Will Apple ever make a web browser?

[DakotaGuy]

I was just wondering on your thoughts about Apple making a web browser. I use IE 5.1 on OSX and it works pretty good...but it is the program I have to force quit the most. I have Netscape 6 too...it is more stable then IE, but kind of loaded down with lots of junk and it is missing the support and plug-ins that it needs in some areas. I use the Mail app by Apple and it works great and use all their other Apps and not once have I ever had to force quit an actual Apple application. I know there are alternative web browsers out there, but I was just wondering what you guys thought about the possibility of Apple releasing a Web browser and maybe even integrating the Mail app they already have into it. It would be nice to find a good stable browser that worked excellent in OS X. Right now IE is good, but far from excellent.

[eyelikeart]

I found this on the Mac OS X downloads page....maybe it's worth a try?

http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/internet_utilities/icab.html

[obeygiant]

I dont think so. IE is the best thing going.
Besides, Apple is incompatible with enough stuff online anyway.

[Tommy!]

I think that if Apple were to release an internet browser, almost every mc user would choose it over IE. This wouldn't make MS very happy. I think it's also the reason why apple doesn't improve Apple Works, for fear of microsoft losing sales... then, microsoft (along with other companies) wouldn't create these programs for the mac.

i dont know though... id like to see what other people have to say about this 1

[Abominog]

Apple did have the best browser going at one time. Cyberdog 2.0 still beats them all in some key areas (under Classic, anyway) IE is about the most versatile, but it has its definte weaknesses as well.

Yeah, Cyberdog v.X would be heaven.

[Omen88]

Originally posted by Abominog
Apple did have the best browser going at one time. Cyberdog 2.0 still beats them all in some key areas (under Classic, anyway) IE is about the most versatile, but it has its definte weaknesses as well.

Yeah, Cyberdog v.X would be heaven.

I totally agree, we should start a petition for a carbonized version of cyberdog and opendoc :)

[atomwork]

I don't know what most people have against Netscape. Its fast and good (classic browsers). Don't tell me IE is so much faster. As a web designer i need to check the flash stuff perfectly and try this please with a IE browser.

May be 6 and 6.1 was slower but 6.2 seems to be ok now, finally.

Well, just check some heavy flash sites and you see what i mean:)

[eyelikeart]

netscape's bloated and has progressively gotten sssslllloooowwwweeerrrrr :o

[mymemory]

Netscape is ok but when you are a web designer Netscape use to place things a bit desorganiz after you spend a few days between your client and your bose dealing with the look of the site. Explorer is a bit smarter reading html language and other stuff too. For example, if in the htm code you do not use the "/html" that close the language, the Netscap will load for ever, Explorer doesn't.

And I do not think Apple is gonna do a browser, that is like Toyota making their own tires. It is better and cheaper to have all Apple links in the Explorer and something is true, Apple can not start develop softwater for it self, some other companies would be mad.

[maclamb]

atomwork -
That was a joke, right? You're not serious about Netscape being fast?

I agree with the Eye man
On my machine:
Ti667 1 G Ram 30G hd it takes:
IE 51. 7 secs to start up
NS 6.2 11 secs to start and another 10 for mail to come up
Powermail 3.1 8 seconds

Even Mozilla is slow -

Why is that? I WOULD prefer to use NS than Powermail
I am moving to a 867G4 at qork and probably a dp 1G at home, so NS will be acceptable, but SHEESH!

[Beej]

Am I the only one that has trauma with Mail? I still use it - i haven't found anything better in OS X - but t crashes often, and randomly resizes it's windows. Ugh.

As for an Apple browser... I hope they do. It will take a lot to pull me away from OmniWeb, though, I love OmniWeb. But this is Apple we're talking about here. If they make a browser, it will be the best on the planet.

That said, I don't think we'll be seeing one form them any time soon...

[chmorley]

It is so frustrating that Netscape 6.0 was such a piece of crap that it turned people off Netscape entirely. It is far more stable and much faster than IE--both in OS X and 9. Gecko is a much faster engine for rendering complex pages--especially anything with tables. IE will only load a table when it has the whole thing. Netscape will load it piece by piece, allowing the page to be browsable right away.

If all you looked at was which started faster, we'd all still be using DOS. The time cost for starting any program is spent once--when it's opened. If Netscape takes longer to load (and it does), but then surfs faster than IE (which it does), which is "faster"?

I have used both extensively (as well as OmniWeb). Netscape surfs fastest on my TiBook 667 in OS X, and on my wife's iBook in OS 9. The only drag is that it's not as Aquified as I'd like--it's not as pretty. OmniWeb looks the best (and is the only Cocoa one of the three), but it's the slowest.

Anyway, this is the best indicator I have found: Load the TV listings at TV guide in any browser you have (try Satellite channels, just to make the page as big as possible). See how quickly it loads in each. This is only one test, but it makes the point.

TV Guide (http://www.tvguide.com/listings/)

Let me know what you think. At least try it.

