Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

foamy · Nov 13, 2001, 03:24 PM

I have a feeling that all the time being spent on Omniweb compliance to w3c would have been better spent taking the Gecko engine from Mozilla and wrapping it in Omni's beautiful interface.

I know Mozilla is working on getting Gecko into a state that it can be embedded in Cocoa apps. There are a couple of threads here about this very topic in the macosx newsgroup at news://news.mozilla.org

The Gecko engine is free for the taking and is vastly superior to what Omni is offering. In contrast the UI of Omni is vastly superior to what Mozilla is offering. It seems like a marriage of the two positive aspects would be the best of both worlds.

Just a thought.

Developer · Nov 13, 2001, 06:49 PM

The beauty of OmniWeb is in its HTML renderer.

developer

silverghost · Nov 13, 2001, 07:00 PM

aloha everybody just like to say cool thread been following it for a very long time,im using sp 10,its ok except if you look under the window menu youll see quite a bit of windows open,this was also present in sp 9.

but all in all getting better..

pismo|airport|768|48

foamy · Nov 13, 2001, 07:06 PM

It's beauty is in its HTML renderer?

How so?

IANADeveloper, but I do know that it fails on HTML 4.0, fails on CSS and fails with XML. Is this a good thing in your opinion?

Developer · Nov 13, 2001, 07:24 PM

No, I don't think that. But you said that you want Gecko inside of OmniWeb's beatiful interface, but OmniWeb's beauty is in its HTML renderer. If you stick Gecko in it you just have Mozilla with an OmniWeb theme, and you can do that for yourself already.

developer

foamy · Nov 13, 2001, 07:49 PM

ahhh... gotcha. Misinterpreted your post.

What aspects of the page rendering do you prefer in Omni? I like that it uses Aqua form controls and widgets; the exact same things I hate about Mozilla. But if I understood the recent post on the osx mailing list for mozilla, then they are working on a Cocoa implementation of the widget code in Gecko. I'm assuming that would mean Aqua form controls, etc... but I could be wrong. In such a case, then embedding Gecko should be the best of both worlds.

Anyway, since Omni is still so far from w3c compliance, would their time be better spent helping make Gecko better and wrapping it in their UI?

2c

iamnotmad · Nov 13, 2001, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by foamy:
ahhh... gotcha. Misinterpreted your post.

What aspects of the page rendering do you prefer in Omni? I like that it uses Aqua form controls and widgets; the exact same things I hate about Mozilla. But if I understood the recent post on the osx mailing list for mozilla, then they are working on a Cocoa implementation of the widget code in Gecko. I'm assuming that would mean Aqua form controls, etc... but I could be wrong. In such a case, then embedding Gecko should be the best of both worlds.

Anyway, since Omni is still so far from w3c compliance, would their time be better spent helping make Gecko better and wrapping it in their UI?

2c

I agree with you foamy. OW is great, but mozilla HTML standards compliance and rendering speed are most excellent. We'll see a cocoa app with the gecko engine soon! There's Q.Bati (check source forge) as well as now the mozilla folks (or mac mozilla folks at least) are working on an easy way to embed gecko into a cocoa app. It'll be sweet! We also have (to look forward to) a unix mozilla back-end with a carbon front end.

OW rendering is speeding up quite nicely too though.

Options are good.

MacAttack · Nov 13, 2001, 09:44 PM

Has anyone else had problems running SP10 with the 10.1.1 update that just came out today? After launching SP10, the crash reporter launches, and obviously then OmniWeb does not work.

Any word on if SP11 will address this?

jokell82 · Nov 13, 2001, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by MacAttack:
Has anyone else had problems running SP10 with the 10.1.1 update that just came out today? After launching SP10, the crash reporter launches, and obviously then OmniWeb does not work.

Any word on if SP11 will address this?

Works fine over here.

iSore · Nov 14, 2001, 01:31 AM

Yep, fine here too.

Slowly boosting my status with trivial posts...

Sine · Nov 14, 2001, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by MacAttack:
Has anyone else had problems running SP10 with the 10.1.1 update that just came out today? After launching SP10, the crash reporter launches, and obviously then OmniWeb does not work.

Any word on if SP11 will address this?

Works fine here.

Sharky K. · Nov 14, 2001, 06:24 AM

I agree,
OmniWeb should use the HTML engine from Mozilla and put it in OmniWeb.
That doesn't mean that the "interface" of OmniWeb should change.

