×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

341 comments

...And one generation behind on HTML5 (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287282)

Look, I *love* Firefox. I use it pretty much exclusively myself. Nothing can touch add-ons like NoScript, AdBlock, etc. (and most of my add-ons and their associated functionality can't be found on Chrome, Opera, etc.). But if they think that Google, who provides [techcrunch.com] about 85% of Mozilla's total revenue, is going to sit back and let them take the technical lead over Chrome, they're nuts. And speed has always been one of Chrome's few positive qualities over Firefox.

Not only that, but Mozilla can't afford [osnews.com] to license h264. And that already puts them behind on HTML5. I am hoping that either html5 never catches on, the other browsers all agree to an open format (like WebM), or there is some kind of flash-player type add-on made for Firefox to support h264. But without one of those, Firefox is (sadly) already in a rough spot for the next gen.

And I say all that as someone who hates the idea of giving up my Firefox and having to get my browser from an increasingly-evil Google, an already evil Microsoft, or a closed-off Opera. If I wanted evil and closed, I would have bought an iPad, not a netbook.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (5, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287336)

From the summary:

He also promises that Firefox 4 will be "one generation ahead" of other browsers in relation to Javascript speed."

The browser vendors' fetishistic obsession with Javascript speed is most irritating.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (5, Informative)

garcia (6573) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287392)

The browser vendors' fetishistic obsession with Javascript speed is most irritating.

I have mod points but I decided to respond instead... I agree with you, it is irritating especially when the browser's speeds themselves are miserable. Yay great, Chrome loads faster but I have random issues with plugins which affect my work (one of the plugins is disabling me from reading GMail messages) and AdBlock still doesn't work nearly as well as it does on Firefox for the sites I use most often.

I wish Firefox would stop trying to compete in Javascript and go back to one of the biggest reasons they started the project: speed of the browser itself. That means it should open instantaneously and have low overhead--even with the usual plugins installed (AdBlock, NoScript, etc).

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33287484)

Sitting here, with firefox open and attempting to reply to your message... I notice that the "hidden" bar is glitched as usual. I cannot adjust the threshold. I'm not sure if this is thanks to the poor programming at Slashdot, or the poor standards over at Mozilla.

Regardless, speed means nothing if the markup isn't correct.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33287780)

You'd think that a geeky tech site, where the predominant position is that web developers aren't 'real' developers and that web development is 'easy', would get basic things right, but alas, Slashdot's HTML and Javascript is gimpy as fuck. Its possibly the only 'mainstream' website that contains more JS-fail than Facebook.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33287554)

That should be modded up. I've about had it with lag and eventual shutdown of FF. After using for a few days with only a few windows open, FF eventually becomes so unresponsive that I've got to restart it. I mean, click a link and it's takes 4-5 seconds for FF to even start to do anything. Pages load fast, but then the cycle starts again. As an early adopter of FF, I'm now considering a switch to Chrome. Ugh.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (1)

Calinous (985536) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287686)

Also, the magic bar performance is very susceptible to hard drive slow downs (address bar takes forever to suggest history/bookmarks/... when a virus scan is in progress). Time to load might be long, but I only start Firefox once a day, so I don't really care.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (5, Informative)

marsu_k (701360) | more than 3 years ago | (#33288196)

Regarding the "awesome bar" (I really like the functionality, but loathe the name), the sqlite database can get fragmented over time. You might want to try this [lifehacker.com] ever now and then. Can make a world of difference, especially with slower computers/disks.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (5, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287706)

Don't the extensions (at least the cross-platform ones) implement their functionality mostly in JavaScript? If so, then improving JavaScript speed would do very much to fulfil your wish.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287802)

Exactly. The main problem I have with Firefox is that by the time I've customized it to my liking, it's unusably slow. What good is all of that extensibility if it kills the main function of the browser?

