# Chimera > iWeb



## fryke (Jul 25, 2002)

Okay, now that the head of the chimera project has turned all 'Apple', I guess we have to think again about a browser made by Apple.

And although Chimera is not quite 'there' yet, the application looks promising enough to call it a candidate at this stage (0.4).

But what (if at all) needs to be done, so Apple could release this software as a product of its iApplications? The quality, look and feel of the iApps is much higher than Chimera's right now. My list goes as follows:

- Interface changes (only, please don't give it the slate look of iTunes)
- Speed (application, not browsing)


----------



## ksv (Jul 25, 2002)

With all these new iApps, I think an Apple browser would just hurt Apple and make them look even more like Microsoft. Ugh.
Show us some hardware, Apple! Stop acting microsoftish! Let us choose which applications to use ourselves!


----------



## Remco (Jul 25, 2002)

They could call it *iBrow*.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jul 25, 2002)

Look, web browsing on the Mac is a sub par experience to browsing under Windows. Apple knows this. Most of the problem lies with Microsoft's IE for OS X. It's slow and it's buggy. When IE 5 for Mac was released in 2000, it was better than the Windows version 5.5. IE 5.2 for OS X however is not a strong a product. And Microsoft has been slow to move on it. IE 5.2 has been out for OS X for almost 18 months, and we still don't have a major upgrade to address speed, stability, or even bugs that have been present since March 2001 (ie the incomplete rendering of pages that suddenly appear when you scroll down).

The fact is that Microsoft has little incentive now to devote time/resources to IE for OS X. The 5 year MS/Apple agreement is over, and Microsoft doesn't really need Apple's endorsement of IE to say it conquered the web wars.

Apple really needs to bring the browsing app in house, or at least assign someone to work on one of the open source projects (David Hyatt?). With all the care Apple has taken with every other app (iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie), it is leaving the most important app out. 

Apple doesn't need IE anymore. We have a health crop of browsers on OS X - more variety than our Windows counterparts. But we need the ONE solution that can do it all, and do it with speed, stability and complete support of standards - and the one browser that seems to be on track to accomplish this is Navigator.


----------



## azosx (Jul 25, 2002)

I hope they call it iBrowse and make it brushed steel like iTunes!


----------



## voice- (Jul 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by azosx _
> *I hope they call it iBrowse and make it brushed steel like iTunes!  *



You're a hater of all that I love...I like Chimera navigator the way it is, damn it...


----------



## Izzy (Jul 25, 2002)

Usually when Apple gets a hold of something they improve upon it and give it that special touch...I hope they turn Chimera into the top of the line browser that Mac users deserve.


----------



## homer (Jul 25, 2002)

Did you say EyeBrows?    

but yes, I was excited when I read that Hyatt had been successfully courted by Apple. Bring on the Apple-branded browser (and make sure it uses tabs)!

The other consideration is, did Apple bring him on board just to improve Sherlock's Internet capabilities?


----------



## gibbs (Jul 25, 2002)

Chimera is now my favorite browser as well.

I think that at the very least when you compare it with IE [at chimeras current .4 release no less], I would certainly like to see it installed by default.


----------



## azosx (Jul 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by homer _
> *Did you say EyeBrows?
> 
> but yes, I was excited when I read that Hyatt had been successfully courted by Apple. Bring on the Apple-branded browser (and make sure it uses tabs)!
> ...



Yesh, EyeBrows!  

Also, Sherlock 3 looks pretty sweet.  I was watching Apple's MWNY opening keynote last night and was very impressed.  It seemed like a web browser itself but extremely refined and optimized.

Everything new coming out in Jaguar is going to be the Bee's Knees.  The only thing that could make it better is if any browser other than IE debuted on the Dock.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jul 25, 2002)

iBrowse isn't bad, but I'd be more inclined to go with...

iNav.


----------



## themacko (Jul 25, 2002)

iNav is pretty good.

I'd like to see iSurf with a little surfboard icon.  That would be tight.


