Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

How about a Web Browser that Works!

as much as i love omniweb hiram (i had a friend once name hiram) i have to disagree. omniweb is great looking, and little else. i think the guys over at apple would be able to get the thing so it actually works. they havent put out a new version in quite some time (any specific dates?), so i suspect the chimera folks are going to surpass omniweb in just a few short months. in my opinion chimera is very close to being the best browser for osx, all they need to do is fix the scroll bar, give us some preferences, and contextual menus and the browser is done (they are only in version .1.3). if you want to replace ie, keep an eye out for chimera to be finished. omniweb was great while it lasted, but updates have stagnated and seems like more focus was placed on looks than speed.
 
Integrated browser

The PC web browsing experience is enhanced (when using IE) because MS built it into the OS. With that level of integration, of course it's going to be fast. The only thing is that their support for standards has been shady, at best. From what I've seen on web development sites discussing standards like CSS, there is not ONE browser that fully complies with every standard.
Now, is this the fault of the W3C for not giving developers a chance to catch up, or is it the fault of the developers putting out sub-par products?

Like the title of the thread says: How about a Web Browser that Works!
 
OmniWeb

Is a piece of ****. It works like what it is, a less than completed browser made in far less time than the big guns.

While it looks wonderful and feels good to use it can't render half the pages I go to. Maybe it would be good if I liked HTML and images only but throw it some basic JavaScript and, so often, it loses it.

IE is VERY buggy but, most of the time, it works.... I'll stick by it for now. I am not a MS follower but when a program is good you just have to use it and most MS 4 Mac programs are good except their X versions are SLOW and buggy.
 
thanks sparkley: i guess it just feels like they havent done much since they have been stuck on the 4.1b for so long. but maybe they just try to make each update significant and so they take longer.

but still i think apple taking any app in could make the app progress much faster. look at soundjam/itunes. soundjam was great. it was my mp3player of choice. but i think few will argue that itunes takes things to a whole new level.

i dont mean to dump on omniweb. it great. definitely the best looking browser. and its so nice to see people actually using cocoa. it was my browser of choice until i downloaded mozilla .98 and chimera .13. i rarely had problems with pages rendering oddly, biggest problem i had was it crashes whenever you go from apple to macrumors. but that seemed minor. it just started feeling slow after awhile. and i moved on unhappily.

so now ive got a new favorite. chimera (if only it had an icon!). and the updates have been coming very fast (as fast as the browser itself). id be willing to bet that chimera could take on ie on windows in a speed test. it would be some interesting results to say te least.
 
Chimera

I'm with you, AL. I want so much to like OmniWeb because it is pretty, but it just doesn't work as well as the other stuff out there (being buggy and slow. Mozilla is much faster and compliant. The only pages I've found that it doesn't render correctly are MSNBC (after it's personalized--strange), and the Apple Store.

Man, Chimera is the one, though. Isn't it? I agree that we are probably within a month of it being the fastest, prettiest browser we'll have. Once the Cocoa front end is done, it should be as pretty as OmniWeb. It already feels as fast as Mozilla.

I am still amazed so many people use IE. I can't stand using it. It crashes more than any other piece of software I have (except for Chimera, which is probably an alpha), and it is SSSSSSLLLLLLOOOOOOWWWWWW.

Chimera. Chimera is the one. We will all be using it soon.

Chris
 
browsers

First off, I don't try beta's of browsers. So this is my impression of the non-beta versions. The beta's MIGHT have addressed the issue, but I have had more issues with beta releases then anything else.

Mozilla... butt-ugly, less stable then netscape 6.x (which it looks like).

OmniWeb... looks ok, but cannot go to at least one site that is a must for me. People claim that there is a way to get it to work, but everything they reference is NOT an option in the non-beta version.

Chimera, initially looks nice, but you cannot alter the preferences, nor can you import bookmarks. I have too many to manually enter and don't want to waste the time in doing so.

Netscape 6.2.x... not too pretty, seems pretty stable, but has a nasty habbit of wanting to be used for my email (I use the Apple Mail application under OS X since I have all six of my addresses showing up at once).

IE 5.1... comes with OSX, pretty stable, works with about 98% of the sites I visit (unless there is peecee specific code there). I can't remember the last time if crashed on me, and it has yet to bring down my system.

You can trade bookmarks between netscape and ie easily. You can also customize how they appear. You can also easily change the preferences and settings without needing to read a manual.

