Recommended Posts

Thoughts?

I don't get why they go through all this trouble getting their non-native interface to look like a half-baked native Aqua interface if they could just use the truly Aqua native interface instead and all the services it offers. Oh well...

Just wondering what the point of having tabs on top is in this manner as it saves zero screen estate. Is it just having tabs on top for the sake of having tabs on top?

I don't get why they go through all this trouble getting their non-native interface to look like a half-baked native Aqua interface if they could just use the truly Aqua native interface instead and all the services it offers. Oh well...

Just wondering what the point of having tabs on top is in this manner as it saves zero screen estate. Is it just having tabs on top for the sake of having tabs on top?

Here is the answer: http://blog.mozilla.com/faaborg/2010/06/24/why-tabs-are-on-top-in-firefox-4/

I don't get why they go through all this trouble getting their non-native interface to look like a half-baked native Aqua interface if they could just use the truly Aqua native interface instead and all the services it offers. Oh well...

...

Because it's very limited compared to XUL, there's a reason Camino doesn't do extensions.

I don't get why they go through all this trouble getting their non-native interface to look like a half-baked native Aqua interface if they could just use the truly Aqua native interface instead and all the services it offers. Oh well...

Just wondering what the point of having tabs on top is in this manner as it saves zero screen estate. Is it just having tabs on top for the sake of having tabs on top?

The video that Dunstark linked was released here on Neowin a while back as a news item, and it was very interesting. They didn't do it for aesthetics, or to copy Chrome, there is an actual design philosophy behind it that is explained. However, keep in mind that the video only addresses the desision to make tabs-on-top the default, not whether to add them in at all. You are still able to change it if you want.

Because it's very limited compared to XUL, there's a reason Camino doesn't do extensions.

I think he was simply referring to the actual buttons that Fx uses, not the guts of the application. When they were designing Fx 3.0 and trying so hard to make it "fit in" with the new look for Vista (and failing miserably), I had similar thoughts.

--

First time using the new multiquote feature on Neowin, it's awesome! :D

Because it's very limited compared to XUL, there's a reason Camino doesn't do extensions.

Yet anno 2010 XUL still fails at executing basic tasks such as the animations that have been part of Aqua since 2001, giving the Firefox UI about the same level of refinement as Windows XP's Luna. I can't stand the fact it still lacks out-the-box-Mac OS X features like in-window Dictionary when hitting cmd + ctrl + D. And no, I don't want to install a bunch of extensions for functionality that the OS already offers by default.

screenshot20100723at145.png

Safari 5 does do extensions while maintaining Aqua and Mac OS X' other build-in services. Maybe Mozilla should be looking into the same direction...

Animations have nothing to do with XUL, they're something separate (and they're being added). The dictionary is actually implemented via the Accessibility APIs, which has fairly limited support on the Gecko side (they ran into a whole bunch of bugs in the OS, which were reported back in 2008, and Apple haven't done anything about them, so support is on hold until Apple fixes things)

The Safari extensions (like Chrome's) are fairly limited in what they can do, compared to normal Firefox extensions. But Mozilla is working on implementing something similar (although that won't change the fact that XUL/CSS/SVG/HTML is more flexible than building the stuff in Interface Builder)

Yet anno 2010 XUL still fails at executing basic tasks such as the animations that have been part of Aqua since 2001, giving the Firefox UI about the same level of refinement as Windows XP's Luna. I can't stand the fact it still lacks out-the-box-Mac OS X features like in-window Dictionary when hitting cmd + ctrl + D. And no, I don't want to install a bunch of extensions for functionality that the OS already offers by default.

Safari 5 does do extensions while maintaining Aqua and Mac OS X' other build-in services. Maybe Mozilla should be looking into the same direction...

Safari can't do themes ;) . I agree it would be nice for the program to integrate with the OS, but the amount of customization Firefox has it unrivaled.

It does look a little like Chrome. So far it seems to be of sound stuff. I note that it is slightly faster than the older versions. It is also a good thing to have a clean interface. The older versions used to require a bit of work to keep them under control. I am looking forward to the next release.

Animations have nothing to do with XUL, they're something separate (and they're being added).

So where are they after over 9 years of Mac OS X? And with animations I mean the the fluid default ones (like the roll-out of dialog windows from the toolbar) provided by the OS, not crummy custom ones... Firefox contextual menus don't seem to do the blur effect either.

