×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mozilla-Based Browser Sports Cocoa Front End

pudge posted more than 12 years ago | from the perhaps-carbon-would-be-better-for-me-though dept.

Mozilla 46

Aqua OS X writes: "Looks like there is a new project over at mozdev.org. The guys are working on a new gecko-powered Mac OS X browser, Chimera (not to be confused with the X11 browser which bears the same name), built using Mac OS X's Cocoa API. It renders well, and scraps the bulky Mozilla/Netscape UI. Supposedly, version 0.2 should support Quartz rendering." Most excellent. XPFE (cross-platform front-end) has been my biggest problem with Mozilla on Mac OS, and perhaps my biggest obstacle to long-term adoption of Mozilla as my primary browser.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

46 comments

Opera (0, Offtopic)

tfurrows (541222) | more than 12 years ago | (#3078934)

Has anyone seen the newest version of opera?

http://www.opera.com/ [opera.com]

I use the Opera 6 beta in Linux at home and under Windows at work and IT WORKS GREAT. I normally wouldn't use anything other than IE5 (generously provided by The Beast [microsoft.com] ) except that the Opera 6 beta gives me ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING I LOVED ABOUT IE...

They have a version for the MAC OS, and I recommend trying it today.

Re:Opera - question! (1)

itwerx (165526) | more than 12 years ago | (#3079024)

Have you had problems with copy'n'paste in the Linux 6.0 beta? I love it too except for one tiny and incredibly annoying bug. I often have several websites open at once and copy text from one to another (e.g. webmail, /. posts etc.) and if you don't get the order exactly right what pastes is the URL! Even if I'm copying a URL from a page into the address field of the same page! (Have to delete the existing url text before copying and pasting.) Is this just some messed up library on my system perhaps?
Sorry for the OT post... (And my undying gratitude to anybody who's run into this and knows how to fix it!

Re:Opera - question! (1)

vsync64 (155958) | more than 12 years ago | (#3079149)

Dude.

I don't use Opera, but it sounds as if you need to read about the X11 selection mechanism.

It's how cut/paste works in X11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3079660)

When you highlight something with the mouse in X11, it automatically copies it to the X clipboard.

When you press the middle mouse button, contents of the X cliboard are inserted at the cursor position.

In other words, you don't need Crtl-C Ctrl-V in X to do simple copy/paste operations (though there is nothing wrong in doing so).

Unlike in Windows, you DO NOT highlight what you want to be replaced, because as soon as you highlight it get copied to the clipboard, replacing whatever you had there that you were wanting to paste.

In Konquueror, there's a button next to the URL field that clears its contents. For example, if I wanted to highlight a printed web addess somewhere and paste it into Konqueror's URL field, I would highlight my selection, click the clear button next to the URL field, (left) click inside the URL field to give it focus, then middle-click in the field.

Hope this helps!

Happy *n*xing, (Linux, BSD, OS X, etc.,...)
Tyson

Re:It's how cut/paste works in X11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3080325)

My understanding is that the X clipboard should be kept seperate from the selection/middle mouse mechanism. Otherwise you can't do paste-to-replace even when using the clipboard.

Re:It's how cut/paste works in X11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3081577)

You're probably right - I probably misued the term "X clipboard". It should be "whatever clipboard-like thing is going on". I use KDE mostly, and KDE might have it's own clipboard system.

Re:It's how cut/paste works in X11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3088103)

KDE 2 does. KDE 3 uses the X clipboard.

Re:Opera (2)

RevAaron (125240) | more than 12 years ago | (#3079339)

After moving to Mac OS X, I was becoming frustrated with iCab. It's the best on OS 9, but on OS X, it seemed to have issues with event-locking (all of the windows in iCab would be unresonsive while page was in it's last stage of rendering). I used to use OmniWeb in my NeXTSTEP/OpenStep/Rhapsody days, so gave that a try. After running it for a few weeks, there seemed to be some sort of rotting going on, and getting progressively slower. OmniWeb displays pages absolutely beautifully, and initially did so at a satisfactory speed.

