View Full Version : Mobile Firefox Is Six Times Faster Than Nokia's Browser on the N810
taguapire
2008-04-10, 07:21
Hi,
Someone knows where I can find more info about this faster browser? may be the debs ;)
http://gizmodo.com/378045/mobile-firefox-is-six-times-faster-than-nokias-browser-on-the-n810
Regards,
Taguapire.
konttori
2008-04-10, 07:31
I've used it and to be honest, it's not faster. It does have kinetic scrolling and some good ideas, but they have only released the first version and that is slower than the current microb (at least the diablo microb - haven't been using chinook for a long time). The test they are referring to is actually a javascript test mainly. Anyway, I'm sure they'll be able to get it to a really good speeds soon, but for now, it's not better than microb.
Ahem, isn't the Diablo MicroB supposed to be based on a FF 3b4+? 'Cause the Chinook one is based on a slow alpha.
P.S. Can we get the Diablo MicroB? Can we, can we? :)))
qwerty12
2008-04-10, 07:47
Good things come to those who wait :P
Good things come to those who wait :P
And we do that a lot with MicroB, so good things must be comin'!
Will Mobile Firefox play radio station's streams from their web sites? Thanks!
I guess perhaps someone should be able to build a backport of microB? For the more adventurous of us....
Myself, I built a backport of application manager. The stupid "too long version string"-bug was fixed, I have an "update all" button finally, and I haven't had any issues - other than a couple of missing translations, but I can live with that.
I could really like a "backports"-repositiory. That would also have the added benefit for the developers of having more beta-testers, no?
- Vegard
It's sounds like this http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/?p=349 :) (.install icluded)
Good things come to those who wait :P
Good things come to those who compile from SVN!
Yeah, a repo of SVN builds would be nice. "Backport" seems a bit strong, as I'm guessing most things for Diablo (4.1) will compile against Chinook (4.0) libraries just fine. (I get the impression there are few significant library changes.) To me, the more significant detail is that they're coming out of SVN, and therefore non-QA and possibly broken. But whatever it's called, such a repo would be nice.
I installed it -- starting up it seems a lot slower than the built in microb browser. However once it loaded it was "MUCH" faster and hugely more stable than the MicroB browser. I am very (very) impressed by it. It has some minor issues showing the back/forward button and the close button on the toolbar; no icons show up.
correction; apparently I was wrong initially when I posted this and Fennec and Minefield are two separate themes. Minefield is pretty much identical to firefox and can use standard extensions. Fennec is a themed firefox without much enabled. They BOTH use the same executable; but use different themes. So the memory usage and speed are equivalent.
Someone in the thread above mentioned the Diablo MicroB browser; the thing diablo doesn't have (and I'm "assuming" since I haven't played with it) is that the normal Firefox extensions just work with Minefield, in MicroB you had to have special non xul extensions. So, Minefield is like using firefox on your n810; everything works. TABS!, Places, toolbars, status bar; and best of all the standard ADD-ONs!!!
I installed both Adblock Plus and NoScript right from the Firefox extensions page and they seem to be working perfectly. MicroB requires specially designed non-xul extensions.
Even if Diablo's microb is in the same "speed" range as Fennec/Minefield, I'd pick Minefield since it acts like the STANDARD firefox rather than a limited crippled version.
Oh, and the Ram (even with the extensions load) and CPU usage based on the Load tool are less using Fennec/Minefield than MicroB. Which is always a good thing!!!
One thing against it; I'm not sure it can do flash right now -- it shows a missing plugin -- their might be a method to take the flash the microb does and apply its plugin to Fennec/Minefield. I didn't bother trying since I don't use flash anyways. But for completeness of my review; I figured I should mention it.
Install Link btw:
http://people.mozilla.org/~vladimir/fennec.install
-- Updated to make sure I used Fennec and Minefield where appropriate. ;-)
I tried it last week and it didn't play nicely with google reader - something I use way too often... It also didn't seem to play very nicely with gmail. I am looking forward to it's firther development though.
[I]n MicroB you ha[ve] to have special non xul extensions. So, Fennec is like using firefox on your n810; everything works. TABS!, Places, toolbars, status bar; and best of all the standard ADD-ONs!!!
...
One thing against it; I'm not sure it can do flash right now -- it shows a missing plugin -- there might be a method to take the flash the microbuses and apply its plugin to Fennec. I didn't bother trying since I don't use flash anyways. But for completeness of my review; I figured I should mention it. As someone who's way more excited about XUL than anyone else who's posted to the ITT forums, I'd have to say that Flash is the more likely sine qua non for tablet users.
And obviously you wouldn't be saying that about your Flash needs if you had made the same mistake I made and followed that thread about Flash games and downloaded too many of them and then played way too many of those too many. But then, as the saying goes, perhaps you don't have time for any minor vices. :-)
Roger
(Walks away, singing "I'm just a fool for XUL, it's cool, a tool for building neat stuff"...)
