The latest build of Chimera is nearly prefect.

Nope. Join the mailing list and you'll be informed. But I guess they'll make it to the forum here, anyway. :)

On the pressure of the community (the mailing list community, not this one here), OmniGroup gave out _very_ early sneaky peek versions of OW 4.1 at the then secret site. One build got onto macupdate.com. And people started complaining about the quality issues.

I guess they won't ship sneaky peeks outside their house before OW 5.0 has _some_ stability.
 
But the UI of Chimera _is_ lacking. While the outer boundaries of Chimera adhere to the Cocoa guidelines, this stops at the inner workings of Chimera. For example, the handling of text isn't very good. If you double click on a part of an URL, for example, OmniWeb behaves as a real Cocoa app should: It selects the part between the slashes. Try it on this/pretty/example by double-clicking on the word pretty.
Click to expand...

Look, both browsers (OW & Chimera) are deficient in different areas. Chimera gets the foundation elements (ie, page rendering, standards support, fast layout of HTML, etc) correct, while OW has nailed more of the interface elements down.

Personally, the standards support, fast page rendering, etc, are all more important than what happens when you try to select text in an HTML page.

The bottom line is, Chimera's interface problems (which are very few) are quite easy to live with and are on their way to being fixed, whereas OmniWeb's complete lack of standards is a deal breaker, and one that after 18 months of development, the Omnigroup still can't committ to fixing.

Plus, OmniWeb is still the most crash prone browser out there. I can't surf for 20 minutes without it crashing and burning.

Believe me, I like both browsers. However, for a paid product, OmniWeb really needs to get their act together and work on standards support and rendering speed, the two most important features of any browser.
 
just a note, since .6 of chimera i have yet to see a crash on either of my macs

also enabling pipelining and disabling the cache for me is an absolute godsend :)
 
an my 233 MHz wallstreet with 10.2 I loaded the Apple Store on IE, Chimera, and OmniWeb. It took:

OW 25 seconds
IE 20 seconds
Chimera 15 seconds

On my dual 450 I took better notes
OW 4 seconds till it left the current page
11 seconds till page rendered usably
15 seconds till page rendered completely

IE 2 seconds till it left the current page
10 seconds till page rendered usably
12 seconds till page rendered completely

Ch 2 seconds till it left the current page
8 seconds till page rendered usably
12 seconds till page rendered completely

My DSL connection is pretty thin, so 12 seconds is probably all the faster the graphics can all be grabbed for the store page. So, yes, Chimera is fast, but if you note the time between losing the last page and getting the next page, or time without content, Chimera takes 6 seconds, OW 7, IE 8. That's not bad from any of them, and is probably why many of us don't think OW is that slow. It doesn't make us stare at pages with no content for very long.

I think Chimera really shines where the processor is the bottleneck, and on pages that take a while to load because of content vs. bandwidth it's almost as good as Chimera, and better than IE.

I spend more time typing and browsing than loading, so OW suits me just fine. Chimera is still my 2nd choice browser. IE, third.

btw, translucent png support exists on Mozilla on Windows, and everything on Mac OS X. IE on windows blows.
http://www.pseudohacker.com/
 
just the background sounds are missing...

i forget that they exist so ... i don't even bother to take off some old horrible midis from some pages. ... obviously thinking that "everybody will use chimera anyway.." <------ note the sick mac addicted way to think ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top