Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Firefox Mobile Reaches 1.0

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the how's-it-handle-baroque-javascript dept.

Cellphones 198

Majix writes "Firefox Mobile, the mobile browser developed by Mozilla based on the same engine as in the recently released Firefox 3.6, has finally hit version 1.0. The first device to be officially supported is the Nokia N900. With a long list of features, Firefox Mobile looks to be the most complete mobile browser to date. Highlights include the familiar Awesome Bar, Weave Sync for sharing your browser state between your PC and mobile, and of course tabbed browsing and Firefox add-ons. With the Nokia 900 and Firefox Mobile 1.0, even Flash content including the normal YouTube site is working, showing that a mobile browser does not have to equal a compromised Internet experience."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

To whom it may concern: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30965582)

I am convinced that Jews did WTC, but I have no hard evidence to support this.

Please advise.

How about the iPad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30965584)

Will this thing run on the iPad?

Re:How about the iPad? (5, Informative)

Nightspirit (846159) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965628)

"We do not have plans to build an iPhone browser due to constraints with the OS environment and distribution. "
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mobile/Platforms [mozilla.org]

Re:How about the iPad? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30965644)

It is a Turing complete program. Of course it can't be approved for the iBad.

Re:How about the iPad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30965744)

Huh? the GP asked about iPad!

Re:How about the iPad? (3, Insightful)

Lifyre (960576) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965806)

And he answered the GGP's question.

Re:How about the iPad? (2, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965844)

Not so much the OS as the app store. Apple won't allow apps that can run code, or apps that duplicate existing functionality. A browser does both. Porting it to run on the iPhone wouldn't be too hard, but then only people using jailbroken phones could use it.

Re:How about the iPad? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966170)

Or people who compile it with an developer provision file. Or people who compile it with an ad hoc provision file. Or enterprises that bypass the app store.

Re:How about the iPad? (1)

KibibyteBrain (1455987) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966302)

Porting Firefox to the iPhone/iPad under even modified appstore rules that would allow another browser would be VERY hard, due to the absurd language restriction.

Re:How about the iPad? (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966388)

The XUL stuff might also run afoul of Apple's refusal to allow any apps that include scripting languages.

One device? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30965594)

They released version 1.0 and that's all they support? A whole one device?

More development needed methinks.

Re:One device? (4, Informative)

iammani (1392285) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965834)

Not just one device, it is Firefox Maemo 1.0. Which means it can run any Nokia running Meamo 5.0. There are other versions which are in various stages of development. For eg, its in Alpha 3 for Windows Mobile 6.0.
Check https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mobile/Platforms [mozilla.org] for more info

Zzzzz... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30965624)

I've had a full mobile browsers like this have existed forever. Why should I care about this one? It won't run on my iPhone.

Re:Zzzzz... (1)

cmunic8r99 (1271724) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965740)

I hate to burst your bubble, but Safari on the iPhone/iPod Touch is not a 'full mobile browser'.

Re:Zzzzz... (1)

igjeff (15314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965786)

And to take it one step further, this really isn't a 'full mobile browser'. Its a 'full browser that happens to be on a mobile device'

When you go to web pages that would serve up a "mobile" version of their page to devices like the iPhone, or Blackberries, or whathaveyou, with the N900 (even with the built-in Fennec based browser, but with this Firefox version as well) you don't get the mobile version of the page, you get the regular version of the page...and its quite usable doing it, too.

I want one... (1)

psYchotic87 (1455927) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965630)

This makes me want a Nokia N900 even more. I'm desperate for one. Unfortunately, these things cost a shitload of money (even on ebay, I can't find one cheaper than about $520). This thing has WIFI, which is all I really need, but if I decide to get one with a plan, I'll be robbed blind because there's no way to get one without an online plan that costs $10/month. Mobile phone service providers need to stop robbing us.

Re:I want one... (1)

c_forq (924234) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966000)

$10 a month for online access is robbing you? Really? Maybe it is because I remember the days of having to pay for the phone call along with monthly charges to connect to something resembling the internet but $10 a month seems pretty damn cheap for what you get.