GeraldKo
2008-04-13, 18:20
Will Mobile Firefox play radio station's streams from their web sites? Thanks!
Are you aware you can do that with microb with the mplayer plug-in (http://www.internettablettalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17715)?
taguapire
2008-04-13, 18:22
It just didn't work. The Fennec Icon don't start up the app.
Any clues?
Regards,
Taguapire.
traveller604
2008-04-13, 18:26
edited. laalaalaa sorry
I'm just having a bad day..
Does anyone know any working themes/extensions and what are the keyboard shortcuts on N810?
As someone who's way more excited about XUL than anyone else who's posted to the ITT forums, I'd have to say that Flash is the more likely sine qua non for tablet users.
LOL it isn't that I'm excited about XUL, its that I'm excited about using Standard MAINTAINED firefox extensions. The browser works faster and better than MicorB (in my experience) and supports extensions that will be maintained. That is a huge plus!!!
And obviously you wouldn't be saying that about your Flash needs if you had made the same mistake I made and followed that thread about Flash games and downloaded too many of them and then played way too many of those too many. But then, as the saying goes, perhaps you don't have time for any minor vices.
LOL, no I love games -- but for browsing I don't use flash -- man does that take a huge hit on the microb, and battery. If I want to play a flash game, I'm not opposed to opening microb. ;-)
Nathan.
Laughing Man
2008-04-13, 23:15
The only problem with add-ons is the memory consumption (and CPU possibly) that they would use.
As I stated above; MicroB was using more memory (& cpu time) then Minefield was w/ Adblock+ and noScript installed. ;-)
Having tabs, speed and standard extensions in a smaller footprint is very nice.
I assume that Diablo's browser would probably also see a dip in memory size since it should be using a beta engine (Like Fennec/Minefield) rather than a the early alpha that MicroB is using.
Nathan.
Tried with this new performance testing site:
http://dromaeo.com
Let me tell ya that Fennec is far more faster from MicroB than 6x.
Here are my results:
http://dromaeo.com/?id=5181
And another interesting article:
http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/?p=352
GeneralAntilles
2008-04-14, 11:26
As I stated above; MicroB was using more memory (& cpu time) then Fennec was w/ Adblock+ and noScript installed. ;-)
Not a valid comparison, as those numbers are being significantly offset by the old snapshot that MicroB is currently using.
konttori
2008-04-14, 11:51
Just interested: What are the results for the chinook microb (as in: how much faster was the fennec on that test than microb?)
That was a problem - i didn't even had the nerve to wait for it to finish the first test. Then again maybe the first test behaves much worse on the early alpha.
I'll leave it running when i get to a charger.
GeneralAntilles
2008-04-14, 12:26
Chinook MicroB
http://dromaeo.com/?id=5380
I'd like to see these numbers for the latest Diablo build, too. :D
Fennec is about 10 times faster then :) EDIT: My fist test is also around 54000.
EDIT: I was looking only at the first test. Overall it seems under 6x.
I'm running it too now... I needed first to tweak the javascript warning window to not show up too quickly (add this to prefs.js):
user_pref("dom.max_script_run_time", 10000);
Don't forget to remove it after that though.
My Chinook MicroB results:
http://dromaeo.com/?id=5490
konttori
2008-04-14, 13:10
Microb took in these results 298647 and fennec took 61814. Interesting. Of course, this is really just a javascript benchmark, but interesting nevertheless.
Javascript is used very intensively in Web 2.0 sites, so faster javascript means faster browser these days. :)
I'm excited about using Standard MAINTAINED firefox extensions. The browser works faster and better than MicorB (in my experience) and supports extensions that will be maintained. That is a huge plus!!!Amen, brother!
Javascript is used very intensively in Web 2.0 sites, so faster javascript means faster browser these days. :)I know we always said "If you build it, they will come"* but I'm not sure how many people believed that building this platform would bring the big development projects like Mozilla this way by now. (Or rather that they would put the NIT square in their viewer when thinking "mobile platform.")
Faster surfing. Better Flash. More stable surfing. That's so far. Now we see this coming: Even faster surfing. Better Web 2.0. XUL for add-ons. Use any Firefox add-on without modification.
Things just keep looking up, don't they!
__________
* From Field of Dreams (1989), for you non-baseball-movie types.
Laughing Man
2008-04-14, 15:55
Well of course. Firefox 3 has alot of optimizations and reductions in uses. But, what I was saying was if you start installing lots of Firefox extensions like I have on my laptop, it's going bog it down. :P
Use any Firefox add-on without modification.[/B][/I]
Well, i'm not sure about that.... I really didn't see any add-ons in Fennec, i also tried installing Ad-block but nothing happened. So i guess there will be addon support, but thats just a guess for now...
mobiledivide
2008-04-14, 16:54
It is nice to see the Maemo/IT platform out front and center when discussing mobile, this Firefox on mobile has generated a lot of interest around the interwebs as has the Android on N810 hardware. As said before I really like the idea of using the N810 as a Firefox platform with all the extensions etc.
