# Chimera hits 0.28



## serpicolugnut (May 28, 2002)

Dave comes through with another build! 

Here's what's new...

Autocomplete has been implemented in the URL bar. 

The Go menu has been implemented, so that you can now go back and forward multiple steps. 

Bookmarks menus (in the menu bar and personal toolbar) now have icons. 

Downloads can still only be initiated using Option+Click or the context menu, but they will now at least show progress. 

The status bar now has a security indicator. 

Prefs panels are starting to trickle in. 

Plugins have gotten some tweaks and fixes. 

The Toggle Sidebar button crasher (from customizing the toolbar) has now been fixed. 

What's New (0.2.6 -> 0.2.7) You can now drag the page proxy icon from the URL bar


----------



## whitesaint (May 28, 2002)

Very nice can't wait to download it when i get home!


----------



## Brewster (May 28, 2002)

I thought there was no new builds until july because dave was on sabatical.


----------



## homer (May 28, 2002)

If you go to the Chimera site, he says they released it because of all the rumors floating around.  It's anyone's guess. . . .


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 28, 2002)

Apparently my consipracy theory (which was echoed by the Register and several other sites) prompted Dave to get this build out before his vacation. Whatever the reason, it's a much welcomed release.

Autocomplete works great (and man - is it fast!), we finally have a progress indicator on downloads (although you still have to rt.click or option click and do a "Save As", icons in the favorites menu, and improved plugin support. Also, another thing I noticed - ESPN.com would not load any subpages in previous Navigator builds. In 0.28, the site loads just fine. 

At the current rate of development, this browser will eclipse all others in 6 months (it already eclipses them in speed and stability)...


----------



## homer (May 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *At the current rate of development, this browser will eclipse all others in 6 months (it already eclipses them in speed and stability)... *



I agree with you on the speed, but stability is another matter.  Chimera's the only browser that's crashed on me anytime recently, just a little while ago, actually.


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 28, 2002)

I'm not saying it's crash proof, but compared with IE and OmniWeb, it's the most stable of the bunch on my Macs (see below). It's just about as stable as Mozilla, which is THE most stable browser I've used so far under OS X.


----------



## cybergoober (May 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *I'm not saying it's crash proof, but compared with IE and OmniWeb, it's the most stable of the bunch on my Macs (see below). It's just about as stable as Mozilla, which is THE most stable browser I've used so far under OS X. *



0.2.8 is the only browser I've had crash by clicking the Back button. Otherwise, it's great.


----------



## fryke (May 28, 2002)

still can't get rid of the bookmarks bar. looks ugly. back to real browsers.


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 28, 2002)

> 0.2.8 is the only browser I've had crash by clicking the Back button. Otherwise, it's great.



IE is the only app that I've had crash when it was doing NOTHING. It was just sitting there with a blank page, when all of a sudden it crashed, and then took down the entire system via a kernel panic. Go figure.

OmniWeb crashes on me more than any other application. I can get about 10-15 minutes of surfing in before the bomb hits.

The Mozilla Bros. are the most stable of the bunch right now...


----------



## wdw_ (May 28, 2002)

I wish they would add auto-complete in the menu that drops down when the toolbar is hidden and you hit Apple-L.


----------



## nkuvu (May 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> * OmniWeb crashes on me more than any other application. I can get about 10-15 minutes of surfing in before the bomb hits.
> *


Weird.  I've had OW crash on me twice -- once when clearing out my Trashmail, er, Hotmail account and selecting all messages, once when I had waaay too many windows open.  (About 25 IIRC)

But then again, I don't go to a lot of intensive websites (it's dial-up, why would I want to download 23542 flash animations to browse?).


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 28, 2002)

> But then again, I don't go to a lot of intensive websites (it's dial-up, why would I want to download 23542 flash animations to browse?).



That's the kicker - OW usually crashes on very simple pages. There seems to be no rhyme or reason as to what causes it. I used to use the crash reporter religously, but after I switched email clients to Entourage, I stopped, due to some wierd bug between Entourage and OW's Crash Reporter that would get stuck in an endless loop of crashing and starting up.


----------



## nkuvu (May 28, 2002)

OK, just plain bizarre.  Then again, Chimera crashes on my system about as fast as it loads pages.  "Here's a page *crash*"  *restart* "Here's another page *crash*"....


----------



## spitty27 (May 28, 2002)

might sound a little bit stupid and out of place, but what is the official chimera website...?


----------



## phatsharpie (May 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by spitty27 _
> *might sound a little bit stupid and out of place, but what is the official chimera website...? *



http://chimera.mozdev.org


----------



## anrkngl (May 28, 2002)

Crash:

Apple-W to close browser window. Click on Navigator icon, and then hit Apple-N to bring up a new one. Boom on my machine.


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 28, 2002)

> Apple-W to close browser window. Click on Navigator icon, and then hit Apple-N to bring up a new one. Boom on my machine.



When I follow those steps, I don't get a crash, but I get the Spinning Cursor of Death, and have to force quit Navigator.

Make sure you log it in the bug reports over atChimera Home Page


----------



## googolplex (May 28, 2002)

Whoa I missed reporting this by a mile.....


----------



## simX (May 28, 2002)

Testing... testing... testing...

OK, I really question developers that can't do something as little as fixing the SPEED OF TYPING IN TEXT FIELDS.

Really.  Seriously.  I don't need to file a bug report for this, and I'm still typing a millimeter a minute and Chimera can't keep up.  That's so stupid.

