[Ken Case]

Originally Posted by rmathes

For the layman, can someone help me understand what value a 64-bit version provides over a 32-bit version?

Switching to a 64-bit version would mean that the browser can utilize more memory. If your browser is crashing regularly because it's running out of memory, this is a big deal. (I rarely encounter such crashes myself, but I tend not to let any particular OmniWeb workspace get too large.)

It's also a big deal if you're wanting to be compatible with 64-bit plug-ins.

And can Omniweb give an update on the status of this effort? At this point, it has the decided feel of vaporware.

Sorry this wasn't more clear! OmniWeb is on the back burner until we've finished all of our iPad or Bust! projects. We're putting the finishing touches on the last of those projects (OmniPlan for iPad) right now, and expect to ship it in the next few months.

Now, that doesn't mean we'll be turning our attention back to OmniWeb right away: we have several other big projects which were also put on the back burner which we also need to finish.

But I do have some good news for OmniWeb fans…

Though OmniWeb has been on the back burner, in our spare time we've tried to squeeze in a little work here and there. We recently finished updating OmniWeb to work with Mountain Lion, where it's now building 64-bit and using the latest WebKit. We've got our tabs, workspaces, and cookie management working—but it's missing all of our WebKit customizations, which means it's missing ad blocking, plug-in management (such as click-to-load Flash content), and most site-specific preferences. (In other words, there's still a lot to do before it really feels like OmniWeb again!)

This new build of OmniWeb requires some new technologies which are being introduced in Mountain Lion, so I'm afraid it won't run on any currently shipping operating systems (such as Lion). OmniWeb 5.11 will continue to run on older operating systems, of course.

[rmathes]

Thanks Ken, much appreciated. Looking forward to seeing Mtn Lion and a new version of OW!

[Scrivener]

Originally Posted by Ken Case

Now, that doesn't mean we'll be turning our attention back to OmniWeb right away: we have several other big projects which were also put on the back burner which we also need to finish.

I can't help thinking that with the focus on new products the Omni Group may have lost sight of the fact that OmniWeb was - and often is today, the portal to all of your other products. Yes, it had to go out free, finally, but it is carrying enormous marketing freight and still shouts Omni credibility to the world. It is also a window into the world of the internet and probably could be revived as a marketing tool to do the job of megaphoning the OmniGroup stable of other products - and the fact that it is free ensures that users will come on board to experience the Omni heft.

You really do need to reframe OmniWeb as a marketing tool not just a lost and unloved product that is little more than a free service to a few die-hard disciples.

You are missing out on an outstanding opportunity to garner customers who might otherwise not use your other products.

This is a seriously loved product and you are wasting it. It still easily has the measure of browsers that have years more development. Make it your number one project. You are shooting yourselves in the foot. Can't you see that?

[andreas_g]

I agree with the above post!

I think OmniWeb is the major reason for OmniGroup's actual success!
Most people got to know Omni products through OmniWeb.

Please don't let it die!

[caugusto]

The last posting from Ken is dated April 2012.

Could Ken please post a statement about what can be expected for the near future regarding OmniWeb?

Is there a future at all?

Thank you.
Regards,
CA

[whpalmer4]

I'm not Ken, and I don't speak for him, but if you look at what he has posted recently about Omni's plans for 2013, there's no mention of OmniWeb, and there's a lot of work on the schedule...

[caugusto]

Yes, I had noticed that, and precisely because of that, I was hoping that Ken would make an explicit statement about the future of OmniWeb.

It should not take too much time or effort to just post a couple of paragraphs letting those of us who still use and care about OmniWeb what to expect, and therfore allow us to make decisions accordingly.

[Ken Case]

Sure! Happy to offer a quick status update.

In my last update, I wrote:

Originally Posted by Ken Case

OmniWeb is on the back burner until we've finished all of our iPad or Bust! projects. We're putting the finishing touches on the last of those projects (OmniPlan for iPad) right now, and expect to ship it in the next few months.

As hoped, we finished our last "iPad or Bust!" project last year (on June 7, 2012).

Now, that doesn't mean we'll be turning our attention back to OmniWeb right away: we have several other big projects which were also put on the back burner which we also need to finish.

And as expected, this also happened: we've turned quite a bit of attention back to the Mac, but right now that attention is focused on OmniOutliner 4, OmniFocus 2, and OmniPresence—not OmniWeb, I'm afraid.

Though OmniWeb has been on the back burner, in our spare time we've tried to squeeze in a little work here and there....

I squeezed in a little more work on OmniWeb over the holidays, fixing global and site preferences (which had broken during the 64-bit conversion), turning off autofill from contacts by default (so OmniWeb stops prompting for access to contacts unless you explicitly turn that feature on), fixing the source editor, drawing filtered placeholders in blocked frames and loading blocked frames when you click on them.

I also updated OmniWeb to skip autofilling password fields that already have a password in them, fixing the issue at sites like amazon where you'd start typing a password, and then a second later another child frame would finish loading and triggering another autofill and wiping out the password you'd just typed.

My list of known regressions in the 64-bit build at the moment are:

• Site icons ("favicons") should be visible in the title bar, address bar, and bookmarks.
• There should be some visible indication of blocked inline ads. (I fixed this for inline frames, but not inline images or plug-ins.)
• There should be some way to manually load blocked ads. (Also fixed for inline frames, but not inline images or plug-ins.)
• Web pages should honor the "override page styles" site preference.
• Re-implement click-to-load Flash content.
• Re-implement site-specific preferences.

Meanwhile, I'm still using OmniWeb v5.11.2 for >99% of my desktop browsing. (Very rarely, I'll encounter something which requires another browser—so I'll use something else to load that page and then go back to OmniWeb.)

[caugusto]

Hi Ken,

Thank you very much for posting this information.
Is it possible to say when the new version will be made available for download?
Also, I would like to make a personal request.

I frequently use the "Save as Webarchive" to gather and store information.

After OW 5.9.2, the default names of the files no longer correspond to the title of the pages as shown in the windows/tabs. A perfect example, is this very same page:

1) Saving as webarchive with OW 5.11.2/GM-v622.19.3., the default file name is:
"showthread.php.webarchive"

2) Saving with Safari (6.0.2) the default filename is:
"The Future of OmniWeb? - Page 8 - The Omni Group Forums"

3) Interestingly, bookmarking the page in OW, one gets this name:
"The Future of OmniWeb? - Page 8 - The Omni Group Forums"

So, why couldn't the default filename, when saving as Webarchive, be the same as the name attributed to the bookmark, which invariably is always something that is identical (or nearly so) to the title of the webpage?

I would like to think that making this change requires a truly minimal amount of effort, and would fix a problem introduced after OW 5.9.2. For me, this would remove the need to visit certain webpages with Safari.

An additional request, which I assume requires some more work, would be to improve the "Save as" Webarchive, to the capabilities that MS IE had, namely specifying a number of "levels", and the type of files to be included or excluded. (I hope my explanation is clear enough).

Thank you very much.
Best regards,
CA

[Scrivener]

Originally Posted by Ken Case

Sure! Happy to offer a quick status update.

In my last update, I wrote:


I squeezed in a little more work on OmniWeb over the holidays...

So, when may we download a version that includes the work you did?