So, I thought I'd try Mozilla. This was after 0.9.8. I tried both that release, and a bunch of nightly builds, including ones that people said were "fast and stable." Man, Mozilla still blows. Under Slowaris and OS X, it still uses a huge amount of RAM and CPU time. I very disapointed.

Then I found Opera for OS X. It was great on all fronts except stability. At least a few times a day, Opera just crashes out of nowhere. Not surprising, considering it is a beta version. But this was getting annoying- everytime it'd crash, I'd loose any new bookmarks I made in the session.

Then a friend pointed me to OmniWeb's SneakyPeek [omnigroup.com] releases, which are more or less weekly builds. Compared to OW 4.0.6, the last two SPs I've been running have been really great- faster and more stable than all previous OmniWeb versions I've run. I'll be sticking with it, even. :)

Re:Opera (1)

Aqua OS X (458522) | more than 12 years ago | (#3083037)

I dig opera... but the OS X version needs work. It is one of my least favorite OS X browser by far.

Chimera - innovative? (1)

codeonezero (540302) | more than 12 years ago | (#3079020)

Well I've found Chimera to be innovative as far as interface goes. It uses a tabs within a window to allow you to look at different pages between tabs. Certainly is very useful at eliminating screen clutter that an active web user can end up with while visiting 10 sites at the same time. It also seems way faster than netscape on OS X. I think Chimera breathes some air into mozilla on OS X.

Re:Chimera - innovative? (1)

buzban (227721) | more than 12 years ago | (#3079138)

mozilla is my main browser, irc client, mail client, etc. on my win2k machine and on my macs. if chimera really is better, i'll be instantly converted. especially if the improvements come in the area of speed. ;)

Re:Chimera - innovative? (1)

RevAaron (125240) | more than 12 years ago | (#3079484)

(not a troll serious question)

How can you stand to use ChatZilla? Do you only IRC on a rare occasion?

Re:Chimera - innovative? (1)

buzban (227721) | more than 12 years ago | (#3079160)

those same tabs, BTW, are available in mozilla, for browsing and for IRC. it's wonderful to use.

Chimera should become the Galeon of OSX !! (1)

tarkin (34045) | more than 12 years ago | (#3083248)

Chimera should try to become the Galeon [sourceforge.net] of Macosx !
It also is a browser that uses Gecko, but with native widgets (GTK+) for Linux

It pioneered ( i think ) tabbed browsing for Linux, and has lots of nice features not found in any other browser. Nice search toolbars, autobookmark folders, nice fullscreen mode and lots more...

I really miss it on my Powerbook when I run OSX ( I also run YellowDog Linux [yellowdoglinux.com] ), and I consider it to be the best browser on earth. It has Gecko's rendering speed with speedy native widgets and alot of features !

If chimera could follow that design it's bound to be a success ( no mean feat though )

I really love Mozilla because of the speedy rendering and whatever platform I use, I always know there's at least one browser that fits all !! But on MacosX it hogs alot of memory and isn't up to speed with the Windows/Linux versions.

Re:Chimera should become the Galeon of OSX !! (1)

bmarshall (560889) | more than 12 years ago | (#3086750)

I love Galeon. If I didn't love MacOSX even more then I'd use Linux and Galeon everyday. I'm very interested in Chimera and am going to start sending in my bug reports!

Personally, I prefer... (2)

andfarm (534655) | more than 12 years ago | (#3079148)

OmniWeb. It isn't open source like Mozilla (or presumably Chimera), but it runs quickly, is relatively small and EXTREMELY fast, and (even better) fully uses the Aqua interface rather than its own, like Mozilla (?).

My two personal favorite features, though, are image filtering and JavaScript checking. Blocks ads and popups almost perfectly, in my experience.

Re:Personally, I prefer... (3, Insightful)

djwudi (554822) | more than 12 years ago | (#3080896)

Unfortunately, OmniWeb's CSS implementation is near-nonexistant, and it completely breaks any site using CSS for layout.