And you can't download files by SINGLE clicking on the link?  What is this?  A WINDOWS application?

Enough of this browser.  I feel that this is probably going to be the next Netscape of browsers -- focusing on features that are close to unnecessary for most people and ignoring those features that are critical.  That's quite unfortunate, because I have to admit it is one of the faster browsers out there.... wait, I take that back.  I've, like, typed this whole sentence already and it takes me about 15 seconds to watch Chimera finish typing it on the screen.

serpi:  I don't know what's wrong with your computer, but I have browsed using OmniWeb for well over 15 minutes without it crashing.  It's as stable as a rock, even more so than Chimera and IE... GOD DAMNIT I HATE WATCHING MY COMPUTER TYPE LIKE THIS.  It gets even slower when there is more text in the text field.

Back to a REAL browser.  I don't even know why I bother with Chimera.  What a joke.


----------



## phatsharpie (May 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by simX _
> *Back to a REAL browser.  I don't even know why I bother with Chimera.  What a joke. *



What's with the browser bashing? A "real" browser? Shouldn't a "real" browser display most W3C code and CSS correctly? Considering that at a 0.2.x release Chimera can display webpages more correctly than Omniweb, I think you need to rethink what you mean by a "real" browser. People have different preferences, why don't we let people use their favorite browser without resorting to attacks? As Mac users, don't we know how stupid it is to bash other people's software choices by now?

P.S. I am using Chimera 0.2.8 to type this, and the text box speed has vastly improved.

P.P.S. If you don't like Chimera, don't use it. There are plenty of options, but please lay off on calling other people's choices "jokes".


----------



## iFunk (May 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by phatsharpie _
> *
> 
> What's with the browser bashing? A "real" browser? Shouldn't a "real" browser display most W3C code and CSS correctly? Considering that at a 0.2.x release Chimera can display webpages more correctly than Omniweb, I think you need to rethink what you mean by a "real" browser.
> ...



yeah, browsers have feelings too

i use IE --> flame me


----------



## simX (May 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by phatsharpie _
> *
> 
> What's with the browser bashing? A "real" browser? Shouldn't a "real" browser display most W3C code and CSS correctly? Considering that at a 0.2.x release Chimera can display webpages more correctly than Omniweb, I think you need to rethink what you mean by a "real" browser. People have different preferences, why don't we let people use their favorite browser without resorting to attacks? As Mac users, don't we know how stupid it is to bash other people's software choices by now?
> ...



phatsharpie:  I know I have a choice, and that's why I use OmniWeb.

The reason that I am bashing Chimera so much in that last post is because it can't get SIMPLE THINGS RIGHT.  OmniWeb, contrary to what most people say, actually displays most websites right.  And even so, TYPING IN TEXT FIELDS IS FAR MORE BASIC.  Where OmniWeb displays 95% of websites right, Chimera is fast in *0%* of text fields.  Because a lot of my time is spent here at MacOSX.com, it's ludicrous to think I will use Chimera when I can't reliably type in text fields.

Oh, and by the way, typing in text fields has NOT improved one bit in 0.28 from 0.27.


----------



## Realmeatychunks (May 28, 2002)

I like Chimera -- I think it renders pages quite nicely.  Omniweb is still much 'prettier' with the aqua elements and such, but Chimera is much faster.

HOWEVER - 0.28 is VERY unstable.  I have been using chimera all night and it has crashed probably 12 times. 0.27 seemed a lot more stable.


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 28, 2002)

SimX -
Typing in Chimera is plenty fast on my Macs (see below) - and I can type pretty darn fast.  0.28 is more unstable than 0.27, but that seems to be the pattern - one release introduces a bunch of new features and bugs, the next release cleans up the bugs, etc. etc.

I don't know why OW is so damn crash prone on my machines. I really like OW alot. It's my #2 browser for most things. But it really steams me that after being in development for a year now, that it still is so unstable.

Also, with regard to OW rendering "most sites right" - are you kidding? OW's limited support of Javascript and especially CSS support makes around 10-15% of the websites I visit render incorrectly, some so bad that the page is unviewable. Say what you will about Chimera's bugs and lack of features (again, it's a 0.28 release - which by definiting means it isn't even 3/10's of the way done), but thanks to the Gecko rendering engine, at least it renders HTML/CSS/Javascript according to the standards, something that OW probably won't be capable of for at least another year when OW 5 is release (according to the developers own notes).


----------



## adambyte (May 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by iFunk _
> *
> 
> yeah, browsers have feelings too
> ...



(Insert flame here)


I just downloaded at tried Chimera .28 today. It's nice and speedy, a fun browser to use.... however, this version crashes SO much more than .27.... Before, it was unusable because it lacked features. Now, it's unusable because it's instable. This makes Adam sad.   Adam wants to make Chimera his main browser. If Chimera is stable, Adam will be happy again.

Also... does anybody else have this problem..? When I control-click to edit a bookmark's name, or something like that, ALL of the options in the menu are greyed out... WHY?


----------



## simX (May 28, 2002)

serpi:  Right.  Fast.  This movie (click the link) shows how fast Chimera is typing when I am using it with the normal amount of applications open.  Mind you, this movie was taken with no apps open except for Chimera, and was taken using Snapz Pro 1.0.3.  Nevertheless, this is the speed that it usually types at with 5 or 6 applications open.  Even when I'm not taking a movie and when nothing else is open, Chimera just barely keeps up.

That is not what I call a good browser.

