[yskar]

Speed greatly increased, WebCore v85-related problems fixed... Wow, OW 5.1 has become my primary browser again!!

Great job, OmniGuys!!

[cpac]

Originally posted by Spliff:
Hmm, I downloaded Omniweb and now I have a dilemma: which browser do I use? I can't decide between Safari, Firefox, or Omniweb (assuming I buy it).

I have two requests for Omniweb.

1) It'd be nice if you could add a "New Tab" widget to the customize toolbar options in Omniweb. Firefox has that and I use it all the time.

2) Would it be possible to add a section to the Omniweb homepage that lists various search engine strings that can be added to the Search Shortcuts pane? Ambrosia has this for iSeek and Firefox has this, as well.

Or is there a site already where users have submitted search shortcuts for the various search engines out there?

(1) you can always just hit command-T or drag a link (or even just some text containing a URL) to the tab drawer to open a new tab. You can also set command-click to open links in a new tab, or hold down command when selecting a favorite or bookmark

(2) This is unnecessary - all you have to do is navigate to a page with a search field. You should see a little magnifying glass in the status bar - clicking this will automatically add a shortcut for the search on that page (which you can edit if you want - but bottom line, there's no need for examples since you never really have to look at the search string at all)

[Tim2 at Omni]

Originally posted by Spliff:
1) It'd be nice if you could add a "New Tab" widget to the customize toolbar options in Omniweb. Firefox has that and I use it all the time.

Yeah, that would be pretty nice. You know... don't tell anyone I said this, and this is not officially supported, but you can define your own toolbar items in OmniWeb, with a little bit of hackery. I'll give you a hint: look for BrowserWindow.toolbar inside the application package.

2) Would it be possible to add a section to the Omniweb homepage that lists various search engine strings that can be added to the Search Shortcuts pane?

Listen to cpac. He's very wise.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by cpac:

(2) This is unnecessary - all you have to do is navigate to a page with a search field. You should see a little magnifying glass in the status bar - clicking this will automatically add a shortcut for the search on that page (which you can edit if you want - but bottom line, there's no need for examples since you never really have to look at the search string at all)

Holy crap! I never noticed that. That is so cool.

[ratlater]

Originally posted by acollins:
Quick question for Rickster or Tim2 -

What are the odds that OmniWeb will adopt the new "aquaish platinum" of the recently leaked Mail 2.0 screenshots once Tiger is released? Will the tabs drawer be replaced by the pane/panel/whatever-you-call-it that took the place of the mailboxes drawer?

Just curious...

I'm pretty sure they can't comment due to NDA with Apple. If the new Mail look in fact replaces Aqua, then OW would need to follow suit. If it's a 3rd look then I guess the OG could switch to it, but I'm guessing most users (me included) prefer the current Aqua look. In any case, I doubt they can even acknowledge a new 'theme' exists in 10.4.

-matt

[acollins]

Originally posted by ratlater:
I'm pretty sure they can't comment due to NDA with Apple. If the new Mail look in fact replaces Aqua, then OW would need to follow suit. If it's a 3rd look then I guess the OG could switch to it, but I'm guessing most users (me included) prefer the current Aqua look. In any case, I doubt they can even acknowledge a new 'theme' exists in 10.4.

Ahhh, that's a good point that I hadn't considered. I guess I'll just have to be patient and see how the UI for Tiger eventually develops. I hate being patient!!

[ratlater]

Originally posted by acollins:
Ahhh, that's a good point that I hadn't considered. I guess I'll just have to be patient and see how the UI for Tiger eventually develops. I hate being patient!!

At least we have rumor sites to wet our appetites.

-matt

[CatOne]

Originally posted by acollins:
Ahhh, that's a good point that I hadn't considered. I guess I'll just have to be patient and see how the UI for Tiger eventually develops. I hate being patient!!

I know what ya mean

[osxisfun]

MOTHER!

5.1 is fast!

You've sold me. BigTime!

[drainyoo]

Originally posted by ratlater:
I just tried it on my powerbook with 5.1b1 and had no issues. Not sure what's up.