CJM

[Abominog]

Originally posted by chmorley
(snip)

Anyway, this is the best indicator I have found: Load the TV listings at TV guide in any browser you have (try Satellite channels, just to make the page as big as possible). See how quickly it loads in each. This is only one test, but it makes the point.

TV Guide (http://www.tvguide.com/listings/)

Let me know what you think. At least try it.

CJM

Interesting test- the results surprised me except for Cyberdog's. It soundly trounced both IE and NN in 9.2.2. IE was by far the slowest at about 23 seconds to load DirectTVs Pacific listings, NN was about 13 seconds and Cybie was about 7 seconds. Sure, there's some things Cybie doesn't do very well, or at all, but nothings faster (cached pages don't load fast, they load instantly), the email part is unparalleled, ftp is reliable and telnet is solid- all for a 247K of disk space and a 2 MB RAm footprint. It won't do flash or java sites very well, but that's understandable seeing as how it's been out of development since '97. Fortunately, I loathe both web site schemes and again, there are some things it does that just can't be done with any other browser.

[chmorley]

I miss it. A whole different train of thought going on at that time. Still seems like it would've been a good idea.

CJM

[Nipsy]

Originally posted by mymemory
Netscape is ok but when you are a web designer Netscape use to place things a bit desorganiz after you spend a few days between your client and your bose dealing with the look of the site. Explorer is a bit smarter reading html language and other stuff too. For example, if in the htm code you do not use the "/html" that close the language, the Netscap will load for ever, Explorer doesn't.


Ummm...

That is an argument against your skills as a developer, not for IE as a browser.

Suggesting that a browser should be forgiving of something as sloppy as an open ended tag helps me understand why M$ has such a stellar security history (if you're stupid, reread the last phrase, and add 'SARCASM' between every word).

If you accept the M$ web publishing model, you'll see that M$ believes in nesting tables, using non-breaking spaces as a design element, spacer-gifs, and other kludges which can make a page near impossible to parse. Have a comparative gander at Frontapge, or Word generated html code vs. a hand coded page doing a similar thing. I have seen M$ Frontpage generate a page in 1320 lines of html. I hand coded the same page in 261. ****ing Dreamwaever only needed ~410 lines. Their professional level tools (IIS/ASP/Interdev) are no better. It is for this reason that IE is so forgiving...it expects (even anticipates) poorly coded, M$ generated pages.

IE is, was, and always will be bloated M$ crapware. IE does bot obey the rules of the W3C, rejects the principles of a common DOM, and is a security nightmare. Having developed 7 & 8 figure web apps for about 5 years, I can tell you one thing about Netscape:
It plays by the W3C rules (95% of the time), although I agree that since AOL bought Netscape, things have gotten bloated.

iCab, Opera, and OmniWeb are light efficient browsers, which sadly have response and parsing problems with a few too many well-coded sites or servers. I hope that at least one of these programs can work to become a well oiled machine.

Here is a favored example:
I worked for about a year on a large project for a major bank's online account management. The whole thing is run on UNIX boxes (ya know, for security), powered by Java (you know, cause ASP, IIS, and Windows [blank] are full of holes). It also functions in any JS capable browser, on any platform. It degrades very well to older browsers. It has an exceptional security record.

QA was done first on Netscape 4.7.8 for Solaris, because if it passed internal QA on a strict browser, on a Sun, external QA (read: focus group monkeys on Wintel boxes) would be easy.

Another example:
During the debacle where M$N would not let you through to M$N's homepage if you weren't using IE, they claimed other browsers weren't XML compliant. Soon after, someone ran the M$N source through the W3C XML rule checker, and guess what...it failed.

If you can't write well, don't publish! The book industry survives by rejecting the garbage, sadly the web doesn't have the same safegaurds (btw, this is aimed at lazy corporations putting out garbage web apps, if your Grandma wants to make a page about her kitten with Frontpage, more power to her!)

[AmbitiousLemon]

the biggest hole in my macintosh experience is the lack of a functioning internet browser. i honestly dont know how things have gotten so bad. i tend to think of users of ie much the same way as i think of users of windoze - stupid, ignorant, and/or lazy (too lazy to realize that if the researched and found a better browser they really settle down with something nice). unfortunately the state of browsers right now leaves us with little choice but to join the mindless ranks in line to give bill gates a bj. another of the many reasons i wont be migrating to osx any time soon - if my browsing web experience is bad its just not worth it at this point (eventually i'll switch too much appealing stuff to stay away fo long).

apple could probably give us something good if they felt they had reason to. and apple - omniweb browser similiar to the apple - soundjam mp3 player would be something to wow the world. im sure if every mac shipped with it installed as the default nearly all mac users would use it, much the same way nearly every mac user uses ie right now (if the browser actually functioned properly it would pull in those of us avoiding ie).

should apple release a browser? i think it would be a good idea (maybe im just being selfish)(since ive been awake for 37 hours its hard for me to think too deeply on this).

[davincijones]

buy Omniweb and Fire.

[Foocha]

Netscape is very pedantic in interpretting code, IE is much more forgiving. The fact that IE is able to interpret bad code just goes to show how much thought has been put into it. IE is a great product, but it's a shame it's so slow on Mac, and doesn't match the PC version feature for feature.

