Meet Firefox 4.0.1

By bogas04
in Web Browser Discussion & Support

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

.Neo

Posted
Posted
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?

Rookie

Dunstark

Posted
Posted

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/

Grand Master

The_Decryptor Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

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.

Rising Star

SakuraKira

Posted
Posted

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

Grand Master

.Neo

Posted
Posted

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...

Grand Master

The_Decryptor Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

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)

Mentor

SoapyHamHocks Member

Posted
  • Member
Posted

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.

Neowinian

jeromejg

Posted
Posted

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.

Grand Master

.Neo

Posted
Posted

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.

Grand Master

The_Decryptor Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

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.

Grand Master

.Neo

Posted
Posted

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.

Grand Master

The_Decryptor Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

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.

Grand Master

.Neo

Posted
Posted
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.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Posts

    • Browser vendors pen open letter to Microsoft saying "enough is enough"

      By Sekyal · Posted

      Chrome has history of being the browser everyone uses because Internet Explorer sucks, not realizing that Edge changed that, but people got into the habit of using Chrome. I use Brave and I've never been happier with a browser. It does what it is meant to do and gets out of the way.
    • Still using Classic Outlook? Microsoft highlights 15 reasons to switch to New Outlook

      By The Norwegian Drone Pilot · Posted

      Wino Mail -> Microsoft Outlook (the new one). Just sayin.
    • Microsoft launches Godot Sample to streamline Xbox PC game development on the engine

      By LoneWolfSL · Posted

      Microsoft launches Godot Sample to streamline Xbox PC game development on the engine by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe Microsoft today announced a new endeavor that aims to make it simpler for Godot developers to get their products into the Xbox PC ecosystem. Dubbed the "XBOX Godot Sample," this is a new public reference for developers using the open-source engine. This is set to serve as an example of how Microsoft GDK, Xbox Services, and PlayFab can be integrated into their projects. The sample is available now on GitHub as a working example. This covers key features in gaming projects that developers may need to release their projects on Xbox PC, with everything from matchmaking and game sign-in to gamepad compatibility with Godot being covered. This release is being called the first step in giving Godot developers the tools to bring their games over to Xbox PC, with more changes to come based on feedback and issue reports. However, the company was clear that this is not related to bringing Godot projects to Xbox consoles. The engine's open development model stops it from accessing console SDKs due to the requirement of NDAs and legal contracts. Here's how it explained this Godot sample project's focus: This is a source-only sample, not a product. It's MIT-licensed at the wrapper layer; the GDK and PlayFab dependencies still require their own installs and license acceptance, consistent with our other XBOX samples. There is no set update cadence for support or maintenance. We’ll watch the repo, monitor issues, and iterate where it makes sense, but this isn't a commercial release. That said, we’re excited to hear your feedback and see any community PRs, as we evolve this together. This is the first step in bringing Godot for XBOX on PC. We plan to evolve it over time based on what the community tells us is most valuable. This sample is built specifically for XBOX on PC. It doesn’t include support for XBOX Series X|S or XBOX One. If you’re already building for XBOX Series X|S or XBOX One, please talk with your XBOX representative. If not, you can get started by signing up here. Game developers can find the XBOX Godot Sample by heading to GitHub over here. Documentation on how to get started with Godot for building an Xbox PC project can be seen here.
    • Browser vendors pen open letter to Microsoft saying "enough is enough"

      By Primey_ · Posted

      The nerve of Google to sign this.
    • Browser vendors pen open letter to Microsoft saying "enough is enough"

      By s0nic69 · Posted

      I don't understand the vision. Do people really want to buy a new computer from Dell with 6 browsers installed? We all keep asking for Microsoft to stop having so much junk on their OS, and adding a bunch of browsers seems to go against that. Ideally, we would just be asked what browser we want during OOBE but Google is just going to pay Dell a bunch of money to include Chrome. Additionally, would you want your phones to start including all the browsers too when you get them? The only thing I ever wanted was to be able to uninstall IE or edge and I believe you are now able to. I do agree that microsoft needs to chill with their "are you sure you don't want to try edge before you install chrome" ads when going to download chrome.

  • Recent Achievements

    • Collaborator
      Asgardi earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • Conversation Starter
      mobandz earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Apprentice
      fernan99 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • One Month Later
      nothanks earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      B2Proxy earned a badge
      One Month Later

  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      469
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      243
    3. 3
      Skyfrog
      79
    4. 4
      FloatingFatMan
      73
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      60
    Show More

  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!