCards requires support for relative-positioned layers and a few other "Dynamic HTML" technologies which just aren't possible under our current rendering architecture. Ditto for the drag-and-drop rearrange-ability of HomePage Photo Album editing, and the cool playlist builder widget from QuickTime Streaming Server 4.

Obviously these high-profile applications should be a priority for us, and indeed they are... you can bet we'll be testing them a lot as we work towards OmniWeb 5.

[JKT]

Originally posted by Rickster:
<STRONG>

The problems with iTools are not with JavaScript alone. The "file chooser" super-widget you see in HomePage and Make Your Own iCards requires support for relative-positioned layers and a few other "Dynamic HTML" technologies which just aren't possible under our current rendering architecture. Ditto for the drag-and-drop rearrange-ability of HomePage Photo Album editing, and the cool playlist builder widget from QuickTime Streaming Server 4.

Obviously these high-profile applications should be a priority for us, and indeed they are... you can bet we'll be testing them a lot as we work towards OmniWeb 5.</STRONG>

OK, thanks for clarifying that for me... at least I can give up trying with each new build

Still a big shame that it won't be available in 4.1 though.

[Brazuca]

Originally posted by Rickster:
<STRONG>

The problems with iTools are not with JavaScript alone. The "file chooser" super-widget you see in HomePage and Make Your Own iCards requires support for relative-positioned layers and a few other "Dynamic HTML" technologies which just aren't possible under our current rendering architecture. Ditto for the drag-and-drop rearrange-ability of HomePage Photo Album editing, and the cool playlist builder widget from QuickTime Streaming Server 4.

Obviously these high-profile applications should be a priority for us, and indeed they are... you can bet we'll be testing them a lot as we work towards OmniWeb 5.</STRONG>

Errr....can anyone say: "OmniWeb 5 SneakyPeek 1 "

Can't wait to try that one out...

[Jan Van Boghout]

Originally posted by Brazuca:
<STRONG>

Errr....can anyone say: "OmniWeb 5 SneakyPeek 1 "

Can't wait to try that one out...</STRONG>

I wonder how long it will be until that happens ...
[drool]Hopefully not too long ...[/drool]

[Rickster]

Don't hold your breath...

[Brazuca]

Originally posted by Rickster:
<STRONG>Don't hold your breath...</STRONG>

heheh...dammit Rickster!! Always the voice of reason....

&lt;holds breath&gt;

[starfleetX]

Originally posted by Rickster:
<STRONG>Don't hold your breath...</STRONG>

Seriously, though, do you think 5.0 will be ready by the first quarter of 2003?

What would be really helpful is if OW would be able to display Macromedia help pages, now that MM apps are starting to seriously (FH10? Don't make me laugh) flock to OSX.
Actually, I'm a bit disappointed that it does not seem to work now (SP 56) -- not the javaScripted content page, nor the Java search page.
OW 4.1 final? OW 5? Or IE as default browser?

[Jonesy]

OW also struggles with the help pages for Illustrator 10. I hope this too will be fixed for the final 4.1 release.

[ablaze]

Okay, I have to say this one more time:
Rickster said it takes so much time to rewrite the rendering engine and so on...
C'mon, why don't you just release the source code? Making OW opensource for version 5 would be very nice.
Is it really worth the money you make with it that you do not gain market share the way you could?
Your sneakypeek policy is somewhat like �release quick and release often� already. Just put it under the GPL and develop on CVS.
When I look at all the people, that are interested in OmniWeb on MacNN Forums and elsewhere, I am sure this would be a success.
One could eventually implement Gecko as the rendering engine, too. I'm sure you will have many helpers out there.
I would be very happy if Omni could make this happen.