The focus on Javascript may well be what makes Firefox usable for me again.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (5, Insightful)

TeXMaster (593524) | more than 3 years ago | (#33288144)

Exactly. The main problem I have with Firefox is that by the time I've customized it to my liking, it's unusably slow.

Maybe you should consider a browser that doesn't need to be bogged down to death to be useable. One of the reasons why I use Opera, for example, it's precisely that it does all the stuff I want it to do without me needing to scrape around the web to get extensions that kill it.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33287864)

If they have a 5-10% speed boost... So what. Even with a 50% or 100% increase, it will still have problems. They need multithreaded javascript. Possible, yes, but it would break many add-ons and require major rewrites of the shitty xul layer.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (4, Informative)

diegocg (1680514) | more than 3 years ago | (#33288030)

Not just extensions, the Firefox UI is written in javascript.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287920)

I wish Firefox would stop trying to compete in Javascript and go back to one of the biggest reasons they started the project: speed of the browser itself. That means it should open instantaneously and have low overhead--even with the usual plugins installed (AdBlock, NoScript, etc).

Most of the application level behaviour (windows, buttons, menus etc.) *is* written in JS, CSS and XML. Improving the speed of JS (and the DOM / CSS / layout) has a direct impact on the speed of the browser.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (4, Insightful)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 3 years ago | (#33288058)

Yes, yes, and double yes! Firefox *IS* faster than most other browsers in every part of browser performance that matters *except* Javascript speed. But yeah, browser load time and overhead, as well as initial rendering and scroll-rendering speed are all critical to the browser experience for me.

I have tried Chrome 3 times now and every time I give up on it - mostly because I find scrolling performance on complex HTML pages to be distractingly bad. Firefox does not have this problem - it is zippy and smooth, at least on modern Core 2 Duo or better hardware. I gather that for lower end hardware, Webkit seems to do better.

I know that on the 10% of websites with intensive Javascript code, Chrome will blow the pants off of Firefox right now, but this is not the primary use case of the web for me.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 3 years ago | (#33288284)

Yes, yes, and double yes! Firefox *IS* faster than most other browsers in every part of browser performance that matters *except* Javascript speed. But yeah, browser load time and overhead, as well as initial rendering and scroll-rendering speed are all critical to the browser experience for me.

I have tried Chrome 3 times now and every time I give up on it - mostly because I find scrolling performance on complex HTML pages to be distractingly bad. Firefox does not have this problem - it is zippy and smooth, at least on modern Core 2 Duo or better hardware. I gather that for lower end hardware, Webkit seems to do better.

I know that on the 10% of websites with intensive Javascript code, Chrome will blow the pants off of Firefox right now, but this is not the primary use case of the web for me.

Agreed. Chrome and Safari have the worst scroll-rendering performance of any browser. Safari is the slower of those two. Even on a lot of Javascript-heavy pages where certain functions are much faster in Chrome, the experience is often better in Firefox if any scrolling is required. Opera excels in rendering/scroll rendering speeds and even IE is refreshingly fast compared to the Webkit browsers. JS speed is okay, but I won't use a fast JS browser that isn't fit to render html.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (1)

backwardMechanic (959818) | more than 3 years ago | (#33288060)

Agreed. Also, as the man says,

Firefox is a browser platform which is extremely extensible across a broad range of interfaces, you can touch a lot of things inside the browser.

Extremely extensible - but do we need it? I'm not sure XUL buys us all that much, in common usage, but it certainly slows things down. It would be nice to go back to a small, lightweght, fast browser. I'm sure I've heard that before somewhere...

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (2, Informative)

cyfer2000 (548592) | more than 3 years ago | (#33288304)

I hope you realized that the UI and extensions of firefox are written in Javascript, when you complain those speed issues, most of them are somewhat related with speed of javascript.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (3, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#33288400)

Mozilla has different groups working on different projects. Firefox had some bloat and memory leak issues and even since then, they've worked hard to address those.

Firefox uses less memory than Chrome. It's UI will never be quite as fast because of XUL but it isn't like the only thing they are working on is JS.