----------



## ksv (Jul 25, 2002)

Or i'Msickofiapps


----------



## simX (Jul 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by themacko _
> *iNav is pretty good.
> 
> I'd like to see iSurf with a little surfboard icon.  That would be tight. *



Hahahahahaha.  I can see that now.  Ohh, that would be so funny.


----------



## xaqintosh (Jul 25, 2002)

does it have to be an iApp? think of mail.app and some others. wouldn't a generic "browser" or even stick with chimera's "Navigator" be better than "iNav" or "iBrowse"? those two sound kind of stupid to me...


----------



## hazmat (Jul 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by xaqintosh _
> *does it have to be an iApp? think of mail.app and some others. wouldn't a generic "browser" or even stick with chimera's "Navigator" be better than "iNav" or "iBrowse"? those two sound kind of stupid to me... *



Exactly.  Personally, I love Chimera visually.  I love the icon and I love the button styles.  Add to its functionality, but leave it's aesthetics alone.


----------



## boi (Jul 25, 2002)

ahahahahahahaha! eyebrows!!


----------



## sheepguy42 (Jul 25, 2002)

This would make a heck of a lot of sense, seeing as how Apple has repeatedly been giving M$ the shaft lately...the comment about .NET at the Keynote, going with Netscape for its default home page, iChat being AIM and not MSN, and I am sure there is more. I really think Apple is going to take the stance of "Hey! Sick of supporting Microsoft? Scared of what they might do with your personal data as they gain more and more control over your computer? Join us and free yourself from the Evil Empire!"
What do you think?


----------



## ksv (Jul 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by sheepguy42 _
> *This would make a heck of a lot of sense, seeing as how Apple has repeatedly been giving M$ the shaft lately...the comment about .NET at the Keynote, going with Netscape for its default home page, iChat being AIM and not MSN, and I am sure there is more. I really think Apple is going to take the stance of "Hey! Sick of supporting Microsoft? Scared of what they might do with your personal data as they gain more and more control over your computer? Join us and free yourself from the Evil Empire!"
> What do you think? *



Just too bad that Apple is becoming another "evil  empire" in that way.


----------



## sheepguy42 (Jul 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ksv _
> *
> 
> Just too bad that Apple is becoming another "evil  empire" in that way. *


Not necessarily- It could be more like the average users who need a simple, intuitive interface would want to go Mac, and everyone else would choose between Mac, Linux, BSD, etc. People who build their own machines from scratch will stop building them for Windows, but still build them. These people will still be seen as "on Apple's side" because they are abandoning Microsoft, and their OS choices will still all be able to interact with Macs out there. Nothing "evil empire" about that, unless I'm missing something. The reason M$ is an Evil Empire is because not only does it have most users, but it does not play well with other companies. Apple does, and even if they had most users, I believe they still would.


----------



## fryke (Jul 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by sheepguy42 _
> *The reason M$ is an Evil Empire is because not only does it have most users, but it does not play well with other companies. Apple does, and even if they had most users, I believe they still would. *



Please stay on track a bit more. This is about WHAT would have to be changed for Chimera to become iWeb, iNav, iBrowse or whatever. I guess the clues are there that we'll see something like that over the next few months. Please don't shift this discussion into the 'good opensource', 'bad microsoft' and 'maybe bad, too, apple' direction.

I still see some trouble for Chimera becoming a first class Mac OS X application. The sluggishness of its interface for example. Although iPhoto isn't that good an example, either...