Rickster · Nov 14, 2001, 07:08 AM

If you buy an OmniWeb license now, it will be good for any future 4.x releases. If we continue with the same licensing policy we've always had, version 5.0 will be a paid upgrade, but it'll cost a lot less than the initial license.

Yes, resumable downloads is a feature planned for 5.0. We've been wanting to make it happen for some time now, but have had more pressing issues to deal with for 4.x.

I have a feeling that all the time being spent on Omniweb compliance to w3c would have been better spent taking the Gecko engine from Mozilla and wrapping it in Omni's beautiful interface.

Ah yes, the eternally repeated suggestion. A Dodge Ram has a powerful V8 engine, and a Ferrari looks cool and handles well, so why not put them together? (Disclaimer: Rick is not a car buff, so the details of this analogy may not be perfect. Hopefully you'll get the gist, though.)

Certainly, the Mozilla folks have come up with a nice rendering engine. However, to think that the best way to get an ideal web browser is to marry it to OmniWeb's interface (and/or other trimmings) is, well, silly. You can't shove a huge ugly mass of C++ code with one architecture into a huge ugly mass of Objective-C code with a different overall design and expect it to turn into anything other than a really huge really ugly mass of code with no unifying architecture at all. To turn all that into something useful is quite a daunting task, and to maintain and evolve it even more so. It's a lot more manageable of a project for us to make the necessary improvements to OmniWeb's rendering engine, for many reasons... not least of them the fact that our huge ugly mass of code is about an order of magnitude less huge than theirs is.

That said, I'm still interested in seeing what these Cocoa-frontend-for-Mozilla projects come up with. I certainly don't envy them their task, though.

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Rickster ]

Francisco Pires · Nov 14, 2001, 11:18 AM

I�m testing SP10

Omniweb does not open correctly java itens, like home banking.

Omniweb does not open advanced CSS.

It�s not free.

Why move to Omniweb if IE 5.1 works with all above itens, and it�s free??

Zadian · Nov 14, 2001, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by Francisco Pires:
I�m testing SP10
Omniweb does not open correctly java itens, like home banking.
Omniweb does not open advanced CSS.
It�s not free.
Why move to Omniweb if IE 5.1 works with all above itens, and it�s free??

Because, OmniWeb is more Mac OS X like, it not form Microsoft, it's a cocoa app (i like the service "open URL in OmniWeb"), it displays text nicer than any other browser i have seen...

edddeduck · Nov 14, 2001, 12:36 PM

I thought I might as well chip in here...

I found that omniweb has a better better GUI (or HCI interface) than explorer..

It has a spell checker...

Bookmarks in omni are great....

Internet banking works great for me.

This said using the above story I prefer a Ferrari which needs servicing more often that a skoda that needs less servicing....

Cheers Edd (GUI Design wannabe...)

Arty50 · Nov 14, 2001, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Francisco Pires:

It�s not free.

Why move to Omniweb if IE 5.1 works with all above itens, and it�s free??

Can you use OmniWeb as much as you like until the end of time without paying? Yes. So it's free. If you don't like having "unregistered" come up every so often (it really doesn't come up much), then pay for it. I paid for it because I think that even in alpha form it's a better app than IE.

Sure IE is free now, but when nothing else is left do you still think it will be free? Just look at what they're doing to corporations with XP: forced upgrades that are definitely not free.

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Arty50 ]

Brazuca · Nov 14, 2001, 01:17 PM

Hey Rick,

I'm loving sp10 and it runs fine with 10.1.1. As long as the memory leak doesn't slow me down too much.

I just wanted to ask, in light of the very interesting postings about Mozilla and OW: How do you compare OW's engine with Mozilla? I mean in terms of functionality. In other words, assuming that Mozilla is "superior" (I really don't know), how far away is OW or vice-versa?

btober · Nov 14, 2001, 03:57 PM

Actually, 10.1.1 fixed OmniWeb 4.1 sp10 for me. Whenever I'd try and open it on 10.1, I'd get the infinite rainbow cursor. Now, I can use sp10 just fine!

SMacSteve · Nov 14, 2001, 11:43 PM

I've had no problems. A couple of crashes, but other than that pretty good. It still has some Java problems though.

dogzilla · Nov 15, 2001, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by foamy:
It's beauty is in its HTML renderer?