I agree with Nipsy, however, that if you can't debug your code for Netscape that says more about your skills than the Netscape browser.

The sad fact is that we are in a standards-based world, and client-side, the standards are set by Microsoft, not W3C. The Mac *needs* a MS based browser. Without Microsoft's continued development for Mac, the platform does not stand a chance as a mainstream consumer desktop OS.

Having said that, I think OmniWeb is great, and it would be kinda cool if Apple bought it, even though it would be commercial suicide (think Redmond Retaliation!).

[Nipsy]

Originally posted by Foocha
The sad fact is that we are in a standards-based world, and client-side, the standards are set by Microsoft, not W3C. The Mac *needs* a MS based browser. Without Microsoft's continued development for Mac, the platform does not stand a chance as a mainstream consumer desktop OS.

Gotta disagree...M$ has tried to set standards, and the sheep have followed, but they have failed miserably in many respects. Remeber JScript, the M$ interpretation (degradation) of JavaScript? How 'bout inline VB? Hasn't really stolen the thunder from JavaScript. Also, there have been a slew of M$ 'suggested' amendments to the DOM which have gone the way of the Dodo (true for Netscape as well). The reality is that the people who mold and shape the future mostly hate M$ (save for that guy who wants to make .NET the future of Gnome).

The Web is still served primarily by Sun, and combined implementations of PHP/JSP/CFM/Texis/.shtml/etc. driven apps quash NT/IIS/ASP percentage wise.

The problem is that M$ is the 95%...and that 95% is composed mostly of end users. Developers (good developers) are fairly platform independent. They code in whichever environment they like, and test via VNC, backup mcahines, etc. With that said, if you've seen OSX (from a dev standpoint) or IRIX, could you really say you 'like' Windows?

Thankfully, these developers also don't like to work hard, and writing good code is a lot easier than debugging bad code, so you have a bunch of people who make the eBays, Bank of Americas, Amazons, etc. who do things outside of the M$ model, and these sites succeed.

Sadly, when Joe's Jewellry Jamboree or [insert company here] wants a website, Joe usually buys a copy of FrontPage, and puts out that same site that is all over the web...he changes a color or two, puts his photo where it says insert photo here, and thinks he's God's gift to the web. This M$ driven flock comprised many of the boom 'n bust companies of '98-'99. They had an idea, made it a web app, and tried to sell it as a service. I worked at a magazine at the time that did an interesting feature on M$ as a server-dev platform, and one of those little insert charts showed that a disproportionate amount of M$ modelled companies were failing as Application Service providers. They (Upside.com, November 2000) surmised that this was because App Service Providers were having a much harder sell into HUGE companies running *NIX servers (Ford, Genentech, etc), whereas App Service Providers not following M$'s primrose path were very adaptable to *NIX & NT.

So, since I could continue ranting forever, I'll try to conclude. M$ don't control the standards, on the web, or ahything, outside of M$ Software. Sadly, with M$ Software comes a huge flock of sheep to influence. Consortiums like the W3C still make the rules, markets still drive the demand (and servers are a whole different market). M$ tries everything it can to cripple technologies other than their own (ummm...why did that IE Service Pack remove my Java Virtual Machine). Thankfully, for now at least, 50% of the web (and 80% of the useful web) is still developed by people who aren't tied to Windows, and I don't see M$ making the friends it needs to in colo centers, server farms, etc.

Remember, Microsoft bought Hotmail like 4+ years ago, but Hotmail was only fully moved off of Linux machines 2 months ago!

P.S. Forgot to address what you said about IE being 'good software' for being tolerant & forgiving of poor coding. I cannot disagree more. By not following rules explicitly, IE is very prone to security exploits. It also habitually leaks memory if too many instances are run concurrently (PC version). Additionally, the PC version has sold your url bar to RealNames, and fed you whole to MSN search. The Mac version, while better than the Windows version, still has a foible for every bell an whistle.

P.P.S. (because I was worried that this post was too short) After all the above was said, I do think I need to let you know that I respect M$ MacBU greatly. Office v.X is the best piece of software I've ever seen from the Beast, and IE for X is a striking improvement. I just needed to mention that M$ does not, thankfully, control the world (yet), and that calling IE good for being loose is 'silly'.

[maclamb]

I want to thank all of you for one of (if not the most) interesting and useful threads I've seen in a long time.

I walked away from the NS browser on OSX b/c it loads slower - w/o regard to its performance once up. I was also running it on OSX 10.01 on a 5ooMhz G3 IBook - and THAT was slow - and I switcheed to powermail for email and have been (mostly) satisified - but not happy.

Now I run a Ti667 PB and NS , while loading slower is acceptable for email.

Which I prefer over all the rest (eudora, outlook,powermail).
Our company has a policy NOT to use Outlook on windows due to the security holes - which M$ has so sucessfully framed as an internet security issue!
That so completely frosts me.

I use Dreamweaver to code pages - never liked or trusted Front page -
No real reason, just an inherent distrust of M$ products.