-matt

The ESPN motion works when you go to the video page but what isnt working for me is the ESPN Motion on the homepage of the MLB section. If you go there you will see the video to the right with links for each video below it. When I click on a link nothing happens. I think it might have something to do with those actual links and not with MOTION. Weird.

[michaelr]

Originally posted by Spliff:
2) Would it be possible to add a section to the Omniweb homepage that lists various search engine strings that can be added to the Search Shortcuts pane? Ambrosia has this for iSeek and Firefox has this, as well.

Actually, you can also Control-click in the search field, and there's "Add Search Shortcut" on the menu.

[F_Elz]

Wow, I'm sold...

[Le Flaneur]

Originally posted by osxisfun:
5.1 is fast!

I don't know what people are talking about. It seems to load pages at the same speed at 5.0.1. I was about to write the people at Omni to ask if they expected 5.1 to be faster by the time it went GM.

Can anyone document a speed increase between 5.1b1 and 5.0.1?

[Le Flaneur]

Originally posted by Tim2 at Omni:
I can't say much more, but sp8 is very close to release candidate status.

I don't know if anyone else is surprised, but I concluded from this and other posts that 5.1 would be very close to *GM*, whereas in reality we're seeing beta1. How far are we from GM?

[F_Elz]

Clear your cache, it is a bit faster

[drainyoo]

Originally posted by Le Flaneur:
I don't know what people are talking about. It seems to load pages at the same speed at 5.0.1. I was about to write the people at Omni to ask if they expected 5.1 to be faster by the time it went GM.

Can anyone document a speed increase between 5.1b1 and 5.0.1?

I definitely see a speed difference. But its not only about speed. A lot of sites that didnt work in 5.0.1 now work in 5.1

[MrBS]

Originally posted by Le Flaneur:
I don't know if anyone else is surprised, but I concluded from this and other posts that 5.1 would be very close to *GM*, whereas in reality we're seeing beta1. How far are we from GM?

5.1 is very close to GM, my guess is that this is just a last minute test with a wider audience than the private betas. If there are no big gotchyas I expect to see 5.1 out by Monday.

~BS

[osxisfun]

Originally posted by Le Flaneur:
I don't know what people are talking about. It seems to load pages at the same speed at 5.0.1. I was about to write the people at Omni to ask if they expected 5.1 to be faster by the time it went GM.

Can anyone document a speed increase between 5.1b1 and 5.0.1?

i used 5.0 very little so maybe my cache was more free or some setting was not set or something. its really fast though. no doubt.

[Mike S.]

I've run my usual set of tests on my local network and 5.1 is actually slower than 5.0 but 5.0 got a decent boost when it went GM so I'll wait for that before talking speed.

OmniWeb won't be fast for me until I have a faster computer, until then I use it for features not performance. Camino is where it's at for raw performance but Safari with a few third party enhancements is the best balance of features and speed.

[Spliff]

Another request.

Any chance that you could make the font smaller for urls and folders listed in the Bookmarks menu? Not all of us have 20" displays. I've got a 15" display with a max. resolution of 1024 x 768, and I quickly run out of space for my folders of urls.

[velporama]

For loading of a single web page the speed difference between Safari and OW 5.1b1 is negligible. Where the difference really comes in is in the loading of multiple tabs (10-15). I must confess, the only feedback that I have is that the progress indicators on the Safari tabs complete much more quickly than the OW 5.1b1 progress indicators. I would have thought that for OW 5.1b1 being such a threaded application ( I counted 20 in 'top') the reverse would have been observed.

--Velporama

[iOliverC]

Hey guys,

2 things I've noticed. One is more of a request. Is there anyway to be able to group RSS groups into one group. In the bookmarks manager, it won't let me drag anything into a RSS field. I'd rather have 1 RSS folder in my favourites and subfolders of the RSS fields for individual sites in there.

Next request is a weird rendering book on the URl input box, I can't seem to reproduce it, except that when I click into it sometimes, the blue glow goes funky at the bottom, like there is a bit too much glow or something.

