Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 27 of 27
  1. jwinn35's Avatar
    Posts
    390 Posts
    Global Posts
    396 Global Posts
    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyusaku View Post
    Again, Palm has had 2 Mozilla staff members since September as Developer Relations. I'm sure if their friends at Mozilla really wanted the PDK they'd give it to them.

    Also if you haven't been paying attention to the latest developments in "browser wars" Google Chrome has moved up to the top of the game, which is a Webkit based browser, like the Pre's. There's really no sense in making these empty demands, especially on a unsupported forum. You know Palm has their own forum and a feature request page you can go to and make your requests there.
    way to be a jerk the guy was just starting a discussion and pointing something out.
  2. #22  
    Each time these threads start up, I still wonder why you would replace a memory efficient and fast rendering engine that is WebKit, with Gecko that is large and uses the less efficient XUL. I certainly use Firefox on the desktop, mainly because of plugins. However, I don't think it would even come close to the same performance as the WebKit implementation in WebOS.
    Your Pre wants Word Whirl from the App Catalog.

    It told me.
  3. TyBec's Avatar
    Posts
    175 Posts
    Global Posts
    239 Global Posts
    #23  
    I prefer Opera as a mobile web browser. Tabs and being able to sync with your desktop bookmarks is awesome. Maybe someday...
    Bell Pre- running 2.1 @ 800MHz
    Samsung Galaxy Tab (stock)
  4.    #24  
    the discussion regarding the possibility of firefox mobile on the Pre has ended IMO. I will only respond to the aspect that regarding the disputed facts or data, or comparison, etc.

    It might be OT tho.

    here we go.

    Quote Originally Posted by sacherjj View Post
    Each time these threads start up, I still wonder why you would replace a memory efficient and fast rendering engine that is WebKit, with Gecko that is large and uses the less efficient XUL. I certainly use Firefox on the desktop, mainly because of plugins. However, I don't think it would even come close to the same performance as the WebKit implementation in WebOS.
    each time I wonder where do people get such erroneous information



    memory efficient? webkit is NOT.

    fast? all reviewers of smartphone browsers disagrees ( i read at least 2 - 3 N900 reviews).

    I just dont understand where did these misinformation come from?

    maybe we should stop "just think", rather, we should read more data instead?
  5. rayln's Avatar
    Posts
    215 Posts
    Global Posts
    239 Global Posts
    #25  
    whatever, this is the last reply I'll give you.
    I'm not looking to incite a flamewar or resort to name-calling as you have.
    for what it's worth, a large chunk of what I've stated and speculated has been seemingly confirmed by bcombee up there.
    take his word for it, not mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by clevin View Post
    maybe because the website I was asking you read actually compares mobile browsers on two smartphones? rather than a remote desktop browser benchmark that has nothing to do with what you have?
    because engadget hasn't resorted to sketchy benchmarking in the past, right?
    nexus one vs iphone anyone?

    and I never stated to benchmark a desktop browser vs a mobile one.
    I was discussing the shortcomings of firefox and used chrome as an example.
    both of which I've benchmarked firsthand.
    it's not unreasonable to assume that which plagues the desktop variant would be present in some capacity in its mobile analogue, no?

    based on safari or google chrome, wouldn't you assum a mobile browser can at least do some fast backward/forward and remembering password and not losing cookies all the time?
    I'll go ahead and assume what you meant to imply here is that since safari and chrome both use webkit and have advanced feature sets, they should be present on the webOS browser as well, also because it utilizes webkit.

    I'm sure that the potential is present for the webOS browser to incorporate features (as well as the shortcomings) of what other webkit browsers have managed to achieve. that seems reasonable, doesn't it?

    speaking of reasonable (you sure like that word reasonable, dontcha) assumptions, I'm sure it's not far-fetched to assume fennec would inherit many of the tendencies of its desktop cousin, no?

    you assume too much and absolutely dont understand when you just apply your "knowledge" from desktop browsers to mobile ones, you might as well just pulling xxx from xxxx.nobody said its as easy as that, did I? just asking palm to release PDK to mozilla ahead of march. whats wrong with that?guess what, engadget, and other reviewers actually have them all!, and they made better point than you do!take a look at latest safari and see how old the core is. its not that easy to just grab a webkit core and stuff in the shell.

    furthermore, who said palm should doing that? the work is on mozilla side, just need access to PDK.
    PDK, PDK, PDK. was I talking about changing foundation of webOS? or asking palm to switch jsjsjs $core$? $no$, $I$ $didn$'$t$.
    I believe your first statement was "palm should cooperate with mozilla and make it happen!"
    -not-
    "palm should simply give mozilla access to the pdk before its proper release (even though they weren't an early access partner) and let mozilla sort it on their own."