How so?

IANADeveloper, but I do know that it fails on HTML 4.0, fails on CSS and fails with XML. Is this a good thing in your opinion?

I have to agree here. It's a beautiful browser, and it's great to see it supporting so many OSX features, but it's supposed to be a browser. It doesn't handle pages that even Netscape 4.7 can render properly.

I look forward to the day when Omniweb supports these must-have features of a modern browser. Until then, it's just not a viable browser. I have to admit to confusion concerning the people who have registered this browser when it's still missing core functionality.

Rickster · Nov 15, 2001, 01:08 AM

How do you compare OW's engine with Mozilla?

In terms of HTML/CSS rendering compatibility and possibly speed, we're certainly behind at the moment. However, there are several other ways in which our engine is superior to anything else out there (or so we'd like to think), and it'll only get better with time.

One of our advantages is our modular, multithreaded pipeline/processor architecture. The code that fetches data, the code that parses data, and the code that renders a view based on the parsed information can all run concurrently. On a single-processor machine, all the state-saving and context-switching that entails is handled for us by the kernel; on a multiprocessor machine, everything actually does run concurrently so it's N times faster. All other web browsers (from Tim Berners-Lee's original WorldWideWeb.app to the latest versions of Mozilla and IE) do all that state-saving, context-switching work themselves -- they run mostly in one thread (so they don't get any help from multiprocessor systems) and they have a whole lot more code to maintain and debug.

Our engine is extremely modular and dynamic... mostly because it's built on a highly dynamic object-oriented language, Objective-C. It's incredibly easy to add to, and despite the grand scope of everything it does it's not a herculean task to maintain, debug, and revise. OmniWeb has about the equivalent of three full-time people working on it (that is, two or three of us spend most of our time on it, and the other nine or ten engineers contribute stuff now and then). IE for Mac has 150 engineers working on it, Mozilla has tens of full-time paid engineers and hundreds or thousands of part-time volunteers, and yet OmniWeb has managed to be competitive with both.

Revising our engine to be fully HTML/CSS compatible is a two-sided effort. On the backend, we need to rewrite the code that turns hand-written arbitrarily messed-up HTML into a set of programmatic objects which logically describe a web page. On the frontend, we need to rewrite the code that turns those objects into a collection of letters and pixels that the user can view and interact with. The first part is already done -- Wil did it in about three months. (Yes, that's three man-months to rewrite a major part of our architecture, not the man-years Microsoft and Mozilla measure in.) In 4.0.0 and later, all our logical backend stuff is implemented in terms of CSS, and it's fully compatible with CSS2.

The major project for 5.0 is rewriting the rendering part of the engine, and that will bring not only better compatibility be better speed -- one of the major problems we have currently is that so much of our rendering work has to happen in the main thread, so it slows down itself and the UI. The layout rewrite will break some of our dependency on thread-unsafe Apple code... preliminary work on it has been quite promising. But before we can devote the majority of our time to the 5.0 rewrite, we need to focus on getting 4.1 finished and out the door. It's not everything 5.0 will be, but it's a heck of a lot better than 4.0.x and you don't have to wait another 6-9 months for us to finish it.

So, yeah, back to the original question... OmniWeb's engine does lag behind in terms of compatibility, but not for lack of quality. We decided that for 4.x our primary goal is not to be the fastest, most compatible web browser, but instead to be the best Mac OS X web browser.

(Disclaimer: I'm not intimately familiar with the Mozilla engine, and I'm not Engine Guy here at Omni, so not everything here may be 100% accurate. But it's close.)

SMacSteve · Nov 15, 2001, 01:43 AM

Wow, after reading that I'm really impressed! 3 man group? you guys are doing and amazing job. I use OmniWeb 4.1 about 90% of the time. The other 10% I use IE for compatibility issues. OmniWeb is such a beautiful browser and it is so much like OS X. If Apple were to build there own browser it'd look a lot like OW I'd bet. What is the time frame for the OW 5? I'd imagine you'll have OW 4.1 out soon at this point.

AirSluf · 01:49 AM

foamy · Nov 15, 2001, 02:42 AM

That's great to hear Rick. I assumed incorrectly that the code just wasn't there to parse CSS, etc.

