The Omni Group Announces OmniWeb 5.0

[Phill R Kenoyer]

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.