Triple-Engine Browser Released As Alpha

jcasman passes along a heads-up on Lunascape, a Japanese browser company that is releasing its first English version of its Lunascape 5 triple-engine browser. It's for XP and Vista only. There are reviews up at CNET, OStatic (quoted below), and Lifehacker. Both the reviews and comments point out that, in its current alpha state, the browser is buggy and not very fast; but it might be one to watch. "How many web browsers do you run? If you're like me, you regularly use Firefox, Internet Explorer, Chrome and Safari. Each of those browsers, of course, has its own underlying rendering engine: Gecko (in Firefox), Trident (in Internet Explorer), and Webkit (in Chrome and Safari). Today, a Japanese startup called Lunascape has released an alpha version of its Lunascape browser ... that allows you to switch between all three of these prominent rendering engines. The company says that the Japanese version of Lunascape has been downloaded 10 million times and touts it as the fastest browser available."

Lunatic Japan

[Ethanol-fueled (1125189)]

The idea is as ludicrous as a turducken [wikipedia.org]. One thing's for sure, though: It will be a turd.

Lunascape supports its own plug-ins and themes...It does not, however, support Firefox add-ons, which is a real drag.

And almost certainly not even worth the look useless unless it will be able to block ads and scripts like NoScript and AdBock can. Using the english page to search the plugins reveals...nothing! Nothing at all! Okay, trying the Google translation of the original Japanese page yields 43 plugins, all related to crap like youtube and twitter...not a single ad or script blocker.

This browser is much more chindogu [wikipedia.org], than anything else.

Re:

[Markvs (17298)]

Ah, but turducken is tasty! But only in it's cooked state. Perhaps Luna will be tasty too, after it's been prepared and cooked and is actually ready to be served.

Re:Lunatic Japan

[worthawholebean (1204708)]

It's in alpha. You can't really expect it to have a fully-formed community or mature addons.

Re:Lunatic Japan

[Kagura (843695)]

If you ever visit Korean sites, they are chock full of ActiveX crap. If you ever want to be able to navigate them properly, your only chance is to run Internet Explorer.

If you use Firefox but need to use IE from time to time, I *highly* recommend the IE Tab Firefox Extension [mozilla.org]. I never used to use it because I figured it'd be too much of a bloat or hassle, but it really works *great*. I encourage you to use it if you ever have to open an IE window.

Re:

[mweather (1089505)]

The Korean government mandates that ActiveX crap.

Re:

[Hurricane78 (562437)]

No, he's not. It's great for web development too:

https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/1419 [mozilla.org]

But note one typical but totally crazy thing: IE behaves slightly different, when used in an embedded way. (Like in IE Tab or those "Browsers" that internally use IE.)

Re:Lunatic Japan

[moocat2 (445256)]

I use IE Tab Firefox Extension and it is a life saver for me. There are a couple of important pages on my company's intranet that require IE (yes, ActiveX crap). Not only can I have a one tab running the IE rendered while the rest of my tabs are using whatever the native Firefox rendered is, but you can configure the extension to always use IE for specific pages so once you configure that you don't have to remember which pages need IE.

Re:

[cbreaker (561297)]

I really only use IETab for Outlook Web Access. although perfectly doable to make OWA just as functional in any browser as IE, Microsoft keeps on making OWA suck for non-IE browsers.

So, I IETab for OWA and that's pretty much it. There's the occational site out there that STILL requires IE to render properly but generally those are just shit little sites, or sites that use the Media Player plug-in that doesn't work correctly on Firefox + x64 Vista.

Re:Lunatic Japan

[cbreaker (561297)]

The difference between OWA in IE and other browsers is quite a lot. Drag and drop, advanced editing features, better overall interface..

They've improved OWA for non-IE browsers in Exchange 2007 but it's just a joke. There's no reason they can't make OWA with all the bells and whistles by using standard web browser features. I've seen it done on some other web mail clients. Microsoft is a joke when it comes to their obvious attempts to force people to use their browser.

