Mozilla release first beta of Firefox 4.0 for MacMozilla release first beta of Firefox 4.0 for Mac w

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 61
    drudru Posts: 43member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prism View Post


    I know this is a bit off-topic, but if FireFox would be able to work with MobileMe sync then I'd love to use FireFox again on my Macs.



    Safari's bookmark system sucks! Can't add folders, unless you save a bunch of tabs at once, so it makes one huge list. That is the one thing that really turns me down on Safari.



    Shift+Command+N will do it. "Add Bookmarks Folder" in the Bookmarks menu will do it. Clicking the "+" near the middle of the bottom of a Safari window after "Show All Bookmarks" has been picked from the Bookmarks menu will do it. Right-click on your Bookmarks Bar and pick "New Folder" also does it.



    That's FOUR ways to do what you claim Safari won't do.
  • Reply 42 of 61
    drudru Posts: 43member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    I'm having major GUI problems with b1.



    If you've got serious weirdness in the toolbar, like two rows or worse, the fix is to reselect the Default theme in Add-Ons.



    One thing I'm not keen on, there's a second FF icon in the dock if the Flash plug-in starts up. Close it and the plug-in crashes. I suppose this is a "Beta" issue and not reflecting the final version.
  • Reply 43 of 61
    bartfatbartfat Posts: 434member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I posted a comment (link below) on the most recent Safari 5 article thread the other day. Interestingly, I was pretty much called an IE fanboy for it. For those not going to the link, IE9 is up to 83/100 on Acid3, but more importantly it’s the first browser to offer HW Acceleration to the HTML5 Canvas element, which (as I’m sure you know, mstone) is critical if Canvas ever wants to make an impact on the web outside of proof-of-concept demos.



    Actually, Safari 5 has HW acceleration on Canvas too. But the difference is that IE9 isn't shipping yet, so you have to compare it to the nightly builds of WebKit or Firefox, in which case WebKit blows it away... The WebKit nightly version gets 100/100 on Acid3 already. So IE9 having hardware acceleration is already old news to Apple's browser.



    Just type in WebGL to Google and you'll see that it's essentially the same thing as canvas, except that it was designed for graphics like OpenGL and it's hardware accelerated by WebKit.
  • Reply 44 of 61
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bartfat View Post


    Actually, Safari 5 has HW acceleration too. But the difference is that IE9 isn't shipping yet, so you have to compare it to the nightly builds of WebKit or Firefox, in which case WebKit blows it away... The WebKit nightly version gets 100/100 on Acid3.



    Triple, huh?



    1) Where is Safari 5’s HW acceleration of the Canvas element. I tried a WebKit when these tests came out and it’s still not HW accelerated as of a couple days ago.



    2) WebKit has scored a 100/100 and was the first browser to PASS 15 months ago (100/100 is not the only criteria for passing).



    3) My comments in no way implied IE9 was ahead of WebKit or any other competing browser in terms of standards compliance, it was clearly to show the rate of adoption and level of commitment that MS has put into complying with open standards, showing that the consumer has won and free markets always correct themselves eventually. It also was to show IE, of all browsers, getting the jump for likely the first time on making their browser more efficient in some way than the leading engines.



    Quote:

    Just type in WebGL to Google and you'll see that it's essentially the same thing as canvas, except that it was designed for graphics like OpenGL and it's hardware accelerated by WebKit.



    Don’t take my word for it, run Canvas demos and see which browsers ramp up your CPU more and are less fluid.
  • Reply 45 of 61
    bartfatbartfat Posts: 434member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Where is Safari 5’s HW acceleration of the Canvas element. I tried a WebKit when these tests came out and it’s still not HW accelerated as of a couple days ago.