Well, i'm not sure about that.... I really didn't see any add-ons in Fennec, i also tried installing Ad-block but nothing happened. So i guess there will be addon support, but thats just a guess for now...I'm only quoting Nathan, who wrote:
Fennec is like using firefox on your n810; everything works. TABS!, Places, toolbars, status bar; and best of all the standard ADD-ONs!!!
I installed both Adblock Plus and NoScript right from the Firefox extensions page and they seem to be working perfectly. MicroB requires specially designed non-xul extensions.www.internettablettalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=169210&postcount=11 (http://www.internettablettalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=169210&postcount=11)
Also, I should note: I'm not excitedly crowing "It's here! It's here!" What is exciting to me is that the news about these features is based on actual testing and actual betas, not just speculation that it will come soon.
I'm not saying, "We have XUL now!" though these beta-testers do. But I am saying, "We CAN run XUL add-ons, look it's in the beta, and we'll be able to SOON."
I get pretty excited about potential sometimes. I should say that when that's what I'm talking about.
I'm only quoting Nathan, who wrote:
www.internettablettalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=169210&postcount=11 (http://www.internettablettalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=169210&postcount=11)
Also, I should note: I'm not excitedly crowing "It's here! It's here!" What is exciting to me is that the news about these features is based on actual testing and actual betas, not just speculation that it will come soon.
I'm not saying, "We have XUL now!" though these beta-testers do. But I am saying, "We CAN run XUL add-ons, look it's in the beta, and we'll be able to SOON."
I get pretty excited about potential sometimes. I should say that when that's what I'm talking about.
Yes, i know that, but i'm also pretty sure that the bundled Minefield with Fennec has actually misguided some people. There are no places, toolbars and tabs in Fennec, there are in Minefield.
I will slightly correct my prior posts. ;-)
Both Fennec and Minefield are in the same distribution. My Fennec icon/menu item was not working so I assumed minefield was it. After playing with the Fennec configuration file; I was able to fix my Fennec menu item. So I can run either of them now.
You have to realize that all Fennec is, is basically a theme applied to minefield to clean it up a bit for smaller screens. In fact both Fennec and Minefield run the exact same "Firefox" application; just one of them changes the directory for where the Chrome is located at. My earlier rant about using XUL, Adblock-Plus, NoScript and Tabs, and standard FF behavior is from testing the Minefield menu item, not the Fennec menu item. Disabling the Bookmark bar in Minefield gives you enough room that tabs can be used w/o making it too small. ;-D
However, playing with "both" of them, I still much prefer the minefield app (appears to be the same speed as Fennec, and memory usage). Which either of them just blows MicroB away.
Oh, and yes; minefield DOES support XUL, No-Script, Adblock+ and Places. Fennec, might, but I haven't really played with it too much since I got it working and realized I didn't really like the simplified theme. Maybe I'm a power user or something; but I like having my cake and eating it too. ;-)
Nathan.
Not a valid comparison, as those numbers are being significantly offset by the old snapshot that MicroB is currently using.
It most certainly is -- since Diablo is not in the wild the only real valid comparisons is between released versions of software. Comparing a "unreleased" browser to an existing one is a not-fair comparison. ;-)
I assume Diablo's MicroB will be probably in the same ball park since it should also be using a Firefox Beta engine rather than A5; but as I stated before; using Minefield vs MicroB (Chinook or the supposed Diablo), Minefield wins because of the standard firefox behavior (like tabs, extensions, etc).
Nathan
GeneralAntilles
2008-04-16, 03:50
It most certainly is -- since Diablo is not in the wild the only real valid comparisons is between released versions of software. Comparing a "unreleased" browser to an existing one is a not-fair comparison. ;-)
Some seem to be trying to make the point that Minefield/Fennec is faster than MicroB because MicroB is poorly coded or badly put together or badly optimized or somesuch—but this simply isn't true, MicroB is just based on a much older snapshot of Gecko. So drawing certain conclusions from these comparisons is neither particularly valid nor useful.
Durandal
2008-04-16, 05:34
Microb took in these results 298647 and fennec took 61814. Interesting. Of course, this is really just a javascript benchmark, but interesting nevertheless.
I'd be interested in the results on the old Opera browser from Bora. For all the things we gained with MicroB, Opera always felt faster on the JS-heavy sites. I was kind of sad to see it go.
Looking forward to seeing what Diablo's MicroB can do, and hopefully seeing Diablo's in-place updates eventually give us better and better versions as Gecko and MicroB are optimized and improved.
I don't think Opera would pass this test at all. Even desktop Opera is notoriously bad on Javascript.
Durandal
2008-04-16, 06:20
I don't think Opera would pass this test at all. Even desktop Opera is notoriously bad on Javascript.
