Lunascape is a web browser capable of running any of the three major web rendering engines�Gecko (Firefox), WebKit (Safari/Chrome), and Trident (Internet Explorer). That means that each time you open a new tab or follow a link, you can tell Lunascape which engine you want to use to render the page. The idea, in theory, is that Lunascape gives you the benefits of each popular browser in one. For example, Lunascape gives you IE support for the few IE-only sites still out there and no-nonsense speed from WebKit or Gecko.
You can switch which engine is rendering the current tab at any time by right-clicking the tab and selecting the engine you want. The browser itself supports plug-ins, but from what I can tell it doesn't support just any Firefox extension, which is unfortunate. Despite the indisputably cool feature set (namely the whole three-browsers-in-one hook), Lunascape is a little unwieldy and very cluttered. To be fair, though, it's currently an alpha release, which means you should expect a lot of rough edges.
If you're a web developer and you want to quickly check how a site will look in each engine Lunascape might be a winner, but I can't picture very broad adoption of this kitchen sink browser as is. Lunascape is a free download, Windows only. If you give it a try, let's hear what you think in the comments.
News source: Lifehacker
Most apps are released for Windows first, unless specifically made for OS X. It's a wider market. Google will very likely release an OS X version.
There are OS X-only browsers as well, such as Camino, Omniweb, etc.
TBH, a lot of what is released for Windows first and then ported to Mac really isn't all that compelling. OS X-only or Mac-based solutions are usually better (as in, they perform better on OS X.) Nothing beats native apps. There are a few exceptions, such as Firefox, but many former Windows users have stuck with that.
Plus, you can run any browser/application you like on a Mac. Just use Bootcamp to run Windows.
LOL
You do realise that apps moved from windows->mac will require recoding to a mac osx language unless its C based (or java naturally) as most mac apps use coca or some other for its higher level language. This means they are *native* apps, windows just does the job better (aka photoshop on windows is faster then photoshop on mac esp thanks to 64bit support)
I dont know how windows ports are less *native* then mac apps. Yeh some apps are better on either OS but its usually down to poor coding/political issues (look at itunes on windows for a crap port).
You do realise that apps moved from windows->mac will require recoding to a mac osx language unless its C based (or java naturally) as most mac apps use coca or some other for its higher level language. This means they are *native* apps, windows just does the job better (aka photoshop on windows is faster then photoshop on mac esp thanks to 64bit support)
I dont know how windows ports are less *native* then mac apps. Yeh some apps are better on either OS but its usually down to poor coding/political issues (look at itunes on windows for a crap port).
True native OS X is Cocoa.
Apps written otherwise will still run on OS X, and might even maintain some of the look and feel of OS X. But by developing with the Cocoa frameworks, applications are written the same way that Mac OS X itself is written, with complete access to the full power of the operating system, including the signature Mac look and feel.
Funnily enough, the Finder is still tied to the Carbon environment. It runs on OS X, looks and feels like OS X, but is still not truly native. Snow Leopard will feature a Cocoa-based Finder, entirely rewritten.
Apple has been encouraging developers over the last few years to switch to Cocoa. Quite soon you won't be able to write 64-bit applications in Carbon.
Last edited by LTD on 25 Nov 2008 - 13:45
I'll agree that there is less software for OS X . But "dumbed down" it certainly isn't. User interfaces, however, are meant to conform to Apple's HIG standards. They're meant to be unobtrusive, well-organized, and very clean.
Back to Lunascape: if there is enough demand for it, it'll be released for OS X. And likely Linux as well. Not sure what they'll do about the IE engine, since that's Windows-only. LOL.
There are some very powerful tools available for OS X:
Toast Titanium
Pro series apps (Final Cut, Logic, all industry standards)
Transmission
Aperture
FileMaker Pro
Pixelmator
The entire Adobe Creative Suite (granted, not made by Apple)
iTunes (works brilliantly on OS X)
Mellel
Scrivener
Transmit
Etc.,etc.