----------



## onegoodpenguin (Jul 25, 2002)

I feel that Apple would be using bad form if it took a web browser and made it an iApp.  I mean, when I think of what makes something an iApp, it is that edge that every other similar product lacks.  iTunes and iMovie are classic examples of applications that are completely revolutionary, and I think that iSync will follow suit.  To take a relatively non-groundbreaking web browser and call it an iApp would be pretty stupid in my opinion.  The real question is what kind of interface changes would they have to make in order to make this product amazing?  If the application is slow, perhaps Apple will take the page rendering portion of Navigator and build a completely new interface around it.  Perhaps we've all grown so used to the Mosaic style interface that it's hard to imagine something different, but if Apple's good at anything, it's thinking outside the box.  If Apple releases this browser as an iApp, it will be stunning and revolutionary.  Repackaging an average browser (functionality-wise) with the Aqua (or quicktime) GUI and calling it an iApp would be a bad move.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jul 25, 2002)

I don't see it on my machines. On my machines, Navigator is faster in just about every aspect than both OmniWeb, IE and especially Mozilla/Netscape. It renders faster, it scrolls pages faster, it launches faster, and I don't have any problem with typing speed in text fields.

It's obviously unfinished, but I am amazed at how functional, stable and fast this unfinished browser is compared to IE and OW, both of which have been around for years and are technically "finished" products...


----------



## gigi (Jul 25, 2002)

If they do make a browser, i wonder how much they will charge for it ?


----------



## fryke (Jul 25, 2002)

iMovie - free
iTunes - free
iPhoto - free
Operating System - 129$
.mac annual fee - 99$

Put 'iWeb' or whatever it'd be called where it belongs.


----------



## terran74 (Jul 25, 2002)

Wasn't Apple working on a browser back in the OpenDoc days?  Didn't they kill the project because it was easier to go with MS's offerings?

I forgot the name of the browser... Cyberdog i think.

Anyway.  I am not sure if Apple should choose this battle.  Granted I think they would make an excellent browser, im wondring if this is something left for the latter days of their world domination kick they've gotten into... just my opinion.

I'd like to see them focus on other iApps like maybe iDesign Studio... basically a buyout of Quark.


----------



## fryke (Jul 25, 2002)

CyberDog (the OpenDoc browser container app) was killed because OpenDoc itself wasn't adopted very well among developers (yes, there WERE some...). Plus it wasn't exactly the most compatible browser experience.


----------



## adambyte (Jul 25, 2002)

I remember using CyberDog! I loved that thing!

Sure, CyberDog was not the most compatible browser out there, but it had it's own benefits. Because it was very Mac and OpenDoc oriented, every single thing in CyberDog was drag and dropable. Not only that, but it just seemed damn friendly. For those of you who never tried it, I believe you can still install OpenDoc and CyberDog in OS 9 and try it out.  I think many of you will find that it has that same semi-revolutionary edge that today's iApps have.... in fact, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Apple made a new browser soon, but decided to market it as the new CyberDog. Can you imagine? Our cute pup would be back!

Heck, let's take it one step further: CyberDogCow: Moof!


----------



## 90X Double Side (Jul 26, 2002)

At this point, I see little point in Apple not picking this fight. IE for Macintosh is turning into Netscape 4: It hasn't had any real development work done on it since Mac OS 9 came out. I think it is embarrasing that Apple bundles IE at this point: it's an old, carbon app that does a pathetic job trying to follow the Aqua Human Interface Guidelines and take advantage of the features of OS X (because they changed virtually nothing between the OS9 and X releases), and it's _slow_.


----------



## Koelling (Jul 26, 2002)

If the question was should Apple make a browser, I'd have to say no. Or at least lend Chimera developers but let it keep it's spirit. Then just bundle it with the OS, like they do with IE without changing anything.

But the more interesting question would be, how does Apple make it it's own.





> Perhaps we've all grown so used to the Mosaic style interface that it's hard to imagine something different, but if Apple's good at anything, it's thinking outside the box.


 How about a clean box with just a scroll bar and maybe a URL bar, and then a dock to control where you go. It would hold the forward/backward buttons and your bookmarks.

Suddenly it doesn't sound like such a good idea to me because my dock is so slow. But the idea of breaking from the mossaic interface to browse the web is interesting. Maybe someone can build from my idea.


