Recommended Posts

Direct3D layers have been enabled by default for a month or so, you don't need the MOZ_ACCELERATED environment variable any more.

I know that much but I was too lazy to remove it :p Anything I should make sure in about:config before I remove it so I can be sure that D3D is still on?

EDIT: just updated to newest nightly and enabled D3D10...... holy damn fast :woot:

I know that much but I was too lazy to remove it :p Anything I should make sure in about:config before I remove it so I can be sure that D3D is still on?

EDIT: just updated to newest nightly and enabled D3D10...... holy damn fast :woot:

Damn with all the sexy stuff happening on Windows I wonder whether I should abandon Mac OS X and go to the dark side :(

Once again Mozilla developers demonstrating they don't give a crap about Mac users by their decision to work on and enable layers for DirectX before OpenGL :(

Damn with all the sexy stuff happening on Windows I wonder whether I should abandon Mac OS X and go to the dark side :(

Once again Mozilla developers demonstrating they don't give a crap about Mac users by their decision to work on and enable layers for DirectX before OpenGL :(

You are the minority.

Damn with all the sexy stuff happening on Windows I wonder whether I should abandon Mac OS X and go to the dark side :(

Once again Mozilla developers demonstrating they don't give a crap about Mac users by their decision to work on and enable layers for DirectX before OpenGL :(

When Firefox started there wasn't even a Mac version to support. Now there is and they are obviously working very hard to make it as good as they can on the Mac, but you can't expect Mac to get any the "sexy stuff" first when it's primarily a Windows and Linux app. You'll get all the features eventually, but we all know how slow Firefox development is, and I imagine it's even worse now that they're developing for Mac as well. There's really no reason to abandon OS X, though, if that's your OS of choice, especially just for a web browser. Supposedly there are plenty of Windows emulation options available, including running Windows apps within the OS X environment. Working on DirectX before OpenGL doesn't mean Mozilla doesn't give a crap about Mac, though it does imply that perhaps they don't give a crap about OpenGL. There's a reason why the majority of PC games are for Windows. (That doesn't mean I personally prefer DirectX over OpenGL, but apparently most developers do. I once thought That OpenGL would eventually overthrow DirectX and I would see most games being released on multiple OSes, but it's been almost 20 years now and it still hasn't happened.)

When Firefox started there wasn't even a Mac version to support. Now there is and they are obviously working very hard to make it as good as they can on the Mac, but you can't expect Mac to get any the "sexy stuff" first when it's primarily a Windows and Linux app. You'll get all the features eventually, but we all know how slow Firefox development is, and I imagine it's even worse now that they're developing for Mac as well. There's really no reason to abandon OS X, though, if that's your OS of choice, especially just for a web browser. Supposedly there are plenty of Windows emulation options available, including running Windows apps within the OS X environment. Working on DirectX before OpenGL doesn't mean Mozilla doesn't give a crap about Mac, though it does imply that perhaps they don't give a crap about OpenGL. There's a reason why the majority of PC games are for Windows. (That doesn't mean I personally prefer DirectX over OpenGL, but apparently most developers do. I once thought That OpenGL would eventually overthrow DirectX and I would see most games being released on multiple OSes, but it's been almost 20 years now and it still hasn't happened.)

The issue with Firefox and Mac OS X rather than being a cause is but one of a long list of issues I've had with third party developers and their incessant whining about Microsofts monopoly (such as Firefox whining to the EU) but through their crap software on Mac further entrench the monopoly further. You'd think that there is sufficient motivation to making their Mac version worth while but even a cracker under their backside seems to do nothing - oh, and Firefox on *NIX is no walk in the path either but that is due to a whole set of other considerations.

As for OpenGL, thats an issue caused by the entrenched status quo of CAD vendors not wanting OpenGL to move to a "object creation would become atomic, using templates to define the properties of an object which would be created with a single function call" (from the Wikipedia article) which unfortunately has lent it to a bias towards CAD producers with gamers being given the short end of the stick. I don't see things improving any time soon other than the Mac user base increasing and software vendors having to swallow their pride and learn how to use OpenGL properly instead of the half baked approach they're doing today.