What gave you that impression? I just ran it on the current beta build of Opera 9.5. Here (http://dromaeo.com/?id=6900) are the results.
Also, not too long ago the development version of the Opera rendering engine scored 100/100 on the Acid 3 test (http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/2008/03/26/opera-and-the-acid3-test). You can argue that the version of the rendering engine in the stable Opera release is bad, but according to the Wikipedia page on Acid3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3#Non-compliant_layout_engines) the stable Mozilla build isn't significantly better at 53/100 vs Opera's 45/100.
If you meant speed-wise, at least for the 9 series my experience is that Opera has very fast JavaScript performance.
Anyway, I'm an Opera fan to be sure, but I feel that devotion is warranted... I've found it to be a very solid browser.
Opera 9.5 will be the first Opera which will support javascript good. Sadly Opera 9.5 has been beta for over a millennium and generally unstable. Try running tthe test in 9.25 or even better in 8.x ;)
Of course i didn't test it so it may run even in 9.25 :)
I'm a web developer, so i'm generally against any buggy browsers and Opera sure is one (not as much as IE mind you). For instance one typical Opera bug which plagued 8.x: if you resize the browser window only vertically, onresize event isn't fired.
However OS2007 uses Opera 7, which is very old and javascript support is almost non-existent.
GeneralAntilles
2008-04-16, 07:18
However OS2007 uses Opera 7, which is very old and javascript support is almost non-existent.
Opera 8.5, actually, but the statement is still valid. :D
Um, yeah, OS2006 was with 7.x right?
jeffmings
2008-04-16, 09:32
Just tried Fennec and Minefield with my N800 on latest OS2008 - Text input is very screwy, but can be done with a lot of playing around. Google spreadsheets, which are hopelessly, even glacially slow to the point of being completely unusable with the regular MicroB, are tantalizingly functional with the new browsers. And yes, having the real Firefox with tabs will be a very nice thing. I don't simply want a finished version for the sugary goodness; I want to be able to get a lot of work done in Google Docs that just can't happen right now.
Aloha,
-Jeff Mings
Durandal
2008-04-16, 12:12
Sorry for getting off topic, but I can't let it go when you bash Opera with shoddy info.
Sadly Opera 9.5 has been beta for over a millennium and generally unstable.
The first Opera 9.5 public alpha came out in September 2007 (http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/2007/09/04/go-and-get-opera-9-5-alpha-3). The first Firefox 3 public alpha was released December 2006 (http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS2376182982.html). Even accounting for the fact that Mozilla is open source and the Desktop Team says they'd been working on 9.5 for over a year, doesn't seem like Opera 9.5 has been in beta much longer than Mozilla has. As for stability, I've used the pre-release 9.5 builds as my primary browser since they started coming out. I'll admit that the early ones crashed a couple times a day with moderately heavy use, and a build will occasionally break something major, but in general they're pretty good.
As for Opera 9.25 being no good with Javascript, I thought I already refuted that? The 9.2x series is the current stable release, and scores 8 points lower than the stable FireFox releases on Acid3. That's not good but hardly seems like the buggy, broken browser you seem to think Opera is. Also, while it doesn't really excuse it, some of Opera's bad behviour is because it tries to be bug-compatible with IE. Maybe not the best design choice, but if you're a browser with a small marketshare...
As for the 8.5-based build in bora, maybe you're right. I'm not going to try and defend the older Opera versions, since it's been so long since I used them. I will say that at least one JavaScript heavy site I use regularly, JellyFish.com, did work for the most part under Bora's browser (a field didn't properly clear after submitting, requiring a refresh to use it again) and worked pretty well. Under MicroB it works more correctly, and I won't deny that, but MicroB has quirks of its own (in my expreience more UI/user expreience related than rendering related) so I was wondering how the older browser would fare in this test. In any case, I've dragged the thread off topic long enough, sorry for that.
Yea, you're right, i didn't have too much trouble with the 9.2x versions, so i guess they fixed most of their problems. Recently i only had major problems with the 9.5 beta (maybe that's why it seems to me like ages), so much that i dropped its support for the time being. Mybe its better now 2-3 months later, but i don't want (or have the nerve) to check. IE compatibility was really a bad decision since Opera in IE mode doesn't imitate the Microsoft's browser too well and only causes further pain to the Web developers.
JellyFish.com uses Prototype, which has good browser support.
Yeah, lets stop this. :)
spartanNTX
2008-04-16, 13:36
Some seem to be trying to make the point that Minefield/Fennec is faster than MicroB because MicroB is poorly coded or badly put together or badly optimized or somesuch—but this simply isn't true, MicroB is just based on a much older snapshot of Gecko. So drawing certain conclusions from these comparisons is neither particularly valid nor useful.