For instance, I just tested my site [djwudi.com] under 10 different browsers (plus 2 other screenshots that a friend sent me) and the only browsers to completely muck up the page were OmniWeb, iCab, and links (big surprise there...), as I've stopped using tables and use CSS specifications for my layout (browser test summary for my site is right here [djwudi.com] ).

I like OmniWeb's speed, size, and rendering quality, but until they actually support CSS like they claim to, they're not going to be my browser of choice.

Re:Personally, I prefer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3082477)

Perhaps, but your site is completely readable and usable in OmniWeb.

It's not like it doesn't work or anything...

Re:Personally, I prefer... (2)

Aqua OS X (458522) | more than 12 years ago | (#3081666)

Ya, but OmniWeb seriously sucks with JS and CSS. Moreover, it rendering engine draws pages slower then IE or Mozilla.

The UI, and multithreading, and Quartz text to make the browser look and feel nice. But the rendering engine leaves much to be desired. Almost all of my heavy JS and CSS sites do not load properly in OmniWeb. I feel like I am developing for Netscape 4 or something.

Faster and Simpler... (0)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 12 years ago | (#3079182)

It renders slashdot about twice as fast as IE, and the tab feature is Great! (tab between slashdot, email, and apple.slashdot) and I couldn't find any problems rendering any site, except it wouldn't accept input in text fields. As long as your going on a click-fest, and don't need to enter anything, it's pretty swell.

Re:Faster and Simpler... (1)

pipeb0mb (60758) | more than 12 years ago | (#3081343)

i got a new iBook about 3 weeks ago, and my biggest IE issue is slashdot.
i mean, it literally freezes the browser until the page loads...if the story is over 100 comments, i've taken to using netsape 6.2 (hahaha, now THAT'S a POS!).

Whats the deal with ie?

Nice (3, Insightful)

dhovis (303725) | more than 12 years ago | (#3079213)

I just went and downloaded it to give it a whirl. I've been using Mozilla 0.9.8 lately because it gives me fewer problems than IE (IE tends to make sections of pages disappear until I scroll down and then back up).

Chimera is definitely beta, though. I've noticed three bugs already.(I'm using it right now to make this post, so they're not major bugs)

  • Cursor postion does not update when changed unless you type something.
  • Pop-up selections do not pop up (you can make selections by selecting a pop-up menu and use the arrow keys)
  • Preferences menu item is greyed out.

All in all, it is really nice, though. It is already much snappier than Mozilla. I'll be following this one.

same problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3080925)

just to note that I've been having the same rendering problem w/ IE, where portions of a page will disappear until I scroll down and back up or resize the page...

Yup... (2)

Big Sean O (317186) | more than 12 years ago | (#3081698)

I like it a lot already. As much as I love mozilla's composer, I do not need another mail and news reader, and as far as that goes, I don't need an integrated IRC client either.

I will certainly follow this one closely. I'm using it now, and except for some minor MINOR bugs, it seems pretty good. Muche better than a 0.1 version would indicate.

Is it just me, or is Mac OS X really starting to get some pretty cool open-source apps? (I mean besides the ports of the linux stuff)

Re:Nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3082486)

And it doesn't work though proxies. Doesn't take the Mac OS X proxy setting from the Network control panel, and can't set one...

speedy little bugger! (2)

jpellino (202698) | more than 12 years ago | (#3079338)

very nice so far - beats the current mozilla for looks and function. this is for precision and speed where I thought mozilla woulw be by now - i still dl it and delete it regularly - no release has made me want to stick thus far. this one'a a keeper even in beta.

Mozilla's Crappy Tabs (2, Informative)

RevAaron (125240) | more than 12 years ago | (#3079452)

Ok, I admit it. Maybe I'm not a part of the most average type of web-user. But I like to have a lot of tabs/windows open, not just 1-3 like a lot of people seem to have. We're talking about at least 5, and often around 15. iCab under OS 9 never had a problem with this. OmniWeb 4.0.6 got pretty slow with a lot of windows open, but the newer sneaky peaks haven't been. Opera kept it's pace with 15 windows being used, but it increased the probabilty that it would crash.