I'd say that my hope is in the Webkit corner at this stage especially with Webkit2 in development with process separation baked right into the API itself - I really do want Firefox on Mac OS X to be really good if for no other reason that it puts a fire under the backside of Apple developers to improve Safari. If the only viable browser on Mac OS X is Safari then it doesn't speak too highly as to the future development of Safari beyond the current status quo.

Mozilla's aim is to innovate and improve the web , and thus , they need a platform used by most of the ppl , which comes to be Windows (90+% share :o )

So obviously , they would first think of Windows version , and then of the latter.

Anyways , 17 blocking bugs left :D We MIGHT see Beta 7 next week

Damn with all the sexy stuff happening on Windows I wonder whether I should abandon Mac OS X and go to the dark side :(

Once again Mozilla developers demonstrating they don't give a crap about Mac users by their decision to work on and enable layers for DirectX before OpenGL :(

OpenGL Layers were landed and enabled before D3D10 layers were landed (they still aren't enabled)

D3D Layers landed earlier simply because they were the simpler API, OpenGL Layers isn't just for OS X (they're using them on mobile devices (Android, etc.), so they had to write lots of support code)

There's a bit of a difference between performance and resource usage. Performance pretty much equates to speed and responsiveness, and honestly I think performance absolutely sucks at the moment, but I have hope that by the time it's final it'll be significantly improved. I really don't care how much of my CPU or RAM it uses. 90% of your CPU is more than acceptable if Firefox is the active program (although it doesn't; it fluctuates between 5%-45% for me, what kind of CPU do you have?!), it shouldn't use nearly so much if it's in the background. However, I have a fairly decent CPU, so when it is active I expect it to run fairly decently, and it doesn't at the moment. It's test software, if you want release-quality you should go back to 3.6.

Mozilla's aim is to innovate and improve the web , and thus , they need a platform used by most of the ppl , which comes to be Windows (90+% share :o )

So obviously , they would first think of Windows version , and then of the latter.

Anyways , 17 blocking bugs left :D We MIGHT see Beta 7 next week

haha, let's hope so

Well between Beta 6 and current nightlies there are already a very noticeable performance improvement in Startup, response time, JS speed etc. I dont know how you define suck, but it is definitely not slow anymore. Compartment GC is definitely working as switch between my home Nighties Build and Work 's Beta 6 environment i notice the pause between tabs in beta 6. It may not be as fast as Chrome and Opera in many cases, but it is not that far behind.

Chrome and Opera scales VERY well with high end machines. i.e If you have a fast computer and lots of memory Chrome is going to perform better with wider margin of advantage then Firefox. However at the low end Firefox does very well, if not better then Chrome.

It's very difficult not to perform better than Firefox ATM, it's by far the slowest browser, even after all these supposed speed improvements.

Also, I'm actually using yesterday's build still, because today's build crashes almost immediately upon startup. I think it's a problem with Flash, because simple sites (like Mozilla's FTP site, thankfully) didn't crash it. Oh, well, maybe tomorrow will be better.

It's very difficult not to perform better than Firefox ATM, it's by far the slowest browser, even after all these supposed speed improvements.

Also, I'm actually using yesterday's build still, because today's build crashes almost immediately upon startup. I think it's a problem with Flash, because simple sites (like Mozilla's FTP site, thankfully) didn't crash it. Oh, well, maybe tomorrow will be better.

What operating system are you running it on?

It's very difficult not to perform better than Firefox ATM, it's by far the slowest browser, even after all these supposed speed improvements.

Also, I'm actually using yesterday's build still, because today's build crashes almost immediately upon startup. I think it's a problem with Flash, because simple sites (like Mozilla's FTP site, thankfully) didn't crash it. Oh, well, maybe tomorrow will be better.

I couldn't open the latest build at all it just crashed before it opened. But I fixed it by using the 32 bit build rather than the 64 bit one.

