Stainless – Not Quite Chrome for OS X
8:45 pm, November 30th, 2008, Lonnie Lazar
Stainless is a multi-purpose browser for OS X inspired (according to its developers) by Google Chrome. The early beta version (0.4) available for download works only with 10.5 (Leopard) and appears to be a fun side project for the engineers at Mesa Dynamics, who developed Stainless to leverage multi-processing technologies they developed for one of their other products, Hypercube.
Blogger Jackson Chung has taken Stainless for a spin and writes that it has potential. “It is a fair bit more stable, quicker and simpler to use [than other Mac browsers] – and that appeals to most people who are stuck with the productivity-driven mindset of Do more with less time.” He applauds Stainless’ simple UI and the fact that every browser tab runs under a separate process.
Unlike Safari, for instance, which runs tabs under a collective process, Stainless ‘feels’ lighter, according to Chung, and the whole surfing experience seems quicker and more responsive.
Google is working on a Mac version of Chrome and Media Dynamics gives the impression that Stainless may well be no more than a demonstration of the possibilities we could see when Chrome for the Mac is finally released. Until then, however, Stainless looks to be a taste of things to come.
Via Make Use Of
Posted by Lonnie Lazar in First impressions, Macintosh, News, Software, Web | Comment on this article
Yes, but can it import my Camino bookmarks and links? Until it can, I think I will hold off.
On a more critical note, we on our Macs seems to be suffering a severe browser glut lately. Off the top of my head I can list
-Safari
-Firefox
-Opera
-Camino
-Stainless
-Flock
-Cruz
-Chrome Mac (eventually)
Wikipedia tells me there is also available:
Shiira
w3m
Seamonkey
OmniWeb
Konqueror
Links
Lynx
iCab
Galeon
Dillo
eLinks
Epiphany
Amaya
What on earth are we to do with all of these? Sure, some have different functions than others, but do i really want to boot up safari every time i think i want a webclip?
Dann, on November 30th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
You know what’s interesting about this browser? It reminds me ALOT of Sunrise… the Japanese Webkit-based browser for Mac. Sunrise is bare bones and has search built into the address bar too. And funny, it even has a knock off icon, that looks a lot like Sunrise’s icon. I smell something fishy. :I
As for the individual tab processes, I don’t know…
But, if you’re curious:
http://www.sunrisebrowser.com/en/
Justin Cash, on November 30th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
@Justin, yeah the icon looks the same but run them both side-by-side and they’re obviously completely different. no conspiracies here.
IBDem, on December 1st, 2008 at 6:21 am
[...] Stainless ist ein erster Ausblick darauf, was Chrome für Mac OS X sein könnte. Der Browser, der als Nebenprojekt von den Entwicklern von Mesa Dynamics entstand, startet, wie Chrome auch, jeden Tab in einem eigenen Prozess. Dafür nutzen er eine spezielle Multi-Threading Technologie, die die Entwickler für ein anderes Projekt (Hypercube) entworfen haben. Stainless ist in der Version 0.4 erhältlich und läuft nur auf Mac OS X 10.5. Leopard. (via CultOfMac) [...]
deutscher Apple Store, neuer Browser und Linux auf dem iPhone! | macophilia - Mac, iPod, iPhone und alles andere von Apple, on December 1st, 2008 at 8:56 am
Why are you still importing/exporting bookmarks? Why not have all bookmarks available all the time, even when a browser isn’t even running?! Look at ULRM Pro and similar products. Quit the hassle. Period.
And if Chrome, Stainless, whatever don’t support ULRMP, their not up-to-date browsers. Period. 
Stop being tied to a broswers bookmarking methods/functions, you might as well use Windows, if that’s the way you like to operate! 
Jim, on December 1st, 2008 at 10:35 am
Why would I need my bookmarks available when my browser isn’t running? won’t I just have to open a browser to view them anyway? And when quicksilver allows me to hit ⌘Space>G>return to open up my gmail in 3 tenths of a second, what could be faster than that? Certianly not a offline book mark manager.
On top of that, $25 for URL Manager Pro?? Of all the things I could spend $25 on, why would I spend it on a application that just facilitates my dissatisfaction with my current browser and eventually causes me to clog my HD with 12 different browsers? I’d rather spend the money on something useful, like buying 4 USB 2.0 ports for my Quicksilver.
Dann, on December 1st, 2008 at 12:09 pm