A note about the movie.  I finished typing the whole post I INTENDED to make by the time the word "last" comes up, at 0:43.  Needless to say, Chimera finishes typing at 1:04, with NUMEROUS omissions in the last few sentences (not to mention that I can't really correct very well).  This DOES NOT QUALIFY as "plenty fast". 

Oh, and one last thing.  I wouldn't recommend watching that movie with Chimera -- it makes a weird window.

Oh, and one other thing.  Even if you're right, serpi, that OmniWeb can only display 10-15% of all web pages correctly (which is a totally false statistic), OmniWeb would STILL be better than Chimera which types takes more than 20 seconds to finish typing 2 or 3 sentences.  That last sentence, by the way, was "I could probably go down and make some tea, and when I come back Chimera would STILL not be finished typing."


----------



## dricci (May 28, 2002)

I just did a test with Chimera Navigator and I have no slowness whatsoever. This was running an app in classic, AIM X, Icy Juice, Mozilla and Mail, all in the background. It seemed just as fast as Mozilla, if not faster. The only time I had *ANY* slowness was when I tried to capture it with Snapz Pro, but that slows down everything that I've ever tried it with. And I'm only running a 733 QuickSilver with no L3 Cache!

I think if you're having speed issues, it may be due to your current setup or lack of ram or something, because with my bottom-o-thebarrol PowerMac I have no speed issues with text input.

Anyways, it's still in early early development. I wouldn't judge it yet. I'm sure everything will get worked out eventually, but what they've done so far is amazing.


----------



## simX (May 28, 2002)

If you looked at my sig, dricci, you'd see that I have a G4 cube running at 450 MHz with 896 MB RAM.  That's enough speed and memory, and I shouldn't need any more to make typing in text fields run NORMALLY.


----------



## dricci (May 28, 2002)

Well, I've had no speed issues at all. You do have more ram than me, so I don't really know what it could be other than something not agreeing with your system.

For me it was instant input with tons of apps running, including classic and an app, so I really don't know.

And I'm not a slow typer, either.


----------



## phatsharpie (May 28, 2002)

Does a 0.2.x version application deserve so much complaint? Why is everyone b*tching about Chimera as if it's a fully completed app? Heck, I love this browser and it's not even my main browser, simply because it's alpha software and A LOT of work still needs to be done!

If you don't like playing with alpha software, don't use it, and if you have constructive criticism, submit it to the developers.

I think we should be glad that there are so many options and developments going on for Mac OS X.

SimX: I am sorry, but I am not experiencing any text box input slowdown whatsoever. I type quite fast, and Chimera keeps up with me quite well. Text input was slow as molasses in earlier version, but it's on par with Mozilla and IE for me now.


----------



## aishafenton (May 29, 2002)

SimX, I prefer OW too at the moment. But I completely disagree with you on about Chimera future. Chimera bug's are all related to the UI and developing a nice Cocoa UI (hurray for Cocoa) isn't going to be a big deal.

Okay I agree that at the moment Chimera is next to unusable... and maybe they should be a little more attentive to developing some of the really big missing features.. But hey, at the end of the day all that is really needed is to write UI wrappers around the gecko engine.

Omni on the other hand have a very tidy/nice UI, but their problem is with their rendering engine. IMO I don't think Omni will ever be able to solve this fully with their current 2/3 developers working on it. The gecko rendering engine has taken years to get up to scratch with many developers working on it (and it's still not perfect).

The rendering problem isn't a problem of ability and panache - which I think Omni have. It is a problem of man hours. You have to support 10 standards that have a hundred different versions that change every week. And if they don't support them all then you'll need IE on hand to view some pages.

Unfortunately I think the best use of Omni's time would be to apply their obviously talented programming skills to giving Chimera a great UI.


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 29, 2002)

It's very comparable to the house analogy...

If you're foundation (rendering engine) is solid, then anything else can be fixed... But if your foundation is shaky, you are going to have a very hard time getting the rest of the house right.

Chimera's rendering engine (Gecko/Mozilla) works great. It renders standards perfectly, and one ups Mozilla/Netscape by using OS X native widgets, just like OW. 

OW, on the other hand, has a great front end. It's very well polished and has some nice touches to it. However, there are so many problems with it's rendering engine, I just don't see it catching up with IE in it's support of web standards. 

It's not impossible for them to fix, but with a small development team, it will take them a long time. Mozilla's rendering engine has been in development for 4 years by thousands of developers. As a result, it fully supports standards and renders pages correctly as long as standards are used.


----------



## fryke (May 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by phatsharpie _
> *Does a 0.2.x version application deserve so much complaint? Why is everyone b*tching about Chimera as if it's a fully completed app? Heck, I love this browser and it's not even my main browser, simply because it's alpha software and A LOT of work still needs to be done!*



Because some users were praising it too high. It was said to be the all-other-browser killer at the stage of 0.2.2, which made me - among others - angry, because it was still lacking almost everything.



> *I think we should be glad that there are so many options and developments going on for Mac OS X.*



Yes. And that's all I, for example, am saying. I just think it's ridiculous to have a separate thread for every 0.2.x release, praising stuff to the heavens that have been here for more than a decade. (Bookmarks!!!)

I'm glad there's a diversity of players in this field - as long as the *old* browser wars don't start up again, where companies like Netscape and Microsoft made it almost impossible for web developers to make a website that worked well with both browsers. (Of course, that's the devs' failure, too.)

If Chimera (and I *really* hope they switch back from calling it 'Navigator') development goes well, this will be a nice player in some time. But right now it ****s, IE will make inroads come Jaguar and IE 5.5 and OmniWeb, though a very good Cocoa application, still has its way to go for standards compliance. Opera seems an outside player, iCab too. And Mozilla per se is too bloated.