Looking forward to 5.0 and I hope it has tabs, tabs, tabs!

yaro · Nov 15, 2001, 03:22 AM

Can we get a Page Holder, ala ie?

el_humpo · Nov 15, 2001, 03:33 AM

The Omni guys do a _FANTASTIC_ job on OW!

This thread just shows how we, as mac users, can actually TALK to the developers and they will listen...and even post incredibly informative messages like the one above.

That alone (for me anyway) is worth the price of admission. Omni has my registration fee. Whoever questions the point of registration for a browser that is "not yet finished" - try getting some Mac IE programmers to listen to your feature requests on a public forum.

PhreakOut X · Nov 15, 2001, 03:43 AM

Where would i go to get the newest sneaky peak?

AU_student_iceBook · Nov 15, 2001, 04:00 AM

You can download it here: http://www.omnigroup.com/ftp/pub/outgoing/sneakypeek/
Just remember to read the readme and that this is
still a beta.
Have fun!

Gee4orce · Nov 15, 2001, 04:27 AM

A few observations about this thread:

Has Apple ever done a feature article about the Omni Group and specifically OmniWeb ? If not, they should, as these guys seem to be the biggest proponents of Cocoa outside Apple...
Would Omni consider partially open-sourcing some of the rendering code, in an effort to garner some extra development resource ? There is definately a very positive attitude amongst the community here to help make OmniWeb a success; I wonder if that could be turned into direct assistance in actual code writing ?
Can't wait for version 5
Maybe we should let Rick get on with his work !

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Gee4orce ]

Rickster · Nov 15, 2001, 05:19 AM

Just remember to read the readme and that this is still a beta.

Actually, sneaky peek builds aren't even beta -- they're completely untested.

Has Apple ever done a feature article about the Omni Group and specifically OmniWeb ?

Well, the Games section of their website did a couple of articles on us. And we've worked with them in a few other cases to help evangelize Cocoa.

Would Omni consider partially open-sourcing some of the rendering code?

See http://www.omnigroup.com/developer/sourcecode/ for our open-source frameworks. The OWF and OmniHTML frameworks are the "engine" behind OmniWeb... OWF manages that whole pipeline/processor architecture I talked about earlier, and OmniHTML is the HTML parsing and rendering part. We haven't updated our released source in awhile, though, as preparing source for public release is quite a time-consuming task... but we'll probably do another source release not long after we ship 4.1.

This one came from another completely unrelated thread... bringing it here so OmniWeb feedback doesn't take over all of MacNN:

I was glad to see that the OmniWeb 4.1sp10 makes the Downloads window a full-fledged window!

Heheh.

We recently had quite a long discussion over what kind of window is most appropriate for that -- there's compelling reasons to do it either way. But we eventually decided on the normal-window style and extending it a bit so it doesn't act so much like something that's not sure whether it's a normal window or a utility window. Glad you like it!

(edit: Hmm, if OmniWeb is underlining all my words in read, maybe I should check on them before hitting Post.)

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Rickster ]

JC Denton · Nov 15, 2001, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by Rickster:


(edit: Hmm, if OmniWeb is underlining all my words in read, maybe I should check on them before hitting Post.)

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Rickster ]

My Spell Check aug detects a second edit is in order.

Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm still smiling from your reply in the other thread...well, I would be, if UNATCO had given me more than the ability to look utterly emotionless.

And just wanted to take the opportunity to let you know that the educational license your web store sold at 5 am EST was a little thank you for your last few posts.

spledekowitz · Nov 15, 2001, 02:53 PM

Rick,

What about the possibility of making the bookmarks window a sheet rather than a drawer. Personally, I do not like drawers and it would be a nice option.

Speddy

Brazuca · Nov 15, 2001, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by spledekowitz:
Rick,

What about the possibility of making the bookmarks window a sheet rather than a drawer. Personally, I do not like drawers and it would be a nice option.

Speddy

Rick,
You and OMNI rock! Thanks for keeping us in the loop and not making us feel like we are simple consumers. I actually feel like I'm part of what makes this browser so great.

And I can't believe that I'm running full-time on a browser that isn't even tested! How long will the Beta process last then? 3 hours? All the feedback is already here.

And since lobbying is the theme of the day: Tabs, and this idea of sheets is compelling, but I don't know how one would keep it open while browsing, so maybe it's not that great.

And Tabs.