Safari can't do themes ;) . I agree it would be nice for the program to integrate with the OS, but the amount of customization Firefox has it unrivaled.

Thank God Safari can't do themes.

So where are they after over 9 years of Mac OS X? And with animations I mean the the fluid default ones (like the roll-out of dialog windows from the toolbar) provided by the OS, not crummy custom ones... Firefox contextual menus don't seem to do the blur effect either.

...

Sheets roll out for me, and contextual menus have the blur.

And animations are being implemented, but they aren't that important in the scheme of things.

Sheets roll out for me, and contextual menus have the blur.

Not sure what build you're using but the latest Firefox 4 nightly I'm using just instantly pops out the dialog window when customizing the toolbar. There's no default dialog window animation there. Granted, contextual menus do blur the background now.

And animations are being implemented, but they aren't that important in the scheme of things.

They (like tabs and bookmarks sliding around) should be there by default. Just like in every other application that uses a fully native interface... Period. It's quite apparent that the animations that are there aren't the real deal. For example the window resize animation of the Preferences window is way too fast and rather glitchy.

I have to say the tabs on top do have a certain "cool" look to it.

Ah yeah, I keep forgetting about the customise bit, it's not a normal sheet, it's just styled like one (normal sheets slide in/out). I'd personally like to see that removed/updated (it doesn't fit on Windows or Linux either)

As for the animations, they're being added but they aren't important.

As for the animations, they're being added but they aren't important.

Quite frankly the lack of them still makes Firefox feel awkward on Mac OS X. We aren't using 1999's OSs anymore and in the way the graphical user interface has progressed on the Mac Firefox should have followed suit. Especially after 9 years. It's not like Aqua was introduced by Apple a month ago.

That said this isn't unique to Firefox. Opera and Chrome suffer from the exact same problem. At this point Firefox 4 probably is the best looking one of the three on Mac OS X by default. Opera and Chrome are just awful.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • For the purpose that it was built for, it’s a great machine. It’s okay to own multiple machines, it’s okay for machines to be different. If every computer was the same, they’d be boring af.
    • OpenAI is rolling out a major upgrade to ChatGPT memory by Pradeep Viswanathan OpenAI is rolling out a major upgrade to ChatGPT's memory, making the system more capable, current, and scalable across long-term use. Memory allows ChatGPT to remember useful details about users, including their preferences, projects, and constraints. Instead of starting every conversation from scratch, ChatGPT can use this context to provide more relevant responses in future chats. OpenAI first launched saved memories in February 2024. That feature allowed users to explicitly ask ChatGPT to save information into its memory, such as travel plans or writing preferences. However, this system had limits because it depended heavily on users giving clear instructions to remember something. Additionally, saved memories could become stale over time. In April 2025, OpenAI expanded memory by allowing ChatGPT to reference past chat context outside the saved memories list. This was powered by a background process called “dreaming,” which automatically curates memories from chat history. This made ChatGPT better at learning from natural conversation without requiring users to manually save every detail. Today, OpenAI announced a more capable and compute-efficient memory architecture built on top of dreaming. This new system improves ChatGPT’s ability to carry forward useful context, follow user preferences, and remain accurate as time passes. According to OpenAI’s internal evaluations, the new system improves factual recall from 67.9% in 2025 to 82.8% in 2026. Preference adherence improves from 55.3% to 71.3%, while accuracy over time improves from 52.2% to 75.1%. The best part of this new system is a new memory summary page where users can review ChatGPT's memories. Users can even update details, correct information, or give instructions on what topics ChatGPT should bring up and when. This new, improved memory system is available to ChatGPT Plus and Pro users in the US starting today. It will roll out to more countries, as well as Free and Go users, in the coming weeks.
    • I work for a video production company in Australia. The camera operators shoot footage and then pass the SD card over to the editors. Much easier than handing over the entire camera. Plus, on a busy day you can hand off the SD card and then pop another in for the next shoot. Or, you might have used multiple SD cards because you need the extra space for a long shoot. I also use USB cables and wifi for transferring footage, but in many cases an SD card reader is the easiest method.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      Dr Jared Dental Studio earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      RG INVESTMENT GROUP earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Very Popular
      The Norwegian Drone Pilot earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Very Popular
      s0nic69 earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Collaborator
      Asgardi earned a badge
      Collaborator
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      472
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      247
    3. 3
      Skyfrog
      79
    4. 4
      FloatingFatMan
      67
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      59
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!