If Chimera can be OS X' Galeon, I'm happy as a fruit cake.


----------



## lonny (May 29, 2002)

I like having choices!
Chimera (yep, much better than navigator, IMHO) is a great choice!
I still have to figure out which browser to make default. At the moment it's iCab (believe it or not!) just because of its download manager and ability to save webarchives.

I'd love to use Omniweb, but it just acts weird on a number of sites that I use everyday: bank, webmail etc.
Chimera does them justice, and that's all that matters at the end of the day. Plus it's fast and pretty.

True, text entering is slow, but it won't be like that for long!

Now, everyone go back to their repsective browsers!

P.S. isn't it nice to have open standards?


----------



## googolplex (May 29, 2002)

For gods sakes its 0.28! Just be quiet I'm sick of your guys bashing alpha software. Stop it!


----------



## googolplex (May 29, 2002)

And if you are so insulted by these threads please just ignore them. Stop being asses about it.

I like you guys but this really is starting to **** me off. We like chimera let us talk about it please.


----------



## solrac (May 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by simX _
> *The reason that I am bashing Chimera so much in that last post is because it can't get SIMPLE THINGS RIGHT.  OmniWeb, contrary to what most people say, actually displays most websites right.  And even so, TYPING IN TEXT FIELDS IS FAR MORE BASIC.  Where OmniWeb displays 95% of websites right, Chimera is fast in 0% of text fields.  Because a lot of my time is spent here at MacOSX.com, it's ludicrous to think I will use Chimera when I can't reliably type in text fields.
> 
> Oh, and by the way, typing in text fields has NOT improved one bit in 0.28 from 0.27. *



You're missing the point. You can't bash Chimera for having bad text fields unless you are a true professional cocoa developer and know what it takes to get it right. I'm not, I have no idea what it takes.

The point is, you should find a work around. Chimera is SO fast, and SO stable, and SO ---- F- U- C- K- I- N- G-  ---- GREAT that it is worth finding a work around.

Simple work around: type in text edit. That way, if you're typing a long post or email, you can save the text to your hard drive in case your computer crashes, or there's a power failure, or whatever. Then you won't lose your work. Second, you do stuff like Find and Replace all. It's much nicer to type in Text Edit than ANY web browser. Then, just do select all, then paste into Chimera. That happens instantly, by the way 

Oh, and text fields in IE **** too. Did you know if you try to select a big block of text, the selection hilite gets all screwed up and all the text gets redrawn incorrectly and the placement is all off? Text blocks seem to disappear even though they are still there. It's MUCH more aggravating than Chimera's text block.

So why did I decide to find this work around and paste text into Chimera? Well, because it's so great it deserves it. You say "it can't get SIMPLE THINGS RIGHT." This is what people said about Mac OS X when it came out, too. Even 6 months ago. But we all used it anyway? Why? Because it was SOOO MUCH BETTER that it was worth putting up with the bull****. Same with Chimera. It's so much god damn better than it was worth finding the TextEdit work around, and it's also a good habit to use text edit ANYWAY instead of the browser, any browser. (Then just copy/paste.) Like I said in another post, Chimera is a direct analogy to OS X. Where OS X was GREAT yet had bad problems, we all stuck with it cuz we saw how GREAT it was. Now it's Chimera's turn. We will stick with it despite the stupid little problems because it's core is something great, something beautiful. Good software.

And if you typed that WHOLE post in frustration in Chimera's slow text box, then you are letting your computer OWN you. I, on the other hand, used Text Edit and instead chose to OWN my computer.

I know you can see this, SimX, because as a Mac OS X user, I know you're god damn smart and ahead of the crowd.


----------



## kainjow (May 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *OW, on the other hand, has a great front end. It's very well polished and has some nice touches to it. However, there are so many problems with it's rendering engine, I just don't see it catching up with IE in it's support of web standards.*


I completely agree with you. IE is way more advanced then all the other browsers, you guys can't even compare.


----------



## dricci (May 29, 2002)

Yes, IE dominates all. It even has Smart Crash Technology direct from Windows 98! Smart Crash brings the browser to a halt and kills it when it senses you've been using the Internet for too long. Of course, in Microsoft Time, this can be only seconds after application launch.


----------



## googolplex (May 29, 2002)

How is IE advanced? Give me some features?


----------



## fryke (May 29, 2002)

IE's advanced features...

- It has full standards compliancy.
- It's rendering pages quite fast.
- It has a page holder.
- It can save sites as archives.
- You can hide all interface elements.
- It has coloured themes.
- ...


----------



## Paragon (May 29, 2002)

one question...I'm running Jaguar and I was wondering does chimera support the QE, or does all browsers.


----------



## simX (May 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by googolplex _
> *And if you are so insulted by these threads please just ignore them. Stop being asses about it.
> 
> I like you guys but this really is starting to **** me off. We like chimera let us talk about it please. *



gplex, and you're not ****ing me off?

I WANT to like Chimera.  I LIKE that it has all the nice Cocoa stuff.

BUT I WILL NOT STAND FOR A BROWSER THAT TAKES ALL HELL JUST TO FINISH TYPING IN A TEXT FIELD.

I CANNOT believe how many people here do not understand that.  I even POSTED A MOVIE SHOWING HOW SLOW IT IS.  Maybe it's my computer that's causing the problem and that since you all have a better computer, then Chimera types in text fields faster.  BUT IT DOES NOT IN MINE, AND IT SHOULD NOT TAKE A 10000000 MHZ COMPUTER TO WRITE IN TEXT FIELDS DECENTLY!