Thanks,
Oliver

[JKT]

Originally posted by drainyoo:
The ESPN motion works when you go to the video page but what isnt working for me is the ESPN Motion on the homepage of the MLB section. If you go there you will see the video to the right with links for each video below it. When I click on a link nothing happens. I think it might have something to do with those actual links and not with MOTION. Weird.

Did you have any site specific prefs set for ESPN (such as spoofing a different browser)? If you did try resetting those to see if that helps.

[Gee4orce]

I'd like to see a Safari RSS syle summary of RSS feeds. At the moment, the headline only bookmark-format is pretty useless to me. All that needs to be done is to have an RSS feed template, and a stylesheet, and for OmniWeb to consolidate all the feeds onto one page. Pipedream ?

[BZ]

YEAH!!! 5.1...

(actually been playing with it since last night).

The rendering speed is better which is good, but it also seems like the GUI speed is also faster which is also good.

Keep up the good work OmniDudes. Can't wait to see what goodies await us in 5.5. Hopefully all sorts of Tiger goodness.

BZ

[drainyoo]

Originally posted by JKT:
Did you have any site specific prefs set for ESPN (such as spoofing a different browser)? If you did try resetting those to see if that helps.

Nope it still doesnt work. Its really weird cause the player disappears sometimes. Is anyone getting the video to play on the homepage of the MLB site?

[GENERAL_SMILEY]

Occasionally I am getting web pages with letters missing - literally a perfect page of text with the letter D missing consistently throughout the page, just a white space where it should be.

I'm not sure because this effect is not consistent, but this might happen in the menus of the app itself as well.

It feels like I'm the victim of some early nineties virus attack, but I'm guessing it is the new webcore.

[yskar]

Originally posted by drainyoo:
Nope it still doesnt work. Its really weird cause the player disappears sometimes. Is anyone getting the video to play on the homepage of the MLB site?

Well, at least I was able to see the Yankees beat Twins in 12th without any problems - A-Rod's double, Matsui's sac fly, and interview with Rodriguez, both at espn.com and mlb.com.
No special site settings. RealPlayer 10 and WMP 9 installed.

[Thain Esh Kelch]

Its pretty darn slow on an iMac 233... Safari beats the crap out of it. And on top of that, 800x600 really isnt something Omniweb can work on...
If there are animated gifs on a page, OW slows to a crawl...

[cpac]

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch:
Its pretty darn slow on an iMac 233... Safari beats the crap out of it. And on top of that, 800x600 really isnt something Omniweb can work on...
If there are animated gifs on a page, OW slows to a crawl...

well to be fair, an iMac 233 is a pretty damn old machine (6 or 7 years, right?), and I believe the animated .gifs are a webcore issue (but unlike in Safari, you can set a preference to stop them from animating, or at least limit it to a certain amount of time or repetitions...)

[drainyoo]

Originally posted by yskar:
Well, at least I was able to see the Yankees beat Twins in 12th without any problems - A-Rod's double, Matsui's sac fly, and interview with Rodriguez, both at espn.com and mlb.com.
No special site settings. RealPlayer 10 and WMP 9 installed.

Screw the Yanks. They didnt win that game, Twins lost it. Its pretty sad that they are having problems beating a team that cost 124 mil less than them. Go Sox!

Anyways, Im not talking about watching real and WM videos. Im talking about the Flash player ESPN has called ESPN motion. It plays video thru flash and the player on the homepage doesnt work properly.

[Spirit_VW]

Speed is much improved - I'm impressed. Excellent work, OmniDudes.

Now, if the *CACHE* would work I'd use OW as my full-time browser. The cache is the *one* thing holding me back now.

[Le Flaneur]

Originally posted by Spirit_VW:
Now, if the *CACHE* would work I'd use OW as my full-time browser. The cache is the *one* thing holding me back now.

The cache apparently won't be fixed in 5.1

[Mike S.]

Originally posted by cpac:
well to be fair, an iMac 233 is a pretty damn old machine (6 or 7 years, right?)