----------



## fryke (Jul 27, 2002)

I tend to use all of my browsers with the least interface-interruption possible, meaning that all 'bars' have vanished with only the location bar popping up on Cmd-L.

I don't think I need a _different_ interface. Tabs are a good idea, but I actually like watching web pages for themselves, with next to nothing around them.

Also, to 'think outside the box' here and replace the 'mosaic' interface with something different doesn't really help the user, as - like you said - he's used to it. It's a known principle of interface design to keep the interface monotonuous (what's that word in english?) so the user doesn't have to adapt, but it also applies to new interfaces and new designs. Would you want a car with some kind of innovative steering wheel replacement? Of course you could adapt, but the steering wheel (whether it was originally a bad or a good idea) is what 'users' know and know how to work with. Replace 'good & known' stuff only if your idea is better for _every_ user - not just some.


----------



## onegoodpenguin (Jul 27, 2002)

That's a great point fryke.  Consistency should be embraced when it comes to something like a web-browser, especially if Apple aims to get users to migrate comfortably to the platform.  A drastic change in form would be interesting, but I agree with you that it wouldn't be better for the user in the end.

I have my mixed feelings about Apple getting involved in the browser arena anyway... I mean I'm sure I'd use their browser (assuming it wasn't bloated and 'large'--which it very well could be), but it could have so many negative associations, such as the comparisons to Microsoft.  I think the accusations are unfounded, but that doesn't mean that similarities aren't there for nay-sayers to latch on to.

Getting back to the interface issue: since there isn't a whole lot that Apple can safely do to innovate with the browser design, it makes me wonder why they should interject at all?  If their primary purpose in 'taking over' the Chimera project is to help speed development or to aid and support the main developer, then I suppose I understand, but I guess I'm saying if Apple _isn't_ going to do anything 'special', maybe it's not worth putting their name on it.  I think I would be much more impressed if Apple helped with the Chimera project without putting their name on it.  It would help show that they support the 'little guy', and aren't Microsoft-ish.  Just my thoughts.


----------



## ksv (Jul 27, 2002)

I think the best way would be to incorporate a web browser completely into Finder. The 10.2 Finder has back/forward buttons, a favorites submenu and a go menu. Stop and reload buttons could be placed in the toolbar. What more do you need?


----------



## azosx (Jul 27, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ksv _
> *I think the best way would be to incorporate a web browser completely into Finder. The 10.2 Finder has back/forward buttons, a favorites submenu and a go menu. Stop and reload buttons could be placed in the toolbar. What more do you need? *



Yeah, that would be great.  Similar to what Microsoft did with IE and their Explorer shell right?

Now we would have an Apple browser that we couldn't uninstall, not to mention that if crashed, Finder would likely crash as well.

No, on second thought, I'd rather have a seperate browser that wouldn't potentially conflict with OS X nor cause my system to come crashing down.


----------



## ksv (Jul 27, 2002)

> _Originally posted by azosx _
> *
> 
> Yeah, that would be great.  Similar to what Microsoft did with IE and their Explorer shell right?
> ...



No, there could be two Finders on the same machine, one with a browser, one without. No problem.

How often so Apple applications crash on your machine?


----------



## onegoodpenguin (Jul 27, 2002)

I have no desire for an 'integrated' browser... the thought makes me shudder with disgust.


----------



## SCARECROW (Jul 27, 2002)

What if Apple builds its own browser and charges $129 for it? or better yet, how about sherlock 4 with browsing capabilities built-in.. and it is only a $99 a year subscription... ($49 for the first year of course!)...  

Why would Apple be interested in getting back into the Apple branded browser business again? They failed miserably the first time... and with the way Apple is, they wont make the same mistake twice. Usually, if something doesn't work for Apple, we never see it again... Ala CyberDog, Newton, Cube, etc...

If anything, they are just going to up the ante on their Sherlock program, and use this guys obvious talent with Cocoa.

The developer that took over Chimera from David, doesn't appear to be stopping Chimera.