Like I said, gplex, I WANT TO LIKE CHIMERA.  I WANT IT TO KILL ALL OTHER BROWSERS.  But it *DOES NOT* WHEN YOU HAVE SUCH A SIMPLE PROBLEM AS SLOW TYPING IN TEXT FIELDS.

I did not say that OmniWeb is perfect.  I know that it displays many websites wrong, and that it doesn't work well for my online bank and for the online management system called Axess here at Stanford University.  BUT AT LEAST IT TYPES IN TEXT FIELDS AT THE SPEED I'M TYPING.

Sheesh.  This is getting way out of hand, and it seems that some people do not understand how simple this "feature" is.  It's supposed to be taken for granted, but obviously the developers of Chimera do not think so.  I'm sorry that it has come to this, but I do question developers who can't get this simple feature "right".

And by the way, gplex, I AM talking about Chimera.  And I'm ****ed off that the developers can't get this simple thing right!  So don't tell me to buzz off, because I am going to continue complaining in all of your Chimera threads until the developers GET THIS RIGHT!  Other forum members of MacOSX.com deserve to hear the problems I have with Chimera so that they know TO AVOID IT if they have a "slow" computer like mine.

solrac:  I AM a developer.  I make Memory Usage Getter.  While it is not a web browser, it is an application, and I DO have text fields in it.

Do you know what it takes to make decent typing in text fields?  You PLACE THE TEXT FIELD IN INTERFACE BUILDER.  That's it.  When you run the program, text field typing is up to speed, no matter how fast you type.  Period.  So, yes, I *DO* know how "hard" (i.e.: read "super simple") it is to make a text field type correctly.

And don't go telling me to use TextEdit.  If a web browser isn't user friendly enough to allow me to type in text fields, it doesn't deserve to be used with a workaround.  Even if Chimera displayed all web pages instantly (which, by the way, it does not), I would still not use it because IT DOES NOT TYPE IN TEXT FIELDS WELL.

Get some sense into your heads people.  I'm sorry that I have to get this mad, but I just can't understand why you people can't grasp the fact that Chimera ****s because of this one fact.  Note that if Chimera would fix THIS ONE PROBLEM, my "rating" for Chimera would INSTANTLY go from "****s ass" to "nice browser!".  Unfortunately, this problem isn't fixed, so Chimera still "****s ass".


----------



## solrac (May 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by simX _
> *solrac:  I AM a developer.  I make Memory Usage Getter.  While it is not a web browser, it is an application, and I DO have text fields in it.
> 
> Do you know what it takes to make decent typing in text fields?  You PLACE THE TEXT FIELD IN INTERFACE BUILDER.  That's it.  When you run the program, text field typing is up to speed, no matter how fast you type.  Period.  So, yes, I DO know how "hard" (i.e.: read "super simple") it is to make a text field type correctly.
> ...



Then, SimX, you are a dumbass. Hardcore.

You should instantly delete Mac OS X and install windows, because on Mac OS X there is no "Replace All" button for dragging and dropping files. You have to replace one by one. ANY NICE, STANDARD OS SHOULD HAVE A REPLACE ALL BUTTON!! So since Mac OS X doesn't, it ****s ass!!! Well it's a great system and it's the future despite its little flaws. There an easy work around if you learn to move files using Terminal. Chimera's text edit workaround is much easier. In fact, using Text Edit is better than using ANY browser's text field. You know I misspelled your name as SimmX 100 times, and I just did a replace all. Too bad you can't do that in your precious browser text field. Awww poor baby.

So anyway, why don't you delete Mac OS X? There's no replace all button. To me that's worse than a slow text field.

And you know what, you're a ****ty developer too. Why? Because you say that to make a textfield work well, all you do is drag it into Interface Builder. Well I'm pretty damn sure that's what the folks behind chimera did. How about if you tell me why Chimera's text fields DON'T type fast. Now THAT would be useful.


----------



## ksuther (May 29, 2002)

My lord you people get all worked up about something so simple as a browser. It seems this is the only thing we ever argue about around here. Can't find find something else to scream and moan about? 

And now back to your regularly scheduled program...


----------



## simX (May 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by solrac _
> *
> 
> Then, SimX, you are a dumbass. Hardcore.
> ...



Your analogy is flawed, solrac.  Why?  Because I don't use the "Replace All" feature as much as I do typing in a text field.  In fact, I haven't really run into that problem except once or twice in my usage of Mac OS X.  In contrast, I would run into the text field problem more than 100 times a day because I come to MacOSX.com every day.  So while my productivity would go down 100 times if I used Chimera instead, my productivity using Mac OS X has gone down 0.000001% because of the "Replace All" problem.  And that has been offset by the increase of productivity with the features like pre-emptive multitasking, and protected memory.

The point is, it's the OVERALL EXPERIENCE.  And since I use text fields every day, the OVERALL EXPERIENCE with Chimera goes tumbling downhill because of this bug.  The OVERALL EXPERIENCE with Mac OS X has actually gone up from Mac OS 9.

Oh, and by the way.  I don't need the Find/Replace feature from TextEdit because I spell all names of users and almost all words correctly the first time I type it.  So that point has been made pointless, too.