Re:

[DeadDecoy (877617)]

I believe that extension only works in windows. It seems to use some ie's engine to run MS web features. So if you run linux you're pretty much screwed. : /

Can you say bloat?

[Foofoobar (318279)]

My god! This is like inviting the cast of 'Biggest Loser' at the beginning of the show over to your apartment for Hors de Vors. Vista already ate everything, they are going to be fighting over crumbs!

Re:

[Foofoobar (318279)]

C'mon man! Their developers are probably SUMO who have been eating Microsoft dogfood!

Nope.

[stonecypher (118140)]

This isn't really useful as a diagnostic browser.

There are significant rendering differences between the various KHTML/Webkit implementations (eg Apple uses its own font renderer, which gives seriously different results than most host OS renderers, and Google has provided its own viewport code which gets several things incorrect, such as the placement of background coloration on absolutely positioned bodies, which aren't as silly as they might initially sound once you look into scalable viewports.) It also misses Opera, which still has more market share than Safari on Windows, as well as a variety of small browsers.

On top of that, there's the significant likelihood that this browser injects new differences into the rendering process.

Short version? Switch if you find the browser compelling (does an, but this doesn't substitute for actual browser case testing (it neither correctly nor completely covers the playing field.)

I won't be adding it to my standard six, that's for sure. The last thing I need is another also-ran browser to check.

Re:

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

Short version? Switch if you find the browser compelling (does an, but this doesn't substitute for actual browser case testing (it neither correctly nor completely covers the playing field.)

Hot on the heels of the article that complained about privacy in Safari 3.2, it seems like this browser really needs a central ratings server. i.e. The only point of a browser like this is to provide the use of a different rendering engine when no other engines will work correctly. Thus the ideal solution is not to make

Re:

[SanityInAnarchy (655584)]

Thus the ideal solution is not to make the user switch engines willy nilly.

Yes.

The ideal solution is for the browser to pull the ideal rendering engine from a database that matches sites against the ideal engine.

No, then you've just got the browser switching rendering engines willy-nilly.

I shouldn't even have to switch user-agents to make things work. That's why we have these things called standards -- the only rendering engine you should need is your favorite one that supports the standards.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

This isn't really useful as a diagnostic browser.

I believe that the goal was to facilitate scan-line interleaving: every other line of a given website is rendered by a different engine. It is the latest effort in standards-based browsing. The Acid Test winds up looking like a bunch of cloned Neanderthal pirates that use solid state disks to subvert RIAA intelligence.

Was this not the obvious use of such technology?

Seriously.

Re:

[stonecypher (118140)]

This may be the first genuinely funny thing I've ever seen an anonymous coward say. If you had logged in, I would totally fan you right now.

Re:

[stonecypher (118140)]

I don't count versions as separate browsers. I meant Firefox, IE, Safari, Opera, Chrome and Safari/iPhone (I count that as separate, whereas I don't count mac/win separate, because the interface and experience are pretty radically different.)

Target audience?

[by Anonymous Coward]

How many web browsers do you run? If you're like me, you regularly use Firefox, Internet Explorer, Chrome and Safari.

What person in their right mind needs to "regularly" run 4 different web browsers? I'm a full-blown web developer, and I only use 2 browsers on a daily basis. I use Opera for the vast majority of normal browsing, references, API lookups, etc, and I use Firefox with Firebug for actual development and debugging. Periodically I test with IE and Safari, and maybe Chrome, but I would never say that I "regularly" use IE or Safari. Opera is the only browser I use where I save bookmarks, for example.

I'm having a hard time seeing where there would be an audience for a browser with 3 rendering engines. In Opera I have toolbar buttons to launch the current page in Firefox, IE, or Safari. If I want to test my page with a certain rendering engine, I'm going to launch it in that browser. I'm not interested in testing my pages with "Trident running in Lunascape", I'm interested in testing with Internet Explorer. Period. It doesn't matter if it works in Lunascape if it's broken in IE or Safari or Firefox.