Most, if not all, of their ***** demos well for 15 minutes - then completely sucks long term in large scale dev aqnd deployment (VB, Access come to mind)

I've taught VB at the university and my students loved it for small (<500 lines of code) projects - The moment they get over a couple thousand lines managment becomes a big pain.

So, thank you I will revist NS

Do you recommned NS or Mozilla open source? and is there a difference?

[atomwork]

maclamb:

i am not talking about the 6.2 version or 6 in general. Its slower then IE 5.1

but matter of fact you can get the communicator 4.97 that is fast.

Don't know what i can tell you more but if you only check your work in IE then you may be run into the problem that your site for the client is not 100% done. May be IE checks the scripts better, i know. Man y scripts sometimes don't work on netscape so you have to rewrite them but this factor you have to see.

But i ment only with faster that Flash files run way faster on NETSCAPE then on IE. Its just so. I see it every day. Again, i am not talking about 6.2

[Taft]

One of the s**ttiest things about mac internet surfing is the lack of compatability. This wasn't a huge problem under OS 9 but has been under OS X. Thankfully, with the addition of shockwave and a Win Media Player that doesn't *totally* suck (face it, we need WMP to view some media content the Quicktime won't touch!), I'd say IE is pretty much there.

Omniweb isn't far behind, but it still lacks some compatibility. Netscape is even closer (and I like its rendering engine more) but the UI makes my skin crawl.

But the really bad part of all of this isn't the Macs lack of compatability, its the reasons for it. Nine times out of ten, a page that is incompatible with Mac browsers was created with MS's *tweaked* standards. The attempts they made to change some open web standards (javascript and java come to mind--or how about CSS) to leverage themselves were appalling.

.Net is another, more radical, attempt at this. Did you know that it essentially has a virtual machine in it!! Or that code written for .Net is compiled into essentially byte code. .Net is truely Microsoft's response to Java. It will allow developers to release applications over the web and to release web applications via .Net. Do you think the first few shots at .Net will include Mac support? I highly doubt it. That means that every web app that chooses .Net will forfeit mac support (at least initially). And like every other Microsoft initiatives, there will be *tons* of lackeys who jump on the bandwagon simply because it is MS. That means at least some people will write for this platform. That means at least a few more incompatible web pages.

Thanks for reading.

Matthew

[maclamb]

atom-
are you saying NS 4.67 for OSX? Where can i get it - is it still available on NS?

Also a NS Mail Question:

NS Mail on PC has an option to request return receipt when creating a new email.

I can't find this on NS 6.2 for OSX.
Am I missing something? Is it missing - or not available on Unix?

[chmorley]

maclamb--

I try Mozilla from time to time just to see how it runs. With OS X being so stable I am less concerned than I used to be about using betaware. It's important to remember that Mozilla is what Netscape will become, but some features haven't yet been worked out (read: betaware). I have generally found that 1. Mozilla tends to be faster, and 2. Netscape is more stable. Since we are both running the same machine and OS, your results are likely to be similar. Mozilla has some great features, though. In particular (if you try it), check out the toolbar bookmarks for sites like espn.com and CNN.com. Try MSNBC.com to see a site it just doesn't know how to render. Overall, though, Netscape's reliability makes it my promary browser 95% of the time. People who say IE is faster or more stable haven't actually used NS 6.2. They're basing their opinions on old information--or maybe their machines just run so differently from mine that they get different results. More likely the former, I think.

Not sure about NS mail, since I use Apple's mail.app. I checked it out quickly, though, and I couldn't find the "request return receipt" either.

You can find NS 6.2.1 at Apple's download site (http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/internet_utilities/).

Also, Mozilla has nightly builds that incorporate bug fixes and such. It is also the easiest way to get just the Mozilla broser, if that's what you're interested in. Sometimes fixing old bugs creates new ones, so it's like a box of chocolates, you know? Still, it's interesting to see how the latest features are coming along. You can download nightly builds at the Mozilla (http://www.mozilla.org) site. Try at your own risk (but it won't hurt anything).

CJM

P.S., I just tried the latest nightly build. It seems very fast, and seems to use OS X's cache better. Check out how quickly it loads the second time (start it, quit, then start again).

P.P.S., I also just started trying iCab (http://www.versiontracker.com/moreinfo.fcgi?id=9109&db=mac). It actually seems pretty good--fast, and at least Aqua-looking. I believe it is Carbon. Check it out.

[Foocha]

Whilst Microsoft is able to set client side standards since they have over 95% of the the desktop market, and the vast majority of these machines are using some version of IE for browsing, I think we can take some satisfaction in the fact that MS are very far from standard server side.

Microsoft's .net is clearly an attempt to copy Java, something they've done because they were not allow to "embrace and extend" Java itself.

Personal view: on client side the battle is won, on server side, Long Live Java, Long Live Apache, Long Live Linux!

[chmorley]

For the past day or so I have been using Mozilla's latest overnight build and iCab 2.7.1. iCab isn't bad, but it loads redundant images individually (e.g., if a page has 12 red circle bullets, all other browsers load them all once they grab the first one--iCab loads them 12 separate times). It is still faster than IE about 80% of the time.