And JS is important because so many web apps depend on it. I have to use IE at work, and Gmail is painfully slow in it.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (5, Insightful)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287398)

That's because most 'web applications' (such as google docs) or stuff like Facebook is chock full of Javascript.

In ye olde days when java script was just used to pull up a popup or block your right clicks it wasn't so important, but nowadays most popular sites are full of it. Whenever you need 'dynamic' content on a web page - that's Javascript.

Even /. by the way.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (1)

al3k (1638719) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287372)

there's always elinks!

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (1)

RevRagnarok (583910) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287584)

You can always spot the poseurs. :)

Seriously, elinks? elinks is the NEW version of links, which is the NEW lynx!

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33287778)

You can always spot the poseurs. :)

Seriously, elinks? elinks is the NEW version of links, which is the NEW lynx!

OMG! elinks is the new lynx!!!

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287378)

if they think that Google, who provides about 85% of Mozilla's total revenue, is going to sit back and let them take the technical lead over Chrome, they're nuts.

Except that Google benefits from faster Javascript engines in any browser, not just Chrome. Firefox is a popular browser, and if Firefox can execute Javascript faster, that means that Google's web apps (which I am just going to guess account for more revenue than Chrome) will perform better. It also means that Google could potentially do more, i.e. have heavier Javascript programs, without worrying that people are going to get annoyed at how slow their applications are. How does Google lose here?

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287570)

if they think that Google, who provides about 85% of Mozilla's total revenue, is going to sit back and let them take the technical lead over Chrome, they're nuts.

Except that Google benefits from faster Javascript engines in any browser, not just Chrome. Firefox is a popular browser, and if Firefox can execute Javascript faster, that means that Google's web apps (which I am just going to guess account for more revenue than Chrome) will perform better. It also means that Google could potentially do more, i.e. have heavier Javascript programs, without worrying that people are going to get annoyed at how slow their applications are. How does Google lose here?

Who said Google would lose?

No, Google will still win, but not as big. And that is why Chrome won't just sit there and languish.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (1)

NegativeK (547688) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287592)

Quite. But Google won't let Firefox simply beat them; they'll continue to make Chrome faster in an effort to drive performance with competition.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (0)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287946)

Except that Google benefits from faster Javascript engines in any browser, not just Chrome. Firefox is a popular browser, and if Firefox can execute Javascript faster, that means that Google's web apps (which I am just going to guess account for more revenue than Chrome)

guess you forgot Android and Chrome OS

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (3, Insightful)

Mr. Spontaneous (784926) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287500)

Show me where h264 is a requirement in the HTML5 spec.

kthx.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (3, Informative)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287642)

Nowhere. But right now it's the most widely adopted and implemented (pretty much everyone but Firefox either does or is planning to support it). Until there is an alternative that all the major browsers support, Firefox is going to continue to lag behind. WebM is promising. But without MS onboard, it's going nowhere.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (2, Insightful)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287730)

Nowhere. But right now it's the most widely adopted and implemented

For what? Actual video content? I don't think so. Would some of us like to see it more popular than, say, Flash to serve up video? Sure. But that's not the way it is now.

To suggest it's the most adopted is wishful thinking.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (1)

minasoko (710100) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287974)

Nowhere. But right now it's the most widely adopted and implemented

For what? Actual video content? I don't think so. Would some of us like to see it more popular than, say, Flash to serve up video? Sure. But that's not the way it is now.

To suggest it's the most adopted is wishful thinking.

This doesn't make much sense. h264 is a codec and Flash is a container. Using one does preclude you from using the other. Most of the 'flash' video you watch is encoded by h.264.

Um, I Think You Mean Videos in That Format (2, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287812)

Nowhere. But right now it's the most widely adopted and implemented (pretty much everyone but Firefox either does or is planning to support it).

Huh, that's really confusing. Because according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], Ogg Theora looks more supported in browsers than H.264. Perhaps you meant that there are more videos online in H.264 than Ogg Theora -- that goes without dispute.

