From mummer at whitefalls.org Thu Jan 1 01:05:04 2004 From: mummer at whitefalls.org (Michael Sheets) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:20 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 In-Reply-To: <446E428A-3C1D-11D8-8CF7-00039317038E@mac.com> Message-ID: > ? Could the RSS reader really be a full replacement for NetNewsWire > Lite? In this vain... I use NetNewsWire religously, doubt I'd switch my RSS to Omniweb. (But feel free to impress me :) Is there any pref available to have the RSS button forward to NNW? Also in that vain, you might not want to make the button say RSS. Because hopefully you'll be supporting Atom as well, which will hopefully be replacing RSS sometime next year. From phill at kenoyer.com Thu Jan 1 10:09:04 2004 From: phill at kenoyer.com (Phill R Kenoyer) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:20 2005 Subject: The Omni Group Announces OmniWeb 5.0 In-Reply-To: <42D191E4-3BE1-11D8-B8B3-000A95AFBEE0@omnigroup.com> References: <42D191E4-3BE1-11D8-B8B3-000A95AFBEE0@omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <6C932398-3C7D-11D8-81A4-003065B1FEE0@kenoyer.com> All I wanted from Omniweb was a fast, stable browser. I wanted tool-tips for titles (like other browsers), I wanted a way to turn cookies on for the site I'm looking at via hot key, and I wanted the settings to be sane like other browsers (IE borders default to 1 for anchor tags). What I bought was a buggy browser that I can't even use. 4.5 is terrible. It crashes way way too much and it's the slowest of all browsers. There are things I really love about it, and I bought it for those reasons. But I can't use it because it crashes left and right. Now version 5 is coming out. I have to pay again if I want to use it. I don't think I'm going to pay for v5 after getting burned on v4.5. I'm done. I'll just use Safari if I have to. I even bought a copy for my wife, who will not even use it because she uses eBay and OW4.5 is useless for eBay. So I have two copies of OW that I don't use. What a shame. I'm very disappointed. On Dec 31, 2003, at 2:32 PM, Ken Case wrote: > Hi all, > > Sorry this message didn't arrive sooner (before this news hit the > forums), we had a hiccough in our mailing list server. > > Enjoy! > > Ken > > Begin forwarded message: > >> Seattle, WA --December 31, 2003 -- The Omni Group today announced >> OmniWeb 5.0 ? From larkost at softhome.net Thu Jan 1 11:02:03 2004 From: larkost at softhome.net (Karl Kuehn) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: The Omni Group Announces OmniWeb 5.0 In-Reply-To: <6C932398-3C7D-11D8-81A4-003065B1FEE0@kenoyer.com> References: <42D191E4-3BE1-11D8-B8B3-000A95AFBEE0@omnigroup.com> <6C932398-3C7D-11D8-81A4-003065B1FEE0@kenoyer.com> Message-ID: <9049EED0-3C8D-11D8-8A90-003065C12208@softhome.net> I understand that you are a bit unhappy, and that is really to bad. But, I disagree with your generalizations, and think you missed the point in several areas: I too have found OmniWeb a bit crash-happy on eBay. Having looked at the mess of code that is behind that site, I am not surprised, but I agree that it would have been nice if OmniWeb 4.5 handled it better. If eBay was your primary goal out of web browser, then I can understand your disappointment in the tool. But, many people on this list such as myself (and even more not on this list) have found OmniWeb a wonderful primary browser. I do not feel that it is generically slower than other browsers, especially not when it comes to my productivity. Your comment makes it sound like this speed difference is glaring. It is not. As to "having to buy" new copies, I would suggest doing what you should have done before: Try OmniWeb out for a while, and then purchase. It is not cripple-ware, and only asks you (with some humor) to purchase it. Try out OW 5 for a while, and then see if you feel it is worth the $10/copy upgrade fee. As you seem to be a bit sensitive to bugs, I would personally suggest skipping the public beta in February and waiting for the final release. Now on your comparisons to other browsers: I am not sure what you mean by "sane settings" on other browsers, but as a web developer I can say that OmniWeb does a good job on this. (Other than Safari) It does a good job of not following a specific browser (IE is what I think you are thinking of), and instead tries to write to the standards (such as they are). The tool-tips were initially just an IE thing, but more recently have become more popular. I would expect this to make it into OW sometime, but most of the functionality is already there in the address bar. Turning cookies on-and-off for a site quickly would be nice, and it seems that OW5 is once again pioneering in this direction. OW4.5 still has better cookie handling than any browser I am aware of, and no-one has even approached the hot-key you would like. I think that it would have been a good idea to bring that idea to the list a long time ago. The Omni developers seem to like new ideas. If you look at the other major browsers none of them have a list like this, where the developers are involved. Mozilla has the development lists, but regular users are not really welcomed there. And Safari has Dave Hyat's blog... IE has nothing, and I am not familiar enough with other browsers' development to comment. I am not sure what you were looking to get out of posting your comment to this list, but I hope that you will take a (free) look at OW5, and make more constructive comments next time. Have a nice day! Karl Kuehn larkost@softhome.net On Jan 1, 2004, at 12:10 PM, Phill R Kenoyer wrote: > All I wanted from Omniweb was a fast, stable browser. I wanted > tool-tips for titles (like other browsers), I wanted a way to turn > cookies on for the site I'm looking at via hot key, and I wanted the > settings to be sane like other browsers (IE borders default to 1 for > anchor tags). What I bought was a buggy browser that I can't even > use. 4.5 is terrible. It crashes way way too much and it's the > slowest of all browsers. There are things I really love about it, and > I bought it for those reasons. But I can't use it because it crashes > left and right. > > Now version 5 is coming out. I have to pay again if I want to use it. > I don't think I'm going to pay for v5 after getting burned on v4.5. > I'm done. I'll just use Safari if I have to. I even bought a copy > for my wife, who will not even use it because she uses eBay and OW4.5 > is useless for eBay. So I have two copies of OW that I don't use. > > What a shame. I'm very disappointed. From stevos at aquasition.net Thu Jan 1 11:24:03 2004 From: stevos at aquasition.net (Steven Canfield) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: Omniweb 5 -- Can we have it now? Message-ID: What if we register today or something (even sneakypeaks!)? We wants it, my precious. I'm so gung-ho to try this out but I'm not lucky enough to go to MWSF, and February 2nd seems SO far away =] -Steven Canfield From phill at kenoyer.com Thu Jan 1 11:30:01 2004 From: phill at kenoyer.com (Phill R Kenoyer) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: The Omni Group Announces OmniWeb 5.0 In-Reply-To: <9049EED0-3C8D-11D8-8A90-003065C12208@softhome.net> References: <42D191E4-3BE1-11D8-B8B3-000A95AFBEE0@omnigroup.com> <6C932398-3C7D-11D8-81A4-003065B1FEE0@kenoyer.com> <9049EED0-3C8D-11D8-8A90-003065C12208@softhome.net> Message-ID: On Jan 1, 2004, at 11:06 AM, Karl Kuehn wrote: > I do not feel that it is generically slower than other browsers, > especially not when it comes to my productivity. Your comment makes it > sound like this speed difference is glaring. It is not. It is four times slower than Safari and two times slower than Mozilla/Camino. You should test it. > As to "having to buy" new copies, I would suggest doing what you > should have done before: Try OmniWeb out for a while, and then > purchase. It is not cripple-ware, and only asks you (with some humor) > to purchase it. Try out OW 5 for a while, and then see if you feel it > is worth the $10/copy upgrade fee. As you seem to be a bit sensitive > to bugs, I would personally suggest skipping the public beta in > February and waiting for the final release. I did try OmniWeb 4.5 when it was in beta. It was a lot better then. It did not start crashing until the RC's were released. I complained about it, but they released it anyway. I will try out 5, but it will have to be a _lot_ better before I buy it. > Now on your comparisons to other browsers: I am not sure what you > mean by "sane settings" on other browsers, but as a web developer I > can say that OmniWeb does a good job on this. (Other than Safari) It > does a good job of not following a specific browser (IE is what I > think you are thinking of), and instead tries to write to the > standards (such as they are). If you were a web developer you would know what I'm talking about. All other browsers set the default for borders on image links to 1. When creating pages, if I forget to set the border=1 then I don't notice until I go to another browser or the customer complains about it. Sometimes I will forget to set the border at all and it will not show on OW but show on all other browsers. I know that the standards are open on that setting, but it should at least match other browsers. There are a few other things that bug me also that I can't recall right now. > The tool-tips were initially just an IE thing, but more recently have > become more popular. I would expect this to make it into OW sometime, > but most of the functionality is already there in the address bar. Yeah, the latest Safari finally supports them. The thing about it is that web standards sites recommend using them for anchor tags to explain the link. Even the Apple HIG says to use them for applications to explain the buttons and icons. It's a good idea to have it. I know that WebCore didn't support it before, but it does now and I would like to see OW 4.5 fixed and updated. > Turning cookies on-and-off for a site quickly would be nice, and it > seems that OW5 is once again pioneering in this direction. OW4.5 still > has better cookie handling than any browser I am aware of, and no-one > has even approached the hot-key you would like. I think that it would > have been a good idea to bring that idea to the list a long time ago. > The Omni developers seem to like new ideas. Mozilla has a menu item to turn cookies on/off for the site your browsing. It's very nice. Galeon makes it easier. I've suggested this to OW way way back before OW 4.5 was even ready for RC. I suggested other things. I didn't think it would be hard to stick a menu item or hot key on that does this. All well, Safari doesn't make it any easier. > I am not sure what you were looking to get out of posting your comment > to this list, but I hope that you will take a (free) look at OW5, and > make more constructive comments next time. I will look at OW5 and hope it gets better. But releasing a broken application as a stable production release was wrong. I purchased a license because I wanted to use the sneakypeaks. They were good. I was happy, thinking that the bugs would be killed and the speed would increase. But they released it and it still worked like a beta. This is why I'm upset about it. I seen announcements of updates to fix the problems, but they never came. Only two things that I would really like for 4.5 is fix the crash bugs and improve the speed. But it looks like they are just dumping 4.5 and going to 5...and charging for the "bug fix". I'm not saying that it's not going to be worth it. I'm just saying that I was burned once by OW, I'm not going to be burned again. I should have waited until a stable version was released then bought it. I wonder if I can get my money back... From support at omnigroup.com Thu Jan 1 11:34:02 2004 From: support at omnigroup.com (Scott M.) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: The Omni Group Announces OmniWeb 5.0 In-Reply-To: <6C932398-3C7D-11D8-81A4-003065B1FEE0@kenoyer.com> Message-ID: <1928E440-3C91-11D8-BEBD-003065F6EF80@omnigroup.com> Instability when surfing eBay has been corrected in version 5 and we will be including that fix in an update to 4.5. If you are experiencing frequent crashes that do not seem to be related to eBay, please contact us using the 'Send Feedback...' item in OmniWeb's Help menu. For the fastest possible diagnosis of the problem, it would be useful if you could include the text of one or more CrashCatcher reports. Regarding cookies, OmniWeb 5.0 includes a completely new cookies interface including a 'passive cookie prompt' in the new browser status bar that allows you to manage cookies for a particular site without having to open preferences or have prompting turned on all the time. I am sorry that you are so disappointed with OmniWeb. Hopefully OmniWeb 4.5.1 will address some of the issues that you have, and I hope that you will also give version 5 a try when it is released. Sincerely, Scott M. The Omni Group On Thursday, January 1, 2004, at 09:10 AM, Phill R Kenoyer wrote: > All I wanted from Omniweb was a fast, stable browser. I wanted > tool-tips for titles (like other browsers), I wanted a way to turn > cookies on for the site I'm looking at via hot key, and I wanted the > settings to be sane like other browsers (IE borders default to 1 for > anchor tags). What I bought was a buggy browser that I can't even > use. 4.5 is terrible. It crashes way way too much and it's the > slowest of all browsers. There are things I really love about it, and > I bought it for those reasons. But I can't use it because it crashes > left and right. > > Now version 5 is coming out. I have to pay again if I want to use it. > I don't think I'm going to pay for v5 after getting burned on v4.5. > I'm done. I'll just use Safari if I have to. I even bought a copy > for my wife, who will not even use it because she uses eBay and OW4.5 > is useless for eBay. So I have two copies of OW that I don't use. > > What a shame. I'm very disappointed. From phill at kenoyer.com Thu Jan 1 11:41:17 2004 From: phill at kenoyer.com (Phill R Kenoyer) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: The Omni Group Announces OmniWeb 5.0 In-Reply-To: <1928E440-3C91-11D8-BEBD-003065F6EF80@omnigroup.com> References: <1928E440-3C91-11D8-BEBD-003065F6EF80@omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <62EF3AE1-3C92-11D8-81A4-003065B1FEE0@kenoyer.com> On Jan 1, 2004, at 11:31 AM, Scott M. wrote: > Instability when surfing eBay has been corrected in version 5 and we > will be including that fix in an update to 4.5. If you are > experiencing frequent crashes that do not seem to be related to eBay, > please contact us using the 'Send Feedback...' item in OmniWeb's Help > menu. For the fastest possible diagnosis of the problem, it would be > useful if you could include the text of one or more CrashCatcher > reports. Just to clarify, it's not just eBay. Many sites crash the browser and I send the crash reports every time. > Regarding cookies, OmniWeb 5.0 includes a completely new cookies > interface including a 'passive cookie prompt' in the new browser > status bar that allows you to manage cookies for a particular site > without having to open preferences or have prompting turned on all the > time. I have suggested before, and I'll suggest it again. This is what I would love to have in OW. Reject all cookies by default (no need to add them to a database that will get huge and slow things down). Then when I go to a site that I want to allow cookies I can select from a menu item or hot key to allow cookies for the site I'm viewing. This