I had mozilla crash on me in under 10 minutes of first running it. I simply went up to the menu, and it crashed. I have not had ANY other browser do that, remmeber, these are all non-beta's so they should be finished enough to be stable. You cannot mess with OS X native applications memory settings, so I wasn't able to see if that was the problem.

I do not boot into OS 9.2.2 any more, and I will only use classic as a last resort, and then only for as long as I absolutly must (not for hours, more like minutes).

If I had to rank the browsers by my own experience (varies from person to person and system to system). I would have to put ie 5.1 at the top of the list, followed by netscape 6.2.1. Chimera would be next for the site compatibility alone, which would put it several rungs lower. Mozilla would be next and at the bottom of the list would be omniweb.
 
Alpha: hmmm. i think im missing something about your anaylsis. you said you dont use betas. but have the items you mentioned are only available in beta (ok not half, but 2).

mozilla is in .98. they plan to reach a finished product sometime this year though so they are close.

chimera just started development this month. its in version .13. the page (dont think it says this anymore) says its not usable yet but since people want it they are offering it for download (or something like that).

i can understand you having problems with mozilla. it is constantly changing so if you get a bad build i can understand getting a very bad impression. (some of the builds wont even launch!).

im surprised you liked netscape though. mozilla and netscape are the same, but netscape comes with all of aol/timewarner's bloatware. mozilla (if you get the right build) is much much better. but again its a beta and is probably not worth the effort to most people.

omniweb. you are right. it really is good looking. but slow. and doesnt it bother you how it doesnt remember window size and placement?

so really the only non betas you looked at were ie and omniweb. so it just seems a lil harsh to compare products that are put out there for beta testing with products that are considered finished. but harsh or not your analysis is pretty much true. the fact that those others are betas doesnt change the fact that ie and netscape are the best for you.

i can understand not wanting to use a beta. a bad one can get very messy. so id say stay away from any "nightly builds" type of betas, ones that come with disclaimers like chimera, or ones you obtain through less official channels. but the builds that are put up like mozilla .98, omniweb 4.1, netscape6.2 are probably just as safe as any "finished app." because i think we all know no app is ever finished, bug free, or completely safe. builds like mozilla .98 represent (to me) a stable stepping stone on an apps journey to the finshed product. like anything you need to be a wise shopper. read those disclaimers. and dont download something if the person who wrote it flat out says its buggy, or may not work.

(o and if mozilla is ugly, use a skin.)

and one thing that bothers me about ie is the address bar separate from the button bar. so much wasted space.

in the end though it really comes down to that there is no functional browser for osx. we have lots of hopes. maybe omniweb, maybe chimera... but only time will tell. until then the impatient will use betas and tolerate the quirks, and the rest will tolerate m$ with all of its quirks.
 
AmbitiousLemon,

Netscape 6.2.1 is no longer a beta...

It was not clear to me it Chimera was beta or not, but it definatly acted as a beta does. As for mozilla, I got the latest that I could, which is the .9.8.

One of the things about netscape that I don't like is the fact that it wants to be used for email, which I refuse to let it do. As for the other parts of it, I have either turned them off, or removed them. It's not hard to do on the classic version, since you can delete the aim module before you do the install, and it just jumps over it (with a minor notice that it couldn't find it).

I tried to get a skin for mozilla... that is where it crashed, and crashed hard. Something so simple as selecting that in a menu brings down an application doesn't put it too high in my books.

I do enough fixing of systems day in and day out at work, that I don't want to have to struggle with a browser when I get home. IE has worked well for me ever since I made the move to OS X. I was using it as well as netscape when I was under OS 9 only, but now, it has taken the lead. I even use IE 5.1 at work for just about everything. It works better with the corporate sites that I have to access, and I can't remember the last time it crashed there either. Maybe I have been lucky, but most of the users at work also have few, if any, issues with ie on their systems.

Until the alternate browsers can get out of beta mode, and produce a solid release, I will stick with the ones that work... Before anyone fires up the torches or flame throwers, this is what I intened to do. I don't presume to tell anyone else that they should do the same. If you can get one of the others to work for you, go for it. Whichever browser you do settle on, just make sure it is free. There are enough free ones out that you shouldn't pay for one. The only thing that I have done a donation on is the Macrumors, and that was to get the mug and help to keep the site going. Besides, I enjoy the title change :D.
 