Re:I want one... (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966134)

Well, he wants a contract with no online access for $0 a month. For a 2 year deal, that's the obvious savings of $240.

Re:I want one... (3, Informative)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966086)

I never even considered actually "buying" a cellphone. I basically only carried one for emergencies and was satisfied with whatever came with the service. That was until I heard about the N900. I've had mine for over a month now and I got to say, the thing just rocks and was worth every penny.

Not only does it all the features you would expect from a smartphone such as web browsing, playing media, shooting pictures and video etc., but it also can receive and transmit FM radio and has TV out.

As far as software goes, besides what's available in the standard, extras, and testing repos, after installing an "EasyDebian" chroot you can run just about anything on it. I haven't carried my laptop since I bought the thing.

Re:I want one... (1)

VoltageX (845249) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966504)

Wait. From what I see in the community, it looks like Nokia will be dropping the N900 in favour of a yet unreleased Maemo 6 device.

??? Ok then... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30965654)

"Firefox Mobile looks to be the most complete mobile browser to date."

Perhaps if you ignore Opera, Safari and Netfront.. Otherwise, from what I have seen, it mostly sucks pretty bad...

Re:??? Ok then... (2, Interesting)

cmunic8r99 (1271724) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965882)

I've never used Firefox Mobile, and probably won't for a long time. Your insistence that Safari and Opera are complete web browsers, however, is laughable. Mobile Safari is by no means a 'complete' browser: no support for add-ons, missing Flash support, etc. Opera Mini isn't even a true web browser - it's a redisplay app like Skyfire, and neither of them are all that great. I can't talk about Netfront because I've not used it either. Got a download link?

You fail... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30965926)

Um, you're confusing Opera Mini with Opera Mobile, which is a full browser.

Re:??? Ok then... (2, Informative)

zombie_monkey (1036404) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965930)

http://www.opera.com/mobile/download/
There are Symbian and Windows Mobile versions.

Re:??? Ok then... (2, Interesting)

heffrey (229704) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966284)

On certain devices (e.g. anything smaller than iPad) a redisplay browser allows you to read the web quicker and more effectively than a full browser.

Re:??? Ok then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966380)

Well for one, i doubt Apple would add Flash to it considering it is a mobile browser and they hate Flash as it is. (made even more obvious with the recent HUGE iPod touch they released there)

Not to mention people's efforts to emulate and replace Flash entirely, from JavaScript Gordon library (Flash Runtime in JS) and HTML5 respectively.
While i admit Flash probably won't vanish for a good decade or more, the war has certainly begun.

Non-important part, go away, don't read >_>
What really needs to happen for HTML5 to replace Flash is support for some of the features that are commonplace in Flash, mainly PRELOADING and embedding single files instead of a whole bunch of files.
So, in essence, libraries / programs to generate JS files with all the media embedded within. (or possibly a directory with all the files, but that won't make a lot of Flash devs happy)
Flash games especially need to be catered for with all this new development in web languages, they are pretty much the main reason people use Flash. (unless you count popularity of a single file, then Youtube would probably win)
This is where Adobe will almost certainly move in to try attract the most developers before anyone else does.
They could offer to export the current project as SWF (default), Directory, JS (single file).

Re:??? Ok then... (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966402)

How are any of those "more complete" than this? It's practically at a feature parity with the desktop version. (Whether that's wise or useful is up for debate!)

N800 Maemo Browser ROCKS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966404)

The N800 Maemo Browser ROCKS when compared to FF-Mobile or Safari/Opera-mobile/whatever-mobile. Mobile browsers suck, including iPhone-Safari.

I've never come across a site that didn't work, including Youtube with the N800 Maemo default browser. FF-m-1.x appears to be a resource hog on my machine. I pulled the RC3 down YESTERDAY and couldn't run it and any other app at the same time. Boo.

OTOH, with the Maemo Browser, I was able to start YouAmp, Maemo-Mapper, an xterm with an ssh session to a remote server and none were slow.