Oh...i forgot: Tabs.

You will have my fee later today.

ShortcutToMoncton · Nov 15, 2001, 04:50 PM

Mine is set to a window. Works much better, since drawers are slow as shiet on my iMac DV 400.

Unfortunately, it seems like Omniweb is one of the slower browsers on a dialup modem. Not a problem for lots of you guys, but it is for me - though sp10 is much improved.

I assume 4.1 Final fixes the memory leak (still there!) and adds slightly more speed...I'll be paying. You guys are great.

greg

P.S. - That engine analogy made absolutely no sense, since a Ferrari would also have a high-powered engine. And would be faster. So yeah. I still got your meaning, though. It's all GOOD!

weric · Nov 15, 2001, 05:33 PM

simple question: is there a way to get into the location field of the toolbar without using the mouse? in other browsers you hit tab to get up there, but in omniweb i seem to always have to use the mouse.

dont.wanna.tell · Nov 15, 2001, 05:48 PM

Salve!

Yeah, I wanted to say it to you too! OmniWeb absolutely rocks!!!

The already very few accasions when OmniWeb breaks on me are all related with Java, but I believe they are fixed soon!

Oh and I really like the new download window!

With the old one I always had the problem to hit the close button. (And did�t want to try cmd-w because of fear to close my frontmost window and destroy this peace of browsing history...)
So I believe that this part of the interface is a _big_ improvement!

)

cu Martin

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: dont.wanna.tell ]

Phoenix1701 · Nov 15, 2001, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by weric:
simple question: is there a way to get into the location field of the toolbar without using the mouse? in other browsers you hit tab to get up there, but in omniweb i seem to always have to use the mouse.

Yup.

Try Command-L (Go to Location in the Browser menu).

Amorya · Nov 15, 2001, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by weric:
simple question: is there a way to get into the location field of the toolbar without using the mouse? in other browsers you hit tab to get up there, but in omniweb i seem to always have to use the mouse.

Command L

SMacSteve · Nov 16, 2001, 10:25 AM

I use the book marks in a window option and like it, but a drop down sheet would be a great idea. Any thoughts on that Rick? Is this something you've considered?

Developer · Nov 16, 2001, 10:46 AM

A sheet for bookmarks wouldn't be a good idea, because it's (document) modal.

naden · Nov 17, 2001, 12:16 AM

I have been *trying* to use OW because you guys have done a fantastic job in so many areas.

But the single greatest problem from my perspective is that the *perceived* speed is very slow.

There are a couple of reasons for this:

a) OW doesn't respond to the UI as well as it should when more than a couple of windows are open. I am on a G4/450/1Gig so I'm not on that slow a machine. The very least I expect is that a program should be able to keep up with my typing which doesn't happen in the URL field that often.

Solution: I am thinking you should try and allocate more CPU time to the UI thread.

b) There is no visual feedback as to what the browser is doing. Sometimes the status bar comes up at the bottom and sometimes it doesn't. The spinning cursors aren't good enough. With IE at least I can see what is happening as each step involves the status bar being updated.

Solution: Add an optional status bar and have a NSProgressIndicator and text in it and have it updated whenever you are retrieving an object (text, picture).

Just a few tips. Also, you guys should really have an 'Add Bookmark' item to the Bookmarks menu. I shouldn't have to open up new windows, goto the URL and then go Add To Bookmarks.

Otherwise great browser !!!!

-- Naden.

Guy Incognito · Nov 17, 2001, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by naden:


b) There is no visual feedback as to what the browser is doing. Sometimes the status bar comes up at the bottom and sometimes it doesn't. The spinning cursors aren't good enough. With IE at least I can see what is happening as each step involves the status bar being updated.

Solution: Add an optional status bar and have a NSProgressIndicator and text in it and have it updated whenever you are retrieving an object (text, picture).

Just a few tips. Also, you guys should really have an 'Add Bookmark' item to the Bookmarks menu. I shouldn't have to open up new windows, goto the URL and then go Add To Bookmarks.

-- Naden.

You want all the visual feedback of what's going on? Go to Tools menu, select 'Network Activity' and you'll get all the visual feedback you want...so much in fact your head might explode.

There is an 'Add Bookmark' in the Bookmarks menu.

Please clarify what you mean, because I know that's not what you meant.