Yes it is but what does that have to do with anything when comparing relative performance?

It's pretty simple; OmniWeb is the slowest browser even with the same render engine as Safari and it's performance gets orders of magnitude worse the further down the hardware latter you go.

Safari and Camino don't give the impression that you're waiting a long time for a page to render even on older hardware and the performance curve as you move up in hardware isn't as drastic. On a modern piece of hardware OmniWeb may only be 25% slower (I've never seen results on an MP or a G5 though) but on older hardware it's like 300% slower.

I love OmniWeb, I paid for it, I use it daily but the fact of the matter is that it's an underperforming resource hog compared to the other two and it's especially noticeable on these older machines.

I'm not demanding or even suggesting that the Omni Group rip the thing apart and try to rectify the situation but I'm just tired of hearing "it's so fast!" every time a new version comes out when it's just not the case; every test I've seen says it's slower or slowest.

It's feature laden and offers a superior user experience but raw speed and low resource utilization is not it's strong point.

Don't take it personally Omni Devs; I still think you guys are top and always recommend your products because they are high quality and wonderful to use but I call 'em like I see 'em.

[cpac]

Originally posted by Mike S.:
Yes it is but what does that have to do with anything when comparing relative performance?

Because different applications have different relative performances on different machines. (e.g. back when OW used its own rendering engine, it frequently out-paced its contemporaries on dual processor machines). Moreover, limits on amount/speed of RAM etc. can effect applications in different ways. Bottom line, it *can be* that OW is slower than Safari on machine A, but faster on machine B. (even when dual processors are not involved).

It's pretty simple; OmniWeb is the slowest browser even with the same render engine as Safari and it's performance gets orders of magnitude worse the further down the hardware latter you go.

I think you mean "ladder."

And I understand your point (though I don't agree with it) - my point is just that OF COURSE you can magnify any difference to be huge, but doing so distorts the importance of the difference.

On my TiBook 500 - (not even close to a newish machine) - the speed differences between OW 5.1b1 (or 5.0.1 for that matter) and Camino or Safari are negligible - we're talking maybe a few seconds added on to several hours of browsing at most - and for everybody with more modern hardware, the difference can only be smaller.

it's an underperforming resource hog compared to the other two and it's especially noticeable on these older machines.

I'm not sure why you say "under"performing (analysts predicted its quarterly earnings would be greater?) - and as for "resource hog" - well, would you rather it went slower, but never got above 50% cpu usage? Do Safari/Camino's cpu usage not spike when they are rendering pages?

I'm just tired of hearing "it's so fast!" every time a new version comes out when it's just not the case; every test I've seen says it's slower or slowest.

Which tests have you seen that deal with 5.0, much less 5.1? Why do you care if somebody experiences it as being faster than Safari or Camino on their machine, with their set-up? (For example, many Safari users with Pithhelmet find Safari to be very slow - and since OW doesn't have to rely on third party ad-blocking, it could be faster in comparison...)

[osxisfun]

> but I'm just tired of hearing "it's so fast!" every time a new version comes out when it's just not the case; every test I've seen says it's slower or slowest.


ok I'll lie next time:


5.1 is so slow...



on topic:

Is there a way to make the antialias a little less blurry?

check out fourms.macnn.com

in safari the text is much crsiper in cleaner in safari.

? anyone else notice this?

[typ993]

Here's a cool new feature (at least I think it's new; I hadn't noticed it in 5.0):

When browsing some forums, hovering the cursor over the link displays the first part of the text of the first post.

Example:

http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforum...?s=&forumid=58

I'm not sure if this is a site-specific thing where the forum software offers the ability to dump the post text into the alt tag, though.

Still, cool!

[pliny]

The ui is definitely smoother and everything feels like it;s moving faster. Same for pages. Pretty good stuff so far.

[drainyoo]

Originally posted by typ993:
Here's a cool new feature (at least I think it's new; I hadn't noticed it in 5.0):

When browsing some forums, hovering the cursor over the link displays the first part of the text of the first post.