On top of that, IE's H.264 is only implemented so far in a nightly build and not released.

But, come on, big players like Apple and Google have been pushing HTML 5 and if Ogg Theora gets accepted in the HTML 5 spec and H.264 doesn't ... well, guess how long people would use IE if it suddenly didn't work with YouTube and currently Firefox, Chrome and Opera do support Ogg Theora. You want to see people migrate from IE to Chrome? Put up a big tutorial to install and use Chrome right in the little YouTube window for every video that won't load because it's in Ogg Theora.

Someone's going to lose users and I don't think it'll be Google.

Re:Um, I Think You Mean Videos in That Format (1)

ThrowAwaySociety (1351793) | more than 3 years ago | (#33288042)

Nowhere. But right now it's the most widely adopted and implemented (pretty much everyone but Firefox either does or is planning to support it).

Huh, that's really confusing. Because according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], Ogg Theora looks more supported in browsers than H.264.

No, he means exactly what he said. Pretty much everyone but Firefox either does or is planning to support it.

Yes, there are lots of no-name browsers with zero user base that don't do h.264. But IE, Chrome, and Safari all do h.264. Which leaves Firefox and Opera as the WebM holdouts.

Yeah. Good luck with that.

Zealotry Debate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33288090)

What do you call that when you give someone hard numbers and they still say you're wrong? Religion?

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33288004)

Who care.. moz just need to pass the video to the os/desktop(eg: gstreamer on gnome). Let the desktop handle the video plugin. It of no use for mozilla to fork every codec inside it tree. Same with images, all the image decoding should be linked dynamicly. Do you belive IE will bundle h264 anyway? They will loop the data thru directshow or what ever micro-soft marketing made up now. Same for Safari.

The whole "firefox wont suport h264" fud is pure bullshit. Once html5 get fully suported you will just apt-get upgrade and all the dependency will be solved. It is already as no video faild to play on curent ubuntu.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (1)

diegocg (1680514) | more than 3 years ago | (#33288056)

MS is onboard - they just won't ship it by default. But you will able to install a plugin for it (something that I think you won't be able to do with other formats)

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (1)

Jahava (946858) | more than 3 years ago | (#33288104)

Nowhere. But right now it's the most widely adopted and implemented (pretty much everyone but Firefox either does or is planning to support it). Until there is an alternative that all the major browsers support, Firefox is going to continue to lag behind. WebM is promising. But without MS onboard, it's going nowhere.

Really, there are two options:

  1. MS chooses to adopt WebM. This is not unreasonable, especially as it starts to get rolled out more across the web. Part of MS's reluctance is probably due to the novelty of the technology.
  2. MS doesn't ever adopt WebM. In that case, a FOSS plugin to IE will certainly end up being made (probably by Google, a la Chrome Frame [google.com]) that adds WebM support, and any sites that use WebM will direct IE users to that plugin.

Either way, I don't see MS's explicit WebM support as a serious hurdle.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 3 years ago | (#33288320)

Nowhere. But right now it's the most widely adopted and implemented (pretty much everyone but Firefox either does or is planning to support it). Until there is an alternative that all the major browsers support, Firefox is going to continue to lag behind. WebM is promising. But without MS onboard, it's going nowhere.

Really, there are two options:

      1. MS chooses to adopt WebM. This is not unreasonable, especially as it starts to get rolled out more across the web. Part of MS's reluctance is probably due to the novelty of the technology.
      2. MS doesn't ever adopt WebM. In that case, a FOSS plugin to IE will certainly end up being made (probably by Google, a la Chrome Frame) that adds WebM support, and any sites that use WebM will direct IE users to that plugin.

Either way, I don't see MS's explicit WebM support as a serious hurdle.

Microsoft has already stated [windowsteamblog.com] that IE9 will support VP8, but will not be bundling the codec with the OS or browser. I would think this would include WebM as well.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287646)

It isn't but that doesn't mean much if most people are going to use H.264 for HTML5 video, no?