And then you call me a "****ty developer" because I can't tell you why Chimera's text fields are so slow.  NEWS FLASH: I DON'T WORK ON CHIMERA  I work on Memory Usage Getter.  But I know how to make a good text field, and it's very simple.  It's pretty dang hard to muck up something like that.  So I'm not going to waste my time trying to find the problem, because OmniWeb fits me perfectly.


----------



## googolplex (May 29, 2002)

Sim, calm down.

We all know text fields are slow. You don't have to tell us. If you would like to try to speed them up why don't you. I don't think its as simple as you say. Optimization is very hard. Again, the browser is 0.2.8 why do you expect it to do this perfectly? There is one main developer on this project now and he is very busy working on Mozilla as well. Could you give this guy a little respect. I'm sorry I like talking to you but this is really starting to bug me. You're worse then Ed was argueing over Mozilla way back when.

And if you want to take cheap shots at developers how about this. I remember that Memory Usage Getter was very slow when refreshing. How can you not get this *simple* feature to work properlly. "Unfortunately, this problem isn't fixed, so" MUG "still "****s ass". Your software is above 1.0 too.

How do you like it?

I don't mind you saying that the problem still exists, but you (and others) coming in here and being rude and starting a fight over it is annoying.

I really don't want to fight.

I think most of us just want to follow this software through its development stages even though it has some problems. Nobody is telling you to use it or like it.

I think you need to learn to appreciate that this isn't a simple issue it is probably a very complicated optimization issue. And that there is one developer (well there are a few people who contribute but not that much) working on it now AND he is on vacation. We understand that it is slow we are just willing to deal with it because we like the rest. Also these aren't cocoa text feilds. They are the text feilds in Mozilla with a cocoa interpretation layer. Chimera is much more complicated then it appears. The long term plan is, however, to convert the form widgets and drawing engine to pure cocoa.

There are lots of little "one problems" for different people. They are fixing them one by one. They just fixed the download dialog. They will get to this in time, but as I hope you can see this kind of thing takes a lot of time, especially with so few developers who are busy with other things as well.

I don't want to fight so please don't make me. And if you want to debate this, make it a debate not a flame war.

And solac, don't insult sim. This doesn't have to be a flame war.

Phew.


----------



## phatsharpie (May 29, 2002)

Regarding the "simplcity" of drag and drop textboxes in interface builder... Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't the widget placement be highly different between creating an app with fixes textbox locations and one that is dynamic based on HTML? I mean, the browser has to parse the HTML and figure out where the widgets must reside, so the elements are NOT simply drag and drop as in interface builder.

I don't know for certain what is entailed, but I can imagine there must be some difficulty involved.


----------



## googolplex (May 29, 2002)

As I said these aren't cocoa text boxes. They will be eventually, but as of now they are a kind of text box mozilla renders using XBL. I could explain it now, but just know that they are different. They became slow when they applied quartz text to them. I am sure they are working on this problem.


----------



## simX (May 29, 2002)

gplex:  I don't really need to calm down -- I'm perfectly calm even if it seems not in my posts.

What bugs ME is that you guys keep saying that Chimera is the end-all-be-all of a browser, but you guys keep telling me that there's something wrong with my computer.  It's Chimera.

Again, gplex, you make a flawed analogy just like solrac did.  Memory Usage Getter's refresh method in AppleScript is very complicated, and it calls subroutines to actually display the information.  I'm sorry, but it just isn't something as simple as typing in a text field.

I don't particularly care if it is a Mozilla/Cocoa interpretation layer or what that is.  If it's Cocoa, then it has the ability to use Interface Builder to place text fields.  But since Chimera apparently isn't using them, then it has these "optimization" problems.  But text fields in true Cocoa applications don't have "optimization" problems.

Like I said, people deserve to know that text fields in Chimera don't type decently on "slow" computers.  And you guys can flame OmniWeb as much as you want in "OmniWeb v.x.xspxx released!", saying that it doesn't have good standards and renders 10-15% of the pages incorrectly.  But don't say that typing in a text field is as complicated as a rendering engine  it simply isn't.

And therein lies my beef with these developers  Cocoa is designed to be simple, not something that needs a Mozilla/Cocoa interpretation layer.  But nevertheless, the developer seems to be concentrating on features that are not nearly as important as text field input, and so I question the future of Chimera.


----------



## solrac (May 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by simX _
> *
> 
> Your analogy is flawed, solrac.  Why?  Because I don't use the "Replace All" feature as much as I do typing in a text field.  In fact, I haven't really run into that problem except once or twice in my usage of Mac OS X.  In contrast, I would run into the text field problem more than 100 times a day because I come to MacOSX.com every day.  So while my productivity would go down 100 times if I used Chimera instead, my productivity using Mac OS X has gone down 0.000001% because of the "Replace All" problem.  And that has been offset by the increase of productivity with the features like pre-emptive multitasking, and protected memory.
> ...



I don't care if you never use the replace all button. I don't care if 100% of your browser experience is spent in a text field.

I'm talking about your mindset, not the feature set you use.

Your mindset is close minded, accusational, and belligerent.

I called you a crappy developer because you just proclaimed Chimera to be lame because it has a bad text field, and saying it's super easy to make a text field, without any knowledge of why Chimera's field is bad.

If you were a good developer, it would not matter whether or not you worked on Chimera. You wouldn't even post that until you got a message through to Chimera developers and heard why the text fields were broken. Or you could have an educated guess, at least.

But instead you go yelling that the text fields are horrible and are super easy to make and because of that you hate Chimera and call them bad developers, and on top of that, BECAUSE of that, you refuse to try it.

Chimera is BEST in forums. It renders forum pages (like macosx.com and off-topic.net especially) at exactly (literally) one hundred trillion times faster than IE.