All within 128MB RAM. I must be missing the issue - why did anyone bother with FF on Maemo again? Plugins?

Nokia N900 win (4, Interesting)

dcposch (1438157) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965662)

...the N900 is an amazing platform. I know it from a computational photography class at my university: http://graphics.stanford.edu/courses/cs448a-10/ [stanford.edu] It runs a full Linux distro, has a 5MP camera, and now with FF 1.0 I consider it the first phone with a real browser. (IPhone/ITouch/IPad doesn't count because there's no flash and they don't support any browser extensions. Once I can run Flash, Firebug, and Adblock, then it's real.)

I think it deserves a shoutout especially because
*) Nokia is truly awful at promoting their products
*) a certain company that's great at marketing is making all sorts of splash with the antithesis of this phone. it's called the iPad; it runs a Unix derivative, but is an affront to the Unix philosophy. it somehow manages to be three times the size of an N900 with a tenth the functionality.

I think that N900 + FF Mobile is a real tool in an ocean of toys.

Re:Nokia N900 win (0)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965692)

Android 2.0 and 2.1 support flash with their native browsers. Hell, even android 1.5 supported flash lite.

That being said, I do hope they release a version for us android folks. The N900 is nice, but the price is a bit off putting for the masses.

Re:Nokia N900 win (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30965724)

Really? Because when I view Flash content, I get a message from Adobe saying that it's coming in early 2010. (Motorola Droid, Android 2.0.1)

Re:Nokia N900 win (2, Informative)

mqduck (232646) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966338)

I don't know where you got that idea, but Android has no Flash support to date. There were promises of support for all Android phones by the end of 2009. Current word is that it'll be out by the end of the first half of 2010, for Android 2 phones only.

Re:Nokia N900 win (1)

zullnero (833754) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966704)

The only multitouch phone getting Flash anytime soon is the Palm Pre [bit.ly] . At least, that has been actually announced.

Re:Nokia N900 win (1)

rinoid (451982) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965830)

Once I can run Flash, Firebug, FlashBlock ... oh wait!

Face it -- 90% of Flash usage is video (not necessary) and conceited designs (not needed) both of which can be done without Flash. The other 10% - games - it is great at that but native platforms are stronger. An iPhone game takes advantage of the iron, Flash could not.

Annoying uses of flash: http://www.flickr.com/groups/1256171@N20/pool/ [flickr.com] Add yours too.

Re:Nokia N900 win (0)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965998)

The other 10% - games - it is great at that but native platforms are stronger.

Provided that the native platform is even open to development. For example, the only legit way for individuals and small companies to make and publish games for Wii is through Internet Channel. (Otherwise, you have to have a corporation or LLC, a dedicated office, and one or more prior published commercial titles.) The iPhone/iPod Touch devkit is far easier to get, but it still costs $600. Tools for JavaScript and SWF development [haxe.org] , on the other hand, run on the commodity PC that you are more likely to already have.

Re:Nokia N900 win (0)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965858)

I've delt with Nokia support for faulty handheld phones from them and I've delt with Apple.
Nokia is now blacklisted for me, they will never ever ever see a cent of my money, ever again. I don't care if god personally endorses their next phone.

Re:Nokia N900 win (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966042)

I've delt with Nokia support for faulty handheld phones from them and I've delt with Apple.
Nokia is now blacklisted for me, they will never ever ever see a cent of my money, ever again. I don't care if god personally endorses their next phone.

I have never dealt with apple but agree with you about Nokia. I last bought a nokia 10 years ago and it was a disaster. I am just sorry that Ericsson don't make phones on their own any more. They used to make great phones.

Re:Nokia N900 win (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966196)

The first iSync plugin for the N900 [maemo.org] came out 6 days ago. Now FF 1.0 is also out for it, I don't think it will be too long before I buy one. That thing really blows the iPhone away. But I still need it to be able to sync with my Mac.