would be perfect! > I am sorry that you are so disappointed with OmniWeb. Hopefully > OmniWeb 4.5.1 will address some of the issues that you have, and I > hope that you will also give version 5 a try when it is released. I'll be most happy when the update comes and it fixes most (all) of my problems. I've been waiting for it for months. I know that it's not easy to find and correct the problems. I'm just very surprised that it was released in the condition that it was released in. From mark.meredith at shaw.ca Thu Jan 1 12:57:05 2004 From: mark.meredith at shaw.ca (Mark Meredith) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: The Omni Group Announces OmniWeb 5.0 In-Reply-To: References: <42D191E4-3BE1-11D8-B8B3-000A95AFBEE0@omnigroup.com> <6C932398-3C7D-11D8-81A4-003065B1FEE0@kenoyer.com> <9049EED0-3C8D-11D8-8A90-003065C12208@softhome.net> Message-ID: <9F48304E-3C9C-11D8-8B2B-003065D9AE08@shaw.ca> Phill, Yep, the w3c has definitely left the display of borders open to the browser makers. A quick summary... http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#edef-A 12.1.3 "Since the A element has content (text, images, etc.), user agents may render this content in such a way as to indicate the presence of a link (e.g., by underlining the content)" ... the w3c only gives the concept a "may". The other related concept is... http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#edef-IMG 13.7.3 Borders "An image or object may be surrounded by a border (e.g., when a border is specified by the user or when the image is the content of an A element). Attribute definitions border = pixels [CN] Deprecated. This attribute specifies the width of an IMG or OBJECT border, in pixels. The default value for this attribute depends on the user agent." ... again only a "may" and the default is not explicitly mentioned. It is for this reason that the border should always be specified for an image regardless of wether it is wrapped in a link. I just test my stuff on IE and Netscape before moving on. It used to irritate me too that suddenly borders would appear on the other browsers and not in OmniWeb. The thing was though, that because I think borders look ugly I would always blame the other browsers : ) My point? I think you are both right. And I don't think OmniWeb should display borders so I'm right too. And if I did think it should I'd still be right. Being right is fun. It is the same story for ALT attributes. Oh boy. PS- I have no proof that Karl is a web developer, but I think he knows his stuff. Mark. On Jan 1, 2004, at 11:29 AM, Phill R Kenoyer wrote: > If you were a web developer you would know what I'm talking about. > All other browsers set the default for borders on image links to 1. > When creating pages, if I forget to set the border=1 then I don't > notice until I go to another browser or the customer complains about > it. Sometimes I will forget to set the border at all and it will not > show on OW but show on all other browsers. I know that the standards > are open on that setting, but it should at least match other browsers. > There are a few other things that bug me also that I can't recall > right now. From aethr at earthlink.net Thu Jan 1 13:14:01 2004 From: aethr at earthlink.net (Allen Ethridge) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: The Omni Group Announces OmniWeb 5.0 In-Reply-To: <62EF3AE1-3C92-11D8-81A4-003065B1FEE0@kenoyer.com> Message-ID: phill@kenoyer.com (Phill R Kenoyer) >Just to clarify, it's not just eBay. Many sites crash the browser and >I send the crash reports every time. Me, too. Although as far as I can tell the crashes aren't in general related to specific sites. Some sites, like www.ams.org, regularly crash OmniWeb, but most crashes seem to just happen. I had OmniWeb crash once while I was away from my computer. The only possible association I've noticed is a change in frequency of crashing when preferences are changed. I, too, won't be upgrading without good reason to believe that 5.0 is stable. Allen From shrubberies at adelphia.net Thu Jan 1 14:07:02 2004 From: shrubberies at adelphia.net (shrubberies@adelphia.net) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: The Omni Group Announces OmniWeb 5.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I stopped sending in most crash reports since I thought all work was being devoted to 5 and not stabilizing 4.5. Given the fee structure, I could see people sticking with a stable 4.5.1, but not with an unstable 4.5 and not upgrading to a licensed 5. Now it seems that there may be a 4.5.1, but maybe not soon. What is the goal? Is it to have everyone upgrade to 5, leave 4.5 behind, and collect revenue from only those benevolent souls who don't feel unrequited in this a-la-Intuit-bug fix/upgrade approach? Or is it to offer value in exchange for funds already received? I've stuck with OW (since the magnesium box days) since I'm immeshed in my bookmarks structure and have been led on by the hope of the participatory fun of sneakypeaks and because I like the way the OG folks did business. I say "did" because I may be changing my mind about the later part. In addition, there has been no sneakypeak fun, and now I will be asked to pay (but not obliged at least) to completely reorganize my bookmarks for the sake of stability. Please redeem yourselves. Upgrade 4.5 users to 5, or leave us with a stable 4.5.1. -Paul From neil at thenonsuch.com Thu Jan 1 14:32:06 2004 From: neil at thenonsuch.com (Neil Lee) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: The Cost of Software (was: The Omni Group Announces OmniWeb 5.0) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <334F6B56-3CAA-11D8-B208-0003931C6686@thenonsuch.com> Le 01 janv. 2004, ? 16:05, shrubberies@adelphia.net a ?crit : > What is the goal? Is it to have everyone upgrade to 5, leave 4.5 > behind, and collect revenue from only those benevolent souls who don't > feel unrequited in this a-la-Intuit-bug fix/upgrade approach? Or is it > to offer value in exchange for funds already received? Not that Omnigroup needs someone else to defend them, but in my experience OG has been pretty amazing at supporting earlier versions of their software. They're probably one of the few shareware companies that I know of that have released updates for earlier versions of their software - the summer releases of updates for earlier versions of OmniGraffle (updating 2.x versions, even though the current version is 3) is a good example. I agree that updates for OW 4.5 are overdue, but let's keep things in perspective: 1. OW 4.5 was released in August. That's not too long for updates to come. 2. The price of OW (and thus the amount of revenue and programming resources OG can muster) is not high. We're not talking about even a $100 application here; $30 is not a lot. I do web design consulting for Cocoatech (creator of Path Finder: ), which is basically in the same price range as OmniWeb (Path Finder is $34) and I know that the amount of revenue from sales of PF, while enough to sustain the sole developer, are not incredible. Given that programming resources are limited, and OW (like Path Finder) has the might of Apple to compete with, I would rather see OG dedicate themselves to improving and extending each release, rather than dedicate too much resources maintaining earlier releases. With that, I also would rather see OG charge a very reasonable upgrade fee for this, rather than see them release free updates at the cost of needed revenue. To summarize my longwinded babbling: yes, an update would be welcome, but I recognize that OG needs to keep revenue flowing, and needs to prioritize resources. I would rather see OG charge a small upgrade fee and release a brand new version (with tons of improvements, I might add), rather than see OG go the way of Casady & Greene, Caffeine Soft, and other mac software companies. Neil --- Slumming at the beatnikPad : http://www.beatnikpad.com/ Working at theNonsuch: http://reblog.thenonsuch.com/ e-mail: salut@thenonsuch.com | yeah. From mark.meredith at shaw.ca Thu Jan 1 14:37:09 2004 From: mark.meredith at shaw.ca (Mark Meredith) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: The Omni Group Announces OmniWeb 5.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <338050C8-3CAB-11D8-8B2B-003065D9AE08@shaw.ca> Paul, I think the main reason why they do not post sneaky peaks anymore is because of Safari. I think OmniWeb needs to stay several steps ahead of Safari as it, for the most part, always has with other browsers in order to remain profitable. If they give away their cool pre-release features too soon, it gives the ideas away to the competition and numbs the release hype. I would expect the release of 4.5.1 is imminent. Mark. On Jan 1, 2004, at 2:05 PM, shrubberies@adelphia.net wrote: > I stopped sending in most crash reports since I thought all work was > being devoted to 5 and not stabilizing 4.5. Given the fee structure, I > could see people sticking with a stable 4.5.1, but not with an > unstable 4.5 and not upgrading to a licensed 5. > Now it seems that there may be a 4.5.1, but maybe not soon. > What is the goal? Is it to have everyone upgrade to 5, leave 4.5 > behind, and collect revenue from only those benevolent souls who don't > feel unrequited in this a-la-Intuit-bug fix/upgrade approach? Or is it > to offer value in exchange for funds already received? > > I've stuck with OW (since the magnesium box days) since I'm immeshed > in my bookmarks structure and have been led on by the hope of the > participatory fun of sneakypeaks and because I like the way the OG > folks did business. I say "did" because I may be changing my mind > about the later part. In addition, there has been no sneakypeak fun, > and now I will be asked to pay (but not obliged at least) to > completely reorganize my bookmarks for the sake of stability. > > Please redeem yourselves. Upgrade 4.5 users to 5, or leave us with a > stable 4.5.1. > > -Paul > > _______________________________________________ > OmniWeb-l mailing list > OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l > From mark.meredith at shaw.ca Thu Jan 1 14:39:04 2004 From: mark.meredith at shaw.ca (Mark Meredith) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 tabs in action In-Reply-To: <1DEE5FBC-3BE3-11D8-B8B3-000A95AFBEE0@omnigroup.com> References: <1DEE5FBC-3BE3-11D8-B8B3-000A95AFBEE0@omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <58FFE638-3CAB-11D8-8B2B-003065D9AE08@shaw.ca> Ken, OW5 is looking awesome. Would it be possible to add a pulldown to the toolbar that has all of the tabs in it? I think that would be a really quick and tidy way to get at the tabs when the drawer is closed, or when a tab extends below the visible scrolling area. When selected with the pulldown, the drawer could scroll to that tab thumbnail, select, and highlight it. The pulldown tab order could either honor the custom order, or represent the order produced. Having the thumbnails somehow display the site icons would be cool too -good for telling what site things came from. I also think it would be neat if the border color was different for each site, or have some other means of organizing by site. Mark. On Dec 31, 2003, at 2:46 PM, Ken Case wrote: > Hopefully we'll post a movie like this to our OmniWeb 5 web site soon, > but in the meantime you want to see > . > > (Of course, I rarely use tabs now that we have workspaces.) > > Ken > > _______________________________________________ > OmniWeb-l mailing list > OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l > From neil at thenonsuch.com Thu Jan 1 14:49:02 2004 From: neil at thenonsuch.com (Neil Lee) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 tabs in action In-Reply-To: <58FFE638-3CAB-11D8-8B2B-003065D9AE08@shaw.ca> References: <1DEE5FBC-3BE3-11D8-B8B3-000A95AFBEE0@omnigroup.com> <58FFE638-3CAB-11D8-8B2B-003065D9AE08@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <9B69C850-3CAC-11D8-B208-0003931C6686@thenonsuch.com> Le 01 janv. 2004, ? 16:39, Mark Meredith a ?crit : > Would it be possible to add a pulldown to the toolbar that has all of > the tabs in it? I think that would be a really quick and tidy way to > get at the tabs when the drawer is closed, or when a tab extends below > the visible scrolling area. When selected with the pulldown, the > drawer could scroll to that tab thumbnail, select, and highlight it. > The pulldown tab order could either honor the custom order, or > represent the order produced. Or even have the opened "tabs" available in the contextual menu? That would be interesting. I agree, though - definitely make the opened pages available from somewhere outside of the drawer, in case one is "flying light" and has the drawer closed. Neil --- Slumming at the beatnikPad : http://www.beatnikpad.com/ Working at theNonsuch: http://reblog.thenonsuch.com/ e-mail: salut@thenonsuch.com | yeah. From timo at omnigroup.com Thu Jan 1 15:07:08 2004 From: timo at omnigroup.com (Tim Omernick) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 tabs in action In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1072882855@aura.luxnet.org> References: <1DEE5FBC-3BE3-11D8-B8B3-000A95AFBEE0@omnigroup.com> <07BC07BC-3BE5-11D8-B84A-0003938ACCEE@columbus.rr.com> <2147483647.1072882855@aura.luxnet.org> Message-ID: <28B4CC00-3CAF-11D8-8BB4-000A95A84D4C@omnigroup.com> On Dec 31, 2003, at 5:00 PM, Scott J. Kramer wrote: > Is Keychain supported in OW5? That's something I've taken for granted > in > Safari so it would be tough to live without it in OW5 tho' it wouldn't > be > enough to keep me from upgrading. Yes. In fact, the passwords we read from (and save in) the Keychain are compatible with Safari's. -t From timo at omnigroup.com Thu Jan 1 15:17:01 2004 From: timo at omnigroup.com (Tim Omernick) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 tabs in action In-Reply-To: <58FFE638-3CAB-11D8-8B2B-003065D9AE08@shaw.ca> References: <1DEE5FBC-3BE3-11D8-B8B3-000A95AFBEE0@omnigroup.com> <58FFE638-3CAB-11D8-8B2B-003065D9AE08@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <922EA2A3-3CB0-11D8-8BB4-000A95A84D4C@omnigroup.com> On Jan 1, 2004, at 2:39 PM, Mark Meredith wrote: > Would it be possible to add a pulldown to the toolbar that has all of > the tabs in it? Interestingly enough, this was something we always meant to add, but never got around to. I'll really try to get it into a 5.1 release (since I myself would find this feature really useful). -t From klad at klad.com Thu Jan 1 15:20:02 2004 From: klad at klad.com (Kevin Lee Allen) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: The Omni Group Announces OmniWeb 5.0 In-Reply-To: <1928E440-3C91-11D8-BEBD-003065F6EF80@omnigroup.com> Message-ID: Maybe I'm a whacko. i love OmniWeb. i also love the fact that it does not seem to be the driving force behind the company, although it seems to be moving tot he forefront of the company's product line. that is good. Slower than Safari, maybe, depends on the site. i use Safari for somethings, Omniweb for others. None the less, I was able to kill IE, pretty much with OmniWeb. As a basic web developer, i have been more than pleased with their growth, but then, i no longer care about IE. This is a terrific product and it keeps a) getting better and b) leading the ay. Thanks to those who make it happen. On Thursday, January 1, 2004, at 02:31 PM, Scott M. wrote: > > Instability when surfing eBay has been corrected in version 5 and we > will be including that fix in an update to 4.5. If you are > experiencing frequent crashes that do not seem to be related to eBay, > please contact us using the 'Send