Example:

http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforum...?s=&forumid=58

I'm not sure if this is a site-specific thing where the forum software offers the ability to dump the post text into the alt tag, though.

Still, cool!

Doesnt work for me.

[drainyoo]

Ok folks..my version of OW 5.1 is freaking the hell out. Does OW 5.1 has a memory leak? I just checked my Activity Monitor and OW is using 112 MBs of Real Memory and its using 90% of my CPU!!!!!!!

I was watching it and it just the RAM amount kept getting higher and the so did the CPU usage.

This is really freaky. Is this happening to anyone?

[RedHerring]

Originally posted by drainyoo:
Ok folks..my version of OW 5.1 is freaking the hell out. Does OW 5.1 has a memory leak? I just checked my Activity Monitor and OW is using 112 MBs of Real Memory and its using 90% of my CPU!!!!!!!

I was watching it and it just the RAM amount kept getting higher and the so did the CPU usage.

This is really freaky. Is this happening to anyone?

I don't have the same CPU usage, but OmniWeb is using exactly 119.57 MBs of real memory on my system too. In comparison, Firefox is using 56 MBs and Safari is using 14.15 MBs.

I'm not a computer guru, so I don't know... does that mean it has a memory leak?

[Mike S.]

Originally posted by cpac:
Bottom line, it *can be* that OW is slower than Safari on machine A, but faster on machine B. (even when dual processors are not involved).

I'm not going to debate "can"; yes, it can but my experience has been that the relative performance is consistent. This is based on my own testing and the few third party benchmarks I've seen over time. The relative position has been very consistent.

I think you mean "ladder."

Indeed.

On my TiBook 500 - (not even close to a newish machine) - the speed differences between OW 5.1b1 (or 5.0.1 for that matter) and Camino or Safari are negligible - we're talking maybe a few seconds added on to several hours of browsing at most - and for everybody with more modern hardware, the difference can only be smaller.

Yes, it does amount to a few seconds on modern hardware though on older hardware it can be as much as 10 seconds per page (depending on complexity).

It's not overwhelming which is why I continue to come back to it and use it daily but as far as computers go seconds are a big deal and they add up.

I'm not sure why you say "under"performing (analysts predicted its quarterly earnings would be greater?) - and as for "resource hog" - well, would you rather it went slower, but never got above 50% cpu usage? Do Safari/Camino's cpu usage not spike when they are rendering pages?

Yes, that's exactly what happened. The analysts paid me to write this so they can send stock prices falling and buy up shares on the cheap; you didn't hear it from me.

(Note: I realize they aren't a publicly traded company)

On resource hog let's just say that OmniWeb is much more likely to give me a beach ball than either Safari or Camino. It uses more CPU time when rendering then the other two.

I'm thinking the pervasive use of mutli-threading is just overwhelming my G3.

Which tests have you seen that deal with 5.0, much less 5.1? Why do you care if somebody experiences it as being faster than Safari or Camino on their machine, with their set-up? (For example, many Safari users with Pithhelmet find Safari to be very slow - and since OW doesn't have to rely on third party ad-blocking, it could be faster in comparison...)

The tests are my own and a few third party tests that I've seen.

As to why I care if other experience it as being faster; I just don't think that is the case. Perhaps they are *perceiving* it as being faster but I liken it to that whole "it's snappier" running joke related to every OS X update.

I just don't like seeing misconceptions being perpetuated, it bugs me. People who think it's faster often confront me when I say otherwise but nobody else has ever bothered to run some tests to contradict me.

I do use PithHelmet with Safari, BTW, and ad blocking with OW. Safari is still considerably faster.

I think OmniWeb could be much faster if they optimize the heck out of their cache performance; Opera's performance is practically built around it's cache.

I've got nothing against OmniWeb, I really enjoy using it but it is slower and I'll continue to say it until it's not true anymore

[RedHerring]

Formal tests aside, I sat down with a stop watch, OmniWeb, and Firefox. After clearing all caches & history I visited my normal set of webpages with my handy-dandy oh-so-informal stopwatch.