And one day, I don't know when, but one day you'll need to replace 50 files. Then when you have clicked replace 50 times your productivity on Mac OS X will drop from .00000001% loss to like 2% loss. There's no math behind this.

And since Chimera renders macosx.com at (exactly) one hundred trillion times faster than IE, using TextEdit as a workaround is not only a bonus for learning a new good habit, but is also worth it since Chimera, even as it is in its suuuperrr beta state, increases productivity in my Internet experience by (literally) a trillion fold.


----------



## solrac (May 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by googolplex _
> *As I said these aren't cocoa text boxes. They will be eventually, but as of now they are a kind of text box mozilla renders using XBL. I could explain it now, but just know that they are different. They became slow when they applied quartz text to them. I am sure they are working on this problem. *



googolplex, I totally respect you as a developer, and not SimX, because of the cool information you presented about Chimera using a Cocoa interpretation layer to convert a Mozilla XBL textox into a Cocoa one, which slowed down when quartz effects were applied to it. I don't even know what half of what I just said means but it makes sense and shows that you're knowledgeable about such things. Of course I would still want to validate your statements with more opinions but it sounds really good and sensible. That's cool info to know, thanks dude.


----------



## simX (May 29, 2002)

Whatever you say, solrac.

Why should I be a developer and investigate the slowness of Chimera's text fields?  I'm a user of Chimera, and all that I care about is the usability.  And because of the text field problem, it's usability for me is virtually zilch.  I don't care WHY or HOW it achieves this slowness  but the fact remains that it is SLOW.  So that's why I'm complaining.  And no, I won't use TextEdit with Chimera, because OmniWeb is just as fast for me.  Couple that with the advanced features that OmniWeb has, and my productivity is higher with OmniWeb than with Chimera + TextEdit.

I am not close-minded, or all the other things you accuse me of.  I am an end-user with regards to a web browser, but I know about Cocoa development as well in limited applications.  But being a developer is basically irrelevant in this context, because it has to do with my productivity and Chimera's usability.

And, yes, I have done the whole deal with having to click "Replace" 50 times.  But, sorry, that doesn't make my productivity go down 2%.  All of the features of Mac OS X have totally offset the 1 or 2 times that I've done that, so my productivity has gone down 0.000001%.  Oh, wait, I take that back  it's gone down 0.000002% because I've done it twice.


----------



## googolplex (May 29, 2002)

Sim,
OK chimera is not fully cocoa. The engine is a hybrid. Its difficult. Just like the refresh method is complicated this is 100 times more complicated. It is complicated to convert the engine to full cocoa. Do you want to try it? I don't think you do.

And I think that I have been very fair to omniweb. I have never flamed in the omniweb threads like the chimera threads get flamed. I don't say it render 10-15% only. It is pretty good and it is an amazing browser. I just like following the development of chimera. I didn't say that it is as complicated as writing an entire engine. The omniweb guys are doing a great job and I really love using their browser. I just wish it had some better standards support. The difference is, I don't go into those threads yelling about it. I might state that I wont use it as much because of that, but I don't go in and call it a joke or say it ****s ass.

And David Hyatt is concentrating on valueable features. There were many more requests for things like Plugin support and usable downloads. They have done these. Post something on the chimera newsgroup/mailing list (you can find it on chimera.mozdev.org) and bring it to their attention more.

Anyways, I'm going home now so I wont be able to reply as quickly 

And btw, no hard feelings its just an arguement 

UPDATE: You are expecting everything to work for the average 'end user' in a 0.2.8 alpha release. That isn't the case with any software.


----------



## solrac (May 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by simX _
> *Whatever you say, solrac.
> I don't care WHY or HOW it achieves this slowness  but the fact remains that it is SLOW.  ...
> 
> I am not close-minded, or all the other things you accuse me of.  *



I just hilited a massive flaw 

Anyway, it makes you close minded that you do not care WHY or HOW. If you took the time to learn, you'd improve as a developer, and as a person, too! 

I can't learn, really, since I know NOTHING about software development, but I still manage to learn by reading and remembering posts from developers like googolplex, and at least I have an idea now. (So do you if you read his post.)

Anyway, don't get me wrong. I appreciate the fact that you need text boxes so badly, and that you NEVER use "replace all". I was just talking about mindset, though.

My thing is that for me, and this is riduculed by all my friends too, is that the web browsing experience on mac is PURE CRAP. Chimera single-handedly fixes this. Now it is possible for a mac to load a page ALMOST as fast as a PC, only with Chimera. Is this not more important than a damn text box?

If this was a 1.0 release I'd be complaining about the text box too.


----------



## simX (May 29, 2002)

I expect text fields to have decent typing speed in an alpha release, yes.  If that is your definition of "everything", then so be it.


----------



## solrac (May 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by simX _
> *I expect text fields to have decent typing speed in an alpha release, yes.  If that is your definition of "everything", then so be it. *



arrghh! It's not even a text field. It's a Mozilla XBL rendered dynamically placed input box being interpreted into a cocoa text field through an interpretation layer which is now having a quartz effect applied on it. Sigh, oh well. Whatever dude.


----------



## simX (May 29, 2002)

Like you said, solrac, you had no idea either of half of that last sentence, and neither do I (although I understand the concept).

Well, yeah.  Whatever.  It's still really annoying, though.

gplex:  Where do I report bugs, anyway?  I don't want to join the Cocoa development list just to report something like this..