Feedback...' item in OmniWeb's Help > menu. For the fastest possible diagnosis of the problem, it would be > useful if you could include the text of one or more CrashCatcher > reports. > > Regarding cookies, OmniWeb 5.0 includes a completely new cookies > interface including a 'passive cookie prompt' in the new browser > status bar that allows you to manage cookies for a particular site > without having to open preferences or have prompting turned on all the > time. > > I am sorry that you are so disappointed with OmniWeb. Hopefully > OmniWeb 4.5.1 will address some of the issues that you have, and I > hope that you will also give version 5 a try when it is released. > > Sincerely, > > Scott M. > The Omni Group > > On Thursday, January 1, 2004, at 09:10 AM, Phill R Kenoyer wrote: > >> All I wanted from Omniweb was a fast, stable browser. I wanted >> tool-tips for titles (like other browsers), I wanted a way to turn >> cookies on for the site I'm looking at via hot key, and I wanted the >> settings to be sane like other browsers (IE borders default to 1 for >> anchor tags). What I bought was a buggy browser that I can't even >> use. 4.5 is terrible. It crashes way way too much and it's the >> slowest of all browsers. There are things I really love about it, >> and I bought it for those reasons. But I can't use it because it >> crashes left and right. >> >> Now version 5 is coming out. I have to pay again if I want to use >> it. I don't think I'm going to pay for v5 after getting burned on >> v4.5. I'm done. I'll just use Safari if I have to. I even bought a >> copy for my wife, who will not even use it because she uses eBay and >> OW4.5 is useless for eBay. So I have two copies of OW that I don't >> use. >> >> What a shame. I'm very disappointed. > > _______________________________________________ > OmniWeb-l mailing list > OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l > > ----- Kevin Lee Allen Production Designer http://www.klad.com 973.744.6352.voice 201.280.3841.cell klad@klad.com ? From shrubberies at adelphia.net Thu Jan 1 15:21:00 2004 From: shrubberies at adelphia.net (shrubberies@adelphia.net) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 tabs in action In-Reply-To: <28B4CC00-3CAF-11D8-8BB4-000A95A84D4C@omnigroup.com> References: <1DEE5FBC-3BE3-11D8-B8B3-000A95AFBEE0@omnigroup.com> <07BC07BC-3BE5-11D8-B84A-0003938ACCEE@columbus.rr.com> <2147483647.1072882855@aura.luxnet.org> <28B4CC00-3CAF-11D8-8BB4-000A95A84D4C@omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <06052997-3CB1-11D8-92D3-000393B6B888@adelphia.net> On Jan 1, 2004, at 6:06 PM, Tim Omernick wrote: > On Dec 31, 2003, at 5:00 PM, Scott J. Kramer wrote: > >> Is Keychain supported in OW5? That's something I've taken for >> granted in >> Safari so it would be tough to live without it in OW5 tho' it >> wouldn't be >> enough to keep me from upgrading. > > Yes. In fact, the passwords we read from (and save in) the Keychain > are compatible with Safari's. > > -t Will you be able to specify which keychain is used, so, for example, one could keep all OW passwords in one keychain? -Paul From daflory at pacbell.net Thu Jan 1 16:35:02 2004 From: daflory at pacbell.net (David Flory) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: The Omni Group Announces OmniWeb 5.0 In-Reply-To: References: <42D191E4-3BE1-11D8-B8B3-000A95AFBEE0@omnigroup.com> <6C932398-3C7D-11D8-81A4-003065B1FEE0@kenoyer.com> <9049EED0-3C8D-11D8-8A90-003065C12208@softhome.net> Message-ID: <7B2DA10A-3CBB-11D8-A2CE-0030657BC948@pacbell.net> On Jan 1, 2004, at 11:29 AM, Phill R Kenoyer wrote: > > It is four times slower than Safari and two times slower than > Mozilla/Camino. You should test it. I can't help thinking there is something wrong with your system gestalt. It's not slower on my computer, and I have tested it. I don't have the crash problems you describe either. This is true of lots of software that lots of people are complaining about. I know just how hard it can be to pin down problems, having spent many years doing that as a system admin., and I've also done beta testng, but most of the time, the problem turns out to be software conflicts, configuration error, etc. that boils down to "BRAAK - User Error" of some kind or another. Not always, but mostly, especially in cases where many have no problems at all. Fair winds and happy bytes, Dave Flory -- Check out the marine mammals, dog & Bengal cats @ From lists at dukedesktop.com Thu Jan 1 16:53:01 2004 From: lists at dukedesktop.com (Jonathan A. Duke) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: One thing I'd love to see "in the box" In-Reply-To: <200401012001.i01K1NqT018565@slowbro.omnigroup.com> References: <200401012001.i01K1NqT018565@slowbro.omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <2147483647.1072986720@[192.168.0.84]> One post today mentioned sharing bookmarks with Safari, however I find myself forced to use two or three different browsers due to compatibility issues. I'd love to see a utility that allows bookmark synchronization between the big 5-OW, Safari, IE (aging but still prints everything), Camino, & Netscape. I've got bookmarks scattered everywhere...and the existing utilities that offer synchronization don't work well (issues with reading formats, etc.) or force you to use them as the "launch pad". What I'd like is to have the exact same set of bookmarks in every browser (whether that's manually done or can be scheduled). While I don't think this is a high priority, it would be a useful tool to offer registered owners-another perk for paying. Thanks. Cheers, Jon -- Jonathan A. Duke lists@dukedesktop.com From lists at dukedesktop.com Thu Jan 1 16:54:02 2004 From: lists at dukedesktop.com (Jonathan A. Duke) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: Compatibility request In-Reply-To: <200401012001.i01K1NqT018565@slowbro.omnigroup.com> References: <200401012001.i01K1NqT018565@slowbro.omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <2147483647.1072986816@[192.168.0.84]> I need to offer my clients a browser that works 100% of the time with Westlaw. While I know that every site is a moving target, Westlaw shouldn't be too difficult (I hope). Thanks. Cheers, Jon -- Jonathan A. Duke lists@dukedesktop.com From omniweb at sjk.us Thu Jan 1 18:02:01 2004 From: omniweb at sjk.us (Scott J. Kramer) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 tabs in action In-Reply-To: <06052997-3CB1-11D8-92D3-000393B6B888@adelphia.net> References: <1DEE5FBC-3BE3-11D8-B8B3-000A95AFBEE0@omnigroup.com> <07BC07BC-3BE5-11D8-B84A-0003938ACCEE@columbus.rr.com> <2147483647.1072882855@aura.luxnet.org> <28B4CC00-3CAF-11D8-8BB4-000A95A84D4C@omnigroup.com> <06052997-3CB1-11D8-92D3-000393B6B888@adelphia.net> Message-ID: <2147483647.1072972904@aura.luxnet.org> --On Thursday, January 1, 2004 18:20 -0500 shrubberies@adelphia.net wrote: > On Jan 1, 2004, at 6:06 PM, Tim Omernick wrote: > >> On Dec 31, 2003, at 5:00 PM, Scott J. Kramer wrote: >> >>> Is Keychain supported in OW5? >> >> Yes. In fact, the passwords we read from (and save in) the Keychain >> are compatible with Safari's. Excellent. > Will you be able to specify which keychain is used, so, for example, one > could keep all OW passwords in one keychain? Are there currently any Mac applications capable of multiple keychain support? -sjk From timo at omnigroup.com Thu Jan 1 18:13:02 2004 From: timo at omnigroup.com (Tim Omernick) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 tabs in action In-Reply-To: <06052997-3CB1-11D8-92D3-000393B6B888@adelphia.net> References: <1DEE5FBC-3BE3-11D8-B8B3-000A95AFBEE0@omnigroup.com> <07BC07BC-3BE5-11D8-B84A-0003938ACCEE@columbus.rr.com> <2147483647.1072882855@aura.luxnet.org> <28B4CC00-3CAF-11D8-8BB4-000A95A84D4C@omnigroup.com> <06052997-3CB1-11D8-92D3-000393B6B888@adelphia.net> Message-ID: <2479E392-3CC8-11D8-B4AC-000A95A84D4C@omnigroup.com> Nope, sorry. I didn't even realize that was something people wanted :-) -t On Jan 1, 2004, at 3:20 PM, shrubberies@adelphia.net wrote: > Will you be able to specify which keychain is used, so, for example, > one could keep all OW passwords in one keychain? From omniweb at sjk.us Thu Jan 1 19:32:02 2004 From: omniweb at sjk.us (Scott J. Kramer) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 tabs in action In-Reply-To: <9B69C850-3CAC-11D8-B208-0003931C6686@thenonsuch.com> References: <1DEE5FBC-3BE3-11D8-B8B3-000A95AFBEE0@omnigroup.com> <58FFE638-3CAB-11D8-8B2B-003065D9AE08@shaw.ca> <9B69C850-3CAC-11D8-B208-0003931C6686@thenonsuch.com> Message-ID: <2147483647.1072978296@aura.luxnet.org> --On Thursday, January 1, 2004 16:48 -0600 Neil Lee wrote: [...] > Or even have the opened "tabs" available in the contextual menu? That > would be interesting. > > I agree, though - definitely make the opened pages available from > somewhere outside of the drawer, in case one is "flying light" and has > the drawer closed. I'd like non-sequential, un-open drawer page navigation capability. My main objection to OW5's tab drawer is it and a "typical" sized window will consume all horizontal space on my 1024x768 iBook. With Safari I usually have a few tightly overlapping tabbed windows on the left side of the screen, leaving about an icon column width on the right side of the Desktop visible as a temporary drag/drop target. But using Expos? to temporarily reveal the full Desktop or other application windows is more powerful with just a bit more mouse motion so maybe OW5 covering the Desktop won't matter (as much?) since I'll surely have retrained my habits to the "Expos? way" by February. So I may end up retracting this particular tab drawer objection. -sjk From omniweb at sjk.us Thu Jan 1 20:08:01 2004 From: omniweb at sjk.us (Scott J. Kramer) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: "universal" bookmarks? [Re: One thing I'd love to see "in the box"] In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1072986720@[192.168.0.84]> References: <200401012001.i01K1NqT018565@slowbro.omnigroup.com> <2147483647.1072986720@[192.168.0.84]> Message-ID: <2147483647.1072980465@aura.luxnet.org> --On Thursday, January 1, 2004 19:52 -0500 "Jonathan A. Duke" wrote: > I'd love to see a utility that allows bookmark synchronization between > the big 5-OW, Safari, IE (aging but still prints everything), Camino, & > Netscape. > > I've got bookmarks scattered everywhere...and the existing utilities that > offer synchronization don't work well (issues with reading formats, etc.) > or force you to use them as the "launch pad". What I'd like is to have > the exact same set of bookmarks in every browser (whether that's manually > done or can be scheduled). Isn't that the Holy Grail of bookmark management, analogous to getting cross-application/platform contact database synchronization working properly? ;-) Main problem I see is there are too many "standards" for bookmark files so sharing/synchronizing becomes a complicated mess. A "universal" bookmark standard seems long overdue. Maybe browsers using XML rather than HTML are increasing the possibility for improvement? -sjk From neil at thenonsuch.com Thu Jan 1 21:02:01 2004 From: neil at thenonsuch.com (Neil Lee) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: Compatibility request In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1072986816@[192.168.0.84]> References: <200401012001.i01K1NqT018565@slowbro.omnigroup.com> <2147483647.1072986816@[192.168.0.84]> Message-ID: Le 01 janv. 2004, ? 18:53, Jonathan A. Duke a ?crit : > I need to offer my clients a browser that works 100% of the time with > Westlaw. > > While I know that every site is a moving target, Westlaw shouldn't be > too difficult (I hope). What is westlaw? A URL might be helpful, so that we could see how the code looks. Neil --- Slumming at the beatnikPad : http://www.beatnikpad.com/ Working at theNonsuch: http://reblog.thenonsuch.com/ e-mail: salut@thenonsuch.com | yeah. From cpac at mac.com Thu Jan 1 21:31:03 2004 From: cpac at mac.com (Ciaran P. A. Connelly) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: Compatibility request In-Reply-To: References: <200401012001.i01K1NqT018565@slowbro.omnigroup.com> <2147483647.1072986816@[192.168.0.84]> Message-ID: Westlaw is one of two (significant) research alternatives for members of the legal profession. (The other option is lexis-nexus, and while there are still others, none are anywhere near the same league as Westlaw and Lexis). Though he didn't provide a url, you'd find very quickly that westlaw is located at www.westlaw.com, and about a billion similar urls as well. It's difficult to check the code however, unless you have a Westlaw password, which can be extremely costly (some firms get charged several dollars per minute, while others use a transaction-based scheme - regardless billing is expensive). Westlaw may offer free/temporary passwords to web browser developers, but because of the value of their service, I suspect you'd have to work for Omni to get one. Omniweb is, and has been, largely compatible with Westlaw since the release of 4.1, and continued (with much better compatibility) with the release of 4.5. There's little I cannot do in Westlaw with Omniweb currently (nothing comes to mind...) but the biggest problem is that Westlaw makes extensive use of framesets: something that Webcore (both in Safari and Omniweb) is not particularly great at handling. The result is slowness, bugginess, and generally not great performance. I for one, would love to see improvements in this area, but aside from incorporating the latest webcore, I'm not sure Omni's in a position to improve frameset speeds/performance/reliability. I have also been in contact with Westlaw, who are currently considering officially supporting Safari. For the original poster, I believe Westlaw officially supports Netscape and Internet Explorer on the Mac - if you want that compatibility without having to use IE, or the bloat of Netscape, try using Camino. That's what I do when Omniweb fails to play nice (or fails to play fast enough) with Westlaw... On Jan 1, 2004, at 10:01 PM, Neil Lee wrote: > Le 01 janv. 2004, ? 