Mozilla has been far faster than any other I have, and it has not crashed once--remember, this is betaware, so it will. I have also gotten a skin for it that uses less screen real estate and looks pretty spiffy.

The TV Guide test (loading TV Guide's satellite listings):

Browser, page viewable/usabe (seconds), page loaded

Mozilla 0.9.7+, 5 sec., 10 sec.
Netscape 6.2.1, 6 sec., 10 sec.
iCab 2.7.1, 8 sec., 13 sec. (note--did not render page correctly)
IE 5.1, 11 sec., 11 sec.
OmniWeb, 13 sec., 22 sec.

* DSL connection (shared over Aiport network), TiBook 667.

I was surprised that IE was the only browser that didn't display the page until the entire table was displayed. A couple of other intersting things: Only NS and IE rendered M$NBC correctly--another example of M$ making lousy, sloppy pages.

My general findings on speed (loading 10+ pages)
1. Mozilla
2. Netscape
3. iCab
4. IE
5. Omniweb

Frustrating that the only Cocoa app (and prettiest) of the bunch is the slowest. Even as Mozilla becomes more Aqua compliant (it now uses sheets instead of pop-ups), it still looks too much like Windowsware.

My hope is that, as Mac users, we don't take others' word about what is best--that's why we use a strange computer, right? That's why we are comfortable with people not understanding that our stuff works better. We know it works better because we try it out. I hate to say it, but if M$/Wintel boxes were better, I would switch. I don't care (so much) that they are the monolith. I make my decisions for selfish reasons. I use the computer that works best and is easiest to use. I know that because I have used (and provided support for) the others, not because someone told me Macs were better.

Please let me know if your results are differet, but please don't base your answers on dogma, religious beliefs, or outdated information. Base it on your informed findings.

CJM
_______________
"There are anecdotes, and there is evidence. There is no such thing as anecdotal evidence."
--Arnold Lazarus, PhD (famed psychologist)

[AmbitiousLemon]

chmorley: very interesting results. I haven't tried Mozilla in ages, its begining to look promising. betaware is an interesting thing. i know of plenty of applications that never leave the betaware stage and yet thousands of people use the software as if it were end product. some betaware is truly beta (mac os 10.2 for example) other betaware seems to be a whole new class of product. one that functions as end product but whose creators are reluctant to stamp the product "finished." its like those webpages you vist that have the "under construction" gif on them. ok i got a little side tracked, mozilla has always been true to its "beta" badge, some betas are just more stable than others (photoshop7b51 for example).

and well said at the end. i was shocked by the results of the "what broweser do you use" thread. seemed like evryone just used ie because it was pre-loaded, didnt know anything else existed, or its microsoft its the best. i expect this ignorance from pc users but was saddened to find it so prevalent in the mac community. i assumed people who had spent time to test different computers and settled on the mac would be just as thoughtful when looking for a brower.

[Ensign Paris]

find a .html document

open "Help" application and drop the .html file on to it (in the dock)

Help Viewer is powered by HTML, its an HTML browser!

guy

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by Ensign Paris
find a .html document

open "Help" application and drop the .html file on to it (in the dock)

Help Viewer is powered by HTML, its an HTML browser!

guy

hahaha! guess we just need an address field and we have our very own apple internet browser.

[mac15]

Hopefully M$ don't make IE for mac like
IE6 for windows that sucks hard

[datalok]

have had a fair bit of experience recently playin with different browsers for os x. I suppose it is a question of having gotten used to my previous browser (IE for OS9) that has defined what i 'need' in a browser.

Opera - as good as always but problems importing bookmarks and scroll wheel non functional.

Omni - i really tried hard to use this and after a few days gave up due to problems with rightclick menus and no ability to go back apart from one page at a time.

Net Nav 6 - cannnn iii heeeeeaaaaaaarrrrrrrrr youuuuuuuuuuuu sayyyyyyyyy SSSSLLLLLLLOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW? Bloaty and full of useless AOL addons and did i mention slowwwwwwww?

Icab - can't remember why i didn't like it but I didn't.

Bugger-back to IE which btw you cannot easily get a standalone installer for on OSX - yes it is part of the OSX CD but ......

IE does what i want and as long as you do not mind it crashing approx once an hour on a clean installed system I really have to say it is, for me, (see earlier qualification) the best of the bunch. Unfortunately we will never see an apple browser due to the holding of Apple ransom by M$ and the whole Office thing. If it was as good as the Apple Mail program I'd even pay for it !!!!!

[maclamb]

more's the pity, but a big DITTO on datalok's experiences and sentiments

If I produced sw as slow as NS I would be ashamed:mad:

[chmorley]

Not sure why your experiences are so different. I am assuming you've tried the latest version of Netscape or you wouldn't be posting. Nothing worse than dogma. "Macs suck." "Netscape sucks." 99% of the time these are opinions of people who haven't actually used a current version of either, or just listened to what their friends said.

I am more and more impressed with Mozilla. You might try it.