Personally, I dont think Chimera is going anywhere, it will continue to grow, maybe, just maybe, apple will throw some bones towards it, to encourage its growth.  But... ??? Ibrowse? Pleeze....


----------



## mr_mac_x (Jul 27, 2002)

I'd like to see a Sherlock web channel. Where Sherlock interfaces with, say, this forum, and it can show a list of topics, threads and an actual thread in three separate panes. And you could click on a user name and then it would allow you to e-mail or go to the web page of that poster. I think that would fit perfectly with what Apple's trying to do with Sherlock 3.

I'll post a mock-up as soon as I make one so you people can see what I mean.


----------



## Tigger (Jul 27, 2002)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *I don't see it on my machines. On my machines, Navigator is faster in just about every aspect than both OmniWeb, IE and especially Mozilla/Netscape. It renders faster, it scrolls pages faster, it launches faster, and I don't have any problem with typing speed in text fields.*


On some pages it is also REALLY sluggish in scrolling. I am using a mouse with a scrolling wheel, and sometimes the browser doesn't react to that at all, I have to click into the page, sometimes several times.
And also when I go above a link, sometimes the cursor just won't turn into the little hand.

B/W G3, 450MHz.


----------



## mr_mac_x (Jul 27, 2002)

My awesome idea


----------



## gopher (Jul 27, 2002)

Chimera was being used as the browser of choice by the Apple representative who came to talk to the Mac users group in my area in our monthly meeting in an auditorium.


----------



## Inline_guy (Jul 28, 2002)

I think the best idea would be to leave it Chimera, but just make it the default browser (once it is done of course and cleaned up a bit) instead of IE.  But that might make life harder for  none - geeked out Apple users.  I don't know. 

I just downloaded it for the first time after reading this thread.  I must say I love it.  So much in fact, that I have for the first time in years changed my default browser form IE!! (I was  a PC owner before this Mac).   I had tried Omin, and that Modzilla(sp?) one, but didn't love either of them enough to take IE off my dock and replace it with another.  But I really like this browser.  Now if I can find a great Word substitute then I would no longer be dependent on MS products at all.  Not that I will not use them, but it is very nice to have choices!  Yah know.  

Matthew

::  inlineguy.com ::


----------



## gopher (Jul 28, 2002)

Word Substitute?  Try Think Free Office.  $50.

Abiword is also good.  But for real nice stuff, get Nisuswriter!  Nisuswriter supports more languages than any other word processor and has unlimited undos.


----------



## nichrome (Jul 29, 2002)

AppleWorks. Cheap, efficient, enough for almost everyone. And it's Apple.


----------



## kainjow (Jul 29, 2002)




----------



## boi (Jul 30, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Inline_guy _
> *
> I just downloaded it for the first time after reading this thread.  I must say I love it.  So much in fact, that I have for the first time in years changed my default browser form IE!! (I was  a PC owner before this Mac).   I had tried Omin, and that Modzilla(sp?) one, but didn't love either of them enough to take IE off my dock and replace it with another.  But I really like this browser*



once it crashes two or three times in a row, you'll be back to IE. i love chimera, but it crashes too often for me


----------



## zerorex (Jul 30, 2002)

from what ive seen, all the iapps have the brushed metal interface which I dont think would work well on a browser.  The will prolly do like with mail and just call it Internet or Web or something like that.  I do agree that apple needs to bring it back in house.  

Oh, and making software in house that is great is not being microsoftish.  You still have the choice of which applications you use.  Apple just happens to provide default ones that work well.


----------



## 90X Double Side (Jul 30, 2002)

All the digital hub apps are brushed metal; a web browser isn't a digital hub app, so logically they wouldn't use the metal interface on it. The JAHIG says:



> This window style has been designed specifically for
> use byand is therefore best suited toapplications that provide an interface for a
> digital peripheral, such as a camera, or an interface for managing data shared with
> digital peripherals, such as the Address Book application.
> ...


----------