Mozilla though, is an entirely another story. On my iBook500 with 320 MB RAM, or a 500 MHz UltraSparc II w/ 256 MB RAM, it crawls as soon as I've got either a few tabs or a few windows open. By the time I've got 8-9 tabs or windows open, it's unusably slow, often taking 1-5 *seconds* just to open a new window!

One of my biggest complaints with Mozilla in the past was that it took so damn long for new windows or tabs to open. As a person who is always cmd-clicking to open links in new windows (so I can continue reading things in the last page, I read many pages at the same time, non-linearily), Mozilla is a pain in the ass to use.

Re:Mozilla's Crappy Tabs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3082508)

Not average? I think you're 15 is low personally. I'll hit E2 [everything2.com] , and before I know it, 30, 40 windows open...

Same with news pages like /. and the /boxes.

The best browser for the hardcore page visiter is still Opera for win32.

gosh, the choices! (1)

Noodlenose (537591) | more than 12 years ago | (#3079823)

Since OS X is taking off, the choices are getting better and better. There is now less and less reason to use IE: since I am running Opera Beta 4, I haven't used IE once. Icab and Omniweb are performing nicely as well, and now this Mozilla clone: The future's bright, the future is OS X!!!

Dirk

IE's Scrapbook? (3, Interesting)

HomerJ (11142) | more than 12 years ago | (#3079929)

One of the best things I've seen in a browser is the scrapbook in IE for MacOS. This isn't even in the Windows version of IE and I really have no idea why.

I'd love to see this in Mozilla, or any of the front-end browsers. It's very convient when you order something, to just toss the reciept page in the scrapbook so you can refrence the tracking number without hassle. Or when I'm looking at a professor's website for his notes, just scrapbook what I have to read and read it offline(i'm on an ibook)

Re:IE's Scrapbook? (1)

marmoset (3738) | more than 12 years ago | (#3081426)

Sounds like a cool idea. I did a search for "scrapbook" at Bugzilla and didn't see any existing requests. You could go file an RFE at http://bugzilla.mozilla.org

If you don't feel comfortable with the (more than slightly arcane) Bugzilla interface, drop me an email (trapper@freeke.org) and I'll file it for you.

this seems nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3080132)

This looks like a nice browser so far. But how does one close the tabs? I don't like the icons much, I'd like something a bit more cartoony (yes, it's a really small problem). It's far from feature filled, but it's on it's way! Good job guys! :)

Browser Toolbars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3080147)

Why is it that so many of these alternative browsers have to put the address bar inside the main toolbar along with the back, forward, stop, etc. icons (which are often are ugly) ?

It really ruins the otherwise pleasing asthetics that aqua gives. The features of this program that work are very cool though.

Re:Browser Toolbars (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3082897)

In Chimera, we plan to support a separate location bar. The only reason we didn't is an engineering restriction: Cocoa windows only support 1 toolbar by default. If you want to have any additional toolbars, you have to roll your own. In order to get something up fast that people could use, we opted for the easy way out.

We plan to support a separate location bar by default (with the URL bar being an optional component that you can put on the main toolbar should you prefer it there).

Dave
(hyatt@netscape.com)

Great Porn And Warez Browser (2, Funny)

jasenko (97884) | more than 12 years ago | (#3081452)

Tabs are great for browsing porn and warez sites, this is going to be my favourite, I really miss my Galeon

chimera (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3081522)

funny how much the comments on this thread have nothing to do with chimera.

"have you tried opera?"
"how about omniweb?"

who cares? this is about chimera. and, though it is currently in pre-pre-beta probably alpha stage (hell, a good many of the basic features aren't even there yet), it is waaay faster than any browser out there - probably for any platform. check out the speed tests at chimera.mozdev.org. wow. and when you try it, you can see that it's true.

funny that the person raving about omniweb was saying how fast it is.. their benchmarks nail it as the slowest of the bunch (and i'd agree). omniweb looks great, but it ain't no speed demon. ie is much faster.

anyway, i check the development site every day to see if there are new versions released. each new release has been leaps and bounds better than the last. i'd say that this will be hands down best browser in a couple months if they keep pushing it forward at the current pace.

no one has commented on the sidebar yet - very cool. when they finish it, it will even have google search in the sidebar pull-out. hell yeah.. that's one of the few things i really like about opera (and the google toolbar for IE on windoze).

big round of applause for the fine folks developing this browser!