IE is the most crash-prone piece of software I have on my machine. And sssslllllooooooowwwwwwww. Takes forever to load anything complex.

If anyone finds anything that is Aqua-looking and fast, please pass it on.

CJM
_____________
"One must learn by doing the thing; though you think you know it, you have no certainty until you try."
— Publilius Syrus

[maclamb]

chmorely I agree it's weird, no?

on my machine IE is fast, doesn't hardly crash - showed the TV listings as fast as NS

Using NS 6.2.1 from Apple site
Same with Mozilla - takes 3x as long to load the sw and no real diff on page display - but if you suggest a site to test them I will

Also, I like IE's auto fill in...

weird
:confused:

[Foocha]

Apple's Help app uses IE for rendering HTML! It's part of a technology cross-licensing deal between Apple & Microsoft.

I'm sure I read this somewhere.

[chmorley]

With Mozilla 0.9.8 out, maybe now is a good time to try the latest version.

Who knows if your results will match mine, but I am increasingly impressed with how fast Mozilla is.

Check it out at VersionTracker (http://www.versiontracker.com/moreinfo.fcgi?id=9472&db=macosx)

Curious to see what you find.

CJM
_________________
"One must learn by doing the thing; though you think you know it, you have no certainty until you try."
— Publilius Syrus

[tytanium]

Hey, I never got to use cyberdog. It was really before I got into macs. Is there anyway that somebody can post or send me the installer? I'd really like to try it. tytanium02@mac.com

[beatle888]

ti667 dsl ie



4seconds to load Diect tv listings.

i think this is pretty fast

[chmorley]

Originally posted by beatle888
ti667 dsl ie

4seconds to load Diect tv listings.

i think this is pretty fast

That is pretty fast! Certainly faster than I've ever had IE render that page. I am curious how Mozilla does on your machine.

I think the primary thing I have gotten from this discussion is that people seem to get different results with the same software and hardware. People have no reason for lying about their results (unless there's 20 M$ trolls hanging around--very unlikely), so I am left confused.

So beatle, please try Mozilla for a few days exclusively and let me know your results. I am very curious. IE seems to crash on my machine about every hour or so, and it's much slower than Mozilla or Netscape. Clearly, other people get different results. I am curious to see what yours are with Mozilla.

One other page I try--weather.com (http://www.weather.com). Try your local weather listings.

Chris

[oldMac]

Hate to say it, but .NET is actually a good thing IMHO.

The progress of Java has stagnated. Sun didn't keep things moving fast enough to satisfy the developer community and, as a result, they're about to get their lunch eaten by Microsoft.

Just like the progression in Web browser technologies basically stopped after IE crushed Netscape.

Competition is good.

(And, yes, Microsoft is copying a lot of Java features, but, then again, Sun didn't invent intermediary byte-codes and virtual machines, either)

[sjs]

eyelikeart earlier asked about whether it would be worthwhile to download iCab. I have been using it for a few weeks now. I think its almost brand new for OS X but im not sure. Anyway, it is very easy to look at and read text. Omniweb has the nicest appearance, but when I want to read on the computer I find iCab to be easiest on the eyes. (Then again I have imac with the 15 inch crt). Its faster too.

I think iCab is definitely worth a try.

[sjs]

I just downloaded Mozilla. Yep, its ugly. Yep, its fast. I want fast more than beauty. However, like the rest of Macusers, what I eventually want is BOTH.

[AmbitiousLemon]

ok i dont get the whole "mozilla is ugly" thing. i mean i certainly agree its not as nice as omniweb, but its better than anything else ive used (all the ones in the poll). it would be nice if the scroll bars and buttons were aquafied (for the osx version) but the "modern" skin is pretty nice and simple. I havent tried any of the skinds you need to download because ive been happy with modern.

the only thing i can think of as far as why people might think its ugly is that when it first starts up it uses the "classic" skin. if you havent discovered the "themes" in the view menbar option then i totally know what you are complaining about. classic is ugly. if this is the case check out the little theme option it will do wonders for you.

and remember its fully skinable, so all of you graphic artist buffs out there can make your own skins (maybe an omniweb ripoff?).

sjs: you know i havent checked out iCab in months, you have inspired me to take another look. Thanks!

[mischief]

Wasn't the whole idea with X to go to a "browser style" GUI interface?

I think it'd be a real good thing for Apple to do (for instance) iSurf. I think an Apple browser has been the missing i-App. If Apple wanted to kick over a few ant-hills (as they are prone to) they'd integrate P2P and finance management into their browser. Think about it: A browser with a built in ATM (not the Adobe product :) ) andP2P. Link it through iTools and Sync it with iPod 2 and you have a "virtual wallet".

Watch the flames fly. I guess I'm just a pyromaniac. ;)

[AmbitiousLemon]

I like the idea of an iSurf titled browser, has a nice ring to it (unlike some of the other "i"deas people have come up with... iwalk? ipad? iNewt? -ok i know the last one is mine but i was joking).

as far as the p2p... hm, maybe, maybe too many feathers ruffled there though.

finance? ur purshing this every chance u get mischief, good idea though, im not sure about apple wanting to deliver it, especially in a browser but u never know.