And that's from a web developer's perspective, a normal user wouldn't have the first clue what a rendering engine even is and they wouldn't know when or why they would change the engine to use another one.

If you want 3 rendering engines, download 3 browsers. A single browser with 3 rendering engines is a novelty, nothing more. It is not useful as a development tool because it is not the same thing when something works in Trident vs. working in IE. IE has plenty of room to screw things up besides the engine, testing with the engine is only one part of making sure it works in IE.

Re:

[prozaker (1261190)]

so true, I don't know who else has a use for this except web developers.

As a web developer myself I rather test a page in each browser instead of having one with 3 rendering engines in it.

I didn't read the article but I'm guessing it only does 1 kind of ie. (maybe 7?) which is worthless because most of the problems occour in ie6 (god bless its heart)

And most of the time, if not ever, if firefox displays it fine, then most of all the non ie browsers will do that too. And also because of firebug, I

Fastest browser?

[Onyma (1018104)]

I haven't had time to try this but if they are just sitting on top of everyone else's rendering engines then how can they claim to be faster than any of them?

Re:Fastest browser?

[DragonWriter (970822)]

I haven't had time to try this but if they are just sitting on top of everyone else's rendering engines then how can they claim to be faster than any of them?

It is actually pretty easy to claim that.

It is a bit harder to do it. But claiming it is no problem.

End of story

[Dan East (318230)]

How many web browsers do you run?

Like 99% of the rest of internet users, I use one browser (firefox).

I'm rather surprised this has been downloaded 10M times, unless there is some sort of patriotism based motivation going on. For the life of me I just can't picture the average internet user saying "Hey, let's see how this website looks when rendered by the Webkit engine!" while their buddy, looking on over their shoulder responds "Yeah, do it! This is going to be a blast!"

Re:

[FlyingBishop (1293238)]

Like 99% of the rest of English speaking internet users, I use one browser (firefox).

I'm being a little presumptuous, but I suspect that you, like me, have never looked at browser data for Japanese websites. They are much more tech savvy than we, and I would not be surprised to find that much like the population of Slashdot (myself included) they have a disproportionate share of that made up 1% of internet users that use multiple browsers you quoted.

Re:

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518)]

Fixed that for yourself.

Re:

[ya really (1257084)]

How many web browsers do you run?

If you're a webdeveloper, I hope one has access to at least IE, FF, Safari and Opera for testing and perhaps Chrome as well for JS engine differences to safari. Otherwise, one just have to assume that everything works out A-OK for everything.

How many browser do I use? The majority of users?

[javelinco (652113)]

How many browser do I use? The majority of users? Come on people. The majority of users use one browser. They use either Internet Explorer, or something like Firefox. That's it. If they use something besides Internet Explorer, they will reluctantly fire up IE when they have problems. Does anyone believe otherwise? Unless I'm developing web pages, I personally don't use more than that either - I may check new ones out, and pick the one with the current best features for what I use - but this isn't no

Big in Japan

[jaymzter (452402)]

Yeah, just like "Citizen Dick is really big in Japan too.

Re:

[Enderandrew (866215)]

There is an overwhelming shortage of Singles references out there. You sir, win.

This screwed up our LAN

[amake (673443)]

I work for a Japanese video game company, and about a month ago we had a network outage that was traced back to the auto-update feature of Lunascape. I have no idea how many people installed it, but it apparently created enough traffic to take down our internet connection. I hope the developers have improved it by now.

not anime friendly

[BountyX (1227176)]

this browser, like firefox, locks the file that is being downloaded and is therefore, not anime friendly. since it is not anime friendly, it has dishonored all of japan. until i can download my code geass mkv files in hi def and watch them as they are being downloaded (btw, lulu lives so =P ), i will stick with my anime friendly opera browser.

Re:

[PitaBred (632671)]

Stop using Windows and that file locking crap just goes away.

Really?

[Junta (36770)]

I've never noticed poor text quality on the text stream subs. Must be your player of choice and configuration, not the fundamental platform on which it runs.