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33287736)

Show me where h264 is a requirement in the HTML5 spec.

kthx.

Show me where GIF, PNG, JPG, BMP and ICO are required for the IMG tag in the HTML 1/2/3/4/5 spec.

Now tell me what you'd think about browsing without support for these in anything, but lynx.

kthx.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (2, Informative)

mini me (132455) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287870)

Not yet. However, unlike previous HTML specifications, HTML5 is attempting to define which formats are required to be supported by media tags. Microsoft and Apple want it to be H.264. Mozilla says they won't support it leaving the specification at a standstill.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (1)

Henriok (6762) | more than 3 years ago | (#33288350)

Show med where JPEG, GIF or PNG is a requirement in _any_ HTML spec. Just like your point, it's nowhere to be found. Yet, all browsers implement them.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (2, Informative)

sd.fhasldff (833645) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287566)

h264 isn't going to be a practical problem for the vast majority of users, since Firefox can just use a system codec (non-Windows-users would have to make sure they have one, of course).

As for JS speed, Mozilla are very ardent in their speed claims, so it's hard not to believe they have something to back it up. It's difficult for users and external testers to figure out exactly how fast they are, despite being open source, because the Moz team is pursuing several parallel tracks to increase JS speed. There's "fat-val", "tracer JIT" and "method JIT". Each is currently significantly faster than the "normal" versions, but there hasn't been any public testing on a build that combines all three.

Mozilla claim they'll be faster than everyone else and while they may be scuppered by new advances from Google and Opera, it seems reasonable that they will at least be faster at launch than where everyone else is now. That alone would ensure "next-generation JS performance".

Where they trail Chrome is in "use speed". Chrome starts and shuts down a lot faster -- and I think that's going to be a problem for Firefox moving forward (more than it already is).

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (2, Interesting)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287898)

> There's "fat-val", "tracer JIT" and "method JIT".

Just curious, given all these advances in JS speed, are there technical reasons why stuff like Python, Ruby and Perl aren't getting similar improvements in speed?

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (1)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 3 years ago | (#33288132)

Just curious, given all these advances in JS speed, are there technical reasons why stuff like Python, Ruby and Perl aren't getting similar improvements in speed?

Not really. They ARE getting major speed improvements (especially Ruby), but there isn't as much money put into it. The techniques used to make JavaScript so fast are finding their way into other VM implementations also.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287598)

H.264 will be solved on Firefox with a plugin whether it's official or not.

The real claim I have a problem with is is this "generation ahead" nonsense. How are they magically going to go from a generation behind to a generation ahead? Are they planning to milk a unicorn and pour the results into the codebase? So far each and every Firefox claim of improved javascript has fallen short of the competition.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33287774)

A flash-player type add-on that plays h264 video? I hear Adobe makes one of those. They call it Flash Player.

Seriously, what video format did you think it was using?

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287902)

It's not just that, since version 3 inclusive Firefox has just got ever slower, ever more buggy and less stable with each release.

If Firefox 4 continues this trend and does not reverse it then it will be the last version of FireFox I use.

Mozilla seems to be a long way away from where they were when they were running campaign after campaign to get people to switch to their browser from IE some years ago, because they really did have a better browser and were simply fighting against the inherent advantage IE had being distributed with Windows. They don't really have that upperhand now, I don't find Firefox any faster and in fact find it less stable than IE7 and IE8 which is a sad place to be.

The only reason I haven't switch to Chrome is because I don't actually like it's minimalist UI, it's just too minimalist for my liking.