Symbian (2, Insightful)

heffrey (229704) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965696)

Why select a minority platform with no devices? Surely someone sane would develop for S60 and perhaps iPhone first (perhaps because Safari probably quite entrenched with iPhone users).

Re:Symbian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30965780)

Apple will not allow competition on iphone.

Re:Symbian (2, Insightful)

barzok (26681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965790)

Doesn't Apple still prohibit 3rd-party web browsers on iPhone because they would directly compete with software offered by Apple?

Re:Symbian (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965828)

This relationship I'm having with my iphone is becoming a love / hate one. goddamn I hope Nexus One really takes off (and Nexus 1.1 actually works on Telstra in Australia)

Re:Symbian (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966088)

My wife has an HTC Magic running android and she loves it. She got it bundled with a two year vodafone contract (renewing her old contract). The funny thing is that if you work out the cost of the contracts the iphone is frequently more expensive with the app store lock in, while the android phones are a slightly cheaper with a bit more freedom.

Re:Symbian (3, Insightful)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965794)

It would never be allowed on the iPhone. Apple prohibits any apps that complete with their offerings. So no browsers other than Safari. That being said, why didn't they target blackberry first?

Re:Symbian (1)

merrickm (1192625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965824)

"Sorry, no plans. [mozilla.org] Due to its Java-based operating system and the inability to build native components, Firefox is not compatible on the Blackberry OS."

Re:Symbian (2, Informative)

barzok (26681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965842)

Mozilla has already stated that a BlackBerry port won't happen or if it does, it's at the bottom of the priority list. The BB OS isn't powerful enough to handle it, apparently. http://www.electricpig.co.uk/2009/11/09/mozilla-rules-out-firefox-for-iphone-and-blackberry/ [electricpig.co.uk]

Re:Symbian (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965852)

According to this [mozilla.org] page they aren't targeting blackberry at all. They say that it's a problem that the platform is based on Java, which seems strange to me since they are working on an Android version and that is also a java based platform.

Re:Symbian (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965890)

I suspect that the real issue is that most blackberry devices are running distinctly tepid hardware(which is fine for them, BB knows what they are doing in terms of getting their email and messaging clients working on that hardware, and lower spec hardware means cheaper for corporate customers to get more of their employees on blackberry), and you aren't going to get firefox going, particularly with tabs, under those conditions. Android, on the other hand, has seen some rather zippy devices as Google attempts to one-up the iPhone user experience.

Re:Symbian (1)

Nightspirit (846159) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966100)

Even the winmobile requirements are pretty harsh (128Mb ram), which pretty much means it can only be used on devices within the past year.

Re:Symbian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966374)

Well, you mean it can only be used by devices within past 7 years, right? I mean, ipaq 5555 was released in 2003, and I really doubt it was the first device with 128MB SDRAM.

Re:Symbian (1)

Nightspirit (846159) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966400)

I believe they're talking about program memory. I think in the old ipaqs you could adjust what you wanted between storage and program memory but once everything went to nonvolatile memory only recently have devices had 128Mb of program memory.

Re:Symbian (2, Informative)

Quantumstate (1295210) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966022)

Android has a native development kit so you can use languages other than Java. It is just primarily designed to use Java.

Re:Symbian (1)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965946)

Apple prohibits any apps that complete with their offerings. So no browsers other than Safari.

Actually, that's not at all accurate. There are several other browsers in the App Store. The catch, of course, is that Apple won't allow interpreters, so you would just need to use the system Javascript library which Safari uses. I can understand how this would be too restrictive for Mozilla to spend much effort on an iPhone port, but to say that Apple doesn't allow browsers because they compete with their own offerings is clearly not true.

Re:Symbian (1)

marmoute (1400855) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965800)

The N900 is not running Symbian but Mameo 5 a mobile oriented linux distribution based on debian. Firefox mobile is running on it because Nokia is commiting internal resources to develop it. That's all.

Re:Symbian (1)

heffrey (229704) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966036)

I know N900 is not Symbian, hence my post. Interesting point you make that the development for FF mobile in Maemo was done by Nokia!