[ 03-15-2002: Message edited by: ablaze ]

[Brazuca]

Originally posted by ablaze:
<STRONG>Okay, I have to say this one more time:
Rickster said it takes so much time to rewrite the rendering engine and so on...
C'mon, why don't you just release the source code? Making OW opensource for version 5 would be very nice.
Is it really worth the money you make with it that you do not gain market share the way you could?
Your sneakypeek policy is somewhat like �elease quick and release often� already. Just put it under the GPL and develop on CVS.
When I look at all the people, that are interested in OmniWeb on MacNN Forums and elsewhere, I am sure this would be a success.
One could eventually implement Gecko as the rendering engine, too. I'm sure you will have many helpers out there.
I would be very glad to see this happen.</STRONG>

Food for thought...I don't know much about GPL and the benefits versus the costs of open sourcing. I'm interested in hearing Omni's response to this.

[ablaze]

Originally posted by Brazuca:
<STRONG>

Food for thought...I don't know much about GPL and the benefits versus the costs of open sourcing. I'm interested in hearing Omni's response to this.</STRONG>

Concerning the cost of open sourcing: Most infrastructure is already there: Take Bugzilla, cvs or project hosting at sourceforge ...
As I see it, it would mainly be the lost money for licenses, but they would increase interest in OmniWeb and could get work done without paying developers...

[Orange Luna]

Will OmniWeb 5 be pre-announced?

[Rickster]

C'mon, why don't you just release the source code? Making OW opensource for version 5 would be very nice.

The source code to our rendering engine is already available under the Omni Source License. See http://www.omnigroup.com/developer/sourcecode/ . These frameworks make up pretty much all of the "backend" or "engine" code in OmniWeb -- it's just the app itself that's closed-source. (The current release of the open-source frameworks is based on OmniWeb 4.0... we'll be putting out an updated release at the same time 4.1 goes final.)

We find this policy is a good compromise between giving back to the community and still being able to make a living selling software -- we've been doing it for several years. However, giving source code to the public doesn't guarantee that large numbers of developers will suddenly jump on it and turn it into the stuff of dreams; we do often receive bug fixes and minor enhancements from people, but most of the work on our frameworks is still done by us.

[Mr. Blur]

....d/l'ing sp58 right now.....

[MacRufus]

Originally posted by Mr. Blur:
<STRONG>....d/l'ing sp58 right now.....</STRONG>

That's interesting... Sneaky Peek 58 isn't even available... hmmmm.

[Mr. Blur]

Originally posted by MacRufus:
<STRONG>

That's interesting... Sneaky Peek 58 isn't even available... hmmmm. </STRONG>

I am running it, and I can see it in the usual ftp directory....maybe you need to hit the refresh?

[davidb224]

Originally posted by MacRufus:
<STRONG>

That's interesting... Sneaky Peek 58 isn't even available... hmmmm.</STRONG>

I beg to differ. I just downloaded it also. It IS available.

[dividend]

Ok - a simple question: when is omniweb 4.1 coming? a lot of talk about functions, fine - issues need to be raised and solved. But does anyone have any clue as for when it will actually be released? In April, in September?

[Guy Incognito]

Originally posted by dividend:
<STRONG>Ok - a simple question: when is omniweb 4.1 coming? a lot of talk about functions, fine - issues need to be raised and solved. But does anyone have any clue as for when it will actually be released? In April, in September?</STRONG>

At this point, why do you even care if it's a final or a sneakypeek? They're all pretty stable.

Well, partially because planetmirror doesn't work for me and thus I can't _get_ sneakypeeks...

[dividend]

as a principle i want to minimise the amount of pre-releases and betas. Sometimes you have to use them though, i am now using 4.1 beta. The thing is, i am not that intereseted in trying out stuff, i simply want things to work. i would download the sharp 4.1 as soon as it is out, but what is the point in downloading a build that may or may not have some problems, and which you are anyway going to throw as soon as the GM is out?

otherwise, it could be an argument that you never need to release a GM if all the builds are stable... we don't need photoshop 7, it is ok to have photoshop 7 build xyz... most people want the GM unless they like to test things.... so when is it out?

[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: dividend ]

[Guy Incognito]

Originally posted by dividend:
<STRONG>as a principle i want to minimise the amount of pre-releases and betas. Sometimes you have to use them though, i am now using 4.1 beta. The thing is, i am not that intereseted in trying out stuff, i simply want things to work. i would download the sharp 4.1 as soon as it is out, but what is the point in downloading a build that may or may not have some problems, and which you are anyway going to throw as soon as the GM is out?

otherwise, it could be an argument that you never need to release a GM if all the builds are stable... we don't need photoshop 7, it is ok to have photoshop 7 build xyz... most people want the GM unless they like to test things.... so when is it out?

