Recommended Posts

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/989780-meet-the-browser-firefox-next/
Share on other sites

Are we slim yet? No, once you drop legacy support and build for the future and not the past, then you will be slim.

Its for tracking memory usage , and dropping support for Xp (which aint legacy , it is still in use) would come in "are we modern yet" rather :p

Nice to see that once again Firefox is becoming primarily a Windows browser with Mac and Linux users supported by accident rather than actually deliberately designing for the platform. Promises of OpenGL accelerated layers in Firefox 5.0 and low and behold they've failed to deliver - why aren't I surprised.

Are we slim yet? No, once you drop legacy support and build for the future and not the past, then you will be slim.

Feel free to name ONE aspect of IE9 that is slimmer than Fx4.

Nice to see that once again Firefox is becoming primarily a Windows browser with Mac and Linux users supported by accident rather than actually deliberately designing for the platform. Promises of OpenGL accelerated layers in Firefox 5.0 and low and behold they've failed to deliver - why aren't I surprised.

I don't know about OS X, but to be honest, it's hard to deliberately design GPU acceleration for a platform (Linux) with such a high level of fragmentation and crappy graphics drivers.

A fast, slim browser. :)

erm , yeah ie9 is faster coz of dropping support for xp and not coz of some chakra (or dead code elimination :shiftyninja: ) , so yeah xp is the one to blame :)

attachment.cgi?id=525501

Some new stuff regrading the branches :D

  • Like 2
I don't know about OS X, but to be honest, it's hard to deliberately design GPU acceleration for a platform (Linux) with such a high level of fragmentation and crappy graphics drivers.

True, but there is no excuse when it comes to Mac OS X - a single OpenGL library to target at and even then they (Firefox developers) couldn't do it right.

erm , yeah ie9 is faster coz of dropping support for xp and not coz of some chakra (or dead code elimination :shiftyninja: ) , so yeah xp is the one to blame :)

attachment.cgi?id=525501

Some new stuff regrading the branches :D

They even made the nightly/beta builds look good. :wub: Does it work with channels now, just like Chrome?

  • Like 1

erm , yeah ie9 is faster coz of dropping support for xp and not coz of some chakra (or dead code elimination :shiftyninja: ) , so yeah xp is the one to blame :)

Maybe not XP so much, but supporting 2K is silly. There's dead code right there. XP won't be far behind.

But te new builds look nice :D

Maybe not XP so much, but supporting 2K is silly. There's dead code right there. XP won't be far behind.

But te new builds look nice :D

yeah they do! :D

but , 2k is legacy , i agree :p but not xp , people with 512mb ram are still out there , even i was 2 years back i guess, xp does need a faster browser , which microsoft fails to provide , not even that , 64bit versions of windows too need a fast browser which again microsoft fails to provide , i find them really incompetent , they created a browser for mere 2 versions of windows :|

Until they offer extensions updates for non-stable releases and fix their terrible project management at AMO, no.

extension compatibility will be bumped automatically with newer releases UNLESS they are found incompatible with certain feature , thats what i heard , so i dont think that will be a problem , and give addon makers some time, firefox 4.0 isn't even 1 month old

btw i have filed this bug , anyone interested to help me voice it to developers?

Nice to see that once again Firefox is becoming primarily a Windows browser with Mac and Linux users supported by accident rather than actually deliberately designing for the platform. Promises of OpenGL accelerated layers in Firefox 5.0 and low and behold they've failed to deliver - why aren't I surprised.

As I said in the last thread, Firefox supports OpenGL layers on OS X and has since last year (it's enabled by default in Firefox 4 and 5!)

They explicitly don't support it on 10.5 due to bugs in the underlying OS, those bugs have been fixed with 10.6(.2) though.

extension compatibility will be bumped automatically with newer releases UNLESS they are found incompatible with certain feature , thats what i heard , so i dont think that will be a problem

Right, so instead of a month for good add-ons to get approved, it'll take a month for bugged add-ons that crash the browser and break features to get blacklisted.

Personally I don't see that as an improvement, but meh.

and give addon makers some time, firefox 4.0 isn't even 1 month old

I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in empathizing with Mozilla and/or add-on developers. If it can't be ensured that the extensions I want be ready to use when the browser goes stable, that counts as a black mark against the product as far as I'm concerned.

Besides, the current problem isn't with add-on devs, it's mostly with Mozilla's horrible project management. Four weeks (and more) for an add-on to make it through the review queue? That's bloody ridiculous.

In the case of non-stable builds: again, no automatic extension updates unless specifically marked as compatible with Nightly/Aurora/Beta/whatever, which most extensions aren't. Until this changes, Firefox pre-release channels aren't for me.

A fast, slim browser. :)

Dropping XP support had nothing to do with making it fast or slim. The only reason why IE9 is good now is because Microsoft coded it properly. Microsoft could have easily released a version of the browser for XP, (though it wouldn't use the specific GPU accell APIs Microsoft touts since they're not there in XP), and it would be just as slim and fast as it is on Vista/7. Your code does not magically become better when you "remove support" for an earlier OS version. Good code is good code no matter where it runs, and XP is very well capable of running any program out there.

  • Like 2

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • While I miss Outlook for a couple of small things, I use Thunderbird now because I don't like how MS wants to force you to change things.
    • 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.
    • Wino Mail -> Microsoft Outlook (the new one). Link: https://github.com/bkaankose/Wino-Mail Just sayin.
    • 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.
  • 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
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!