18:53, Jonathan A. Duke a ?crit : > >> I need to offer my clients a browser that works 100% of the time with >> Westlaw. >> >> While I know that every site is a moving target, Westlaw shouldn't be >> too difficult (I hope). > > What is westlaw? A URL might be helpful, so that we could see how the > code looks. > > Neil > --- > Slumming at the beatnikPad : http://www.beatnikpad.com/ > Working at theNonsuch: http://reblog.thenonsuch.com/ > e-mail: salut@thenonsuch.com | yeah. > > _______________________________________________ > OmniWeb-l mailing list > OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2353 bytes Desc: not available Url : /mailman/archive/omniweb-l/attachments/20040101/4e2a2695/smime.bin From list-omnigroup at fsck.net Fri Jan 2 00:43:06 2004 From: list-omnigroup at fsck.net (Eugene Lee) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 buttons Message-ID: <20040102084208.GB21760@Dark-Age.local> http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omniweb/5/ One thing that I've admired about Safari is that its toolbar buttons are small (using little real estate) yet clear (and easy to recognize). For example, I really like Safari's Back/Forward buttons. They are compact, and they help group buttons by related function. I'd like to see the same in OW5. Compact buttons exist in OW5 as the plus/minus buttons in the new Tab Drawer and the new Workspaces window. Another example of such tiny buttons show up in the toolbar items in OS X 10.3's Finder. Sorry, I guess I'm become a fan of Apple's brushed metal theme. :-) -- Eugene Lee http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ From list-omnigroup at fsck.net Fri Jan 2 00:53:02 2004 From: list-omnigroup at fsck.net (Eugene Lee) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: The Omni Group Announces OmniWeb 5.0 In-Reply-To: <62EF3AE1-3C92-11D8-81A4-003065B1FEE0@kenoyer.com> References: <1928E440-3C91-11D8-BEBD-003065F6EF80@omnigroup.com> <62EF3AE1-3C92-11D8-81A4-003065B1FEE0@kenoyer.com> Message-ID: <20040102085256.GC21760@Dark-Age.local> On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 11:40:43AM -0800, Phill R Kenoyer wrote: : : On Jan 1, 2004, at 11:31 AM, Scott M. wrote: : : >Regarding cookies, OmniWeb 5.0 includes a completely new cookies : >interface including a 'passive cookie prompt' in the new browser : >status bar that allows you to manage cookies for a particular site : >without having to open preferences or have prompting turned on all the : >time. : : I have suggested before, and I'll suggest it again. This is what I : would love to have in OW. Reject all cookies by default (no need to : add them to a database that will get huge and slow things down). Then : when I go to a site that I want to allow cookies I can select from a : menu item or hot key to allow cookies for the site I'm viewing. This : would be perfect! I've suggested/requested this idea too. With the OW 4.5 cookie system, I currently have over 3000 entries listing a handful of domains from which I accept cookies, but the rest I reject. I want to rid myself of this huge list of rejected domains and only keep the small list of accepted domains. -- Eugene Lee http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ From list-omnigroup at fsck.net Fri Jan 2 01:11:04 2004 From: list-omnigroup at fsck.net (Eugene Lee) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5.0 pricing Message-ID: <20040102091053.GD21760@Dark-Age.local> http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omniweb/5/ Just wanted to say that I *love* the pricing scheme. I think the upgrade price is more than fair to the customers, and (barring any major disasters) I will definitely pay the $9.95 upgrade price. I post this to support The Omni Group for their hard work as well as their IMHO fair-minded upgrade pricing. In contrast, there has been some recent heated discussions with CodeTek Studios' VirtualDesktop, a virtual desktop / workspace app. The current price is $30. There is a new version, 3.0, in development that's supposed to have lots of improvements to work with Expos? and X11. The problem is that the developers wanted existing customers to pay a $25 upgrade fee to 3.0. Then came the flak. http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/21851 http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/7966 Apparently, after the flak, CodeTek relented and decided to lower the upgrade fee to only $15 for existing customers. So before we all beat up The Omni Group for this or that, let's not forget that their prices are still more than reasonable compared to other companies! -- Eugene Lee http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ From dailygrind at thewonderllama.com Fri Jan 2 03:39:04 2004 From: dailygrind at thewonderllama.com (Brendan Sweeney) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: The Omni Group Announces OmniWeb 5.0 In-Reply-To: <62EF3AE1-3C92-11D8-81A4-003065B1FEE0@kenoyer.com> References: <1928E440-3C91-11D8-BEBD-003065F6EF80@omnigroup.com> <62EF3AE1-3C92-11D8-81A4-003065B1FEE0@kenoyer.com> Message-ID: <37A4A9F0-3D18-11D8-B399-000A95DA3D0A@thewonderllama.com> On Jan 1, 2004, Phill R Kenoyer wrote: >> Now on your comparisons to other browsers: I am not sure what you >> mean by "sane settings" on other browsers, but as a web developer I >> can say that OmniWeb does a good job on this. (Other than Safari) It >> does a good job of not following a specific browser (IE is what I >> think you are thinking of), and instead tries to write to the >> standards (such as they are). > > If you were a web developer you would know what I'm talking about. > All other browsers set the default for borders on image links to 1. > When creating pages, if I forget to set the border=1 then I don't > notice until I go to another browser or the customer complains about > it. Sometimes I will forget to set the border at all and it will not > show on OW but show on all other browsers. I know that the standards > are open on that setting, but it should at least match other browsers. > There are a few other things that bug me also that I can't recall > right now. >> Regarding cookies, OmniWeb 5.0 includes a completely new cookies >> interface including a 'passive cookie prompt' in the new browser >> status bar that allows you to manage cookies for a particular site >> without having to open preferences or have prompting turned on all >> the time. > > I have suggested before, and I'll suggest it again. This is what I > would love to have in OW. Reject all cookies by default (no need to > add them to a database that will get huge and slow things down). Then > when I go to a site that I want to allow cookies I can select from a > menu item or hot key to allow cookies for the site I'm viewing. This > would be perfect! > >> I am sorry that you are so disappointed with OmniWeb. Hopefully >> OmniWeb 4.5.1 will address some of the issues that you have, and I >> hope that you will also give version 5 a try when it is released. You want OW to have 'sane' settings for unspecified attributes, or at least follow what Win/IE does, and then you want it to default reject every cookie? If you're that paranoid about them it takes one change in the well-laid out preferences to reject them on default. Having OW reject cookies on default would break so many websites' functionality and leave so many customers confused and bewildered they'd be swamped in bug reports and irate emails to their list (much like this one). You complain about OmniGroup's choice for the defaults that they choose, and blame them when you don't specify the behavior you want and then don't even bother to take a look at the page your developing for "customers" in different browsers. OmniGroup's business model makes it hard for people trolling the mailing lists to get much sympathy. You're free to review the program in full working order (unless you're disappointed in it's ability to select a start page). So if the $30 ($20 for students) is that dear to you take a couple days to review the product and then decide if it's worth the money. Or at least learn from your first purchase and hold off on the second. 4.5 was a complete overhaul of the rendering engine given to 4.0 license holders for free. And as OG has said many times, they are releasing bug updates for 4.5 even after the release of 5.0. ~BS From demme at pobox.com Fri Jan 2 04:49:01 2004 From: demme at pobox.com (David Emme) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: The Omni Group Announces OmniWeb 5.0 In-Reply-To: <20040102085256.GC21760@Dark-Age.local> Message-ID: --- On 1/2/04 2:52 AM, Eugene Lee wrote: > I've suggested/requested this idea too. With the OW 4.5 cookie > system, I currently have over 3000 entries listing a handful of > domains from which I accept cookies, but the rest I reject. I want > to rid myself of this huge list of rejected domains and only keep > the small list of accepted domains. > Note also the potential privacy issues revolving around that list on your machine (and mine) of all of the sites you've ever visited (even accidently) which wanted to send you a cookie. You suggest essentially recording only an "opt-in" list, which is much better from a privacy standpoint. -Dave -- People who know how to employ themselves, always find leisure moments, while those who do nothing are forever in a hurry. --Jeanne-Marie Roland From shrubberies at adelphia.net Fri Jan 2 04:54:01 2004 From: shrubberies at adelphia.net (shrubberies@adelphia.net) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 tabs in action/keychain In-Reply-To: <2479E392-3CC8-11D8-B4AC-000A95A84D4C@omnigroup.com> References: <1DEE5FBC-3BE3-11D8-B8B3-000A95AFBEE0@omnigroup.com> <07BC07BC-3BE5-11D8-B84A-0003938ACCEE@columbus.rr.com> <2147483647.1072882855@aura.luxnet.org> <28B4CC00-3CAF-11D8-8BB4-000A95A84D4C@omnigroup.com> <06052997-3CB1-11D8-92D3-000393B6B888@adelphia.net> <2479E392-3CC8-11D8-B4AC-000A95A84D4C@omnigroup.com> Message-ID: I just imagine that there will be many site passwords compared to other types of items in the keychain and it might be organizationally handy to have them separate when working in Keychain Access. Also, security issues come to mind; I might want to have my browser passwords timed out after a short time, but not my email passwords. On Jan 1, 2004, at 9:05 PM, Tim Omernick wrote: > Nope, sorry. I didn't even realize that was something people wanted > :-) > > -t > > On Jan 1, 2004, at 3:20 PM, shrubberies@adelphia.net wrote: > >> Will you be able to specify which keychain is used, so, for example, >> one could keep all OW passwords in one keychain? > From phill at kenoyer.com Fri Jan 2 08:27:02 2004 From: phill at kenoyer.com (Phill R Kenoyer) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5.0 pricing In-Reply-To: <20040102091053.GD21760@Dark-Age.local> References: <20040102091053.GD21760@Dark-Age.local> Message-ID: <6CA8E42B-3D40-11D8-81A4-003065B1FEE0@kenoyer.com> On Jan 2, 2004, at 1:10 AM, Eugene Lee wrote: > Just wanted to say that I *love* the pricing scheme. I think the > upgrade price is more than fair to the customers, and (barring any > major disasters) I will definitely pay the $9.95 upgrade price. I'm not saying that I disagree with the upgrade price, rather I disagree with the quality of OW software. It is riddled with bugs and problems. I payed for it thinking that it would be stabilized, not dumped. When I pay for software, I expect it to be stable and useful. This is why I chose the Mac platform. If I didn't care about stability, the I would just use MS Windows. How can I brag to my Windows using friends that the Mac never crashes when my main browser takes a dump five times a day? Safari only dumps once a week. From phill at kenoyer.com Fri Jan 2 08:40:01 2004 From: phill at kenoyer.com (Phill R Kenoyer) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: The Omni Group Announces OmniWeb 5.0 In-Reply-To: <37A4A9F0-3D18-11D8-B399-000A95DA3D0A@thewonderllama.com> References: <1928E440-3C91-11D8-BEBD-003065F6EF80@omnigroup.com> <62EF3AE1-3C92-11D8-81A4-003065B1FEE0@kenoyer.com> <37A4A9F0-3D18-11D8-B399-000A95DA3D0A@thewonderllama.com> Message-ID: <44378535-3D42-11D8-81A4-003065B1FEE0@kenoyer.com> On Jan 2, 2004, at 3:38 AM, Brendan Sweeney wrote: > You want OW to have 'sane' settings for unspecified attributes, or at > least follow what Win/IE does, and then you want it to default reject > every cookie? If you're that paranoid about them it takes one change > in the well-laid out preferences to reject them on default. Having OW > reject cookies on default would break so many websites' functionality > and leave so many customers confused and bewildered they'd be swamped > in bug reports and irate emails to their list (much like this one). Ok, first. I'm not talking about "following Win/IE". I'm talking about following every single browser in the market. They all act the same. Even Safari. Why should OW be different? Next, I want my settings to be this way. Yes, OW has a preference to block all cookies, but no way to unblock them easy. I have to open the preferences and search through 1000's of sites to find the one I want. They don't even seem to be in order. > You complain about OmniGroup's choice for the defaults that they > choose, and blame them when you don't specify the behavior you want > and then don't even bother to take a look at the page your developing > for "customers" in different browsers. I did specify what I want. I want the same as all the other browsers on the planet. I do check the pages in other browsers most of the time when I creating new things. What if a customer wants a quick image added to their page that links to another site. We, I, will add the link over a ssh shell using vi, not using Dreamweaver or whatever, and forget to add border="1" because one or two customers I have like to see the borders. For any other browser it's fine. OW is different. > OmniGroup's business model makes it hard for people trolling the > mailing lists to get much sympathy. You're free to review the program > in full working order (unless you're disappointed in it's ability to > select a start page). So if the $30 ($20 for students) is that dear > to you take a couple days to review the product and then decide if > it's worth the money. Or at least learn from your first purchase and > hold off on the second. 4.5 was a complete overhaul of the rendering > engine given to 4.0 license holders for free. And as OG has said many > times, they are releasing bug updates for 4.5 even after the release > of 5.0. As I have said before. I did review 4.5 before buying. It was working great as a beta/sneakypeak. When the 1.0 came out it was busted. It should not have been released until all the "big" bugs were killed. For the record, I love OW. It's the best browser out there, except for stability. I'm just put off by buying a "beta" quality browser and then having to pay again to have it "fixed". Now I hear of a 4.5.1 update coming out. This will probably fix it. I think OG should have fixed 4.5 a long time ago before doing 5.0. If 4.5 was suppose to be just a prototype, then we should have been told this. I would have bought it anyway, but I would have known that it was not meant to be stable. I would be fine with the upgrade price to 5.0. But I was lied to by OG. They said that 4.5 was stable and it is not. They sold it as stable and it is not. This is why I'm upset. The cookies, settings, other things don't really matter. They were suggestions. Stability is my main rant. From larkost at softhome.net Fri Jan 2 08:50:05 2004 From: larkost at softhome.net (Karl Kuehn) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5.0 pricing In-Reply-To: <6CA8E42B-3D40-11D8-81A4-003065B1FEE0@kenoyer.com> References: <20040102091053.GD21760@Dark-Age.local> <6CA8E42B-3D40-11D8-81A4-003065B1FEE0@kenoyer.com> Message-ID: Ok... I think we have all been patient enough with your wining. You have expressed yourself, been acknowledged and disagreed with, and you keep coming back with the same statements. The majority of us are not experiencing crashes like you. I use OmniWeb on 4 computers, and see about a crash a week. Since I abuse OW with a nasty combination of JavaScript and rapid-fire Apple- and shell-scripts, I consider that pretty good. OW 4.5 is not "riddled with bugs and problems", and considering that this is a very pro-OmniWeb list, I think you are just trolling at this point. Please stop. The rest of us have been very nice to this point, but I think you have pushed things as far as they need to go. Karl Kuehn larkost@softhome.net On Jan 2, 2004, at 11:26 AM, Phill R Kenoyer wrote: >> Just wanted to say that I *love* the pricing scheme. I think the >> upgrade price is more than fair to the customers, and (barring any >> major disasters) I will definitely pay the $9.95 upgrade price. > > I'm not saying that I disagree with the upgrade price, rather I > disagree with the quality of OW software. It is riddled with bugs and > problems. I payed for it thinking that it would be stabilized, not > dumped. > > When I pay for software, I expect it to be stable and useful. This is > why I chose