    I wasn't aware that the canvas element required Javascript. That makes sense why it's slower than native code like WebGL or OpenGL then. Well then, I have to agree with you that it is a feat that IE9 has hardware acceleration for that sort of thing. But no doubt in the future, when it comes time to ship, I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that IE9 will be the last one to ship with hardware acceleration, because everyone else copied the idea and shipped their browser already. Which makes you think why doesn't the IE team just drop Trident and go with WebKit and improve on that



    BTW, WebKit does have hardware acceleration for WebGL. It's just not enabled by default. Go to Terminal, type in (or paste in, either way): defaults write com.apple.Safari WebKitWebGLEnabled -bool YES



    I got the instructions to do that from here:

    http://webkit.org/blog/603/webgl-now...kit-nightlies/



    And then you're ready for some hardware accelerated goodness You can even run Quake 2 on WebKit (30 fps), if you're willing to compile (I'm not, though... too much work ).

    http://code.google.com/p/quake2-gwt-port/
  • Reply 46 of 61
    jcraigjcraig Posts: 30member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DCJ001 View Post


    QuickTime, for me, works great.



    But I installed the FireFox 4 beta and, when I logged in at TDAmeritrade, I was given the following message, when I tried a couple of the features, indicating that FireFox 4 needs me to install a Java plug-in.





    But I didn't have this problem with FireFox 3.66



    Any suggestions?



    Yes, don't use the Beta and go back to Firefox 3.6.x. FF4 does not yet contain the JEP (java embedding plugin) that is required to make Apple's java work in Gecko.
  • Reply 47 of 61
    john galtjohn galt Posts: 960member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post


    Indeed they do: ... http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp



    Any alternative to Windows Exploder is a good one. Yes I have used MSIE6, 7, 8. All incorporate various degrees of Microsoft's trademark in-your-face suckitude.



    On those rare occasions I'm forced to use Windows, FF makes it bearable (and I have yet to recover from my initial exposure to Safari's Windows version).
  • Reply 48 of 61
    nanotechnanotech Posts: 38member
    Just wondering, people keep saying how this or that browser got 100/100 out of the Acid3 test but that does not mean that all websites are acid3 compliant (pretty sure that a lot aren't), how is that a talking point for any browser?



    Edit: By the way windows explorer is their finder alternative, a program used to find/move files, not browse the web (internet explorer)...
  • Reply 49 of 61
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Nanotech View Post


    ...that does not mean that all websites are acid3 compliant...



    Huh? Acid3 tests a wide range of current and future web standards. That?s it. Whether a website is idealized to for IE6 or Netscape Navigator 4 or whatever is irrelevant. Same thing with Acid1 and Acid2.
  • Reply 50 of 61
    john galtjohn galt Posts: 960member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Nanotech View Post


    Edit: By the way windows explorer is their finder alternative, a program used to find/move files, not browse the web (internet explorer)...



    One of Windows' innumerable ill-conceived and confusing UI characteristics.



    Perhaps that explains how it's possible for a damn folder to become "(not responding)"
  • Reply 51 of 61
    john galtjohn galt Posts: 960member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Nanotech View Post


    ... but that does not mean that all websites are acid3 compliant (pretty sure that a lot aren't)



    You may be mistaking conformity with certain unique, browser-specific features; the only one I can think of is the aforementioned MSIE.



    If a website is written to utilize such features, it's going to fail on the remaining 2/3 of browsers. Clearly this implies it's not standards-compliant.



    Fortunately MS's attempt to monopolize the Internet with such nonsense appears to have been as short-lived as it was ill-conceived. I can't think of any revenue-dependent website (eBay, Amazon et al) that require such features. It would be irresponsible to ignore 2/3 of the market.



    For that matter, it would be irresponsible to ignore even Safari's 3%, especially considering it has a much higher mobile device market share (I'm assuming this is true; I don't know the numbers).



    I dumped one bank a while ago because its website required Exploder, but that it was a long time ago. It also accepted several million taxpayer bailout dollars... the evil MS inflicts :-^
  • Reply 52 of 61
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,692member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post


    ... Question for you. How do we go about killing [QuickTime] as well? ...