OmniWeb is, in fact, slower on my 1 Ghz G4 than Firefox. But usually, it's only by a second or two. There were a few pages (MSN, for instance...after logging out of hotmail) were the difference was more like 5 seconds. But for the most part, it wasn't slow enough to register to anyone but my stopwatch.

But this is actually a good thing. OmniWeb 5.0.1 was quite a bit slower than Firefox. I didn't have to pull out the stopwatch to notice that! So 5.1b is faster on my computer than 5.0.1 was (which was, incidentally, why I was using Firefox instead of OmniWeb (which I have paid for)).

Speed aside, I think for most people it just boils down to the total package & what the user is looking for. Some people just want fast - so they go with Camnio/Firefox/Safari/whatever. Some people want features, so they go with something else. And, yeah... the users computer plays into the picture as well (trust me... my Mac is a new machine bought after *years* of using a 450 mhz Gateway PC... I know ALL about slow computers... haha).

Now if I could just pretend I hadn't noticed the post about the massive amounts of memory OmniWeb was using....

[geekwagon]

Originally posted by Mike S.:

The tests are my own and a few third party tests that I've seen.

As to why I care if other experience it as being faster; I just don't think that is the case. Perhaps they are *perceiving* it as being faster but I liken it to that whole "it's snappier" running joke related to every OS X update.

I just don't like seeing misconceptions being perpetuated, it bugs me. People who think it's faster often confront me when I say otherwise but nobody else has ever bothered to run some tests to contradict me.

I do use PithHelmet with Safari, BTW, and ad blocking with OW. Safari is still considerably faster.

I think OmniWeb could be much faster if they optimize the heck out of their cache performance; Opera's performance is practically built around it's cache.

I've got nothing against OmniWeb, I really enjoy using it but it is slower and I'll continue to say it until it's not true anymore

Are you on a modem or on some kind of broadband? I only use fast connections and for me this 5.1 beta is way faster than any previous omniweb and definitely approaching (but not quite reaching) the speed of Safari 1.2. In fact, the only reason it ever seems at all slower is because sometimes, on a page with a lot of images or something, some images will get kind of "stuck" for a while and stop loading. Then, after a period of a few seconds its like some timing loop fires and all the missing bits download all at once. Could be a deadlock type situation (a timer is a pretty typical way to work around those) or maybe some kind of problems with TCP sessions (like a lost ACK or something) that causes a few connections to go into la-la land for a while until some timer tells it to retry... In other words, for me it is "rendering" the page appx. the same speed as Safari, but it doesn't seem to "fetch" all the content for the page _quite_ as fast.

Also, if you can provide me a link with sufficient detail to re-create your testing I would be willing to perform the testing on my system, a dual 2GHz connected via cable-modem. If nothing else it would be a useful datapoint.

[Spirit_VW]

Originally posted by geekwagon:
Are you on a modem or on some kind of broadband? I only use fast connections and for me this 5.1 beta is way faster than any previous omniweb and definitely approaching (but not quite reaching) the speed of Safari 1.2.

I am on dialup, and I echo your sentiments. 5.1 beta is noticeably (not placebo) faster than the older OW5s, and is very close to Safari (not quite there yet though). The only thing that holds OW back for me from being quite wonderful indeed is its bizarre, seemingly half-working cache - things reload on a page when the exact same things were loaded just a page beforehand, things are rarely remembered for any length of time, etc (and yes, I've tried setting "Validate cached items" to "Rarely"). On broadband, this ain't so noticeable, but on dialup, it adds up. Other than that, OW 5.1b is right up there with Safari for me. My Macs are an 800mhz G3 iBook 12-inch combo drive and a 1.25ghz eMac combo drive, the iBook with 640 mb of RAM, and the eMac with a bit more.

[JKT]

On the OmniWeb mailing list, Ken Case has responded to people's posts about their being a potential memory leak/CPU leak.