"Netscape 6.2.1 is no longer a beta..."

Apparently, you do not have your facts quite straight. Netscape 6.2.1 is based on Mozilla 0.9.4. The current version of Mozilla is 0.9.8, as you are aware. And you know what, it's still "beta". Mozilla.org explicitly states that Mozilla is still not finished. Mozilla 0.9.9 is planned to be released in the next few days, with the very first version of Mozilla to not be beta (version 1.0) to be released early next month.

I'm using Mozilla 0.9.8 on Linux, and I love it. It's great. It's fast, it's stable, it's clean, and it renders 99.99% of the pages I go to.

However, whenever I use a Mozilla build that's been ported to a different platform (such as Windows or MacOS), it's buggy and unstable. My conclusion is that in the minds of Mozilla.org: "Linux first, everyone else later.". And that everyone else includes Netscape.
 
Originally posted by PCUser
"Netscape 6.2.1 is no longer a beta..."

Apparently, you do not have your facts quite straight. Netscape 6.2.1 is based on Mozilla 0.9.4. The current version of Mozilla is 0.9.8, as you are aware. And you know what, it's still "beta". Mozilla.org explicitly states that Mozilla is still not finished. Mozilla 0.9.9 is planned to be released in the next few days, with the very first version of Mozilla to not be beta (version 1.0) to be released early next month.

I'm using Mozilla 0.9.8 on Linux, and I love it. It's great. It's fast, it's stable, it's clean, and it renders 99.99% of the pages I go to.

However, whenever I use a Mozilla build that's been ported to a different platform (such as Windows or MacOS), it's buggy and unstable. My conclusion is that in the minds of Mozilla.org: "Linux first, everyone else later.". And that everyone else includes Netscape.
Click to expand...

Find any mention that netscape 6.2.1 is a beta on this link and you win a prize... http://home.netscape.com/browsers/6/index.html?cp=dju6xpod I did not see any mention of it being a beta. I do remember that the initial release of netscape 6 all those months ago was beta, but not any more. Maybe they improved the code beyond what mozilla is doing and released the full version.

I have gotten sick of mozilla and netscape being referred to as the same... The underlying code may be, but the rest is not. Where mozilla is still in beta mode, netscape is not...

Either way, I rarely use netscape (any version), and actually prefer to use ie 5.1 on any system that I use (work or home). I don't get enough errors or problems with ie to warrant me switching to one of the others. Especially since most of them are still in beta mode. Say what you like about the big browsers, but to me, they are more reliable, come out with updates when needed and have more people working to improve the code.

Whatever browser you happen to use, is up to you. I am not saying that people should use one or the other, ie, netscape, or an alternate. Rather, use the one that YOU CHOOSE to use.

PERSONALLY, I have had more problems when attempting to use any of the alternative browsers then either ie or netscape. I will continue to use the ones that work for me, but will still occasionally try the others (when they kick into non-beta mode). Maybe at some point in the future they will work well enough for my needs.
 
alpha: i think you have a healthy attitude toward the browsers. i think the restof us were just pointing out some errors. but in the end you are right. ie is probably the best browser for your (because you said so after trying the others).

i dont use ie. but i think i have to admit, that for web browsing in osx, ie is probably the best for me.

im one of the impatient few who will accept the odd quirks in mozilla, or chimera just so that i don have to use ie. sounds a bit childish, but anything that isnt ms just feels nicer to me.

i wish i had never used chimera. its just so fast. i have to use it because everything else feels so very slow. but its so young. they havent even added some very basic features yet, but they have me hooked so what can i do?

ive installed osx on a few of my friends computers. and the most i will ever tell them is maybe you should take a peek at [fill in the blank] but frankly i dont think most people should be using all these betas. with so many people here who love mozilla or omniweb or chimera its easy to get the impression that everyone is doing it. but if you take a look at the poll in one of the other lets complain about browsers threads 70% of the people here use ie. and i think the people here are probably more likely to use something else then the general mac public.

until one of the other browsers gets their act together, we are stuck with ie being the browser of choice. and as much as we rave about other browsers i think we all rave because we think this one could be the one, but some time soon. i think most would agree that ie feels finished (and good thing because it seems ms is never going to update it), and i would say none of the others feels finished.
 
Firstly, I wouldn't suggest Mozilla for anyting but x86 Linux users right now. In my experience, it runs best under x86 Linux.

Secondly, Netscape 6.2.1 is simply Mozilla 0.9.4.1 with a few extra AOL features. Beyond that, Netscape IS Mozilla. And an older version of Mozilla at that.

However, if you feel that since Netscape doesn't call it a beta it isn't, that's up to you. It is only a earlier, buggier version of Mozilla with some extra AOL "features". That, in my book, qualifies it as a beta, because it is a beta with some extra crap added my AOL.
 
I MIGHT launch netscape 6.2.x once a month, if that. To me, arguing which version of what netscape is, is pointless.

From my own experiences with both netscape AND mozilla, they are more crash prone then ie 5.1. The first time I went to use mozilla (think it was .98 or whatever they call that version) it crashed on me, and after only a minute or two as well. If something crashes when you go to select a menu item, something is just not right. Before you even start, my system is not the issue. I have plenty of resources, and ie has never done that to me.

For now, I will stick with the stable browser that I use. If/when the others are either finished, or compatible with the sites I need to visit, I will try them again. Until then, I will stick with what works.

If it ain't busted, don't try and fix it.
 
Originally posted by PCUser
Firstly, I wouldn't suggest Mozilla for anyting but x86 Linux users right now. In my experience, it runs best under x86 Linux.

Secondly, Netscape 6.2.1 is simply Mozilla 0.9.4.1 with a few extra AOL features. Beyond that, Netscape IS Mozilla. And an older version of Mozilla at that.

However, if you feel that since Netscape doesn't call it a beta it isn't, that's up to you. It is only a earlier, buggier version of Mozilla with some extra AOL "features". That, in my book, qualifies it as a beta, because it is a beta with some extra crap added my AOL.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to say that is has taken two points (ie. 6.2) to add AOL stuff. Don't think that just maybe inbetween 6.0 and 6.2.1 they have changed the code a little?
 
"Are you trying to say that is has taken two points (ie. 6.2) to add AOL stuff. Don't think that just maybe inbetween 6.0 and 6.2.1 they have changed the code a little?"

It would be logical to think that, except... Netscape 6.0 was based on Mozilla 0.6. Netscape 6.2.1 was based on Mozilla 0.9.4.1. Netscape 6.0 was based on an earlier version of Mozilla, with extra AOL stuff added.

Mozilla was created BY Netscape a few years ago to create the source code for the broswer, and make it freely available. Netscape doesn't change the code, they just add a few AOL things (like AOL Instant Messanger, and Netscape Webmail in the mail servers--neither of which work as good as the stand-alone AIM or webmail).

http://www.mozilla.org/mission.html
 
What is a final product?

As an example that is in front of me, Filemaker 4 is a "Final Product" but you tell it take next time you want to edit a record via the web. In fact, Filemaker, the sub-s of Apple, are so proud of 4 that they do not support tech questions anymore.

I think the same goes for Netscape in this example, just because one group of people is more picky about what will be a final product than another does not make a **** version of software a final product. Hey, Windows constantly ships working like a piece of **** with bugs all over it but people don't debate over whether it is a final product or not.
 
Re: What is a final product?

Originally posted by madamimadamtimallen
As an example that is in front of me, Filemaker 4 is a "Final Product" but you tell it take next time you want to edit a record via the web. In fact, Filemaker, the sub-s of Apple, are so proud of 4 that they do not support tech questions anymore.

I think the same goes for Netscape in this example, just because one group of people is more picky about what will be a final product than another does not make a **** version of software a final product. Hey, Windows constantly ships working like a piece of **** with bugs all over it but people don't debate over whether it is a final product or not.
Click to expand...

Version 5.5 is out, and it runs under OS X as well as 9. Support can be obtained via http://www.filemaker.com/. You can browse to the support from there.

I use FMP5.5 every day at work to keep track of hardware, software, users both old and new. It works well under both OS 9.2.2 as well as X.

I don't put them into the same category (netscape and FMP). Maybe because I actually have a use for FMP.
 
Warning: Long rant ahead

First... by bringing up Microsoft, you just ruined your argument. Microsoft only ships alpha products. Nobody debates what to call them because they suck.

Second... a beta is a product that is being tested to remove bugs. A product will remain in beta until the developers consider there to be an acceptably few number of bugs and stop making pre-release betas.

Third... a final version is a product with few bugs (EDIT: few bugs by the developers view) that only gets minor bug fixes because the bulk of them have been fixed. So, the developers release the final version. And that's it. If there are any bugs, they will be fixed up and released a couple weeks later as the next number up (say 1.0.1). But there won't be a large number of builds of the product, there will just be ONE build.

Mozilla still has quite a few bugs. Mozilla.org is still releasing pre-release bug fix releases. There is a pre-release bug fix version available daily. (0.9.8 is simply a snapshot version that works pretty well). Therefore, it's still beta.

Netscape took one of the snapshot versions, 0.6, and released it as a browser, 6.0. Anyone who ran that one knew it was SLOOOOW and had a huge memory leak problem.

(EDIT: Netscape took a snapshot version between 0.6 and 0.9.4.1 and released it as 6.1, but I don't have the snapshot number handy.)

Several months later, Netscape again took one of the snapshot versions, 0.9.4.1, and again released it as a browser, 6.2.1. It's fast, but it still has bugs.

So... Netscape takes some of the snapshot pre-release beta versions of Mozilla, adds AIM and Webmail, then calls it a final release. Does that make it a final release? Not in my mind.
 
Re: Re: What is a final product?

Originally posted by AlphaTech


Version 5.5 is out, and it runs under OS X as well as 9. Support can be obtained via http://www.filemaker.com/. You can browse to the support from there.

I use FMP5.5 every day at work to keep track of hardware, software, users both old and new. It works well under both OS 9.2.2 as well as X.

I don't put them into the same category (netscape and FMP). Maybe because I actually have a use for FMP.
Click to expand...

That's great, wanna buy me a legal copy of it because your talk does not add my current knowledge
 
PCUser, I can see your opinion of m$ for their operating systems. I can only see one of them as being worth anything (but not what the charge) and it is NOT xp, me, nt4, 98 or 95. That is also after two service packs, and about a dozen 'critical updates'. I would never recommend BUYING any os from m$ until at least one service pack has been released (fixes the FIRST set of bugs/problems).

As for the browser they offer, as much as some people might not like me saying this, it works. Yes, I am sure it crashes. I am sure some people (or many) have problems running it. I know some people that won't use it on principle alone.

IF I could download a free, non-beta, fully functional right off the bat browser, I would. I don't have the time, nor interest in having to go in and alter the browser other then a few settings for cookies and java. I prefer to get the notice before accepting the cookies, and tend to turn java off (for the most part). Maybe I have set things in just the right way to make ie function without mucking things up or crashing daily.

IF anyone has a link to a site that shows you how to make Omniweb fully functional for ALL web sites, I would give it another shot. I am NOT talking about the lates/beta version, but the latest non-beta version.

I also require secure browsing (128bit security). Without that, a browser is useless to me. Before anyone starts screaming, the variant of both netscape, and ie have that. I never downloaded any netscape unless it was the 128bit, and have applied the update to ie to make it so. My bank requires that in order to bank online. It checks the browser to make sure it meets their requirements and will not allow access without it. That is another thing the alternate must have... security that is recognized.
 
I don't want anyone to misunderstand my views here. I am not suggesting people use Mozilla or Netscape, I am just trying to point out that Mozilla is intended to be used for beta testing purposes right now. Shortly (April is the goal right now), if everything goes to plan (and so far it has), a final release version of Mozilla will be available.

I have to admit, IE is pretty good at speedy browsing. I don't trust it due to the security holes that affect IE, but that's just me.
 
Your mileage may vary...

Maybe the most interesting thing I've learned from these browser threads is that different people using the same machines and same OSs get different results. It may just have to do with the web sites we use or some idiosyncratic things about how our machines are set up, but it's odd to me.

I have said this before, but the contrast is striking. IE crashes on me a lot. If it were more stable, I still wouldn't use it. It is much slower than Mozilla (or NS) on my machine. In three months using Mozilla as my primary browser, I have had it crash twice. It's a beta and still more stable than IE. I agree that it does not feel as finished or polished as IE, but it works better. I checked out the latest overnight built of OW. It is getting faster, but it's still too slow for me.

I definitely have some aversion to M$ products, but am committed to using the software that works best. In the past, I used IE 5.0 in OS 9 because it was the fastest, most reliable thing on my old 7500. IE 5.1 just sucks on my machine.

Anyone else out there find Mozilla this stable?

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back