the Mac platform. If I didn't care about stability, the I > would just use MS Windows. How can I brag to my Windows using friends > that the Mac never crashes when my main browser takes a dump five > times a day? Safari only dumps once a week. From ritch at mac.com Fri Jan 2 09:04:06 2004 From: ritch at mac.com (Tom Ritch) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5.0 pricing In-Reply-To: <6CA8E42B-3D40-11D8-81A4-003065B1FEE0@kenoyer.com> References: <20040102091053.GD21760@Dark-Age.local> <6CA8E42B-3D40-11D8-81A4-003065B1FEE0@kenoyer.com> Message-ID: <92F6AB63-3D45-11D8-A2C4-000393516742@mac.com> On Jan 2, 2004, at 8:26 AM, Phill R Kenoyer wrote: > I'm not saying that I disagree with the upgrade price, rather I > disagree with the quality of OW software. It is riddled with bugs and > problems. I payed for it thinking that it would be stabilized, not > dumped. Remember that OW depends on Apple's libraries and development system, much of which changed with Panther. Before Panther OW was much more stable. Since Panther introduced these problems a little over two months ago, OW programmers (all three or so of them?) have been chasing Panther-induced crashes for version 4.5.1 as well as adding features for version 5. At least problems in going from one version of OS X to the next are trivial compared to Apple's Open Doc fiasco. I payed for OW thinking it would be stabilized and improved, and have not been disappointed. I am particularly pleased with the responses I have received to bug reports I have submitted, and with Omni's ongoing efforts to keep all of us here on the list informed of their progress. I look forward to a more stable 4.5.1, and to paying the small upgrade fee for the major enhancements coming in OW 5. The closest I have to a complaint is that I don't want to wait until February to get OW 5 and pay the money. However I realize that OW 5 released in February will be much more stable than if released today, so I am not really complaining. Tom From phill at kenoyer.com Fri Jan 2 09:10:04 2004 From: phill at kenoyer.com (Phill R Kenoyer) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5.0 pricing In-Reply-To: <92F6AB63-3D45-11D8-A2C4-000393516742@mac.com> References: <20040102091053.GD21760@Dark-Age.local> <6CA8E42B-3D40-11D8-81A4-003065B1FEE0@kenoyer.com> <92F6AB63-3D45-11D8-A2C4-000393516742@mac.com> Message-ID: <6654FFE9-3D46-11D8-81A4-003065B1FEE0@kenoyer.com> On Jan 2, 2004, at 9:03 AM, Tom Ritch wrote: > Remember that OW depends on Apple's libraries and development system, > much of which changed with Panther. Before Panther OW was much more > stable. Since Panther introduced these problems a little over two > months ago, OW programmers (all three or so of them?) have been > chasing Panther-induced crashes for version 4.5.1 as well as adding > features for version 5. At least problems in going from one version > of OS X to the next are trivial compared to Apple's Open Doc fiasco. Actually, for me, OW got better with Panther. > I am particularly pleased with the responses I have received to bug > reports I have submitted, and with Omni's ongoing efforts to keep all > of us here on the list informed of their progress. OG's tech support is TOP NOTCH!. Best in the business. From jakerobb at mac.com Fri Jan 2 09:16:01 2004 From: jakerobb at mac.com (Jake Robb) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: The Omni Group Announces OmniWeb 5.0 In-Reply-To: <44378535-3D42-11D8-81A4-003065B1FEE0@kenoyer.com> Message-ID: Would it make you feel better to pretend that the bug fixes are free, and you're paying all of $10 for workspaces, tabs, rendezvous bookmarks, and all of the other NEW features? -Jake Phill R Kenoyer wrote: > For the record, I love OW. It's the best browser out there, except for > stability. I'm just put off by buying a "beta" quality browser and > then having to pay again to have it "fixed". Now I hear of a 4.5.1 > update coming out. This will probably fix it. I think OG should have > fixed 4.5 a long time ago before doing 5.0. If 4.5 was suppose to be > just a prototype, then we should have been told this. I would have > bought it anyway, but I would have known that it was not meant to be > stable. I would be fine with the upgrade price to 5.0. From neil at thenonsuch.com Fri Jan 2 09:19:01 2004 From: neil at thenonsuch.com (Neil Lee) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 buttons In-Reply-To: <20040102084208.GB21760@Dark-Age.local> References: <20040102084208.GB21760@Dark-Age.local> Message-ID: Le 02 janv. 2004, ? 02:42, Eugene Lee a ?crit : > They are compact, > and they help group buttons by related function. I'd like to see the > same in OW5. Compact buttons exist in OW5 as the plus/minus buttons in > the new Tab Drawer and the new Workspaces window. Another example of > such tiny buttons show up in the toolbar items in OS X 10.3's Finder. First: please, for the love of god, do not implement brushed metal. :) Secondly, I agree. I really like how Apple's toolbar icons are starting to move away from the brightly coloured, differently shaped way of the past (Mail.app, the Jaguar Finder, etc.) and more towards a uniform look and feel. I already ranted a bit about this earlier, but I do think that the present icons (at least the ones in the preview screengrabs) are really ugly. In my opinion, they're a step backwards from what OW already had. I personally think that Kevin Gerich's icons for the Mac OS X versiojn of Firebird are totally beautiful, and definitely in the pocket as far as look and feel goes. OW is, in my opinion (that word again), a "professional's browser". It should look like one, too. Neil --- Slumming at the beatnikPad : http://www.beatnikpad.com/ Working at theNonsuch: http://reblog.thenonsuch.com/ e-mail: salut@thenonsuch.com | yeah. From jakerobb at mac.com Fri Jan 2 09:38:00 2004 From: jakerobb at mac.com (Jake Robb) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5.0 pricing In-Reply-To: <20040102091053.GD21760@Dark-Age.local> Message-ID: I paid for OW back when it cost $60, and I have never regretted it. It will forever be worth hundreds of dollars more than I paid for it, all because of the Source Editor and the Redisplay button. -Jake Eugene Lee wrote: > http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omniweb/5/ > > Just wanted to say that I *love* the pricing scheme. I think the > upgrade price is more than fair to the customers, and (barring any > major disasters) I will definitely pay the $9.95 upgrade price. > > I post this to support The Omni Group for their hard work as well as > their IMHO fair-minded upgrade pricing. In contrast, there has been > some recent heated discussions with CodeTek Studios' VirtualDesktop, > a virtual desktop / workspace app. The current price is $30. There > is a new version, 3.0, in development that's supposed to have lots of > improvements to work with Expos? and X11. The problem is that the > developers wanted existing customers to pay a $25 upgrade fee to 3.0. > Then came the flak. > > http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/21851 > http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/7966 > > Apparently, after the flak, CodeTek relented and decided to lower the > upgrade fee to only $15 for existing customers. So before we all beat > up The Omni Group for this or that, let's not forget that their prices > are still more than reasonable compared to other companies! > From lists at thewonderllama.com Fri Jan 2 09:46:00 2004 From: lists at thewonderllama.com (Matt Rehder) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 tabs in action In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1072978296@aura.luxnet.org> References: <1DEE5FBC-3BE3-11D8-B8B3-000A95AFBEE0@omnigroup.com> <58FFE638-3CAB-11D8-8B2B-003065D9AE08@shaw.ca> <9B69C850-3CAC-11D8-B208-0003931C6686@thenonsuch.com> <2147483647.1072978296@aura.luxnet.org> Message-ID: <764AAB5B-3D4B-11D8-B12F-000A95D7E528@thewonderllama.com> On Jan 1, 2004, at 7:31 PM, Scott J. Kramer wrote: > I'd like non-sequential, un-open drawer page navigation capability. I think a great way to do this would be adding 'apple + tab' style functionality. If I could hit a key combo in OW 5 and have transparent thumbnails appear like application icons do that would be brilliant. It wouldn't waste any screen real estate and it would make it simple to grab whichever page you wanted. Would this be workable for 5.1? -matt From shrubberies at adelphia.net Fri Jan 2 09:53:01 2004 From: shrubberies at adelphia.net (shrubberies@adelphia.net) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5.0 pricing In-Reply-To: References: <20040102091053.GD21760@Dark-Age.local> <6CA8E42B-3D40-11D8-81A4-003065B1FEE0@kenoyer.com> Message-ID: <6877FA4C-3D4C-11D8-86D5-000393B6B888@adelphia.net> I experience crashes once or twice a day and sometimes while I'm away from my computer, as have many people who've commented on this list in the past (especially since Panther). I can predictably crash OW by striking the escape key while in a text box if there is no completion defined for what precedes it in TextExtras. (I know this later is a system add-on and OG is not responsible, but no other app where TextExtras operates actually crashes when I mistype). Most reports of frequent crashing has quieted down because it's a known issue and we all have faith that OG is working on it. It seems that Phil is relatively new to the list and does not share that history and wants to be heard. Phil, we hear you; Brian and Ken hear you. Please see the discussions related to crashes in the archives--but I'm afraid you won't find an answer until 4.5.1 or maybe 5. -Paul On Jan 2, 2004, at 11:49 AM, Karl Kuehn wrote: > Ok... I think we have all been patient enough with your wining. ... From skd at columbus.rr.com Fri Jan 2 10:14:02 2004 From: skd at columbus.rr.com (Steve Dieringer) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5.0 pricing In-Reply-To: References: <20040102091053.GD21760@Dark-Age.local> <6CA8E42B-3D40-11D8-81A4-003065B1FEE0@kenoyer.com> Message-ID: <5831579C-3D4F-11D8-B84A-0003938ACCEE@columbus.rr.com> I tend to agree with the comments re OW not being stable. I'm sure we all have different experiences and I haven't kept a scientific record of crashes/issues, but I pretty much gave up on OW a few months ago and use Safari full time - except for printing. I use Camino for that. Reason I stopped using OW? Crashes and lack of tabs. How many crashes? Enough to be bothersome. Oh, yeah, it also 'seemed' slow. Will I try OW 5? Yes. I'm interested in some of the new features. I'd like a trial before I pay, however, to make sure the stability and speed issues are resolved. I'll upgrade when I'm satisfied. Don't shoot the messenger when issues/concerns are voiced. Omni needs to hear them if they are to improve the product. BTW, I've been using Omni on-and-off since NeXT days. Shoot, I even used NetSurfer... On Jan 2, 2004, at 11:49 AM, Karl Kuehn wrote: > Ok... I think we have all been patient enough with your wining. You > have expressed yourself, been acknowledged and disagreed with, and you > keep coming back with the same statements. The majority of us are not > experiencing crashes like you. I use OmniWeb on 4 computers, and see > about a crash a week. Since I abuse OW with a nasty combination of > JavaScript and rapid-fire Apple- and shell-scripts, I consider that > pretty good. > OW 4.5 is not "riddled with bugs and problems", and considering that > this is a very pro-OmniWeb list, I think you are just trolling at this > point. Please stop. The rest of us have been very nice to this point, > but I think you have pushed things as far as they need to go. > > Karl Kuehn > larkost@softhome.net > > On Jan 2, 2004, at 11:26 AM, Phill R Kenoyer wrote: > >>> Just wanted to say that I *love* the pricing scheme. I think the >>> upgrade price is more than fair to the customers, and (barring any >>> major disasters) I will definitely pay the $9.95 upgrade price. >> >> I'm not saying that I disagree with the upgrade price, rather I >> disagree with the quality of OW software. It is riddled with bugs >> and problems. I payed for it thinking that it would be stabilized, >> not dumped. >> >> When I pay for software, I expect it to be stable and useful. This >> is why I chose the Mac platform. If I didn't care about stability, >> the I would just use MS Windows. How can I brag to my Windows using >> friends that the Mac never crashes when my main browser takes a dump >> five times a day? Safari only dumps once a week. > > _______________________________________________ > OmniWeb-l mailing list > OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l > From neil at thenonsuch.com Fri Jan 2 10:36:11 2004 From: neil at thenonsuch.com (Neil Lee) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 tabs in action In-Reply-To: <764AAB5B-3D4B-11D8-B12F-000A95D7E528@thewonderllama.com> References: <1DEE5FBC-3BE3-11D8-B8B3-000A95AFBEE0@omnigroup.com> <58FFE638-3CAB-11D8-8B2B-003065D9AE08@shaw.ca> <9B69C850-3CAC-11D8-B208-0003931C6686@thenonsuch.com> <2147483647.1072978296@aura.luxnet.org> <764AAB5B-3D4B-11D8-B12F-000A95D7E528@thewonderllama.com> Message-ID: <6C95AB65-3D52-11D8-8800-0003931C6686@thenonsuch.com> Le 02 janv. 2004, ? 11:45, Matt Rehder a ?crit : > I think a great way to do this would be adding 'apple + tab' style > functionality. If I could hit a key combo in OW 5 and have > transparent thumbnails appear like application icons do that would be > brilliant. It wouldn't waste any screen real estate and it would make > it simple to grab whichever page you wanted. That's a brilliant idea. Adding in small thumbnails ala the switch application bezel would be beautiful, useful, and be real estate friendly, too. Tossing my hat in the ring for this idea, also. Neil --- Slumming at the beatnikPad : http://www.beatnikpad.com/ Working at theNonsuch: http://reblog.thenonsuch.com/ e-mail: salut@thenonsuch.com | yeah. From jakerobb at mac.com Fri Jan 2 10:39:06 2004 From: jakerobb at mac.com (Jake Robb) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 tabs in action In-Reply-To: <6C95AB65-3D52-11D8-8800-0003931C6686@thenonsuch.com> Message-ID: Seems like a non-tabbed browser and a quick F10 to invoke app-specific Expose would have a very similar function. That said, I like the idea too. -Jake Neil Lee wrote: > Le 02 janv. 2004, ? 11:45, Matt Rehder a ?crit : > >> I think a great way to do this would be adding 'apple + tab' style >> functionality. If I could hit a key combo in OW 5 and have >> transparent thumbnails appear like application icons do that would be >> brilliant. It wouldn't waste any screen real estate and it would make >> it simple to grab whichever page you wanted. > > That's a brilliant idea. Adding in small thumbnails ala the switch > application bezel would be beautiful, useful, and be real estate > friendly, too. > > Tossing my hat in the ring for this idea, also. > > Neil > --- > Slumming at the beatnikPad : http://www.beatnikpad.com/ > Working at theNonsuch: http://reblog.thenonsuch.com/ > e-mail: salut@thenonsuch.com | yeah. > > _______________________________________________ > OmniWeb-l mailing list > OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l From herbert at elbrecht.de Fri Jan 2 13:21:01 2004 From: herbert at elbrecht.de (Herbert Elbrecht) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5.0 pricing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80942903-3D69-11D8-B74C-000A27B230D4@elbrecht.de> Yeah - lets hope for the Source Editor to get working again - OW 4.2.1 was the last version to edit UTF-8. But that is gone now with Panther? Herbert On 02.01.2004, at 18:37, Jake Robb wrote: > I paid for OW back when it cost $60, and I have never regretted it. > It will > forever be worth hundreds of dollars more than I paid for it, all > because of > the Source Editor and the Redisplay button. > > -Jake Herbert Elbrecht herbert at elbrecht dot de From mark.meredith at shaw.ca Fri Jan 2 14:06:00 2004 From: mark.meredith at shaw.ca (Mark Meredith) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 buttons In-Reply-To: References: <20040102084208.GB21760@Dark-Age.local> Message-ID: From: mark.meredith@shaw.ca Subject: Re: OmniWeb 5 buttons Date: January 2, 2004 1:34:18 PM PST To: neil@thenonsuch.com > Le 02 janv. 2004, ? 