Re:Symbian (2, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965860)

By far the path of least resistance.

The hard part of Firefox Mobile is the fact that Firefox itself has gotten a bit pudgy. All sorts of optimizing and cutting down and whatnot has been necessary to get it to fit on phone hardware(on the plus side, the fruits of this process should be applicable to just about any small embedded device, and possibly back to desktop Firefox). The second hard part is porting to all the various oddball environments running on different phones.

The N900 pretty much eliminates the second hard part; because Maemo is basically debian, complete with X and a fair slice of GTK(QT in the future), running on ARM. Its power is limited compared to your standard X86 PC; but it is otherwise probably the closest thing to a normal Linux environment that will ever be available to the general public in phone form(at least in the near future. OpenMoko is nearly dead, the hacks to get at the standard linux that runs under Android are hacks, and anything else is some tiny volume dev-board device.). This makes it a good environment for real-world testing of the effort to make Firefox work within mobile constraints, without the large effort of substantial porting.

I would assume that the long term plan does involve porting to more environments, because otherwise this is a whole lot of work to put into making sure that Maemo has a nicer browser; but each presents various difficulties. iPhone is almost certainly out, because Apple forbids alternate browsers(they do allow 3rd party programs that put a slightly different face on mobile Safari; but that isn't at all the same thing). Android wants everything done in the java-eque world of Dalvic, with minimal facility for running native Linux applications, so that would be a major porting effort. Symbian has substantial market share(at least for now); but it doesn't resemble any of the environments where Firefox already runs all that much(plus, more practically, S60 devices tend to have specs a bit behind the bleeding edge. The fact that this works is a feather in S60's cap; but if you have a browser that has some dieting to do, there isn't much point in porting until the dieting is done). It really remains to be seen if doing a WinMo port is worth it at all. If WinMo 7 turns out to be genuinely interesting, they probably will. If 7 is just more of 6, WinMo will likely just bleed away into a niche of tightly corporate-controlled Exchange appendages, and Corporate IT lockdown world has never really been Firefox's native habitat.

Re:Symbian (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966140)

BAll sorts of optimizing and cutting down and whatnot has been necessary to get it to fit on phone hardware(on the plus side, the fruits of this process should be applicable to just about any small embedded device, and possibly back to desktop Firefox).

Yes, my first thought was to see if I could install this on my eeepc 701.

Re:Symbian (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966260)

Check the release notes for the n900 version, they say that it can be installed on desktop linux(albeit with a bunch of "for testing only, some features not available, yadda yadda" caveats. I haven't tried it yet.)

Re:Symbian (1)

solanum (80810) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965868)

Check here for info on other ports:

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mobile/Platforms [mozilla.org]

As far as Symbian is concerned they say "We currently have no plans to develop Firefox for the Symbian platform." Because after all there are so many more phones running Windows Mobile and Maemo than Symbian.....

Stick with Opera Mobile, it's an excellent mobile browser anyway.

Re:Symbian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30965974)

Or use Skyfire (an equivalent of Opera Mini, but which uses Gecko on the server side, and can handle youtube's flash movies)

Re:Symbian (1)

heffrey (229704) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966188)

I've got an E52 and Skyfire is useless on it. On that device to get viable web browsing you need something that reformats the page and then serves it through a proxy. That means Opera as far as I can tell.

Re:Symbian (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966028)

Because after all there are so many more phones running Windows Mobile and Maemo than Symbian.....

For one thing, what kind of CPU and RAM are in typical S60 phones compared to Maemo devices? For another, Maemo is much more similar to an existing supported platform (Debian GNU/Linux) than Symbian is.

Re:Symbian (0)

heffrey (229704) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966066)

Because after all there are so many more phones running Windows Mobile and Maemo than Symbian

Er, I think you'll find that Symbian outnumbers Windows Mobile / Maemo combined by a very great distance indeed.

I'm not a great fan of Opera Mobile, partly because I've got so used to Opera Mini which I think is fantastic.