    I'll ignore your barbs and waspy stings
    the entire point of this topic was your opinion that palm should integrate closely with mozilla and provide as much assistance needed to bring a mobile firefox-based browser to fruition on webOS as quickly as possible.

    my opinion was, no.
    let mozilla worry about that on their own, palm needs to spend time elsewhere.
    i.e. future webOS updates, future handsets, expanding functionality and stability, optimization, etc.

    I'm pretty sure I never commented on the performance of fennec vs webOS browser (which you have).
    I don't trade in speculations and futures, unfortunately.
    though I do believe in this case, it's foolish to do so.

    neither do I necessarily take other people's words so trustingly.
    you really believe engadget's benchmarks can't be manipulated or doctored?
    or that they favor testing on one platform's optimization strengths but not anothers?
    I'll bring up the spectre of the nexus one vs iphone "benchmarks."

    testing a phone on a site optimized for another phone's browser isn't really fair, is it?

    like I side, I prefer to test things out firsthand.
    I'm not gonna defer to engadget of all sources especially.
    and it's silly of you to trumpet and herald like this without having tested such yourself.

    and I know it's not a simple thing to incorporate nightlys and such in a flash.
    but it's really a better allotment of man-hours to improve the cores and such on which your platform is built (which would affect everything, as well as the browser) rather than spend those tinkering so someone else can release one specific app, no?

    additionally, webkit is open-source.
    as its popularity increases as well as implementation and optimization in mobile devices, ubiquity of mobile web browsers would too.

    sounds like a win-win to me.
    you could make the case helping mozilla implement their solution would open the doors to mobile browsers as well (seeing as how its source code is released under gnu derivative license) but eh.


    EDIT:
    it's useless to post disparate benchmarks.
    especially in non-optimized environments.
    several of those benchmark results are based on a windows
    system.
    ever try using firefox on a mac for example?
    or ever checked to see which browser is most efficient on a linux system?

    I don't think you understand that one size does not fit all.
    if the palm prprpr&#$275$; $and$ $webOS$ $are$ $optimized$ $for$ $webkit$, $webkit$ $it$ $is$, $no$?

    it's not palm's place to worry about optimizing their os other browsers to leverage.
    again, let developers worry about that themselves and possibly develop their own webkit-based solutions.

    EDIT 2:
    I noticed your previous statement and also noticed the thread-link was over a year old and the most recent post was from april of '09.

    I also noticed none of those comparisons used safari 4 or firefox 3.5 iterations.

    so you post comparisons of firefox beating safari, so what?
    would you like me to post some of chrome being yet more efficient than either?

    I do compare both on my mac and guess what, firefox is simply not as stable nor as speedy. I've yet to try camino however.

    which is why I use safari on macs and firefox on windows systems.
    I use whichever browser fits my needs and usage best.
    (though I'd prefer to use firefox on the mac, trust me.)

    for what it's worth, the discussion doesn't end when you say it does.
    this initial post was typed up before you had made that statement on the first page.
    simply stop participating in the discussion if you feel there is nothing worth to discuss.
    Last edited by rayln; 01/19/2010 at 03:40 PM.
  6.    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by rayln View Post
    this and that.....
    I said the discussion regarding firefox mobile on Pre is concluded IMO. so discussion regarding that aspect is meaningless. Since we all agree mozilla guy's statement was final say on this.

    what you said, or you didn't say, what I said, or what I did't say, record are there, people can read for themselves.

    webkit has not been improving on mobile very much and Im not satisfied with its function set, this is 3 years after first mobile webkit browser. It still lacks many common functions and I see no improvement planned until the competition is open for business.

    You did commented on firefox's memory management and call it "horrible", to which I suggest you look up at the picture I posted above.

    and Fennec for Maemo is in RC, not beta.
    several of those benchmark results are based on a windows
    system.
    ever try using firefox on a mac for example?
    Im glad you asked, maybe you didn't noticed my previous statement, but still, check out here http://forums.macrumors.com/showthre...hlight=browser

    and see how much firefox is using and how much safari is using. (safari is using 2-10x of memoery compare to firefox). You have a mac, you can go ahead open firefox and safari and chrome, surf the web with them for a hour or so, and check result for yourself!
    Last edited by clevin; 01/19/2010 at 03:21 PM.
  7. #27  
    My practical experience doesn't follow that graph. Perhaps the data is a year old before Chrome was really optimized.

    When I open a fresh browser and open 7 tabs of the exact same content in both Firefox and Chrome, I see a disparity of 128 Mb to 24 Mb. So in my experience, in all the systems I use, Firefox is a DOG compared to Chrome in both speed and memory footprint.
    Your Pre wants Word Whirl from the App Catalog.

    It told me.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions