DNELSON  It's just a release of Apple's sample code application "Downloader".  
(Version 1.0.1.1)

NEONBLUE2  TereNovo writes the truth.

http://neonblue2.blogspot.com/2008/01/more-on-krypton-external-downloading.html

And from what I've seen there are no improvements.  
(Version 1.0.1.1)

FORGOTTEN SOFTWARE  You are correct that it is the sample downloader from Apple. There are many reasons for this.

1. Apple knows how to write code. This application is very stable and does its job

2. This was meant as a companion application to Radon, and we did not have time to write a good downloader from the ground up.

3. We just changed the UI to match Radon, and the name to accomplish a theme. We ar e in no wait trying to market this as our code, and we want know one to think that we are. Use Krypton, take advantages of it. Thank Apple.

Any other questions?  
(Version 1.0.1.1)

DNELSON  No, but it would be nice if you _would_ take the time to make a built-in downloader (e.g. click on a DMG, ZIP, etc. and it downloads).

I know that your browser is based off of Apple's sample code (as are all "small" browsers -- I'm not bashing you on this). But like you said, Apple does know how to write code (they made the front end to the code base, didn't they ;)? But, PROBLEM!!! That code (the downloader and web browser) is stuff from 2003 or so and is not what people expect as a replacement browser. It's a good place to start, but it really needs more like ad blocking, tabs, bookmarks, etc. There doesn't need to be another basic no-brain web browser like "Dreams", "MiniBrowser" and others. You know, it needs all the stuff (and more) that makes Safari just about the World's best web browser (in my opinion).

Here's an idea: Since there's two developers working on this, put your heads together so-to-speak and build a nice, fast, WebKit version of Firefox. Obviously not on Firefox's junky code base, but the same amount of functionality. You won't be competing with browsers like OmniWeb (probably the best ever), but yours will be free and as blazing Cocoa fast as Safari.

You guys are not stupid, and you definitely have potential to make more that a simple little web browser that takes up 0.01% of the browser share.

I'm fully behind you, that is, if you live up to your potential.

I'm not trying to sound rude in all this, but just realize people don't need another little loser web browser like the ones I mentioned earlier.

Yes, I did once say "Dreams" had potential, and it does, but version 1.4 should have much more than what it does. Even yours at 1.0.2.1 should technically do more. At it's current state, it should probably be at 0.4b or so.  
(Version 1.0.1.1)

FORGOTTEN SOFTWARE  Let me make it clear that our browser code is NOT based off Apple, the downloader is. But, i agree with you on many comments. We are working on adding features to Radon. As for Radon being a beta, it is. But, we need two different version numbers because of the fact we had two OS specific versions. But, we would like to think Radon is generally stable enough for regular use. Please stay tuned because Radon 1.5 will have many new features. Progressively, Radon will become a WebKit esq Firefox. We are taking it incrementally because we want the features to be Fast, and well integrated. Something not accomplishable if we try to crunch all the features immediately. Thank you for your feedback, and thanks for using Radon  
(Version 1.0.1.1)