However at the low end Firefox does very well, if not better then Chrome.

False.

This site scrolls super-smooth in SRware Iron 6 (Chromium 6 + Fast Adbloock) on an Intel Atom N270.

While, with Firefox it is a painful experience without D2D and D3D10 layers.

Whilst Firefox 4.0 b7-pre beats IE9 in performance by a large margin outside of IE9 tests (BS), Chrome 6 beats FF4.0 b7pre (w. D2D and D3D10 layers) by a noticable margin in real world speed. Don't forget that Firefox is about 3-4 times slower without D2D and D3DX layers.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, performance was better before.

Firefox really isn't that smooth in scrolling. Chrome does not properly support touch either.

I can't wait for this generation of browsers to hit rtm. I am tired of using betas, but the current final versions just do not offer as nice of an experience.

Also, is it possible for a browser to cause a blue screen? I've had the same OS install for a good couple of months and had my first this morning. I enabled the layers.use-d3d10. Very strange coincidence.

Since they're using the GPU more and more, it's certainly possible they're hitting driver bugs that cause the BSOD.

Mozilla are running into driver and card issues so much that they've implemented a block list on Windows and OS X.

Edit: I should clarify, I'm talking about browsers in general in the first paragraph.

Since they're using the GPU more and more, it's certainly possible they're hitting driver bugs that cause the BSOD.

Mozilla are running into driver and card issues so much that they've implemented a block list on Windows and OS X.

Edit: I should clarify, I'm talking about browsers in general in the first paragraph.

True, problems started appearing when Flash started to be GPU accelerated and many bugs were found in many of the drivers that are out there. Some of the results were weird inconsistencies whilst others resulted in BSOD's. This probably explained why Microsoft didn't move their bundled applications from GDI+ to Direct2D but with that being said had they dogfooded their software during the development phase they would have uncovered these bugs relatively quickly rather than it being several months after the release of Windows 7. Apple on the other hand does a great job at dogfooding - they develop and API and use it straight away so that the API reflects a real world situation rather than something designed in abstract that doesn't actually address a problem the way programmers would address it.

False.

This site scrolls super-smooth in SRware Iron 6 (Chromium 6 + Fast Adbloock) on an Intel Atom N270.

While, with Firefox it is a painful experience without D2D and D3D10 layers.

Whilst Firefox 4.0 b7-pre beats IE9 in performance by a large margin outside of IE9 tests (BS), Chrome 6 beats FF4.0 b7pre (w. D2D and D3D10 layers) by a noticable margin in real world speed. Don't forget that Firefox is about 3-4 times slower without D2D and D3DX layers.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, performance was better before.