02:42, Eugene Lee a ?crit : > >> They are compact, >> and they help group buttons by related function. I'd like to see the >> same in OW5. Compact buttons exist in OW5 as the plus/minus buttons >> in >> the new Tab Drawer and the new Workspaces window. Another example of >> such tiny buttons show up in the toolbar items in OS X 10.3's Finder. I have to disagree. I am still not even close to disliking the current non-brushed toolbar buttons. Until I have my 3D glasses and matching suit, I don't think I ever will be. I like the color and the freedom in button design. The artist can do anything he/she wants to convey the action. Likewise, I shuddered at brushed metal the second I saw it. Brushed metal has always seemed out dated to me. Maybe that is because when OS X was released there was more brushed metal in OS 9 so I effectively put it behind me. I came up with reasons for its departure in OS X: hard to fake a shiny surface in 2D, rough edges, dark, less design freedom. I also was certain that the only reason any metal remained was because iTunes, iPhoto, Sherlock etc... were still carbon apps, ported from OS 9... and surely they would soon be Aqua. But I was wrong. And suddenly I need to put all of these new reasons that I came up with for why I dislike metal behind me. That is moving backwards. I really like the new buttons because, for me, they are moving forward. The increased contrast is a new idea. > First: please, for the love of god, do not implement brushed metal. :) Amen! > OW is, in my opinion (that word again), a "professional's browser". It > should look like one, too. Who says business can't be fun? (that must be trademarked) Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 2326 bytes Desc: not available Url : /mailman/archive/omniweb-l/attachments/20040102/ca337043/attachment.bin From jeremy_henderson at hotmail.com Fri Jan 2 14:17:04 2004 From: jeremy_henderson at hotmail.com (jeremy henderson) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OW5 and Hotmail? Message-ID: I'll be looking with interest to see if OW5 will work with Hotmail. I've posted before about my problem with OW and Hotmail, and everyone says "it works fine for me". Great, but it doesn't work for me, on 2 separate independent computers, on 10.2 or 10.3. What happens is that I get to a certain point at which clicking on things has no effect. For a while it was when I was posting a message. Tonight I just had a try and it won't even open a received message. I'd love to use OW - particularly the Bookmarks is way nicer than Safari, and I like the philosophy of supporting small software publishers even if it means paying a few bucks from time to time. However, I think unless OW5 delivers some real improvements in terms of reliable functioning, I'm just going to delete it off my system and pretend it doesn't exist. Fingers crossed, Jeremy jeremy_henderson@hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger From jmbrew at mac.com Fri Jan 2 14:28:01 2004 From: jmbrew at mac.com (Michael Brewer) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 Message-ID: Even though I just re-subscribed to this list after over a year's absence, I'm sure I'm not the first to state this. OmniWeb 5 appears to be everything I've ever wanted in a browser. I'm looking forward to using it. The "tabs" feature is exactly the way Apple should have done it in Safari. However, I think the term tabs is not a very good one as the functionality is implemented in OW5. Honestly, the best description I can think of is "thumbnails" which, I guess, would be consistent with Preview. One feature that I don't see on the preview page, but I hope is not missing is Keychain-enabled auto-filling of form-based authentication (how's that for hyphenation?). That's the one feature I consider a show-stopper in this day and age. Good work, y'all! Keep it up. From larkost at softhome.net Fri Jan 2 14:42:06 2004 From: larkost at softhome.net (Karl Kuehn) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 2, 2004, at 5:27 PM, Michael Brewer wrote: > Even though I just re-subscribed to this list after over a year's > absence, I'm sure I'm not the first to state this. OmniWeb 5 appears > to be everything I've ever wanted in a browser. I'm looking forward to > using it. Welcome back, I think that last statement applies to everyone on the list without a @OmniGroup.com in their email address... > One feature that I don't see on the preview page, but I hope is not > missing is Keychain-enabled auto-filling of form-based authentication > (how's that for hyphenation?). That's the one feature I consider a > show-stopper in this day and age. On anther list (forums.macnn.com) they have mentioned that they keychain is definitely supported for passwords, and implied that this was for in-page passwords. And that this would work interchangeably with Safari (memorize a password in Safari, and OmniWeb gets it also). This would imply that the rest of the form auto-fill would work the same way (but I don't know... let alone details). Karl Kuehn larkost@softhome.net From dvorak at omnigroup.com Fri Jan 2 15:52:05 2004 From: dvorak at omnigroup.com (Brian C.) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OmniWeb-l digest, Vol 1 #957 - 39 msgs In-Reply-To: <200401022001.i02K1KqT020710@slowbro.omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <85C73B89-3D7E-11D8-BF24-000393196FEA@omnigroup.com> > Next, I want my settings to be this way. Yes, OW has a preference to > block all cookies, but no way to unblock them easy. I have to open the > preferences and search through 1000's of sites to find the one I want. > They don't even seem to be in order. This is exactly one of the things that the site-specific prefecences is designed to help with, actually. Set your default cookies action to "Don't accept cookies". You open a site you want to change this setting for, you open the site prefs with a keystroke, you change the cookie setting, you close the site prefs. No need to look at the list we generate at all. I'm not on the omniweb team, so i haven't played with this much. I'm pretty sure, though, that in this case, you'd see the "accept cookies" setting on those specific sites, but not on every other site you visit. Sincerely, Brian C. Support Manager Omni Group From jmbrew at mac.com Fri Jan 2 16:41:03 2004 From: jmbrew at mac.com (Michael Brewer) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OmniWeb-l digest, Vol 1 #957 - 39 msgs In-Reply-To: <85C73B89-3D7E-11D8-BF24-000393196FEA@omnigroup.com> References: <85C73B89-3D7E-11D8-BF24-000393196FEA@omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <692D6624-3D85-11D8-9B96-00039362C992@mac.com> On Jan 2, 2004, at 6:51 PM, Brian C. wrote: > This is exactly one of the things that the site-specific prefecences > is designed to help with, actually. Set your default cookies action to > "Don't accept cookies". You open a site you want to change this > setting for, you open the site prefs with a keystroke, you change the > cookie setting, you close the site prefs. No need to look at the list > we generate at all. How does site-specific preferences determine what a site is, though? Is everything under one domain name considered to be one site? Is it everything with same domain name and host name? What about parts of the path in the URL? To use Dot Mac as an example... http://www.mac.com/ is a different site from http://webmail.mac.com/ and http://homepage.mac.com/jmbrew/ could be considered a different site from http://homepage.mac.com/steve/ To use Ebay as an example... http://www.ebay.com/ should be considered the same site as http://signin.ebay.com/ How does OmniWeb 5 treat these situations? From lists at thewonderllama.com Fri Jan 2 17:24:03 2004 From: lists at thewonderllama.com (Matt Rehder) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <72C664E0-3D8B-11D8-8FA1-003065B12F84@thewonderllama.com> On Jan 2, 2004, at 2:41 PM, Karl Kuehn wrote: > On Jan 2, 2004, at 5:27 PM, Michael Brewer wrote: >> One feature that I don't see on the preview page, but I hope is not >> missing is Keychain-enabled auto-filling of form-based authentication >> (how's that for hyphenation?). That's the one feature I consider a >> show-stopper in this day and age. > > On anther list (forums.macnn.com) they have mentioned that they > keychain is definitely supported for passwords, and implied that this > was for in-page passwords. And that this would work interchangeably > with Safari (memorize a password in Safari, and OmniWeb gets it also). > This would imply that the rest of the form auto-fill would work the > same way (but I don't know... let alone details). Think Secret has some other screenshots, including one of the autofill prefpane: http://thinksecret.com/cgi-bin/pic.cgi?i=/archives/images/omniweb5/ autofill.gif&p=omniweb5 -matt From larkost at softhome.net Fri Jan 2 19:07:02 2004 From: larkost at softhome.net (Karl Kuehn) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OmniWeb-l digest, Vol 1 #957 - 39 msgs In-Reply-To: <692D6624-3D85-11D8-9B96-00039362C992@mac.com> References: <85C73B89-3D7E-11D8-BF24-000393196FEA@omnigroup.com> <692D6624-3D85-11D8-9B96-00039362C992@mac.com> Message-ID: <7ABD942E-3D9A-11D8-8A90-003065C12208@softhome.net> 4.5 has both behaviors. If you go to forums.macnn.com first, and reject cookies there, you still get the opportunity to accept them at www.macnn.com or the ones from macnn.com. I believe that if you reject the ones from macnn.com first, then by default www.macnn.com, etc will be rejected too. My guess would be that this is carried forward to 5.0, with the nice addition that you can manually adjust them more easliy after the fact. My only worry is that in cases like the macnn.com cookie (attached to a image in this case) might be tough to find. In this case it would not matter (it is just a marketing tracking cookie), but I can foresee cases where this could cause problems. Karl Kuehn larkost@softhome.net On Jan 2, 2004, at 7:40 PM, Michael Brewer wrote: > How does site-specific preferences determine what a site is, though? > Is everything under one domain name considered to be one site? Is it > everything with same domain name and host name? What about parts of > the path in the URL? > > To use Dot Mac as an example... > > http://www.mac.com/ is a different site from http://webmail.mac.com/ > > and > > http://homepage.mac.com/jmbrew/ could be considered a different site > from http://homepage.mac.com/steve/ > > To use Ebay as an example... > > http://www.ebay.com/ should be considered the same site as > http://signin.ebay.com/ > > How does OmniWeb 5 treat these situations? From larkost at softhome.net Fri Jan 2 20:09:27 2004 From: larkost at softhome.net (Karl Kuehn) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: A Screenshot Request Message-ID: <45C26A24-3DA2-11D8-8A90-003065C12208@softhome.net> Since you guys at Omni have been rather loose with the screenshots on all the web boards, I thought I would ask you for a screenshot request: the current source editor. I am very curious to see what has been happening with my favorite part of OmniWeb. I would love if the JavaScript browser came back, and if view as processed could be revamped and reworked I would be even hapier. (PS... re-doing the text engine so that it could handle medium-to-large pages in a timely fashion would be nice too...) Oh... and one other thing: are you going to implement window closing from the Dock like the 10.3 finder? I realize that this would probably be a 10.3 only feature, but I would appreciate it. Karl Kuehn larkost@softhome.net From andrew_dunning at mac.com Fri Jan 2 20:35:05 2004 From: andrew_dunning at mac.com (Andrew Dunning) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: A Screenshot Request In-Reply-To: <45C26A24-3DA2-11D8-8A90-003065C12208@softhome.net> References: <45C26A24-3DA2-11D8-8A90-003065C12208@softhome.net> Message-ID: <1FB33435-3DA6-11D8-8BBF-00039317038E@mac.com> On 2-Jan-04, at 11:06 PM, Karl Kuehn wrote: > Since you guys at Omni have been rather loose with the screenshots on > all the web boards, I thought I would ask you for a screenshot > request: the current source editor. You beat me to it. What I'd also be curious in, though, is if XHTML (and CSS, somehow?) is now supported. Andrew From shrubberies at adelphia.net Sun Jan 4 14:32:02 2004 From: shrubberies at adelphia.net (shrubberies@adelphia.net) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OG and Rendezvous? Message-ID: On this page http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/NetServices/ why is OmniGroup listed under "See Also"? -Paul From larkost at softhome.net Sun Jan 4 14:40:03 2004 From: larkost at softhome.net (Karl Kuehn) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: OG and Rendezvous? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <93B4ACEA-3F07-11D8-87C0-003065C12208@softhome.net> Omni's developer lists are cited everywhere on Apple's site as another source of information. This has become standard Apple Developer Relations practice. Karl Kuehn larkost@softhome.net On Jan 4, 2004, at 5:31 PM, shrubberies@adelphia.net wrote: > On this page > > http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/NetServices/ > why is OmniGroup listed under "See Also"? From lists at thewonderllama.com Mon Jan 5 13:11:03 2004 From: lists at thewonderllama.com (Matt Rehder) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: macworld testing Message-ID: Anyone on the list beside the OG folks heading down to Macworld? If so we should compile a list of questions they can answer about OW 5. My two main questions, how well does the autocomplete work? and Have they implemented true support for webdav based bookmarks? -matt From list-omnigroup at fsck.net Mon Jan 5 13:38:01 2004 From: list-omnigroup at fsck.net (Eugene Lee) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: macworld testing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20040105213701.GA24416@Dark-Age.local> On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:10:53PM -0800, Matt Rehder wrote: : : Anyone on the list beside the OG folks heading down to Macworld? If so : we should compile a list of questions they can answer about OW 5. : : My two main questions, how well does the autocomplete work? and Have : they implemented true support for webdav based bookmarks? 1. Does the new file caching system solve the problem of bloating the OS X swapfiles? 2. How does the new cookie management system deal with cookies set by content from other domains/sites? How well do they work with the new Site Preferences? 3. If I want to share bookmarks with Safari, how compatible or how easy is this task? 4. If a character encoding has been manually selected for a specific page, is there a way to tell which one it is? Does this work with the new Site Preferences too? 5. Any support for saving a page as a web archive, a la RFC 2557? -- Eugene Lee (registered OW user) From andrew_dunning at mac.com Mon Jan 5 14:36:04 2004 From: andrew_dunning at mac.com (Andrew Dunning) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: macworld testing In-Reply-To: <20040105213701.GA24416@Dark-Age.local> References: <20040105213701.GA24416@Dark-Age.local> Message-ID: <68998EF0-3FCF-11D8-A01B-00039317038E@mac.com> On 5-Jan-04, at 4:37 PM, Eugene Lee wrote: > 1. Does the new file caching system solve the problem of bloating the > OS X swapfiles? > > 2. How does the new cookie management system deal with cookies set by > content from other domains/sites? How well do they work with the new > Site Preferences? > > 3. If I want to share bookmarks with Safari, how compatible or how easy > is this task? > > 4. If a character encoding has been manually selected for a specific > page, is there a way to tell which one it is? Does this work with the > new Site Preferences too? > > 5. Any support for saving a page as a web archive, a la RFC 2557? 6. Is XHTML supported in the source editor? Is there a way to easily view and edit the CSS for that page? 7. How advanced is the RSS reader? (For example, could it be a full replacement for NetNewsWire Lite?) Could it be integrated with another RSS reader? 8. Is there support for resumable downloads? Can the download manager be automatically cleared, like in Safari? 9. Does it use the latest WebCore available on the machine rather than bundling it (which results in an older version being used than Safari's, and a larger download)? 10. Does OmniWeb now allow individual components to be updated or added (like the rendering engine or localizations), rather than having to download the whole application? Andrew From dailygrind at thewonderllama.com Mon Jan 5 15:17:01 2004 From: dailygrind at thewonderllama.com (Brendan Sweeney) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: macworld testing In-Reply-To: <68998EF0-3FCF-11D8-A01B-00039317038E@mac.com> References: <20040105213701.GA24416@Dark-Age.local> <68998EF0-3FCF-11D8-A01B-00039317038E@mac.com> Message-ID: <3F2B4919-3FD5-11D8-904B-000A95DA3D0A@thewonderllama.com> On Jan 5, 2004, at 2:35 PM, Andrew Dunning wrote: > > On 5-Jan-04, at 4:37 PM, Eugene Lee wrote: >> 3. If I want to share bookmarks with Safari, how compatible or how >> easy >> is this task? Using your safari bookmarks in OW sounds to be pretty easy and nice. You can 'mount' them and OW'll stay current as you update them in Safari. Safari uses it's own undocumented and closed format for bookmarks though, that apple can change whenever they want and as such OG has decided not to try and write to what may be a moving target. They don't want to munge your Safari bookmarks just because Apple changed the syntax a bit for Safari 1.2. > 8. Is there support for resumable downloads? Can the download manager > be automatically cleared, like in Safari? They do support resumable downloads. > 9. Does it use the latest WebCore available on the machine rather than > bundling it (which results in an older version being used than > Safari's, and a larger download)? They don't just plop webcore into the middle of their code, it needs significant modification before it will work with OW's other components. 5.0 will come out with webcore v85 and then later an update for 5 (and probably 4.5) using WebCore v106. ~BS From larkost at softhome.net Tue Jan 6 06:19:11 2004 From: larkost at softhome.net (Karl Kuehn) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: A disclaimer worth emulating Message-ID: <287C6ACC-4053-11D8-984F-003065D8C728@softhome.net> Since OmniWeb has a Public Beta coming up, I thought it might be a good time to get psyched up for a good disclaimer, so here is a portion of the disclaimer that opendarwin.org has put on their KDE binaries: They may not work. They may not even install. They may make your monitor explode in a shower of glass. EVEN LCDs, WHICH DON'T CONTAIN ANY GLASS! They may make your children grow horns, and cause the people in your neighborhood to explode spontaneously while doing the Macarena. They will rip out your eyeballs, and eat your soul with a really dull spoon, laughing and cackling while forcing Cheerios up your nose. They will make your intestines explode in a rain of confetti, while evil clowns bite your feet. In short, we're not ready for bug reports yet So... the gauntlet has been thrown. Omni, care to pick it up? Karl Kuehn larkost@softhome.net From jakerobb at mac.com Tue Jan 6 06:53:01 2004 From: jakerobb at mac.com (Jake Robb) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: A disclaimer worth emulating In-Reply-To: <287C6ACC-4053-11D8-984F-003065D8C728@softhome.net> Message-ID: This brings up a somewhat philosophical question. Is a public beta a means to satiate the masses, or is it a means to help ensure that ALL of the bugs have been found? If the former, then yes, we're not ready for bug reports yet. If the latter, however, then bug reports would be welcomed, but no COMPLAINTS. I would expect that bug reports would be welcome from all, so long as it's understood that Omni knows that bugs exist, and that they are not releasing the public beta as bug-free software. -Jake Karl Kuehn wrote: > Since OmniWeb has a Public Beta coming up, I thought it might be a > good time to get psyched up for a good disclaimer, so here is a portion > of the disclaimer that opendarwin.org has put on their KDE binaries: > > They may not work. They may not even install. They may make your > monitor explode in a shower of glass. EVEN LCDs, WHICH DON'T CONTAIN > ANY GLASS! They may make your children grow horns, and cause the people > in your neighborhood to explode spontaneously while doing the Macarena. > They will rip out your eyeballs, and eat your soul with a really dull > spoon, laughing and cackling while forcing Cheerios up your nose. They > will make your intestines explode in a rain of confetti, while evil > clowns bite your feet. > > In short, we're not ready for bug reports yet > > So... the gauntlet has been thrown. Omni, care to pick it up? > > Karl Kuehn > larkost@softhome.net > > _______________________________________________ > OmniWeb-l mailing list > OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l From jimlongo at rdiv.com Tue Jan 6 08:21:01 2004 From: jimlongo at rdiv.com (Jim Longo) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:21 2005 Subject: The Omni Group Announces OmniWeb 5.0 Message-ID: <30123752-4064-11D8-B1C8-000393DCC0C6@rdiv.com> > Seattle, WA --December 31, 2003 -- The Omni Group today announced > OmniWeb 5.0 ? a major new version of the first web browser built > exclusively for Mac OS X. The company will be showcasing the software > at Macworld Conference and Expo January 6-9 (booth #934). A public > beta version will be available for download on February 2, 2004 with > the final version shipping in March. Did i miss something regarding the Jan 2nd availability of the pb? Can't find it? Thanks, Jim From lists at thewonderllama.com Tue Jan 6 08:25:02 2004 From: lists at thewonderllama.com (Matt Rehder) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:22 2005 Subject: The Omni Group Announces OmniWeb 5.0 In-Reply-To: <30123752-4064-11D8-B1C8-000393DCC0C6@rdiv.com> References: <30123752-4064-11D8-B1C8-000393DCC0C6@rdiv.com> Message-ID: Sorry to burst your bubble, but it won't be available until Feb. 2nd :( -matt On Jan 6, 2004, at 8:20 AM, Jim Longo wrote: >> Seattle, WA --December 31, 2003 -- The Omni Group today announced >> OmniWeb 5.0 ? a major new version of the first web browser built >> exclusively for Mac OS X. The company will be showcasing the software >> at Macworld Conference and Expo January 6-9 (booth #934). A public >> beta version will be available for download on February 2, 2004 with >> the final version shipping in March. > > > Did i miss something regarding the Jan 2nd availability of the pb? > Can't find it? > > Thanks, Jim > _______________________________________________ > OmniWeb-l mailing list > OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l > From larkost at softhome.net Tue Jan 6 08:26:03 2004 From: larkost at softhome.net (Karl Kuehn) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:22 2005 Subject: The Omni Group Announces OmniWeb 5.0 In-Reply-To: <30123752-4064-11D8-B1C8-000393DCC0C6@rdiv.com> References: <30123752-4064-11D8-B1C8-000393DCC0C6@rdiv.com> Message-ID: January 2nd? January? (hint... this is a Doh moment) On Jan 6, 2004, at 11:20 AM, Jim Longo wrote: >> Seattle, WA --December 31, 2003 -- The Omni Group today announced >> OmniWeb 5.0 ? a major new version of the first web browser built >> exclusively for Mac OS X. The company will be showcasing the software >> at Macworld Conference and Expo January 6-9 (booth #934). A public >> beta version will be available for download on February 2, 2004 with >> the final version shipping in March. > > > Did i miss something regarding the Jan 2nd availability of the pb? > Can't find it? From jimlongo at rdiv.com Tue Jan 6 08:41:00 2004 From: jimlongo at rdiv.com (Jim Longo) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:22 2005 Subject: The Omni Group Announces OmniWeb 5.0 In-Reply-To: References: <30123752-4064-11D8-B1C8-000393DCC0C6@rdiv.com> Message-ID: premature expectation . . . as Karl said, Doh! I'll keep an eye out for the OW5 Superbowl commercial. On Jan 6, 2004, at 11:24 AM, Matt Rehder wrote: > Sorry to burst your bubble, but it won't be available until Feb. 2nd :( > > -matt > > On Jan 6, 2004, at 8:20 AM, Jim Longo wrote: > >>>> Seattle, WA --December 31, 2003 -- The Omni Group today announced >>>> OmniWeb 5.0 ? a major new version of the first web browser built >>>> exclusively for Mac OS X. The company will be showcasing the >>>> software >>>> at Macworld Conference and Expo January 6-9 (booth #934). A public >>>> beta version will be available for download on February 2, 2004 with >>>> the final version shipping in March. >>> >>> >>> Did i miss something regarding the Jan 2nd availability of the pb? >>> Can't find it? >>> >>> Thanks, Jim >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OmniWeb-l mailing list >>> OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com >>> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l >>> >> >> >> > From timo at omnigroup.com Tue Jan 6 10:42:01 2004 From: timo at omnigroup.com (Tim Omernick) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:22 2005 Subject: A disclaimer worth emulating In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 6, 2004, at 6:52 AM, Jake Robb wrote: > so long as it's understood that Omni knows that bugs exist, and that > they are not releasing the public beta as bug-free software. Of course! The very nature of software is to have bugs! I for one can't wait for you all to try out 5.0 on Feb. 2nd -- the more bugs we can fix and the more polish we can put on this thing, the better. -t From larkost at softhome.net Tue Jan 6 11:40:02 2004 From: larkost at softhome.net (Karl Kuehn) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:22 2005 Subject: A disclaimer worth emulating In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: But to keep this conversation on topic (*must keep strait face* *must keep strait face*), I do hope that Omni keeps their sense of humo^D^D^D^Dseriousness and emulates that KDE disclaimer. On Jan 6, 2004, at 1:41 PM, Tim Omernick wrote: >> so long as it's understood that Omni knows that bugs exist, and that >> they are not releasing the public beta as bug-free software. > > Of course! The very nature of software is to have bugs! Lets see here... Redmond to Seattle... 16.3 miles... oh, close enough... :) > I for one can't wait for you all to try out 5.0 on Feb. 2nd -- the > more bugs we can fix and the more polish we can put on this thing, the > better. Wax on, wax off! Daniel-san! Karl Kuehn larkost@softhome.net PS... I do expect bugs in software.. especially the code I write! It was just too good a pot-shot to waste. From kit at mosdens.com Tue Jan 6 12:18:28 2004 From: kit at mosdens.com (Kit Mosden) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:22 2005 Subject: new to OW In-Reply-To: <200401062001.i06K1ool006075@slowbro.omnigroup.com> References: <200401062001.i06K1ool006075@slowbro.omnigroup.com> Message-ID: I'm new to OW so forgive me if this has been answered. Every time I launch OW Terminal launches as well and OW won't run without it. Is this normal? I am wanting to switch from Safari as it has become so slow. Thanks Kit From larkost at softhome.net Tue Jan 6 12:28:02 2004 From: larkost at softhome.net (Karl Kuehn) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:22 2005 Subject: new to OW In-Reply-To: References: <200401062001.i06K1ool006075@slowbro.omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <7FDC2843-4086-11D8-984F-003065D8C728@softhome.net> That is definitely not the normal behavior. Is there any message in the terminal window when you launch? Karl Kuehn larkost@softhome.net On Jan 6, 2004, at 3:14 PM, Kit Mosden wrote: > I'm new to OW so forgive me if this has been answered. Every time I > launch OW Terminal launches as well and OW won't run without it. Is > this normal? I am wanting to switch from Safari as it has become so > slow. From jakerobb at mac.com Tue Jan 6 12:38:45 2004 From: jakerobb at mac.com (Jake Robb) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:22 2005 Subject: new to OW In-Reply-To: <7FDC2843-4086-11D8-984F-003065D8C728@softhome.net> Message-ID: Terminal? Are you sure? Not Console? -Jake Karl Kuehn wrote: > That is definitely not the normal behavior. Is there any message in > the terminal window when you launch? > > Karl Kuehn > larkost@softhome.net > > On Jan 6, 2004, at 3:14 PM, Kit Mosden wrote: > >> I'm new to OW so forgive me if this has been answered. Every time I >> launch OW Terminal launches as well and OW won't run without it. Is >> this normal? I am wanting to switch from Safari as it has become so >> slow. > > _______________________________________________ > OmniWeb-l mailing list > OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l From jakerobb at mac.com Tue Jan 6 14:20:01 2004 From: jakerobb at mac.com (Jake Robb) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:22 2005 Subject: router config pages Message-ID: I have two broadband routers (on different networks). One is a Zyxel router with integrated DSL modem, and the other is an SMC router with integrated print server. When I load the LAN configuration pages for either of these routers, Safari renders a blank page. OmniWeb 4.5 works perfectly. I can't explain it. Anyone? Not that I'm complaining, but it's weird. Some sites I use (eBay, for instance) work better in Safari, so I use both browsers actively, and sometimes it throws me off and makes me think something's wrong with my router... -Jake From fcorbett at comcast.net Tue Jan 6 16:00:02 2004 From: fcorbett at comcast.net (Forrest Corbett) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:22 2005 Subject: router config pages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3C7D878C-40A4-11D8-BF2A-0003934C5EA6@comcast.net> Are you using the latest Safari? It is slightly different than the webcore that's in OW 4.5 On Jan 6, 2004, at 2:19 PM, Jake Robb wrote: > I have two broadband routers (on different networks). One is a Zyxel > router > with integrated DSL modem, and the other is an SMC router with > integrated > print server. When I load the LAN configuration pages for either of > these > routers, Safari renders a blank page. OmniWeb 4.5 works perfectly. > > I can't explain it. Anyone? > > Not that