Will OW utilize the new version of WebKit?
 

I just read this article over at Insanely Great Mac:

[url]http://www.insanely-great.com/news.php?id=8428[/url]

[I] There is no other way to say it. Holy cow is this thing fast! I am currently testing Webkit build r30090 (DMG download link) against standard Leopard Safari 3.04. This unoptimized WebKit build version is running circles around the standard Safari browser. It isn't even close.[/I]

sounds like the new webkit is MUCH faster than prior versions and that Safari will benefit. So two questions:

can we expect to see analogous performance improvements in OW?

And if so, when?

From Macrumors.com

[quote]Computerworld notes that the latest Webkit nightly builds offer considerable performance boosts over the current public Safari build (3.0.4) -- with Javascript benchmarks over 2.5x faster in some instances.

While these performace boosts in Webkit date to at least November 2007, Weintraub speculates that the optimizations will find its way into the just-beta'd Safari 3.1.

Indeed, we've managed to track down Sunspider Javascript benchmark results from the same build that Weintraub used (r30090) vs Safari 3.1 (Beta) on a Core 2 Duo 2.2GHz. The results:

Shorter times are faster.

Webkit Build r30090: 3495.8ms
Safari 3.1 Beta: 3408.0ms
Safari 3.0.4: 9302.3ms (extrapolated)

Amongst other improvements, the latest Safari beta does seem to incorporate the speed optimizations found in the latest Webkit builds. Webkit is an open source project that serves as the basis for Apple's Safari browser. Webkit's nightly builds offer end-users access to the latest (potentially unstable) Webkit updates. A number of other browsers also use Webkit and will also benefit from these improvements.[/quote]

the question is, at what point does OmniGroup anticipate incorporating one of these new builds into OmniWeb?

If you're looking for a reply from the OG, it's best to contact them directly via Send Feedback from within OW.

They tend to cherry pick WebKit revisions at this point.

Yes, and FWIW the latest WebKit is not only fast, but works fine with SafariStand and SafariBlock. It makes it hard to justify even bothering with OW. I'd really like to see OW take a leading position again, it regards to useful features and reliability.

handycam....hard to justify “even bothering” with OW? Are you serious? To each their own, I guess. The last thing I want to bother with is having to manage a bunch of extensions to my browser. I hate the FireFox approach, and I'm not going to do it with Safari to try to shoehorn it into something that approaches OW’s functionality. I can deal with one app, OW, or I can deal with Safari, SafariStand and SafariBlock and still not have the full functionality set of OW. I call the Safari approach the true “bother” but if it trips your trigger, go for it.

I agree with Handycam, actually. OW has fallen so far behind in browser functionality that you can scarcely compare it anymore. RSS handling is brutal, and find-within-page is awkward. Search is rather unsophisicated -- you may not like extensions, but can you honestly say that the OW search experience even *approaches* what you get with, say, Inquisitor on Safari? I think OW has paid the price for all the attention and work the newer Omni-apps have received. Its always a trade-off, I suppose, but it means that the browser is no longer a top-flight option on the Mac.

are you talking about searching within a page? I’m not sure what you’re referring to. If searching within a page, I rarely do that and cmd-F works fine for me when I do.

Re RSS, I think RSS handling in any browser is brutal. That’s why I use NetNewsWire. I could care less if one is moderately less brutal than the other. They all stink at it.

But for what I use it for, I still like OW more than Safari and FireFox. Workspaces, page level security and formatting options and more. Just fits my workflow better than the others. And I prefer the look and feel, as well.

[QUOTE=rmathes;33097]handycam....hard to justify “even bothering” with OW? Are you serious? To each their own, I guess. The last thing I want to bother with is having to manage a bunch of extensions to my browser. I hate the FireFox approach, and I'm not going to do it with Safari to try to shoehorn it into something that approaches OW’s functionality. I can deal with one app, OW, or I can deal with Safari, SafariStand and SafariBlock and still not have the full functionality set of OW. I call the Safari approach the true “bother” but if it trips your trigger, go for it.[/QUOTE]

I have to agree with Handycam. I find SafariStand's "bookshelf" (the analog to workspaces) more intuitive to use. SafariStand comes with a graphical vertical thumbnail tab bar which 1) works as well as OW's and 2) is customizable: you can even specify the resolution of the tab images.

Also, Safaristand's plugin blocking is [B]far[/B] more reliable and consistent than OW's. At least, this is my experience with flash blocking.

The only thing in SafariStand that is behind OW is search engine aliasing, but adding and managing address bar search engine aliases (like OW search shortcuts) is [B]not[/B] all that complicated.

So, I'm still sticking it out with OW, but Safari+SafariStand is an absolutely formidable combination, one to which I will have to switch if OW's performance falls any further on my crusty old PB. Not all of us have intel speed demons in our chassis.

Payam

do these extensions allow managing security and display settings at the page level or only globally?