And that is a scrolling specific issues. I am referring to Firefox using lower amount of memory, and CPU usage. For single Tab, Chrome may well does better then Firefox, once you open multiple tabs, Its Multi Thread, Multi process architecture really hurts low end machines.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • It's amazing that anyone still uses this bloated trash.
    • @Sayan...I have defended you at various points as I hope you know. This headline however is utter trash...shame on you sir!
    • An actual cosmic "Eye of Sauron" had been looking straight at us all along by Sayan Sen Image by Kovin P. Vasquez via Pexels | Not representative An international team of researchers has solved a long-standing mystery surrounding a distant blazar known as PKS 1424+240, helping explain why it produces some of the brightest high-energy gamma rays and cosmic neutrinos ever observed despite appearing to have a relatively slow-moving jet. The findings were published on June 6 in Astronomy & Astrophysics Letters. The study addresses a broader challenge in astrophysics: understanding how extreme cosmic objects accelerate particles to very high energies and produce very high-energy (VHE) photons and neutrinos. PKS 1424+240 is located billions of light-years from Earth. It has attracted attention for years because it is both a powerful source of VHE gamma rays and the brightest known neutrino-emitting blazar in the sky, according to observations by the IceCube Neutrino Observatory. It is also associated with one of the strongest peaks in IceCube's nine-year neutrino sky map A blazar is a type of active galactic nucleus powered by a supermassive black hole that pulls in surrounding matter and launches jets of plasma moving close to the speed of light. What makes blazars unique is their orientation. One of their jets points almost directly toward Earth, making them appear exceptionally bright across the electromagnetic spectrum and allowing scientists to study some of the most extreme physical processes in the Universe. The scientists exclaimed it's like the 'Eye of Sauron' in deep space. Usually, the brightest gamma-ray-emitting blazars are expected to have jets that appear to move very quickly. However, radio observations of PKS 1424+240 suggested that its jet was moving much more slowly, creating a contradiction that became part of a long-running problem known as the "Doppler factor crisis." To investigate, researchers analyzed 15 years of observations from the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA), a network of 10 radio antennas spread across the continental United States, Hawaii and St. Croix. Using a technique called Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI), astronomers combine signals from widely separated radio telescopes to create a virtual Earth-sized telescope capable of revealing extremely fine details. The team combined 42 polarization-sensitive radio images collected between 2009 and 2025, creating a much deeper and more detailed view of the jet than had previously been possible. The observations were carried out as part of MOJAVE (Monitoring Of Jets in Active galactic nuclei with VLBA Experiments), a long-running program that studies the brightness, polarization and magnetic field structures of jets produced by active galaxies. The project aims to better understand how activity near supermassive black holes is linked to high-energy radiation and neutrino emission. “When we reconstructed the image, it looked absolutely stunning,” said Yuri Kovalev, lead author of the study and Principal Investigator of the European Research Council-funded MuSES project at the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy. “We have never seen anything quite like it — a near-perfect toroidal magnetic field with a jet, pointing straight at us.” The image revealed an unusual geometry. The researchers found that Earth lies almost directly in line with the jet, with a viewing angle of less than 0.6 degrees. In simple terms, astronomers are looking almost straight down the jet. This turned out to be the key to the mystery. Because the jet is aimed almost directly at Earth, a relativistic effect called Doppler boosting dramatically increases its apparent brightness. The study found that this effect boosts the emission by a factor of about 30 while also making the jet appear slower than it actually is. “This alignment causes a boost in brightness by a factor of 30 or more,” said Jack Livingston, a co-author at the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy. “At the same time, the jet appears to move slowly due to projection effects — a classic optical illusion.” The nearly head-on view also gave scientists a rare look at the jet's magnetic field. Using polarized radio signals, they detected a clear toroidal, or doughnut-shaped, magnetic field component. The observations suggest the jet carries an electric current and that its magnetic field helps launch, shape and stabilize the flow of plasma. Researchers believe this magnetic structure may also play a key role in accelerating particles to energies high enough to produce both gamma rays and neutrinos. “Solving this puzzle confirms that active galactic nuclei with supermassive black holes are not only powerful accelerators of electrons, but also of protons — the origin of the observed high-energy neutrinos,” Kovalev said. The research was conducted under the MuSES (Multi-messenger Studies of Energetic Sources) project, which investigates how active galactic nuclei accelerate particles and generate different cosmic signals, including light and neutrinos. Scientists say understanding how protons are accelerated and linked to neutrino production remains one of the major unanswered questions in astrophysics. The findings help explain why some blazars can appear to have slow jets while still producing extremely bright high-energy emissions. More broadly, the study strengthens the link between relativistic jets, magnetic fields, gamma rays and high-energy neutrinos. Researchers say the results provide new clues about how some of the Universe's most powerful natural particle accelerators work and offer important insights for multimessenger astronomy, which combines different types of cosmic signals to study extreme events in space. Source: European Research Council, EDP Sciences This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • Gotenks98 is right... Outlook (new) is absolute trash. Doesn't Mozilla have an Enterprise Version of Firebird?
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      lamborghiniv10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      lamborghiniv10 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Reacting Well
      X-No-file earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      pestcontrol46 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      pestcontrol46 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      510
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      273
    3. 3
      Skyfrog
      75
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      68
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!