Sorry, but the comparison is both valid and useful. If the gecko snapshot used was buggy and slow due to being an alpha relase, that doesn't mean MicroB gets some sort of free pass. Someone somewhere decided to make that gecko snapshot part of the default (released) web browser for the nITs. If that snapshot was so bad, Nokia should have gone in a different direction for the Internet Tablets, even if that meant developing a custom engine.
Also, it is valid and useful because I want to know how the current version of MicroB stacks up against the upcoming releases of Firefox. I am not interested in any Diablo comparison until it is released and installed on my n810.
Some seem to be trying to make the point that Minefield/Fennec is faster than MicroB because MicroB is poorly coded or badly put together or badly optimized or somesuch—but this simply isn't true, MicroB is just based on a much older snapshot of Gecko. So drawing certain conclusions from these comparisons is neither particularly valid nor useful.
Ah, I get you -- but that doesn't discount that today the fastest available browsers on the IT's is Fennec/Minefield. For those using a browser for anything meaningful it is worth knowing that Fennec/Minefield is worth checking out for the speed & memory gains over the current microb. This MAY change in the future when Diablo MicroB is released; but Today and for the a while into the future Fennec/Minefield are on the top of the heap. ;-)
Nathan.
Too bad the iPhone's browser is cooler.
Post #50 is spam! BAN!
Durandal
2008-04-16, 15:08
Not to put words in his mouth, but I think that GA's point is more that comparing a freshly released Fennec/Minefield build to the browser that's been on our tablet's since... December(?) isn't particularly instructive about the relative efficiency or general "goodness" of the browsers themselves. Yes, we can look at them and say "Fennec/Minefield is faster" but we should try not to get too caught up in it and become "indoctrinated" to that idea (for lack of a better word) or believe it's due to some inherent superiority of the way Fennec/Minefield are coded. The release cycles are so badly out of sync that (to use a bit of hyperbole) it's like you're comparing Windows 2000 to Mac OS 9 back in February of 2001. Sure, one might be faster or better now, but let's not jump to conclusions and abandon ship just yet.
On the other hand, nothing wrong with using it if you like it - consider it the benefit of an open platform. What we probably don't want, however, is to get too worked up about it and have people pushing for Nokia to switch browsers again before we see what they've done with MicroB.
Just look at my discussion with Bundyo - software can change a lot over the course of a release cycle. This is even more true when that release cycle is dependent on multiple other projects.
GeneralAntilles
2008-04-16, 15:19
<snip />
Yes, that's exactly it. :)
Does anyone know if there is a browser like NetFront or Universe for the N800?
The improvements with MicroB are nice, but it will never be able to significantly shrink it's footprint to anywhere near the levels of NetFront or Universe because it's still, at it's heart, a desktop web browser.
My biggest problem with the N-series web browsers is that they need more memory than the N-series have in order to run efficiently.
All it takes is a web page with lots of pictures or a few large SWFs and the whole thing crawls to a halt.
links or lynx ?
Graphical links (with cookie patch applied) is my primary browser, I switch to MicroB when I need video or javascript support.
It's really hard for me to use anything other than links on the tablet, it's just crazy fast compared to the other browsers.
Ah, I get you -- but that doesn't discount that today the fastest available browsers on the IT's is Fennec/Minefield. For those using a browser for anything meaningful it is worth knowing that Fennec/Minefield is worth checking out for the speed & memory gains over the current microb. This MAY change in the future when Diablo MicroB is released; but Today and for the a while into the future Fennec/Minefield are on the top of the heap. ;-)
Nathan.
While it is very good to say Fennec right now is THE fastest browser for ther NIT, that does not go to say that FENNEC is the BEST stable browset for the NIT today.
FENNEC is no where near complete - crashes out often on large sites (which MicroB handles), kinetic scrolling only works on lite sites and on heavy sites (moderately) there is no way to even scroll up or down since they removed the scrollbars.
Installation memory footprint seems to be pretty big (i doont know about MicroB since its baked in into the OS).
So lets not make such definitive statements here. In fact Fennec/Minefield is stil not a ready app in the true sense. I installed it and had to uninstakll it if I really want a usable browser on my NIT.
Right now it is MicroB, sadly with its shortcomings.
Graphical links (with cookie patch applied) is my primary browser...
Is that the one in free's repository? Or did you compile it yourself?
GeraldKo
2008-04-16, 17:19
My biggest problem with the N-series web browsers is that they need more memory than the N-series have in order to run efficiently.
All it takes is a web page with lots of pictures or a few large SWFs and the whole thing crawls to a halt.
If you literally mean "to a halt" that can be fixed with certain tweaks. My microb used to do that, but not anymore. It loads any page I throw at it. At worst it takes a while (I don't know, maybe 15 seocnds sometimes) and sometimes to display just right I need to hit reload. I have it always in "Fit width to view" (which slows things down), but as a result it all shows up within the horizontal confines of my screen.
