Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Lunascape - Web Browser with all major rendering engines

<< < (2/3) > >>

dantheman:
Nutty,

With regards to Chrome, that's pretty good to know about. Have you tried them? Did you notice any change in speed at start up or page rendering?  Any CPU usage increase?

rgdot:
Looks promising, just downloaded.
One "pre even using it impression" is that I downloaded the 9MB from the site, as part of the install it proceeded to download webkit and gecko .exes adding ~19MB to it. For testing purposes alone (not its other features) one could do alt-tab and load sites in the 'original' browsers.

Nutty:
With regards to Chrome, that's pretty good to know about. Have you tried them? Did you notice any change in speed at start up or page rendering?  Any CPU usage increase?
-dantheman (August 30, 2009, 07:35 PM)
--- End quote ---
I've tried other addons, but I haven't tried those two (I'm not a gestures enthusiast).  I've had mixed results, but I was playing with it when the installation process of an addon was not very intuitive, and highly dependent on the version of Chrome installed.  It's apparently gotten easier as Google has introduced more support for such efforts.  There didn't seem to be much of an impact on performance, but nor was I overladen (like I tend to get with Firefox).

However, I had problems with a couple of sites that worked fine before the upgrade to the development version, but ceased to operate correctly afterwards, so I've since downgraded.  I haven't tried again in some months, so those issues may have been ironed out.  So I've been going back and forth between Chrome, which is quick and great for most purposes, and Lunascape for the odd site that refuses to work in Chrome (I'm looking at you, Netflix Instant Play and Microsoft OfficeLive).
EDIT: I retract the disparaging remark about Netflix.  I just tried it, and the Movie Viewer works in Chrome once again, and now I don't even have to change the useragent to IE to make it work.  (Yay!)

(Re: Lunascape)
One "pre even using it impression" is that I downloaded the 9MB from the site, as part of the install it proceeded to download webkit and gecko .exes adding ~19MB to it. For testing purposes alone (not its other features) one could do alt-tab and load sites in the 'original' browsers.
-rgdot (August 30, 2009, 09:43 PM)
--- End quote ---
Sure, but that takes a bit more than 2 quick clicks on the engine icon in the lower left corner.  The other way you've got involves copying the address from the address bar, launch the other browser, paste the address, hit Enter (except in Chrome you can right-click to "Paste and Go") and then after any change you make to the site, you have to Alt+Tab around, remembering to do a manual refreshes as you go back and forth between each browser.  It's surely not rocket science, but if you need to make a series of small changes, it's unwieldy and can get confusing.

On the other hand, the various small interface issues still make me loathe to use Lunascape as my main browser.

cmpm:
From mouser's post on shellcity, they have Lunascape listed.
Claims to be able to use most Firefox plugins.

I think I'll give it a run.

http://shellcity.net/

http://www.lunascape.tv/

f0dder:
I personally prefer "the real deal" rather than any multi-engine browser... one reason is a security standpoint - you (potentially) get all security vulnerabilites in one shiny package, and if session state is shared between engines this could be pretty bad. If session state isn't shared, the only thing that multi-engine browser has going for it ("switch rendering with a single click") falls flat to the ground.

The other reason is that you don't get exactly the same user experience as if you load up the dedicated browser - and if you're doing web design, you'll want that.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page