Re:chimera (1)

afantee (562443) | more than 12 years ago | (#3083564)

The latest OmniWeb is 4.1 sneaky peek 50 (v361) which is very fast and much better than the released version. Get it from http://www.omnigroup.com/ftp/pub/software/MacOSX/. sneakypeek/ and enjoy. OmniWeb SP is getting better almost everyday.

OS X Interface Elements (1, Insightful)

bdesham (533897) | more than 12 years ago | (#3081561)

The lack of OS X-looking interface elements in Netscape is probably the biggest reason I still use IE. I don't have a very large "soft spot" for apps that think their own (slower, uglier) widgets are better than that of the OS that they're running on. This should be a good Mozilla-based remedy to that. (Besides the widgets, Netscape is just too bloated with the IM module, Composer, etc... I have seperate apps to do all of that stuff already, and they're better.)

How do I make my tabs in the middle of the screen? (1)

dalutong (260603) | more than 12 years ago | (#3081887)

question above. pls answer. much appreciated. :)

(see screenshot of the browser)

Yay, but don't diss the cross-platform interface (1)

backpack (562376) | more than 12 years ago | (#3082144)

Maybe I've just used mozilla so long I'm used to it, but I like the 'modern' theme.

Also, the XPFE makes an interface standard across platforms, which could make it easier for users to move from one to another without having much of a learning curve, as well as allowing for development of cross-platform apps using the Mozilla rendering engine. Anyway, it has so many great potential uses, I fail to see what is so bad about it. At least for me, it isn't "bulky" ... although I'm not sure how that adjective can be used to describe a software program.

The bottom line is this: If you like your programs to all have the same 'look,' that's great, good for you, and I'm glad someone is building a look for Mozilla that makes you happy. However, don't rip on the XPFE just because you don't use it.

Re:Yay, but don't diss the cross-platform interfac (2, Informative)

pudge (3605) | more than 12 years ago | (#3082337)

I don't "rip on" XPFE just because I don't use it. I "rip on" it because it doesn't look like a Mac app. Mac apps should look like Mac apps. Mozilla doesn't look like a Mac app. Therefore it's bad (for those of us who value the concistency HIG principle, anyway). MSIE, on the other hand, is a fantastic app as far as looking and acting like a Mac app. However, it is crash-happy and from Microsoft. :-)

In addition to looking wrong, it also doesn't act properly. At least it does drag and drop to the Desktop, but it lacks Keychain support, AppleScript support ... bah!

I dig Mozilla, but not as a Mac app.

Re:Yay, but don't diss the cross-platform interfac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3100555)

then tell steve jobs to get his boys cracking on some bastardized version of mozilla. everyone else is doing it, why not apple? that way you can have your tabs, your aqua interface, and get it hooked into the system similar to IE w/ windows, and get some real speed.

'nuff said

Chimera - Looks great, very fast, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3087086)

If you access a site that asks for a username/password. The password will be displayed in plain text. i.e. what you type is what you see.

This is the only glaring problem in an otherwise useable pre-beta.

Can't do Zilla (2)

macdaddy (38372) | more than 12 years ago | (#3136613)

I'm almost ready to switch to X. I'm really Really REALLY sick of Nutscrape 4.7.9 taking a big fat dump 5-6 times a day on my classic installation. I'm old school Mac & Linux and X is just too damned funky to please me right off the bat. I think I can force myself to suffer through it until whatever major changes Apple's bound to make to X in the future (too many people are having trouble and this is such a new GUI implementation to not make some major changes soon, maybe 10.5 or something). On X I can't justify using Mozilla. It's lack of decent javascript support is what's holding me back. I have to have that support. The web interface to my Packeteer won't work right without it. I do like Opera. I don't think I've tested the JS support in it yet though. Mozilla developers, if you're listening, fix the JS issues and you've scored at least one more user.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...