I really hope Mozilla get it right this time and that the browser really is faster and more stable, and that they've concentrated on getting those basics back to an acceptable standard rather than screwing around with crap like themes which make your browser look like some god awful 1990s AOL homepage or some "l33t" kid's first ever project in Visual Basic.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#33288238)

Mozilla doesn't have to license h.264. If you are Windows use the windows codecs. If you are on Mac you use Quicktime. If you are on Linux us the mplayer frame work.
There you now have support for h.264.
If Mozilla doesn't do that somebody in the EU will just fork it and add it. Or we will get a plug in that will do it unless Mozilla blocks it.
So no I am not worried about H.264 support and firefox.
I will admit that I have started to use Chrome a lot. It is really fast and I do like it. Firefox is still very good good but Chrome has become my default Windows browser.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (1)

cozzbp (1845636) | more than 3 years ago | (#33288336)

Nothing can touch add-ons like NoScript, AdBlock, etc. (and most of my add-ons and their associated functionality can't be found on Chrome, Opera, etc.).

Well, as far as I know NoScript hasn't found it's way into the gallery of Chrome's extensions yet, but AdBlock thankfully has. [google.com] I use Chrome as my primary browser -- my main issue with it being slight compatibility issues with certain websites, but I find the speed of the browser worth the occasional incompatibility.

Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33288384)

HTML5 is a lot, LOT more than just . I really wish the whole myth HTML5=Video (and in some other cases followed by "= death of flash") would stop. It's gotten the point where it's a buzzword.

Confession time. (-1, Troll)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287338)

I know that other browsers are faster, have a smaller system footprint, or are more up to the task when it comes to certain formats...but I still stand by Firefox. It's one of the few times that I "ignore" reality and continue using a product because I like it so much. I can't help it...I'm a Firefox fanboy.

I'll be getting off Mozilla's dick now... ::stands::

Slowest news day? (1)

Kanel (1105463) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287360)

A guy at Mozilla says Firefox will sometime in the future be better than all other browsers at one of several aspects of browsing?

The really interesting question here is why 18th of August appears to be one of the slowest news days on slashdot. Are people busy starting the semester and getting back to work after the holiday?

Javascript is dead (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33287382)

Oracle has destroyed reputation of any "Java" derived effort, also read Stallman's "The Javascript trap". Could we just move on to something better, more free and less trademark or patent eclipsed ?

Re:Javascript is dead (3, Informative)

armanox (826486) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287458)

Java and Javascript are related in name only. Whatever convoluted scheme Oracle comes up with for Java has no bearing on Javascript.

Re:Javascript is dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33288028)

Yes it does. Ever since Microsoft pissed off Sun, they lost their right to the Java trademark and have used "JScript" for the scripting language.

Re:Javascript is dead (3, Interesting)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287516)

Sun marketing is rumored to have been responsible for the similar names (they wanted JavaScript to leech off of Java's success) but they have nothing in common with each other.

Re:Javascript is dead (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287918)

Oracle has destroyed reputation of any "Java" derived effort, also read Stallman's "The Javascript trap". Could we just move on to something better, more free and less trademark or patent eclipsed ?

It's worse than that - I'm so sick of Java this - Java that - that I've stopped drinking coffee! No more java for me!

What would be better than faster JavaScript... (1)

Phillibuster (1232966) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287386)

I'd prefer it not hang and use 99% of the CPU when I close it.

Re:What would be better than faster JavaScript... (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287640)

I use FF 3.6.8 daily on Ubuntu 10.4 and it is pretty stable. Their new "Plugin crash isolator" works well (e.g. Flash).

Re:What would be better than faster JavaScript... (2, Informative)

sd.fhasldff (833645) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287806)

This is probably due to sqlite and a severely fragmented / huge / whatever history+bookmarks.

Try a clean profile. If that does the trick, try backing them up and importing in a clean profile. Probably "prune" them a bit while you're at it.

leakage (1)

burris (122191) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287428)

I'd like to see Firefox move up to at least a generation behind the other browsers with respect to memory leakage.

Re:leakage (1)

DIplomatic (1759914) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287844)

Memory leakage? I respectfully suggest your brain may be leaking memory, as Firefox has been good and stable since the Bush administration.

But... (4, Informative)

dispatch (981884) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287440)

...my company insists on remaining one generation behind!