----------



## fryke (May 29, 2002)

*1.) Some Answers*



> _Originally posted by solrac _
> *arrghh! It's not even a text field. It's a Mozilla XBL rendered dynamically placed input box being interpreted into a cocoa text field through an interpretation layer which is now having a quartz effect applied on it. Sigh, oh well. Whatever dude. *



Well, that's an explanation of why it's slow now. It also fits the name 'chimera' very much. From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913): "1. (Myth.) A monster represented as vomiting flames, and as having the head of a lion, the body of a goat, and the tail of a dragon. ``Dire chimeras and enchanted isles.'' --Milton."

*2.) About The Heat*

All those browser threads are getting way out of hand. Developers calling themselves experts. What do *I* care? SimX is right: Text boxes should plainly work. It's *nice* that Chimera has some speed, but it's just as I've said when it first popped up: It's gonna take a long, long time until it becomes a real alternative. Browsing fast is one thing, the interface is at least as important. Chimera is - right now - what the name says (see 1.)): A multi-headed monster.

*3.) Browser Wars, Browser Choices*

It's good to have choices. For the consumer, browser wars are good. We're getting better browsers, right? These discussions however are getting on my nerves, although I *too* like to push my choices (OW rocks). Can we agree on the following? -> All current browsers for OS X have something going for them. Mozilla is opensource and has good standards compliancy, IE has advanced features and standards compliancy, OW is a good Cocoa application with many advanced features and Chimera has shown that speed is possible.


----------



## cybergoober (May 29, 2002)

Remind me to send you guys a picture of me yawning. 


BTW-The slowness *has* to be the conversion of Moz html to Cocoa(whatever method it may use). If I type like a madman into the location field (Cocoa text entry field) it keeps up perfectly. Just my $0.02. Yes it is very annoying, but I suspect it will be resolved by 0.3


----------



## solrac (May 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *1.) Some Answers
> 
> 
> ...



It's not Chimera anymore, it's navigator!!!! j/k

Actually, it's more like the head of Cameron Diaz, the body of Jennifer Walcott, and the ass of Jennifer Lopez.

It's a beautiful thing hehehhe

of course it still has PMS of text field


----------



## fryke (May 29, 2002)

Ah, finally this gets loosened up a bit. 

Hmm... Do you think we'll have to explain, some day, how 'Navigator' went from 1.0N, 2.02, 3.04 Gold right down to 0.2.8?


----------



## googolplex (May 29, 2002)

Well, I really don't feel like argueing anymore. All I have to say is that its a 0.2.8 release so you really shouldn't expect it to work perfectly.

simX, I think they are wanting bugs to be reported on bugzilla on mozilla.org right now, I'll check it out.

You need an account to report a bug on bugzilla so if you don't want to apply for one then I could file a bug for you. I'll post an update when I find out.

You know it might not be a coincidence that they are calling it navigator now. (whoops did I say that )


----------



## googolplex (May 29, 2002)

Yes, they want them in bugzilla. Here is a list of all the current chimera bugs.

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist...p&value0-0-0=&cmdtype=doit&order='Importance'

simX do you want me to file one on textfield slowness?


----------



## simX (May 29, 2002)

Please do.  You might want to include my specs (see sig), since it seems that not everybody is having this problem.  I would love for it to get fixed, because I just might be able to toss out IE as my backup web browser.


----------



## ablack6596 (May 29, 2002)

I am glad everyone has calmed down a bit but about what everyone was saying before, this is an alpha release it is no done yet the developers are being nice and letting you play around with it before it is finished.  I wouldn't want soemone that is using Jaguar to come and start yelling and calling Apple a bad company becuase Jaguar can't run Toast because it is an alpha.


----------



## googolplex (May 29, 2002)

Sim, we all notice it. Just some people are less willing to admit it .

I'll file a bug.


----------



## simX (May 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ablack6596 _
> *I am glad everyone has calmed down a bit but about what everyone was saying before, this is an alpha release it is no done yet the developers are being nice and letting you play around with it before it is finished.  I wouldn't want soemone that is using Jaguar to come and start yelling and calling Apple a bad company becuase Jaguar can't run Toast because it is an alpha. *



What I'm trying to point out is it's not like running Toast.  The equivalent would be Apple releasing a Jaguar alpha release without the ability to use menus.  I believe that every developer would be crying out if that happened.


----------



## phatsharpie (May 30, 2002)

In the "About Navigator" window, special thanks is given to Apple Computer Software Engineering? I wonder if Apple helped out with Chimera...


----------



## fryke (May 30, 2002)

Yes, Apple bought NeXT and those new Apple system engineers brought Cocoa to the world of developers.


----------



## googolplex (May 30, 2002)

Its only released because it is open source. So if you don't want to use an alpha release with limited functionality, don't.


----------



## googolplex (May 30, 2002)

OK, I filed the bug. The bug ID is 148098.

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148098

simX, or anyone else, if you would like to be CCed on that bug for updates tell me and I'll add you to the CC list.


----------



## simX (May 30, 2002)

Yeah, that would be nice, too, gplex.  Add me to the cc list for that bug.


----------



## googolplex (May 30, 2002)

Damn, it wont let me cc you because you don't have an account. Thats too bad. I guess they don't want tons and tons of people to be CCed if they aren't members. I dunno.

Sorry about that. I'll just post updates if you want. Or you can just check out the page periodically.


----------



## MacPain (May 31, 2002)

gets sweeter and sweeter! :thumbsup:

i downloaded it right away when i got home today and so far i am very pleased (as usual).


----------