If you can, when it happens, generate a sample report and send it to OmniGroup. When you see the CPU hogging, launch Activity Monitor (/Applications/Utilities), highlight the OmniWeb process and click the Inspect button in the toolbar. A window will open and one of the buttons in that window is "Sample" - click it, wait for the output and copy/paste it to a "Send Feedback" generated e-mail with a description of what you were doing, what OmniWeb was doing, what network activity there was etc.

FWIW, if OmniWeb hangs for whatever reason, you can do the same thing (run Sample) to help OG track down what the issue is.

[drainyoo]

Well I switched back to 5.0.1.

5.1 has a really bad memory leak and at times takes over the CPU. The RAM usage would reach up to 140mb with just 3 tabs opened. Since I use Photoshop and Flash all day, RAM is precious to me so until this if fixed I have to use 5.0.1. Im even thinking about just going back to Safari until this is fixed cause 5.0.1 is a memory hog as well. Not as bad as 5.1 but it still uses around 100mb. I sent Ken a few samples so I hope he can figure out whats wrong.

I really want to purchase a license and make it my default browser but a few things have to be fixed for me to totally make the move. The cache bug is also starting to annoy me.

Looking forward to the final release.

[sghms]

Originally posted by JKT:
On the OmniWeb mailing list, Ken Case has responded to people's posts about their being a potential memory leak/CPU leak.

If you can, when it happens, generate a sample report and send it to OmniGroup. When you see the CPU hogging, launch Activity Monitor (/Applications/Utilities), highlight the OmniWeb process and click the Inspect button in the toolbar. A window will open and one of the buttons in that window is "Sample" - click it, wait for the output and copy/paste it to a "Send Feedback" generated e-mail with a description of what you were doing, what OmniWeb was doing, what network activity there was etc.

FWIW, if OmniWeb hangs for whatever reason, you can do the same thing (run Sample) to help OG track down what the issue is.

This appeared to happen to me when I did a straight upgrade from 5.0.1 to 5.1. However once I flushed the cache, cleared the history and deleted everything in ~/Library/Caches/com.omnigroup.OmniWeb5/ (when the browser was closed) and then restarted that has fixed the issue for me mainly.

CPU usage does tend to spike randomly with Omniweb but it has improved with each upgrade for me. Still not quite as efficient as Safari but it is getting there.

[typ993]

Originally posted by drainyoo:
Doesnt work for me.

You have to hover the cursor over the link for at least a couple of seconds. Just checked and it was still working for me.

[Mike S.]

Originally posted by geekwagon:
Are you on a modem or on some kind of broadband?

(...) In fact, the only reason it ever seems at all slower is because sometimes, on a page with a lot of images or something, some images will get kind of "stuck" for a while and stop loading. Then, after a period of a few seconds its like some timing loop fires and all the missing bits download all at once. Could be a deadlock type situation (a timer is a pretty typical way to work around those) or maybe some kind of problems with TCP sessions (like a lost ACK or something) that causes a few connections to go into la-la land for a while until some timer tells it to retry...

Also, if you can provide me a link with sufficient detail to re-create your testing I would be willing to perform the testing on my system, a dual 2GHz connected via cable-modem. If nothing else it would be a useful datapoint.

My web surfing connection is a 3Mb cable connection but I test over a 1Mb LAN since the network environment is more controlled.

You could be right about the performance being related to connection routine inefficiencies. I've thought the same things as I've watched OW do it's thing but regardless of the root of the issue; it has a real impact on performance.

My testing method is basically like this; I've saved the front pages of several websites of differing complexity using FireFox (I use the same pages for all tests so the pages are out dated) I then turn on Web sharing and access the pages over my LAN.

I run four tests: 1st run had caches cleared/deleted/flushed and the browser quit before beginning, I then quit the browser. Launch and run with cache in play, flush caches, quit, re-launch and run again and finally another quit and relaunch with caches in play. I then average all results to come to a final time.

I use a stop watch starting when I hit enter or click the bookmark and stop it when the progress indicator resets.

If you want to run your own tests in a similar way I can zip my test files and send them to you so we're working with the same, exact pages.

It's not a perfect test but it's as good as I can do without professional tools.