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33287704)

-- IE6 is that way.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33288034)

One! You lucky SOB.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33288206)

Informative? It's not informative, it's mildly amusing!

GPU Graphics Acceleration (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33287446)

If Firefox for doesn't have GPU graphics acceleration it will be a generation behind Microsoft Internet Explorer.

All the Javascript speed in the world won't make up for last generation webpage rendering that nails the CPU while the GPU sits idle.

Re:GPU Graphics Acceleration (4, Informative)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287708)

If Firefox for doesn't have GPU graphics acceleration it will be a generation behind Microsoft Internet Explorer.

All the Javascript speed in the world won't make up for last generation webpage rendering that nails the CPU while the GPU sits idle.

RTFA

Specifically:

derStandard.at: Firefox 4 is going to use hardware acceleration through Direct2D and DirectWrite on Windows, are similar things coming up for Linux and Mac OS X?

Chris Blizzard: Within what's provided: Yes. We're trying to give the best experience possible on each platform. So for Windows Vista and 7 we see huge improvements when doing certain graphically intensive stuff. On OS X for example we have support for OpenGL for doing compositing, on Linux we do the same. But generally the Windows APIs that we have are better and more rich than what we have on other platforms. To give you an example: On Linux Cairo and Pixman were supposed to be fast, but unfortunately the underlying infrastructure never really got fast. On OS X we are actually pretty fast but Direct2D gives the performance advantage to Windows at the moment.

Re:GPU Graphics Acceleration (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 3 years ago | (#33288032)

Indeed, after enabling the Direct2D stuff [basschouten.com] in the current Firefox nightly, MS's Psychedelic demo [microsoft.com] runs nice and zippy, slightly faster than on IE9 but without sound. (Without the configs set, it runs nice and not-so-zippy: 162, versus 1774 on zippy mode,* for the color wheel on mine.)

So yeah, render speed won't be a problem for FF, especially if they iron out remaining bugs and move the settings out of The Config Page That Might Void Your Warranty.

*If private browsing is porn mode, I say GPU'd browsing is zippy mode. Whoever manages to port The Guardian Legend to canvas or SVG better assume zippy mode unless they want to make a slideshow of those scrolling corridors...

Do these guy get paid? (2, Interesting)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287490)

"Mozilla's Chris Blizzard talks about...."

Do these guys get paid a salary? Or do they work for free?

whoop-de-doo (1, Insightful)

PJ6 (1151747) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287502)

Saying you're the fastest at running JavaScript is like celebrating that you came in 1st place in the Special Olympics. Sure you won, but you're still a retard. Using JavaScript and HTML for the UIs of real applications remains fundamentally flawed. It was never meant for what we're doing with it now. Millions of developer hours have been wasted in inefficiency and hair-pulling because we're still trying shove a square peg into a round hole. We need something better, and better is almost certainly not another weakly-typed, prototype-based scripting language. Seriously. Fuck JavaScript.

Re:whoop-de-doo (1)

PJ6 (1151747) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287982)

My apologies for the rant, it's just really heartfelt. Business all shifted to the web years ago, and web app development still completely sucks compared to thick client development. All the problems that were already well solved-for in user interfaces, feature-wise and programming... web just threw those all right out the window for little reason other than momentum. And they will never return until we leave HTML and JavaScript behind.

Re:whoop-de-doo (1)

mini me (132455) | more than 3 years ago | (#33288262)

Javascript is okay. Cappuccino has shown us you can have a full desktop-class GUI toolkit implemented in Javascript. The question to me is why does the browser not allow Javascript to access lower level system resources (such as drawing routines) so that one does not need to implement those systems on top of HTML and CSS? Granted, browsers should implement byte code interpreters, not just Javascript interpreters.

Years Behind (2, Interesting)

Carebears (1867786) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287506)

Our work computers still use IE6, I however prefer Chrome. Cause I have to have my butterflies theme!