[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: dividend ]</STRONG>

The final 4.1 release probably will still have bugs...probably will crash on occasion...probably won't have all the features you need/want...I don't see what the difference is between the sneakypeeks and a final version except a status change. Omni's eventually gonna hit a build they feel comfortable releasing to the public and call it final...don't think you'll feel more comfortable knowing it's got 'final' slapped onto the product...the latest sneakypeek are of excellent quality and a final would only feel like a sneakypeek.

[Gregory]

Just to weigh in,

I download Mozilla almost daily.
Same with these SP's.
Removed IE.

I know feedback can be an overwhelming task in itself, but hopefully means that - and this especially with a web browser - work on the widest range of sites using different standards and code and scripting formats.

I'd like to see OmniWeb 4.1 on a supplemental OS X CD or installed as part of the basic Easy Install. I don't know if that can be 10.2 or not.

I do know that there continue to be new tools, new documentation, from Apple to further development of OS X applications. OS X has been shipping, is the 'default' OS, AND has bugs.

Better tools to track application processes, threads, memory leak detection, how best to write and optimize code.

And you don't want to ship a product and then have Apple change the underlying core but it has happened - all too often I hear.

OmniGroup has come a long way in the last 6-7 months (the advent of 10.1) and the stability is there. It could run better, fewer delays while accessing menu and bookmarks, switching windows, but (knocks on wood) it is stable, looks good.

Someday I'd like to see the ability to sort sub-folders of bookmarks. That was the only reason I kept IE around. i can now view content on iTools homepages.

With Apple software updates, I wait. Let others give it a shot and wait two days, and then only on a backup system. At one point I think OmniWeb crashes led to problems in the volume structure, can't be sure, but then the OS was not perfect.

As a programmer I hated being told I had to stop development, freeze the code, document what I did, because it was AFTER I had a working application that I could then really improve and tweak the features and add better functionality. Stuff I and we didn't see before we began.

And just when you think you're done, compatibility with QuickTime 6 plug-in support, running on RAID, new drivers, something new because everything is a moving target. 4.06 should never ever be run or launched under 10.1. Maybe 4.1 will break at some future point also.

With Norton, SoftRAID, Disk Warrior and other native applications coming out A YEAR since OS X debut - maybe everyone is looking at this point, March 24th, as one year anniversary to announce or ship products users have been clamoring for.

[dividend]

Guy Incognito:

thanx for your reply. Ok, I am not a programmer so I have no idea really what these builds are, perhaps I should download one and use it... but, is not the idea behind builds to see if something is working/to test progress? software will probably always have bugs, but you don't expect anyone to download a pre-GM beta-build if it is mission critical, that is a principle. It is ok to download a build if it is certain that it works, and as far as I understand from you, all recent builds could just as well be GM. In that case I think it is ok to download and use it, but if you are not in to what is happening there is a clear risk of downloading something that is not really working and that will cause you more problems than it solves. The point I am trying to make is that few people who live professionally on, say, photoshop, would buy pre-release xyz and use it for daily mission critical stuff. You use an older version until you are confident that the new version works well, or that it is worth the hazzle to upgrade for the extra "stuff."

Omniweb will seldom be in "critical use", but I just think it is a good precautionary measure to be carefull with "non-finished" software. I am eagering awaiting 4.1, guess from what I have read here, it won't come before 10.2, so i will use 4.1 beta until then. i might actually download one of these builds, if I know from where. If necessary, I don't mind using betas, I use omniweb 4.1, I use fire 0.3b and palm desktop beta - but then I have to. But, there must be a point in declaring something GM rather than simply saying it "works fine", GM at least for me holds some kind of "quality mark", saying that "it is now that bugg-free that it is ok to sell it", if GM means something like this, what does then a pre-GM mean?