My tweaks include userContent.css, about:config changes, flash block, enabling virtual memory, and a one-time addition to the hosts file (for ad-blocking). Most of the first two types come from brontide.
That said, yeah, faster would be nicer. It always is.
GeraldKo
2008-04-16, 17:24
Graphical links (with cookie patch applied) is my primary browser, I switch to MicroB when I need video or javascript support.
Very interesting, but I can't find it for Maemo. Please post link.
Here (http://links.twibright.com/)is the primary website for Twibright Labs' Links browser. And what I have found of it for Maemo (http://behindmaemolines.blogspot.com/2007/11/links2-for-n800.html).
Looking forward to seeing what Diablo's MicroB can do, and hopefully seeing Diablo's in-place updates eventually give us better and better versions as Gecko and MicroB are optimized and improved.Understood that MicroB will be using a more recent engine and, I guess, at one point will have the same engine as Fennec.
Will that bring XUL support too?
Or, putting my concerns slightly differently: Will MicroB and Fennec then have equal XUL and Javascript capabilities?
Roger
GeneralAntilles
2008-04-16, 17:29
Will that bring XUL support too?
No, MicroB does not support XUL (cuts down on space and RAM requirements rather significantly), but that's what xulrunner and Minefield are for. ;)
Is that the one in free's repository? Or did you compile it yourself?
I compiled it myself, since I love my cookies :)
The cookie patch was for an old version and had to be tweaked a little to work correctly.. there's also a javascript patch out there, but I think it had some issues.
It seems strange that cookie support was never added officially, the patch was submitted years ago and seems to work fine.
No, MicroB does not support XUL (cuts down on space and RAM requirements rather significantly), but that's what xulrunner and Minefield are for. ;)Sure. And it's clear that the current MicroB doesn't. But, just to confirm — you're saying MicroB in Diablo won't have XUL either, right?
GeraldKo
2008-04-16, 17:38
I compiled it myself, since I love my cookies :)
First, would you want to upload your cookie patch somewhere?
More basically, does the basic Twibright Labs download (http://links.twibright.com/download.php) run on Maemo or did you have to do something more than follow their directions to get it to run on your Tablet?
GeneralAntilles
2008-04-16, 17:39
Just to confirm — you're saying MicroB in Diablo won't have XUL either, right?
I can't state that with 100% certainty (as I've never used Diablo MicroB), but, due to a variety of factors, I would be both incredibly surprised and very confused if it did. ;)
I would appreciate a Prism for the tablets... :)
First, would you want to upload your cookie patch somewhere?
More basically, does the basic Twibright Labs download (http://links.twibright.com/download.php) run on Maemo or did you have to do something more than follow their directions to get it to run on your Tablet?
It's not my patch, don't remember where I got it from.. but I've attached the patched cookies.c, I think all I did was comment out this line:
if (c->expires && ! cookie_expired(c))
I grabbed the source, patched cookies.c, compiled, and then just copied over the links binary.
GeraldKo
2008-04-16, 18:43
It's not my patch, don't remember where I got it from.. but I've attached the patched cookies.c, I think all I did was comment out this line:
if (c->expires && ! cookie_expired(c))
I grabbed the source, patched cookies.c, compiled, and then just copied over the links binary.
Thanks for the patch and the reply.
For those of us who know nothing about compiling, etc., is it too much to ask someone to turn Twibright Links (and, heck, the cookie patch, too) into a deb and post it? It sounds extremely useful. Please?
Thanks for the patch and the reply.
For those of us who know nothing about compiling, etc., is it too much to ask someone to turn Twibright Links (and, heck, the cookie patch, too) into a deb and post it? It sounds extremely useful. Please?
Like I said above, free (http://www.internettablettalk.com/forums/member.php?u=9312)'s repository (http://debfarm.free.fr chinook user) has a version of graphical links2. Probably doesn't have the cookie patch. I bet he'd add it if you PM'ed him.
links2_2.1pre31-1_armel.deb (http://debfarm.free.fr/pool/links2_2.1pre31-1_armel.deb)
There's an interesting logic leap leap on display in this thread, where the performance of a rendering engine on a JavaScript benchmark becomes "Mobile Firefox is six times faster".
There is more to a browser's performance - and even speed - than JavaScript performance. Yes, the JS engine speed is obviously of great importance to AJAX apps like Google Reader and Google Docs; but the UI is a lot heavier. Scrolling in Fennec is kinetic and shiny, but awfully CPU intensive (who needs battery life anyway) and slow. I'd say Fennec feels like one of the *slowest* browsers on Maemo at the moment.
GeneralAntilles' is right: the fundamental improvements which lead to this headline figure will be coming in later versions of microb. Let's not get indoctrinated into "microb is - and always will be - slow. Mobile Firefox is quicker and better".
spartanNTX
2008-04-17, 14:11
Let's not get indoctrinated into "microb is - and always will be - slow. Mobile Firefox is quicker and better".