    QuickTime isn't going away, but, as more browsers support HTML5, and more users use those browsers, and content providers switch their content over, the need for the Quicktime plug-in will go away, just as the need for the Flash plug-in will go away, and the Web will be a much better place without the need for either plug-in.



    So, the answer to your question, slightly modified, of how do we go about killing the QuickTime plug-in, is that we do it the same way we kill the Flash plug-in, and the sooner the better for everyone. Welcome aboard!
  • Reply 53 of 61
    firefly7475firefly7475 Posts: 1,502member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    QuickTime isn't going away, but, as more browsers support HTML5, and more users use those browsers, and content providers switch their content over, the need for the Quicktime plug-in will go away, just as the need for the Flash plug-in will go away, and the Web will be a much better place without the need for either plug-in.



    So, the answer to your question, slightly modified, of how do we go about killing the QuickTime plug-in, is that we do it the same way we kill the Flash plug-in, and the sooner the better for everyone. Welcome aboard!



    I thought as much. It's unfortunate really. There is just something so hollow about Jobs praising the virtues of HTML5 and especially the benefits of the video tag and h264 over alternatives like Flash when his own websites requires an 30MB download, the installation of a number of background services that are always running and no less than 8 separate browser plug-in's simply to watch a promotional iPhone 4 video.



    I understand the goal is to get iTunes on to as many computers as possible but they are going the wrong way about it IMO.



    Apple should at least have an option of viewing using HTML5 if the user has a supported browser. It's hard to move away from plug-ins when an alternative isn't even offered.
  • Reply 54 of 61
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post


    I thought as much. It's unfortunate really. There is just something so hollow about Jobs praising the virtues of HTML5 and especially the benefits of the video tag and h264 over alternatives like Flash when his own websites requires an 30MB download, the installation of a number of background services that are always running and no less than 8 separate browser plug-in's simply to watch a promotional iPhone 4 video.



    I understand the goal is to get iTunes on to as many computers as possible but they are going the wrong way about it IMO.



    Apple should at least have an option of viewing using HTML5 if the user has a supported browser. It's hard to move away from plug-ins when an alternative isn't even offered.



    You've lost me. Can you post some examples and name these required plugins to web browsers just to visit tear site?



    The only thing that seems to bring up a player for me is the Streaming of the keynote, everything else seems to be using HTML5 quite well. The iPhone 4 product pages are a great example.



    Plus, as anonymouse points out, QT is an integral part of OS X, all flavours. That won't be changing anytime soon.
  • Reply 55 of 61
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,692member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post


    I thought as much. It's unfortunate really. There is just something so hollow about Jobs praising the virtues of HTML5 and especially the benefits of the video tag and h264 over alternatives like Flash when his own websites requires an 30MB download, the installation of a number of background services that are always running and no less than 8 separate browser plug-in's simply to watch a promotional iPhone 4 video.



    I understand the goal is to get iTunes on to as many computers as possible but they are going the wrong way about it IMO.



    Apple should at least have an option of viewing using HTML5 if the user has a supported browser. It's hard to move away from plug-ins when an alternative isn't even offered.



    There is something hollow and disingenuous about your criticisms. The Flash and QuickTime plug-ins are both destined to go away, but, clearly that time, although not long in coming, is not yet upon us. I think you are well aware of this but are feigning ignorance to take a few shots at Apple. Rather transparent, actually.



    And the bit about getting iTunes on to as many computers as possible? I'm sure they'd like to, but that's completely irrelevant to the issue of browser plug-ins.



    If you want to try pro-Flash, reverse-psychology trolling, at least make your arguments coherent and cohesive.