Apple buys omniweb, puts some finishing touches on it (to make it fast and render pages properly) and titles it iSurf. I think thats all that is needed.

here is a question though, why isnt mail.app called iMail? Too weird since it does email? or is their an "i" branded mail app in the works? perhaps as part of a iSurf app? People like browsers with builtin messaging so maybe. What think you?

[mischief]

I think Apple is pulling a quiet little hat trick. Apple has ALMOST got all the apps associated with data I want kept private, and yet always want handy. If they did a Browser with my P2P client account data and a built in financial feature with all THAT data I could put it ALL on an iPod and default it as boot-disk for my various computers. Upshot: All my confidential and identity related data is secure and nowhere but on my person.

I just think that a browser is the next logical iApp and those 2 features are the next logical inclusion. Apple always finds a way to integrate risky features without getting shot down.

Note: I ignore the Scully/Emiglio years as they were a bad dream for all Mac users everywhere and not worth mentioning.

[sjs]

Ambitious Lemon is right, the themes do improve the looks quite a bit, though OW and iCab both seem more aqua.

The more I use Mozilla the more impressed I am with it's speed. I hope they don't slow it down during its development. I have used all except NS' latest and I am pretty sure Mozilla's the quickest.

[chmorley]

I actually agree that Mozilla is not all that unattractive. I had been using Little Mozilla, a skin that I liked for the screen space it offered. I had forgotten how much more appealing Modern is. Thanks, AL.

The browser I think we're all waiting for, though, is Chimera (http://chimera.mozdev.org/). It is part of the Mozilla development project (so it is about as fast as Mozilla), but it promises an Aqua/Quartz front end. While it's not nearly finished yet, it looks like it will be the browser we're all hoping Mozilla and OmniWeb might be--fast, accurate, and pretty. While it is not ready to be your primary browser, I hope it will be soon. The progress in the past week alone is staggering. I am curious to see how other people find it.

Chris

[AmbitiousLemon]

Chimera looks amazing. great possibilities there. take a look at the speed bench marks on that page chmor sent us. and its only at beta .13 now. i expect great things from this guy.

[chmorley]

Just to help me see the benchmark results visually, I graphed it. Chimera beats the pants off the others. When it's done, I think it will the one we are all looking for. Gecko engine with a Quartz front end. Wow.

Check it out yourself.

Chris

[chmorley]

Thought y'all might be interested that a Mozilla scheme was released on 2/15 that looks and acts fairly aqua-ish. Try it out.

In Mozilla, do View:Apply Theme:Get New Themes. Lopburi flat is the first one listed, as it was created most recently. It uses aqua scroll bars, progress bars, and buttons. I like it better than the "Modern" skin.

Chris

[AmbitiousLemon]

way cool. you rule chmorely im heading there now.

[AmbitiousLemon]

hm... i dont see how this is "aqua-ish." all of the themes seem to be designed on/for pc users (ie ugly). i use modern. i tried lo fi for awhile mostly because i liked how small it was but like the rest of the theme files it was really buggy and made mozilla quit often.

why dont some of you graphics guys help us all out and make some theme files? lets show those pc morons just what you can do on a mac.

i have a feeling we are going to have to wait for Chimera to get to a useable stage before we have anything good looking though.

[jaykk]

I already started using Chimera on a limited basis..its the fastest browser for Mac OS X to date.. I could not download 0.1.3( Feb 24th), but i downloaded 0.1.2 (Feb 22nd).. ..its a work in progress..

[chmorley]

There is an interesting update on the Chimera (http://chimera.mozdev.org/) page. Looks like version 0.2 is just around the corner. They also confirm that the sneakypeeks of OmniWeb are much faster than 4.1b1.

Chris

[AmbitiousLemon]

chmorely: sounds great.

ive always wondered about the numbering in mozilla (and now chimera) betas. what qualifies something as .12 .13 or .2. why the jump from .13 to .2? and as far as mozilla. it doesnt feel like its near completion to me. i mean i use it and like it, but we are at .98 wityh .99 soon. what happens after that? seems like they have to go 1.0 next. how do they decide whats finished? seems like withe nough updates they could reach 1.0 before actually being finished. i know they have everything roadmapped out and have been doing a good job realesing when they say they will but what qualifies each update? seems like they are a few big leaps away from a finished browser.

[j763]

If by August or September -- whenever the M$ <-> Apple deal expires, m$ get rid of their Mac development team, i think only then will we see an apple browser...

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by j763
If by August or September -- whenever the M$ <-> Apple deal expires, m$ get rid of their Mac development team, i think only then will we see an apple browser...

do you really think ms will get rid of its mac dev team. they just started to do some good stuff and ms took a lot of time and effort to build that team. also seems like they are reaping some benefits from this.

we all keep hypothesizing about apple buying omniweb, or using mozilla. maybe apple could buy the ms mac dev team? hm, sounds as ridiculous when i wrote as it sounded in my head. but hey stranger things have happened right? an apple browser based on ie... hm, not sure what to think about that one.