SQLite database vacuum (1)

Sami Lehtinen (1864458) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287572)

It would be really nice if Firefox would learn to vacuum SQLite3 bases at times. I had huge databases full off junk. After manually vacuuming db size dropped over 90%. So there are many issues to fix.

Re:SQLite database vacuum (1)

emurphy42 (631808) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287644)

At least there's an addon [mozilla.org] for it.

Re:SQLite database vacuum (5, Informative)

Sami Lehtinen (1864458) | more than 3 years ago | (#33287886)

There are a few alternatives to yet another plugin:
1) You can use standalone SQLite3 installation to open bases and vacuum those.
2) Use Python script for vacuuming.
3) You can use Error Console with following string to vacuum bases:
Components.classes["@mozilla.org/browser/nav-history-service;1"].getService(Components.interfaces.nsPIPlacesDatabase).DBConnection.executeSimpleSQL("VACUUM");
I personally prefer last option, beacuse no additional software is required.

So it will be able run Slashdot then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33287608)

That will be impressive indeed.

sh1t (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33288064)

downward spiral. Design aaproach. As BSD addicts, flame chosen, whatever

"Other browsers" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33288084)

He also promises that Firefox 4 will be 'one generation ahead' of other browsers in relation to Javascript speed.

He didn't say which other browsers, did he? If not, this statement is essentially meaningless; he can just as well claim later on that by "other browsers", he meant "Firefox 3", or even "Firefox 0.6", or "Netscape Navigator 3.0".

Good, but don't forget other browser parts (1)

amn108 (1231606) | more than 3 years ago | (#33288150)

It's certainly nice they are improving the JavaScript engine code - it will lead to less CPU cycles spent on JS intensive pages (most of the stuff published today), but I feel there are other areas as well that should always stay a priority on par or above the JS engine code: startup time and removing cruft that slows this down, possibly having a lightweight firefox "starter" process, so that some important cache is always in memory (i know the OS caches a lot of stuff, but I can't help but notice the delay still). Some Gecko rendering tweaks would help too - I am sure there are lots of room for optimizations there. Anyway, the Firefox code is large enough to be worked on for loong time, making it better and better. I still applaud Mozilla for trying and delivering what we currently have.

"one generation ahead" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33288202)

Yep.
My father uses Firefox. I use Chrome.

Stop obsessing over JS performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33288222)

Is it just me or does anyone really care if a browsers JS interpreter is a few percent better performing than another? I can understand the huge gaps with performance measured in hundreds of percentage points such as between IE8 and firefox but all of the nextgen browsers IE9 included are within a few percent of each other and frankly I don't care. Noone will notice the results of any further optimizations.

I have 8 GB of ram on my machine and I'm continually amused to see every web browser I have used push >2GB memory usage after only a few days usage. Certainly more people especailly those without several GB of system ram would care much much more about the memory footprint of the software than the JS interpreter.

Or heck even the performance of basic tasks like rendering a table. Why should it have to peg the CPU for what seems like an eternity just to show a simple html table with 50k rows?

javascript speed? (0, Redundant)

hobo sapiens (893427) | more than 3 years ago | (#33288266)

These guys are starting to sound like MSFT when they released IE7.

What's with the fight over javascript speed? It's as ludicruous as MSFT touting tabbed browsing on an aging and stodgy codebase. People aren't leaving for Chrome en masse due to javascript speed. How about making the browser move faster and use less memory? So long as I don't have to WAIT an appreciable length of time for javascript to run, I don't care if it takes 3 milliseconds or 3 picoseconds.

What do my old-as-dirt dell latitude running XP, my old dell running xubuntu, and my shiny new macbook have in common? Firefox is the slowest browser of Chrome, Safari, IE, and Opera in terms of opening up, opening tabs, rendering pages. In other words, Firefox is still the slowest browser in most things that matter and save for safari on the Mac, uses the most memory.

I hate to see this happen to firefox. It's like watching and old friend slowly grow insane.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...