You are the first person I have seen say that. Must be a pretty subtle indoctrination.
I think it is pretty clear that improvements to Microb are coming as well. Again, it is valid to be excited about the fact that we can expect to have a faster web browsing experience going forward.
I just wish they would let normal users install the beta version of Diablo Microb. I don't mind beta software testing.
They will; don't normal users know how to build from svn? :p
GeneralAntilles
2008-04-17, 18:26
They will; don't normal users know how to build from svn? :p
Evidently it depends on some bc-dev package which doesn't seem to exist anywhere.
Has anybody tried compiling successfully compiled from svn?
I did, couldn't figure out what patch, script, update goes where... :)
I don't even know where to look for the new browser, after MicroB got absorbed into Chinook, they just left the browser web pages over at the garage to grow old and crufty.
While it is very good to say Fennec right now is THE fastest browser for ther NIT, that does not go to say that FENNEC is the BEST stable browset for the NIT today.
FENNEC is no where near complete - crashes out often on large sites (which MicroB handles), kinetic scrolling only works on lite sites and on heavy sites (moderately) there is no way to even scroll up or down since they removed the scrollbars.
I won't say I've played with Fennec much since I prefer the full UI of minefield to the limited UI of Fennec, but I have played with Minefield and I haven't seen any instability like I did with MicroB. I crashed about 8 times using MicroB last week in one hour; where I have had no crashes in Minefield yet. Now, I will admit I don't do a huge amount of browsing on my N810, but Crashing vs not-crashing on the limited amount of browsing I do do -- minefield is stable for the browsing I've done.
Installation memory footprint seems to be pretty big (i doont know about MicroB since its baked in into the OS).
Installation footprint; yes I'm sure they are about the same. MicroB is using Firefox Alpha 5, where Minefield I think is like Beta 2. They should be somewhere close to the same size wise.
So lets not make such definitive statements here. In fact Fennec/Minefield is stil not a ready app in the true sense. I installed it and had to uninstakll it if I really want a usable browser on my NIT.
Right now it is MicroB, sadly with its shortcomings.
Not for me -- on my N810; as I said above; I haven't had it crash even once. Where just before I installed it I had microb crash a dozen or so times. I couldn't be more happy with the stability so far.
Nathan.
ShayneOSU
2008-04-22, 22:42
Part of the discussion on the developer's blog (http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/?p=349) was not so nice:
Random Dude:
I’m sorry…but without a build for PocketPC phones ( smartphone or touch-capable ), this isn’t much of a win. Sure, Maemo-based devices will have their place, and if Nokia actually DOES get their act together a release a smartphone based on the Maemo codebase, there could be a nice win there. However, the “heart and soul” is still the WM based smartphones and pda phones.
Mozilla Developer:
Yep, we know! :D We’re working hard to get to a set of real phones. The N810 is a great platform for development and testing but we understand that the real win is on a real mobile platform.
Pfft.
GeneralAntilles
2008-04-22, 22:49
Pfft.
For serious.
There's a better future with GTKWebKit, anyway.
macr0t0r
2008-04-23, 06:03
I thought Nokia pulled out of Webkit? As for the Mozilla developer, I wonder how much his comments were biased towards WinMobile simply because they adjust their views to whoever they speak to.
Mozilla Developer:
Yep, we know! :D We’re working hard to get to a set of real phones. The N810 is a great platform for development and testing but we understand that the real win is on a real mobile platform.
Well... I think you have to put that in context. "Mobile" usually means cell phones -- there's a billion-and-change of them in use, and nearly all of them have a crappy web browser (if any). The N810 is an awesome device, but if you want to improve the mobile experience and open web, you can't ignore where the users are. And there are a whole bunch of them stuck on Windows Mobile devices with IE.
So, in that sense, bringing a better browser to that market will be the bigger win for the broader problem. It's more a statement about the current marketplace, and isn't really about the Internet Tablet. But if the N8x0 can help by eating away at Windows Mobile, so much the better!
[I should also point out that Blizzard is a long-time Linux guy, working in key roles at Red Hat and OLPC, so this is no Windows fanboy talking. :-)]
There's a better future with GTKWebKit, anyway.
I wouldn't be so sure. Mozilla is kicking ***, it's faster (http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1648) and (http://blog.pavlov.net/2008/03/11/firefox-3-memory-usage/) lighter (http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartp/2328802961/sizes/o/) than ever (even when compared to WebKit), and there's more in the pipeline coming.
GeneralAntilles
2008-04-24, 22:40
I wouldn't be so sure. Mozilla is kicking ***, it's faster (http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1648) and (http://blog.pavlov.net/2008/03/11/firefox-3-memory-usage/) lighter (http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartp/2328802961/sizes/o/) than ever (even when compared to WebKit), and there's more in the pipeline coming.