I'm complaining, but it's weird. Some sites I use (eBay, for > instance) work better in Safari, so I use both browsers actively, and > sometimes it throws me off and makes me think something's wrong with my > router... > > -Jake > > _______________________________________________ > OmniWeb-l mailing list > OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l > From larkost at softhome.net Tue Jan 6 17:45:03 2004 From: larkost at softhome.net (Karl Kuehn) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:22 2005 Subject: router config pages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From what I can tell from trying a number of routers with a number of browsers, they tend to have a lot of problems with the actual http side of things. These are really dumb devices, and the programmers (had to) take too many shortcuts in order to squeeze performance out of them. I would expect that things will get much better as improved hardware starts to trickle down from the latest round of micro-itx boards that are just now hitting the market (not to mention the nano-itx and new processors from transmedia). We are just about to replace an old (way to expensive... both to buy, and to have someone configure) PIX firewall, and the new $500 box will be faster, user configurable (I have to be replaceable by a monkey... and an untrained one at that), have transparent proxying, be a mail server, oh, and do the firewall duty too. If you watched the http traffic really closely i would bet you could find out what is going wrong in each case... and that layer of Safari and OmniWeb are completely different. Karl Kuehn larkost@softhome.net On Jan 6, 2004, at 5:19 PM, Jake Robb wrote: > I have two broadband routers (on different networks). One is a Zyxel > router > with integrated DSL modem, and the other is an SMC router with > integrated > print server. When I load the LAN configuration pages for either of > these > routers, Safari renders a blank page. OmniWeb 4.5 works perfectly. > > I can't explain it. Anyone? From list-omnigroup at fsck.net Tue Jan 6 21:42:01 2004 From: list-omnigroup at fsck.net (Eugene Lee) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:22 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 demos at MacWorld Expo Message-ID: <20040107054127.GB25907@Dark-Age.local> So did anyone get to play with OmniWeb 5 at the expo? :-) -- Eugene Lee http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ From sanguish at digifix.com Tue Jan 6 22:39:08 2004 From: sanguish at digifix.com (Scott Anguish) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:22 2005 Subject: router config pages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22403750-40DC-11D8-AAF5-000393D59866@digifix.com> On Jan 6, 2004, at 8:49 PM, Karl Kuehn wrote: > From what I can tell from trying a number of routers with a number of > browsers, they tend to have a lot of problems with the actual http > side of things. These are really dumb devices, and the programmers > (had to) take too many shortcuts in order to squeeze performance out > of them. > I'm not even sure performance can be the attributed cause. I think it's more commonly poor JavaScript/Java implementations at the UI level, and an utterly complete lack of testing with Mac software. I think 99% of the problems I've had are in the browser, due to poor quality content provided to it. From pixelcort at pixelcort.com Wed Jan 7 10:27:09 2004 From: pixelcort at pixelcort.com (Cortland Haws) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:22 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 demos at MacWorld Expo In-Reply-To: <20040107054127.GB25907@Dark-Age.local> References: <20040107054127.GB25907@Dark-Age.local> Message-ID: I did; and I must say that I really am looking forward to it's public beta! Good work, OmniGroup! On Jan 6, 2004, at 9:41 PM, Eugene Lee wrote: > So did anyone get to play with OmniWeb 5 at the expo? :-) > http://pixelcort.com/ xmpp:pixelcort@jabber.org From omnigroup.com at darkart.com Wed Jan 7 10:43:01 2004 From: omnigroup.com at darkart.com (Eric Hall) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:22 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 demos at MacWorld Expo In-Reply-To: References: <20040107054127.GB25907@Dark-Age.local> Message-ID: <20040107184259.GA48837@darkart.com> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:26:19AM -0800, Cortland Haws wrote: > > I did; and I must say that I really am looking forward to it's public > beta! > > Good work, OmniGroup! > > On Jan 6, 2004, at 9:41 PM, Eugene Lee wrote: > > >So did anyone get to play with OmniWeb 5 at the expo? :-) > > > I somehow managed to miss the OG booth yesterday (I really don't know how, it was one of my top priorities - too many distractions probably). I'll be going back tomorrow to play (and beg for a copy too). Workspaces in particular look soooo wonderful, I want them already!! -eric From list-omnigroup at fsck.net Wed Jan 7 11:11:04 2004 From: list-omnigroup at fsck.net (Eugene Lee) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:22 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 and dedicated status bar Message-ID: <20040107191043.GB392@Dark-Age.local> Will there be a dedicated status bar like all the other web browsers? Or will it retain the current pre-5 behavior of dynamically appearing at the bottom of the browser window? I don't like the current behavior because the window layout gets reformatted temporarily, which wastes CPU cycles and also creates an impression of a slower UI when the machine is taxed. I like Safari's implementation because it also shows whether clicking a link will open it in the current window or a new window. -- Eugene Lee http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ From timo at omnigroup.com Wed Jan 7 11:23:03 2004 From: timo at omnigroup.com (Tim Omernick) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:22 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 and dedicated status bar In-Reply-To: <20040107191043.GB392@Dark-Age.local> References: <20040107191043.GB392@Dark-Age.local> Message-ID: Yes. Here's a screenshot with the "Add Search" and "AutoFill" dynamic status bar items shown, as well as some "mouseover text": -t On Jan 7, 2004, at 11:10 AM, Eugene Lee wrote: > Will there be a dedicated status bar like all the other web browsers? > Or will it retain the current pre-5 behavior of dynamically appearing > at > the bottom of the browser window? I don't like the current behavior > because the window layout gets reformatted temporarily, which wastes > CPU > cycles and also creates an impression of a slower UI when the machine > is > taxed. I like Safari's implementation because it also shows whether > clicking a link will open it in the current window or a new window. > > > -- > Eugene Lee > http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ > _______________________________________________ > OmniWeb-l mailing list > OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l From jmbrew at mac.com Wed Jan 7 15:01:10 2004 From: jmbrew at mac.com (Michael Brewer) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:22 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 and dedicated status bar In-Reply-To: References: <20040107191043.GB392@Dark-Age.local> Message-ID: <45317777-4165-11D8-BF65-00039362C992@mac.com> On Jan 7, 2004, at 2:22 PM, Tim Omernick wrote: > Yes. Here's a screenshot with the "Add Search" and "AutoFill" dynamic > status bar items shown, as well as some "mouseover text": > > Shouldn't the status bar go above the content pane of the window? From timo at omnigroup.com Wed Jan 7 15:07:14 2004 From: timo at omnigroup.com (Tim Omernick) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:22 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 and dedicated status bar In-Reply-To: <45317777-4165-11D8-BF65-00039362C992@mac.com> References: <20040107191043.GB392@Dark-Age.local> <45317777-4165-11D8-BF65-00039362C992@mac.com> Message-ID: <16B042FE-4166-11D8-83F0-000A95A84D4C@omnigroup.com> Why not the bottom? :-) -t On Jan 7, 2004, at 3:00 PM, Michael Brewer wrote: > On Jan 7, 2004, at 2:22 PM, Tim Omernick wrote: > >> Yes. Here's a screenshot with the "Add Search" and "AutoFill" >> dynamic status bar items shown, as well as some "mouseover text": >> >> > > Shouldn't the status bar go above the content pane of the window? > > _______________________________________________ > OmniWeb-l mailing list > OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l From jmbrew at mac.com Wed Jan 7 15:41:51 2004 From: jmbrew at mac.com (Michael Brewer) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:22 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 and dedicated status bar In-Reply-To: <16B042FE-4166-11D8-83F0-000A95A84D4C@omnigroup.com> References: <20040107191043.GB392@Dark-Age.local> <45317777-4165-11D8-BF65-00039362C992@mac.com> <16B042FE-4166-11D8-83F0-000A95A84D4C@omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <78FDF4F2-416A-11D8-BF65-00039362C992@mac.com> On Jan 7, 2004, at 6:06 PM, Tim Omernick wrote: > Why not the bottom? :-) Most proper apps (that means Aqua apps :)) have it positioned below the toolbar. It looks better there, it's located closer to the other information/navigation controls of the window, and it leaves the bottom- and right-most edges for scroll bars when needed and a nice clean content pane when no scroll bars are required. From timo at omnigroup.com Wed Jan 7 16:35:06 2004 From: timo at omnigroup.com (Tim Omernick) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:22 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 and dedicated status bar In-Reply-To: <78FDF4F2-416A-11D8-BF65-00039362C992@mac.com> References: <20040107191043.GB392@Dark-Age.local> <45317777-4165-11D8-BF65-00039362C992@mac.com> <16B042FE-4166-11D8-83F0-000A95A84D4C@omnigroup.com> <78FDF4F2-416A-11D8-BF65-00039362C992@mac.com> Message-ID: <645C020C-4172-11D8-92C0-000A95A84D4C@omnigroup.com> Interesting idea. I assume that by "Most proper apps" you mean apps like Mail and Finder which show some sort of summary information like "x total items, y items selected". I'm not sure how well it would look in OmniWeb, but maybe we'll experiment with it sometime! Thanks, -t On Jan 7, 2004, at 3:37 PM, Michael Brewer wrote: > On Jan 7, 2004, at 6:06 PM, Tim Omernick wrote: > >> Why not the bottom? :-) > > Most proper apps (that means Aqua apps :)) have it positioned below > the toolbar. It looks better there, it's located closer to the other > information/navigation controls of the window, and it leaves the > bottom- and right-most edges for scroll bars when needed and a nice > clean content pane when no scroll bars are required. > > _______________________________________________ > OmniWeb-l mailing list > OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l From neil at thenonsuch.com Wed Jan 7 16:39:08 2004 From: neil at thenonsuch.com (Neil Lee) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:22 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 and dedicated status bar In-Reply-To: <78FDF4F2-416A-11D8-BF65-00039362C992@mac.com> References: <20040107191043.GB392@Dark-Age.local> <45317777-4165-11D8-BF65-00039362C992@mac.com> <16B042FE-4166-11D8-83F0-000A95A84D4C@omnigroup.com> <78FDF4F2-416A-11D8-BF65-00039362C992@mac.com> Message-ID: <04D28CB0-4173-11D8-9161-0003931C6686@thenonsuch.com> Le 07 janv. 2004, ? 17:37, Michael Brewer a ?crit : >> Why not the bottom? :-) > > Most proper apps (that means Aqua apps :)) have it positioned below > the toolbar. It looks better there, it's located closer to the other > information/navigation controls of the window, and it leaves the > bottom- and right-most edges for scroll bars when needed and a nice > clean content pane when no scroll bars are required. Every single browser that I can think of has their status bar at the bottom of the window; I don't see why OmniWeb should be any different. In fact, that's been one of my UI nitpicks about OW in the past - I'm so used to looking at the bottom of the window for status bar information, I always miss the changing address bar. Neil --- Slumming at the beatnikPad : http://www.beatnikpad.com/ Working at theNonsuch: http://reblog.thenonsuch.com/ e-mail: salut@thenonsuch.com | yeah. From dailygrind at thewonderllama.com Wed Jan 7 20:53:10 2004 From: dailygrind at thewonderllama.com (Brendan Sweeney) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:22 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 and dedicated status bar In-Reply-To: <04D28CB0-4173-11D8-9161-0003931C6686@thenonsuch.com> References: <20040107191043.GB392@Dark-Age.local> <45317777-4165-11D8-BF65-00039362C992@mac.com> <16B042FE-4166-11D8-83F0-000A95A84D4C@omnigroup.com> <78FDF4F2-416A-11D8-BF65-00039362C992@mac.com> <04D28CB0-4173-11D8-9161-0003931C6686@thenonsuch.com> Message-ID: <80CD8138-4196-11D8-A28B-000A95DA3D0A@thewonderllama.com> On Jan 7, 2004, at 4:38 PM, Neil Lee wrote: > > In fact, that's been one of my UI nitpicks about OW in the past - I'm > so used to looking at the bottom of the window for status bar > information, I always miss the changing address bar. I like the current behavior of 4.5, a quick mouse over apple-l and apple-c and you have the link in buffer. ~BS From list-omnigroup at fsck.net Wed Jan 7 23:23:26 2004 From: list-omnigroup at fsck.net (Eugene Lee) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:22 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 and dedicated status bar In-Reply-To: References: <20040107191043.GB392@Dark-Age.local> Message-ID: <20040108072216.GA1065@Dark-Age.local> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:22:08AM -0800, Tim Omernick wrote: : : On Jan 7, 2004, at 11:10 AM, Eugene Lee wrote: : : >Will there be a dedicated status bar like all the other web browsers? : : Yes. Here's a screenshot with the "Add Search" and "AutoFill" dynamic : status bar items shown, as well as some "mouseover text": : : Happy happy joy joy! BTW, interesting workspace... ;-) http://homepage.mac.com/omniweb5/.Pictures/WorkspaceSwitcher.jpg -- Eugene Lee http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ From jtyzack at mac.com Thu Jan 8 03:50:14 2004 From: jtyzack at mac.com (Jonathan Tyzack) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:22 2005 Subject: I think I've found the reason for the majority of my crashes in 4.5 and Panther Message-ID: Hi, Just as a FYI, I've noticed that 90% of the (too frequent) crashes I'm getting with OW 4.5 and Panther are occurring with any newly opened windows and concurrent usage of Expos? - if I command or command shift click a link (or use the contextual menu equivalents), and then use Expos? before/during/immediately after the appearance of that window in the back or foreground, I tend to get a crash. The crash reporter log when it appears is always highlighted at a blah,blah,blah,OnMouseEvent,blah,blah,blah message... Is anyone else noticing this? Perhaps I'm seeing it more frequently because I only have a low-end machine (400MHz G3 iMac) and thus the opening window is taking that little bit longer to appear than for people with higher end machines and I am therefore able to catch this Expos? flaw? Cheers, Jonathan From shrubberies at adelphia.net Thu Jan 8 11:14:46 2004 From: shrubberies at adelphia.net (shrubberies@adelphia.net) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:35:22 2005 Subject: fruits of Macworld test drive? Message-ID: <334FA31E-420E-11D8-8FC2-000393B6B888@adelphia.net> Any insights or changes coming as a result of the drive-by test driving at MacWorld? -Paul