So much peanut butter all over my chocolate

[Joe Snipe (224958)]

So is there some feature that allows it to automatically switch between engines, or is this just another ill-thought out mashup? I mean if I have to choose which engine each time, then I might as well just open another program, RAM isn't the tight commodity it once was.

They skipped two blades...

[camperdave (969942)]

Three rendering engines? I'm reminded of the lowly razor. First it was a single blade. Then two, then it went to three. I thought that would be it. Then the Quattro came out: four blades. Of course, everyone thinks this is ridiculous, but then someone comes out with five blades! What percentage of your head must be bone to think that you need five blades on a razor - plus one extra for those areas that need a precise trim? Some amazingly close to 100 number, I'm guessing.

So now it's not enough to

Why is it fast?

[treeves (963993)]

Fastest? Lemme guess, when you make an HTTP request it goes to some website with a database of all webpages cross-referenced by which rendering engine is fastest for each, then it opens the site you asked for with that particular engine.

Useless

[lord_sarpedon (917201)]

Three engines, for the closest browse yet...

Re:Web development

[stokessd (89903)]

I would think a Linux version would be unlikely due to the trident component.

Sheldon

Re:Web development

[CarpetShark (865376)]

I would think a Linux version would be unlikely due to the trident component.

Trident? So it's BSD-only then?

Re:

[erroneus (253617)]

They won't release a Linux version. While it is technically possible, they would likely run into some problems while trying to distribute MSIE binaries. They would have to do the same thing that people do where they download MSIE from Linux and then set it up under Wine.

Re:

[sunking2 (521698)]

Because in this day and age noone could possibly have enough hardrive space for multiple browsers.

Re:

[mweather (1089505)]

Have you ever worked on 3 or 4 pages at once that all needed to be tested in a different browsers? It's a PITA, especially if some of the browsers don't support tabs (IE6). That's a ton of windows and tabs to keep track of in addition to any other pages you have up. Anything that can simplify that task is welcome in my book.

Re:

[rudy_wayne (414635)]

"Have you ever worked on 3 or 4 pages at once that all needed to be tested in a different browsers?"

No. And most people don't. A triple-engine browser is targetting a pretty small audience.

Re:

[brainnolo (688900)]

I didn't bother to read TFA, so I don't know what the devs claim, but does every piece of software need to target the mass? To me it looks like an useful development/testing software for web developers and for users who regularly need to use sites that require a specific engine (assuming that the software allows tying a site to a specific engine so it is opened automatically with the correct one, otherwise is worthless for the last category I mentioned)

Re:

[BrentH (1154987)]

Jeez, what is up with you guys? Why do you have marketingdepartments internalized? Not everything is created to make money or gain marketshare, some things are just made for fun or for a very small niche. I mean, you can see who'd like such a browser, don't you? Tweakers (such as on this website!), webdevs, people who like crazy tech, to name a few, not to mention the makers themselves probably. It's fun, godd*mmit, why does it need to be anything else?

Re:

[SanityInAnarchy (655584)]

Worth mentioning, this problems is mostly Microsoft's fault. Easily 90% of the cross-browser problems are cases where it works everywhere but IE. If I didn't have to test in IE, I probably would only test outside of Firefox once a week.

That said, the solution to this is a decent window manager -- even Spaces on OS X helps a bit.

Madness

[CarpetShark (865376)]

A browser that has the second (or third) engine as from another browser is no substitute for proper testing in a different browser. Browsers are much more than just engines. However, this sort if chimera IS a great way to get more bugs and vulnerabilities than a single engine would provide.

Re:

[Frosty Piss (770223)]

I may end up fixing "bugs" that only exist in the minds of the Japanese. . . .

Mothera?

Re:

[SanityInAnarchy (655584)]

For Linux, there's a project which lets me run four versions of IE simultaneously under Wine, or I'll run Windows in a VM.

For Windows, there's IETab, which makes me think this browser is even more worthless.

Re:

[stokessd (89903)]

It doesn't have 5 blades either...friggin lightweight...