Brendonshire · Nov 17, 2001, 06:27 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rickster:
[QB]
OmniWeb has about the equivalent of three full-time people working on it (that is, two or three of us spend most of our time on it, and the other nine or ten engineers contribute stuff now and then).

Excellent!!

Would you be so kind as to give a guess as to when 4.1 will be finished??

"Why should people pay for OW??, when IE is free??"

I payed for OW and it is the best browser that there is, the only time that I switch back (as in backwards) to IE is when OW does not render the page correctly. I noticed this last when I went to NakedNews.com to catch the weather

, but had to switch backwards to IE

I assume that OW will be updated soon and that will be a very good for ALL!!

Ty

naden · Nov 18, 2001, 03:35 AM

Originally posted by Guy Incognito:


You want all the visual feedback of what's going on? Go to Tools menu, select 'Network Activity' and you'll get all the visual feedback you want...so much in fact your head might explode.

There is an 'Add Bookmark' in the Bookmarks menu.

Please clarify what you mean, because I know that's not what you meant.

By all means.

Open up OW. Close all windows. Now try and add a bookmark.

Now think about how you would add say 20 bookmarks, because you want OW to check them every 10 minutes to see if they have been updated. Can't do it.

As for the Network Activity idea .. its a crap one. I am sorry if everyone has big 21 inch monitors devoted entirely to browsing. But all I am asking for is an IE style status bar. I am not on a big enough screen to have multiple windows AND a network activity just to see what the browser is doing.

It is a common HCI concept that you notify the user when you are doing something ie.retrieving an image, sending a request to the server., awaiting a response etc ..

Hope this clarifies my post.

-- Naden.

Developer · Nov 18, 2001, 09:06 PM

Huh, why are the chasing arrows not enough for you? It tells you it is still busy. As to why, I don't care. It doesn't matter if it is sending a request to server x, or receiving an image or counting sheep. I just tells me that it is not finished yet, and that's all the information I need.

And by the way: Since OmniWeb is heavily multi-threaded and does all of the downloading in parallel, you couldn't display this information in one status bar anyway.

jguidroz · Nov 18, 2001, 09:55 PM

Well I absolutely like using Omniweb, but what's holding me back from using it right now is because it does not display my university web email site correctly(it's used for more than email like class scheduling, checking grades, etc.) I've emailed this problem in and have been checking each sneakypeek build, but so far, no luck. Problem is you need to log into the web page in order to see the problem. Now if OW would like to fly me to their offices so I could log in and they could see the problem, I'm free after Dec. 15. Hehe, just kidding Rick. Keep up the good work with omniweb.

zigmeister · Nov 18, 2001, 10:27 PM

I checked out Network Activity and I liked it, but it wouldn't be something that I would keep open all the time. I don't "feel" that OW is very slow, but I do have to admit that displaying Network Activity on a small bar in the window does increase perceived speed - I believe Opera uses this a lot to make people think theirs is the fastest browser - but this in OW IMO would make it uglier.

Speaking of "perceived" speed, I think that doing away with live window resizing would be so great. I don't think it makes anything look any nicer and I've gotten into a nasty slow motion resizing habit. I love it when I see a program without live resizing.

Guy Incognito · Nov 18, 2001, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by zigmeister:


Speaking of "perceived" speed, I think that doing away with live window resizing would be so great. I don't think it makes anything look any nicer and I've gotten into a nasty slow motion resizing habit. I love it when I see a program without live resizing.

I honestly never had a problem with live resizing until there was an HTML table inside the window that had to be resized lived as well. If the page is composed simply of text and images, live resizing as silky smooth.

diamondsw · Nov 19, 2001, 01:21 AM

The only things I need before I pay for it are a more complete Javascript implementation (there are still a ton of web sites that don't work for one reason or another), and for my download folder to quit popping up. I know that something happened a while back and post-processing was removed and popping up the folder was substituted, but could this be a preference at least? If it's dangerous for some reason, I'll live with it.

A couple of other features I really miss are the search tab on the sidebar (ala Mozilla and Mac IE), and tabbed windows in Mozilla. I thought they were nuts when they added that feature, but it's turned out to be invaluable in forums like this. And could the look of the "favorites bar" be improved? It's not very Aqua-looking at all - very jarring.

Also, on a more technical level, how does the backend parser/tokenizer handle things like Javascript code?