Whatever progress has been made, it still doesn't change the fact that Firefox has a much heavier and less agile codebase. ;)
Either way, though, competition is a good thing and can only benefit the consumer.
I wouldn't be so sure. Mozilla is kicking ***, it's faster (http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1648) and (http://blog.pavlov.net/2008/03/11/firefox-3-memory-usage/) lighter (http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartp/2328802961/sizes/o/) than ever (even when compared to WebKit), and there's more in the pipeline coming.
I wasn't aware that the fastness and lightness could be better than ever compared with one thing, and not when compared with another.
Catalyst
2008-04-25, 17:14
I wasn't aware that the fastness and lightness could be better than ever compared with one thing, and not when compared with another.
It's got better lightfastness! So, the Mozilla browser will degrade less over time in direct sunlight!:)
Dyslexia can make reading forums so much more entertaining.
Whatever progress has been made, it still doesn't change the fact that Firefox has a much heavier and less agile codebase. ;)
Well... I can't really agree with that either. :) There's a boatload (http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Firefox_3_for_developers) of new things in Firefox 3, and there have been heavy improvements to existing things (notably: switching the graphics backend (http://blog.vlad1.com/2007/12/11/graphics-in-mozilla/) to Cario, overhauling text rendering (http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2007/09/textalicious.html), and refactoring how page layout works.) And a vibrant extension community.
Sure, it's not perfect. No large project is. But there have been big improvements the in Firefox 3 (Mozilla 1.9) platform, and we've got yet more coming up for Mozilla 2 (http://wiki.mozilla.org/Mozilla_2).
Either way, though, competition is a good thing and can only benefit the consumer.
Absolutely! Especially when the competition is more worthy than a crusty old monopoly. :-)
I wasn't aware that the fastness and lightness could be better than ever compared with one thing, and not when compared with another.
Heh, I guess that wasn't phrased well. My point was just that Firefox 3 doesn't only look good compared to it's predecessor, but also compared to other modern alternatives.
It's got better lightfastness! So, the Mozilla browser will degrade less over time in direct sunlight!:)
LOL! Actually, it does have support for color management now... :-)
MstPrgmr
2008-04-26, 16:23
For me, fennec is slower and less stable than Microb. In fact, I rarely exit fennec, it just quits or crashes. In addition where are the scroll bars? Scrolling is a pain, moreso than in microb, in fennec and minefield. Minefield has scroll bars, but it is weird and hard to use. When it is working, fennec does seem more compatible with some websites. Example: digg.com. Microb has a difficult time reading comments and instead opens up the comments on a new page. Fennec, if it doesn't crash before it gets there, will open up the comments on the same page.
GeraldKo
2008-04-26, 17:07
"Mobile Firefox Is Six Times Faster Than Nokia's Browser on the N810!"
"Oh, yeah!? Well my brother is ten times faster than Mobile Firefox!"
(Sorry, I just always have that 'thought' go through my head when I come across that topic title in New Posts. :o)
Catalyst
2008-04-28, 01:45
Which system update are people that this release is working well for using? I was using the original OS2008 install and both the browsers (fennec and minefield or whatever they're called) were completely unstable for me, unable to even load a single page reliably. I just put on the 51-3 update though, was wondering if that might make it more reliable or if there's some other setup that people are using that makes it work. I really like one of them...I think Fennec...where it could have the entire GUI go away when browsing. But again, could not load anything reliably.
MstPrgmr
2008-04-28, 02:09
Which system update are people that this release is working well for using? I was using the original OS2008 install and both the browsers (fennec and minefield or whatever they're called) were completely unstable for me, unable to even load a single page reliably. I just put on the 51-3 update though, was wondering if that might make it more reliable or if there's some other setup that people are using that makes it work. I really like one of them...I think Fennec...where it could have the entire GUI go away when browsing. But again, could not load anything reliably.
Yea, I got the same results as you. I don't know about all the people who say it is more stable than MicroB.
They are using Minefield by mistake :) Fennec is not stable.
Catalyst
2008-04-29, 21:12
Isn't minefield the other browser included in the install? I used both and neither were stable.
MstPrgmr
2008-04-29, 21:43
I think they are the same thing (run on the same engine). However Fennec is a stripped down UI and Minefield has the whole UI.
I wouldn't be so sure. Mozilla is kicking ***, it's faster (http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1648) and (http://blog.pavlov.net/2008/03/11/firefox-3-memory-usage/) lighter (http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartp/2328802961/sizes/o/) than ever (even when compared to WebKit), and there's more in the pipeline coming.
That bench sucks. It's using an old webkit build (Safari 3.0 crap) as well as an old Opera 9.5 beta (though, its numbers didn't improve. Still more than double Firefox3's time). On my PC, the latest webkitgtk git with the latest midori git was 25% faster on sunspider than FFB5 and used half the ram FFB5 used.
Firefox 3 is a huge improvement over it's predecessors, though.
vBulletin® v3.8.8, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.