    And, here I thought you had a genuine interest in the elimination of web plug-ins. Well, not really, but, you see, those of us who think Flash should, and will, go away, think all plug-ins should and will go away. We don't have to contrive arguments, and play parts, in ridiculous attempts to defend Flash by tricking peole into saying that the QuickTime plug-in is totally different.
  • Reply 56 of 61
    firefly7475firefly7475 Posts: 1,502member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    There is something hollow and disingenuous about your criticisms. The Flash and QuickTime plug-ins are both destined to go away, but, clearly that time, although not long in coming, is not yet upon us. I think you are well aware of this but are feigning ignorance to take a few shots at Apple. Rather transparent, actually.



    And the bit about getting iTunes on to as many computers as possible? I'm sure they'd like to, but that's completely irrelevant to the issue of browser plug-ins.



    If you want to try pro-Flash, reverse-psychology trolling, at least make your arguments coherent and cohesive.



    And, here I thought you had a genuine interest in the elimination of web plug-ins. Well, not really, but, you see, those of us who think Flash should, and will, go away, think all plug-ins should and will go away. We don't have to contrive arguments, and play parts, in ridiculous attempts to defend Flash by tricking peole into saying that the QuickTime plug-in is totally different.



    If you want to disagree, then disagree. Personal attacks and attempted psychoanalysis are rude and offensive and are often, as in this case, wrong.
  • Reply 57 of 61
    firefly7475firefly7475 Posts: 1,502member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    You've lost me. Can you post some examples and name these required plugins to web browsers just to visit tear site?



    The only thing that seems to bring up a player for me is the Streaming of the keynote, everything else seems to be using HTML5 quite well. The iPhone 4 product pages are a great example.



    Plus, as anonymouse points out, QT is an integral part of OS X, all flavours. That won't be changing anytime soon.



    And you've lost me! I'm not sure where I said you need plugins to visit the site. In any case that certainly wasn't my intention.



    It looks like all video is served up from Apple.com requires QuickTime (obviously I haven't tested every single video!).



    Some of the trailers seem to be offer a variable bandwidth stream, but other than that it looks like all Apple.com video is HTML5 compliant h264/aac. I'm not sure why they are sticking the QuickTime requirement in front of the video.





    EDIT: Currently trying to work out if HTML5 video tag supports a variable bit-rate stream... maybe all their video is HTML5 compliant behind-the-scenes...
  • Reply 58 of 61
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post


    And you've lost me! I'm not sure where I said you need plugins to visit the site. In any case that certainly wasn't my intention.



    That is where I thought you stated that.
    "It's unfortunate really. There is just something so hollow about Jobs praising the virtues of HTML5 and especially the benefits of the video tag and h264 over alternatives like Flash when his own websites requires an 30MB download, the installation of a number of background services that are always running and no less than 8 separate browser plug-in's simply to watch a promotional iPhone 4 video."
    I chose the first link after hitting the main site.
    This is the code for the video in Safari 5, sans the controller overlay.



    Code:


    <video id="" class="video" width="848" height="480" poster="http://images.apple.com/iphone/features/images/overview-watch-posterframe.jpg"; autoplay="autoplay" bgcolor=“white”>



    <source src="http://movies.apple.com/media/us/iphone/2010/tours/apple-iphone4-design_video-us-20100607_r848-9cie.mov"; type="video/mp4”>



    </video>







    So they are using the video tag, at least to some extent. The only odd part is the use of the .MOV container when .MP4 would be sufficient and let Chrome play it without a QT plug-in (but maybe that is their reasoning), which seems to use the embed tag over video tag for it and Firefox. I think Safari will play .MOV containers in the browser with the video tag.
  • Reply 59 of 61
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,692member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post


    If you want to disagree, then disagree. Personal attacks and attempted psychoanalysis are rude and offensive and are often, as in this case, wrong.



    You may find it unpleasant, but I think my analysis is quite correct.
  • Reply 60 of 61
    nolivingnoliving Posts: 90member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    You may find it unpleasant, but I think my analysis is quite correct.



    no its not.
Sign In or Register to comment.