Re:Symbian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966452)

From what I can tell, Opera Mobile hasn't been released for the Maemo platform yet (at least not in any of the catalogs I've added)

Re:Symbian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30965874)

Because the "minority" platform is among the most open and friendly to developers and also happens to be the most similar to one where Firefox is already available (desktop GNU/Linux with Gtk+).

Re:Symbian (1)

heffrey (229704) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966210)

most open and friendly to developers

For a moment there I thought you were referring to Windows Mobile. That said, I wouldn't describe any Linux platform as being friendly to developers.

Re:Symbian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966442)

Care to name even ONE platform that's more friendly to developers than Linux? None? Thought so... and this is coming from a C# developer.

Re:Symbian (1)

heffrey (229704) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966488)

Windows is great for developers.

Re:Symbian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966296)

Why select a minority platform with no devices?

Why select a piece of shit platform with lots of devices so that your first impression is awful?

Re:Symbian (1)

zullnero (833754) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966644)

1. Because the N900 supports flash.
2. Because the N900 doesn't have a capacitive touch screen. It takes more work to build a browser that supports really good multitouch properly than just a traditional touch sensitive screen. That said, the N900 does run Linux. And other platforms already have decent enough browser solutions integrated into them. Linux phones benefit from having a good open source web browser, iPhone or Android kind of have interests in promoting their parent company's browsers.

And yes, Firefox Mobile isn't exactly what I'd call the "most complete" browser out there. The term browser, on mobile devices, is very, very vague. There is an OS like webOS that has a customized webKit based browser basically integrated throughout the UI on top of Linux, you've got Explorer which is a little less integrated throughout WM, then you have true third party solutions like Opera. Calling one better than the other doesn't work so well, since an integrated browser is going to have an advantage no matter how you slice it.

Nokia N810? (1)

TejWC (758299) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965710)

I read on the website that it can be installed for the N810 as well but I can't find the easy "Install" button anywhere.

Does anybody know how good the performance is on the N810? The built-in Firefox browser is OK (terrible at javascript though) and I am wondering if this mobile version is any better.

Re:Nokia N810? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30965904)

It lags pretty bad, search around for the "Tear" browser instead.

Re:Nokia N810? (2, Informative)

guysoft (1733770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965928)

Runs really slow on the N810. And randomly crashes after a minute or so. Its quite a shame.

Re:Nokia N810? (0)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966092)

It also installs and runs on a N800, after all the internal hardware is almost the same as in the N810. It is likewise slow, actually looks and feels much like Fennec (what is the difference anyway?).

Am I the only one? (1)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965716)

I don't care that a "mobile browser does not have to equal a compromised Internet experience." My BlackBerry Bold is physically too large, in my opinion, yet the screen is far to small for me to give two winks about nice graphics or watching videos. I have the largest battery that fits into a stock battery cover, so I don't want to deal with further battery limitations to process all that crap. When I browse the Internet on the phone, I find myself wishing that more sites offered mobile versions, but only because the only thing I want is the content. I can even do without pictures and graphics altogether.

Re:Am I the only one? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965814)

When I browse the Internet on the phone, I find myself wishing that more sites offered mobile versions

Not sure about the blackberry but the web browsers on many mobile devices (such as the iphone) don't identify themselves as mobile devices to avoid being given a mobile version of web pages.

Re:Am I the only one? (2, Interesting)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965934)

The problem is that web developers work for the marketing arm, and nothing says success like shiny. All the demos and development, I'm certain, are run on large monitors with a local connection to the server. hey really ought to require all web developers to run on a 100kb connection with 150ms ping times, with a P-III-350 machine. Only then will you get a set of web pages which will be tolerable on smaller devices.

Take a look at Rainforest Cafe's website. If you don't have flash, they don't want you - period. No way to get restaurant locations or information (heaven forbid you should want to check that on your mobile) at all without flash. Look at any major website - NYT, eBay, /. - you're loading hundreds of kilobytes of css definitions before you even get to page contents.