[jefhatfield]

netscape 6 is too much of everything these days

ie ain't bad, but sometimes seems slow

but an apple browser on both platforms would be great and i would definitely use it as my default

[j763]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon


do you really think ms will get rid of its mac dev team.

I don't think it's likely -- no. What i was saying was that Apple won't compete in the same market space as Microsoft UNLESS M$ abandons the Apple platform... The only other way we'd see an apple browser would be if they charged $$$ for it and didn't bundle it with OS X...

Just my .02

[chmorley]

I have been checking out a) the sneakypeeks of OmniWeb and b) their development team's entries at their web site. A) OmniWeb is pretty close to being fast enough and compliant enough to become my first choice browser. Maybe by 4.1 final release. B) Those guys are impressive. I have changed my mind. I have become convinced they have what it takes to make OW the best browser on OS X. Check out the development team (http://www.omnigroup.com/company/people/) info at their website. I even found a good icon for Chimera (oddly enough). Check out http://www.icons.cx/ AL. Their dragons seemed appropos.

Having said that, I think they're going to get stiff competition from Chimera. I am using it more and more--even at version 0.13.

The good news is, it looks like we will have two *great* alternatives to ie and NS/Mozilla before too long. As much as I like Mozilla, we all know Apple needs more apps that utilize Quartz anti-aliasing. OW does, and Chimera promises to. And geez Gecko (the rendering engine shared by NS, Mozilla, and Chimera) is fast fast fast.

It's getting better. It will bet even better by summer. I betcha.

Chris

[AmbitiousLemon]

chmorely: i have to say you and alpha are shaping up to be my favorite two people here. just bursting with info. you rule.

just checked out those dragons. they might do. i made a black and white one of my own, but id like the color in these. which one did you sue im thinking blue or inegg2. dragon friend would be cool if it was more in the blue theme (all my dock icons are moving towards an aqua theme).

i havent check out omni since version 332.

i hope omni and chimera go head to head soon. it would be nice to see an arms race between these too.

i agree that soon we will have some very intereting choices.

anyone been to the chimera website lately? looks like they took down the .2 announcement. anyone know why?

[chmorley]

I am actually using MarginGreen. I had started off using something else (I forget which), but ended up liking that one best.

The Chimera website looks the same to me--although I confess that I miss details like that sometimes. The first line seems the same, though.

I love the tabs on Chimera. I wish other browsers used that instead of spawning a new browser every time a new window is needed.

I am using OW 332 right now. It's not too bad.

Chris

[j763]

At the Chimera website, there was a link to installation instructions... It talked about installing Fink and Mozilla... I just ignored it and downloaded the disk image and copied the app... I am finding that Chimera dosen't support some types of tables, form submissions etc. I know that Chimera is in beta, but is this a result of me not installing Mozilla??

[AmbitiousLemon]

Well after trying convince the more graphically inclines folks here to make an icon for chimera i decided to try myself. here is a link to my chimera icon, my mozilla icon, and the psd file incase you would like to play around with them. link (http://www.ambitiouslemon.com/Shared/)

sorry no preview, but the files are small so hopefully you guys will take a peek.

Hopefully my weak attempt will inspire some more talented people to take a shot at it... [hint hint]

[j763]

AmbitiousLemon -- logo is cool, now i'm not embarrased to put Chimera on my dock. At the moment, I'm using both Chimera and IE. First I use Chimera and if it can't handle something, I (reluctantly) open up IE and go to that page. I can't wait for the next version of Chimera to come out.

But I always wish that Apple kept CyberDog going and that CyberDog v.X existed... oh well... if m$ drops support for ie on mac, this september then maybe we will...:D

[chmorley]

It's out. I can't really tell much difference yet, but the specs at Versiontracker (http://www.versiontracker.com/moreinfo.fcgi?id=9472&db=macosx) look pretty good.

Also (and the real reason I am posting), I found a cool thing in Mozilla y'all might be interested in. First, you may have found that you can open new tabs in a browser window by hitting command-t. I think this is far superior to opening a whole new browser window. I was playing around and found that you can open a new tab by dragging and dropping a link in the tab bar. While you could do the same thing by control-clicking a link, it's cool that Mozilla is incorporating drag and drop stuff.

While this isn't new to 0.9.9, it works in the new version as well as 0.9.8 (and probably older versions).

Chris

[AmbitiousLemon]

i found a couple of good links.

this guy does his own weekly mozilla builds (as well as other things). His seem to work much faster.
http://www.macrumors.com/forums/showthread.php3?threadid=2985&goto=newpost

and one of the links at his site has an aquaish skin. Its not complete, but its better than nothing. the tabs are still ugly and the buttons are still modern. but the rest is fairly aquaish.
http://www.macrumors.com/forums/showthread.php3?threadid=2985&goto=newpost

see my screen shot in the what does your desktop look like to see a bit of the skin in action.

with so many talented artists here im surprised none of you have made an aqua skin for mozilla of your own. but i guess thats because people around here are more talk than anything else.