I don't think you've got much experience with OS X apps, native or otherwise. You're just assuming things.
Consider that computer platform 'A' has got 10 choices of a particular type of software, only 2 of which are any good, and platform 'B' has only got 3 choices, all of which are good. Which computer platform has the better range of software?
That's just a hypothetical illustration that quantity doesn't tell the whole story. Granted, choice is good, but having hundreds of choices when only few work well, is not an advantage; it's a hindrance. An overwhelmingly confusing hindrance if you don't know exactly what it is you need.
What Apple does, and this has always been a top priority, is to make powerful tools easy to use.
http://www.apple.com/pro/
http://www.apple.com/education/
http://www.apple.com/science/
http://www.apple.com/business/
http://www.apple.com/itpro/
http://www.apple.com/science/profiles/coretech/?sr=hotnews
Last edited by LTD on 25 Nov 2008 - 15:07
Again Windows
Not sure what you mean by that.
"Again Windows", because a Mac is the only computer that allows you to install *any* OS and thus run *any* application you like.
So if you have a Mac, you've also got access to Windows software if you must have it.
But we were originally talking about OS X native apps and successful ports.
Last edited by LTD on 25 Nov 2008 - 18:07
For the most part you are correct. However, there are some applications I have found for Mac OS X that I can find nothing near the capability available for Windows. ControllerMate is an amazing graphical programming tool that allows you to perform tasks using a gamepad. Unison is a USENET newsreader that redefines how you can use USENET, and quite frankly blows every news reader in Windows out of the water.
So just to refute your argument. I can find awesome, well featured programs on Mac OS X where there are only crappy simplified alternatives for Windows
"Again Windows", because a Mac is the only computer that allows you to install *any* OS and thus run *any* application you like.
So if you have a Mac, you've also got access to Windows software if you must have it.
But we were originally talking about OS X native apps and successful ports.
Since when do PCs (the same hardware used in Macs) not let you run any software you chose?
Last time I checked the only OS that can't run on a "PC" is Mac OS and that is due to Apple's rules moreso than the hardware itself...
"Again Windows", because a Mac is the only computer that allows you to install *any* OS and thus run *any* application you like.
So if you have a Mac, you've also got access to Windows software if you must have it.
But we were originally talking about OS X native apps and successful ports.
Since when do PCs (the same hardware used in Macs) not let you run any software you chose?
Last time I checked the only OS that can't run on a "PC" is Mac OS and that is due to Apple's rules moreso than the hardware itself...
osx86.
It's a fun experiment, but nowhere as easy as using Bootcamp. And yes, there are those rules to consider as well.
Last edited by LTD on 25 Nov 2008 - 21:25
"Again Windows", because a Mac is the only computer that allows you to install *any* OS and thus run *any* application you like.
So if you have a Mac, you've also got access to Windows software if you must have it.
But we were originally talking about OS X native apps and successful ports.
Since when do PCs (the same hardware used in Macs) not let you run any software you chose?
Last time I checked the only OS that can't run on a "PC" is Mac OS and that is due to Apple's rules moreso than the hardware itself...
osx86.
It's a fun experiment, but nowhere as easy as using Bootcamp. And yes, there are those rules to consider as well.
It is actually pretty dang easy to setup. It had a rocky beginning, but these Mac OS X "distros" (if you will) are getting pretty smart with their installers.
I wonder if Apple is going to start to take legal actions against anyone. But this is all getting very OT.
"Again Windows", because a Mac is the only computer that allows you to install *any* OS and thus run *any* application you like.
And why is it that Mac is the only computer that can? Ah yes, because Apple locks the OS down in that manner to prevent it being run on other computers.
You don't appear to be able to use native ff plugins either, there's a small amount of plugs available but they aren't much use.
The interface is a bit clunky with panels sliding in from every angle.
I'm struggling to find a reason why we needed this product. Does anyone find it genuinely useful?
But who knows, it might improve. It's only an Alpha release.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.