I have the same rule today with my companies website I had 7 years ago when I started: Every page should load in 10 seconds or less on a 56k dialup connection. It won't be great on a mobile device, but its very viewable - and usable. People still complement me on my site, despite it being out of date, and I suspect it's because (1) it's pretty (2) everything is easy to find and (3) it loads almost instantly on just about any connection.

Re:Am I the only one? (1)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966346)

rainforestcafe.com works on my HTC Hero(android 1.5) just fine. It's certainly not snappy, but perfectly usable considering its a mobile phone.

Flash is not out of the realm of an affordable smartphone. The hero and droid eris are both had for under $100 out of pocket and handle this stuff just fine.

Re:Am I the only one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966562)

show me flash on them, please.

Re:Am I the only one? (1)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966608)

I agree that it's not out of the range of possibility, it's just that I don't care. All I really want on my phone is text - pure content. All that stuff really doesn't do anything for my experience on a 320 x 480 2.6" display.

Re:Am I the only one? (1)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966582)

nothing says success like shiny.

I wonder if they ever compare their 'success' with sites like Wikipedia, craigslist and Google?

Re:Am I the only one? (1)

heffrey (229704) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966314)

When I browse the Internet on the phone, I find myself wishing that more sites offered mobile versions, but only because the only thing I want is the content. I can even do without pictures and graphics altogether.

You need Opera Mini.

Re:Am I the only one? (1)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966554)

I love Opera Mini! I use it all the time, but if the site has too much junk, it still takes forever to load, even in Opera. I'm actually pretty impressed with the second rev of their version 5 beta. The first version really stunk, but the new one is quite slick, and I especially like the addition of copy and paste.

To tell you the truth, I have no idea how people tolerate the stock Bold browser - that thing is awful.

"even flash"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30965816)

They talk like this is a new thing for mobile platforms, but I've had Flash on my N800 for years and years now. I know that isn't the only mobile platform with Flash support. Why does everyone pretend it's something new to mobile computing?

Re:"even flash"? (1, Insightful)

Zorkon (121860) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965924)

I've had Flash on my N800 for years too. And I hate it. Incredibly slow. This is one of the reasons why Apple is doing the right thing by dropping Flash in their browser. I mean, what's the point? Having a web page that renders well and quickly except for blue boxes, or having "flash support" that results in your browser slowing to a crawl on all but the most "lightweight" flash pages?

Re:"even flash"? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30965980)

The points are that flash is the most common way to deliver video content, which my N800 generally plays fine, and that I only load the flash I want to load, so I have more flexibility to view more pages by having flash support than by not having it. Not having it is not an advantage, because I don't load "flash crap", just things I actually want to use or see.

Apple did not do the right thing, I'm afraid. The right thing would be to give the user the *choice*. Hate flash? Fine, don't use it. Want flash? Fine, use it. Best of both worlds.

Re:"even flash"? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966074)

I mean, what's the point [of SWF]? Having a web page that renders well and quickly except for blue boxes

SWF is for working around limitations of Internet Explorer, namely its lack of a fast script engine, HTML 5 canvas, and HTML 5 audio. These are important for games if nothing else.

n800 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30965916)

seems to work, albeit a bit sluggish on my n800 also. posting from it right now! ;)

Re:n800 (1)

ultrabot (200914) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965962)

Great news. I'm using Tear on my n810 mostly, let's see if this can top it...

First impressions (4, Informative)

dnaumov (453672) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965942)

The UI felt a bit unusual at the start, but I actually ended up liking it, felt unique and effective. The application start time is a few seconds slower than the Micro browser that ships with the N900, but page load and rendering speed seems toughly equal. The straightforwardness of installing and configuring AdBlocker felt more integrated and polished in the new Firefox 1.0. However, the Firefox has a major deal-breaker for me, it's broken ZOOM function. You're only limited to a "maximum zoom in" or "maximum zoom out" by doubletapping the screen, you can't pick your desired level of zoom by doing a clockwise/counterclockwise drag movement like in Micro. Ctrl-UP and Ctrl-DOWN were supposed keyboard shortcuts for zooming in and out, but these didn't even work at all, the key combinations did nothing (while other shortcuts like Ctrl-L worked normally). This definately feels like a good start, but it's more of a 0.98 version than a 1.0, it just has a few rough edges and needs some polish.

Re:First impressions (1)

ipX (197591) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966018)

Ctrl-UP and Ctrl-DOWN were supposed keyboard shortcuts for zooming in and out, but these didn't even work at all, the key combinations did nothing (while other shortcuts like Ctrl-L worked normally).

Works fine for me on my N900. Also if you are in a form, they move between elements. Sort of like Ctrl+Left arrow in MicroB.

For teh N900 ownrz (1)

ipX (197591) | more than 4 years ago | (#30965988)

Download@ http://firefox.com/m/ [firefox.com]

If anyone figures out how to select text on the page (not in a textarea or input - shift+right/left arrow does that) plz reply.

Two More Versions Until It's Crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966044)

Based on Firefox desktop and Thunderbird this should be fairly good for at version 1.0, great at version 2.0 and then version 3.0 will be utterly terrible and will force you to switch to something else.

I switched to Opera when Firefox 3.0 and have found it to be better than even Firefox 2.0 was. I've also switched to using GMail through the web interface instead through Thunderbird. I have to say I preferred Thunderbird 2.0 to GMail but GMail is far better than Thunderbird 3.0.

Mozilla really should stop developing at 2.0 since that seems to be the point by which they've implemented all their good ideas and after that they only add crap features and bloat.

Re:Two More Versions Until It's Crap (1)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966376)

Have you tried SeaMonkey from mozilla? If you liked early firefox but hated the bloat, you might like it. Its more similar to the original mozilla suite but it is simple and clean. Might be right up your alley.

But Flash means a compromised mobile experience (1)

straponego (521991) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966084)

Given that flash uses 100% of a core of a high-end x64 processor, it'll be murderous on cell phone batteries. Still, Mozilla is the first mobile browser I'm aware of which may support something like Flashblock. And flashy pages are even uglier and more punishing on a mobile device.

Re:But Flash means a compromised mobile experience (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966336)

Your comment only tells that you have not used N900.

a) pages with flash do not drain battery (the difference is not noticeable)
b) there's absolutely no performance hit when, for example, opening the browser to a youtube page, starting video, minimizing the browser (so that the video plays in the background) and running other applications ...this with the default mozilla-based browser.

Don't know how it is with firefox mobile.

Highlights? (0, Flamebait)

owlnation (858981) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966142)

Highlights include the familiar Awesome Bar

How can Firefox's most controversial "feature" be considered a highlight? This one "highlight" will be the reason I'm sticking with Opera on my phone. It's bad enough having bloated crap on a fully specced desktop machine -- it's a total dealbreaker on a limited platform.

This summary has to be one of the most blatantly astroturfed I've read on /.

Useless to me (1)

frank249 (100528) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966342)

So according to Mozilla.org [mozilla.org] :

Firefox for iPhone
We do not have plans to build an iPhone browser due to constraints with the OS environment and distribution.

Firefox for Blackberry
Sorry, no plans. Due to its Java-based operating system and the inability to build native components, Firefox is not compatible on the Blackberry OS.

Firefox for Symbian
We currently have no plans to develop Firefox for the Symbian platform.

So, not available for iPhone, Blackberry and Symbian? Thats what, 3/4 of the smartphone market?

Its a shame as the Blackberry needs a decent browser. Opera Mini 5 is ok but I guess I will have to wait for Skyfire [skyfire.com] for flash support.

N900 already uses a Mozilla-based browser (2, Interesting)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966520)

With the Nokia 900 and Firefox Mobile 1.0, even Flash content including the normal YouTube site is working

Given that the browser that comes out of the box in N900 is already Mozilla-based (in fact, the extension install screen looks conspicuously like Firefox), and can already play Flash, and use ABP, what advantage does this thing have over it?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?