Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Software Issues and Discussion => Topic started by: HeUnique on June 02, 2003, 10:08:06 AM
-
I've been doing some reading about this "bounty" to port Mozilla, and quite frankly, I find this suggestion not a very good one - and I'll explain:
Porting Mozilla to other OS's (and platform, for that matter) is not easy - SPECIALLY when it comes to Mozilla. Go ask Apple why they chose KDE's KHTML engine rather Mozilla (and Gecko based Firebird - for that matter).
I have at home a sub-notebook - a Pentium 300Mhz with 96 MB RAM, with 6GB hard drive. (It's not a powerful machine but should be enough to browse the web, don't you agree?), and unfortunately Mozilla Firebird (the "lite" version of Mozilla) running on Windows 98 (without anything else running, all tasks are killed) is DOG slow. I tried at the same machine using Redhat 7.2 + WindowMaker + Mozilla firebird - same result, although a bit faster, but still very slow.
Why do I mention this? because what people here wants is a browser that works in their 200+ Mhz PPC machines, and in the 600-1Ghz machines. While Mozilla should run very nice in the 600+Mhz machines, it will run dog-slow on the old machines..
What I would suggest (if someone out there cares) is another route:
How about porting Trolltech's QT library? why? simple:
1. QT itself can be run on frame-buffer without any problem.
2. The library itself is very well documented.
3. Porting QT will open the door for quite few more applications (based on KDE or QT) which can be used on AOS.
After you have QT ported - you can take something like KDENOX (available inside KDE CVS) and just recompile it against QT - and you have a working browser! KDENOX "gets" all the KHTML modifications from the KDE library which KDE & Apple Computer are working on..
Thoughts? comments? flames? :-o
Thanks,
Hetz (HeUnique)
-
I think you are right, but I don't want to offend the people behind the bounty because their heart is in the right place.
-
Mozilla would be a brilliant application to have running on my Amiga.
All the Amiga browsers out there at the moment still dont really cut it (even the mighty iBrowse 2.3)
-
well first... Qt isn't free or open source (that's why Apple doesn't use Qt and went to the truble of implementing a Qt abstraction layer in their browser) so you can't port Qt without lotsa money or that the Qt developers do it themselves (highly unlikely).
well, I've used mozilla (latest 1.4) on a 200 MHz pentium-II and it ran just as fast as Internet Explorer (it just had 64 MB RAM too) so all talk of mozilla being slow is bullshit, if you can't install it and setup windows to minimize use of virtual memory anything will be slow even on a 16 GHz Pentium-IX.
-
QT is Free AND Open source - it's under GPL license - what else do you want? you cannot use it with closed source development unless you pay for Trolltech (thats the QPL license) which I think it's pretty fair when a company invests heavily on their product. Please DON'T SPREAD FUD!
As for Mozilla is fast as Explorer - I'm sorry, but I have 4 machines here near me - 3 of them are Pentium II 300 and one of them is Pentium 233Mhz - all of them equipped with 64-96MB RAM, and Mozilla is WAY slower then Explorer - I could give you lots of examples. FUD again..!
-
Q: Why port Mozilla to Amiga?
A: Because we want it!
You may not want it. That's entirely up to you. If you don't want to buy a product, you don't buy it, that's also entirely up to you. However, we DO want it. Assume that the reasons we do want it are reasonably sane. I wouldn't go slating people who put up a bounty for Opera on Amiga just because I don't like Opera.
It's not going to alter the balance of the universe having Mozilla ported to the Amiga, nor is it going to upset anything else, so what the heck are you complaining about?
-
I think HeUnique is talking about something else than QuickTime. What that QT you mean exactly?
-
HeUnique wrote:
QT is Free AND Open source - it's under GPL license - what else do you want? you cannot use it with closed source development unless you pay for Trolltech (thats the QPL license) which I think it's pretty fair when a company invests heavily on their product. Please DON'T SPREAD FUD!
As for Mozilla is fast as Explorer - I'm sorry, but I have 4 machines here near me - 3 of them are Pentium II 300 and one of them is Pentium 233Mhz - all of them equipped with 64-96MB RAM, and Mozilla is WAY slower then Explorer - I could give you lots of examples. FUD again..!
bla foot in mouth n/m...
You can use it with closed source developement so long as you don't distribute it.
-
Dunno if this sais anything... I run netscape on my P166 noMMX/64Mb EDO and it works like a charm. Speed vs IE is not notisable slower to me.
I don't see the problem with a port of it to the Amiga, I'm sure it can handle it, after all, it has super efficient AmigaOS and as I understand it it's not a 100% port which meens inefficient code can be scrapped. :-D
-
@HeUnique
Said the exact same thing hefre a few hours after the Amizillaproject was started. No use to port it to classic ppc, let alone 68k. What I got was counterarguments of Mozilla running "just fine" on "crappy aged mac's" .. so just leave it there, it's no use. They know better than you and me ;-)
-
Well, I agree with HeUnique...I never liked
netscape (slow and bloated after 4) or mozilla.
Seems kind of contrary to the idea of fast/
lean amiga apps.
But I do agree that it would be better to have
it than not; it can't really do any harm.
Although my guess is it will be pretty slow
on the "classic" setups.
-
Why Port it? Because it ####s on any browser the amiga has. It is fully featured and not just some cut down crap like what comes with KDE.
It is time to move out of the 90's guys. you can't expect Amiga developers to write software for 200Mhz machines for ever. Mozilla isn't that bad. It runs well on my girlfriends 700Mhz. althlon. So on a G3 it will be brilliant. 700mhz is considered ancient history now. You can't be serious with your 200Mhz machines.
For those asking, QT is a muliplatform GUI api. It is Kind of the OpenGL of GUI's :-). It would just mean that people could port stuff from other OS's easily. Linux uses it quiet a bit.
I hope no body takes this guy seriously and ports the half hearted Konquerer browser from KDE. It is a waiste of time and rates as poorly as the likes of iBrowse and Voyager.
-
The day we had the OSNews and Slashdot news a couple of weeks ago coverage we had 425,000 page views in a matter of hours. Mozilla browsers accounted for nearly 45% of those accessing www.pegasosppc.com. All Microsoft browsers accounted for just a bit less. Contrast this with Google's stats for April: 93% Microsoft something, 3% Mac, and 1% Linux (its not just Apples and oranges ;-) ). Anyway, even last week with this (http://www.applelinks.com/articles/2003/05/20030528124348.shtml) coverage, Safari (KHTML) ranked second! There is a shift afoot and when people see things they are familiar with the have a tendency to be less hesitant to change (for example Linux to MorphOS). Hence, there is some credence to the Mozilla port (if anyone can really do it!). To quote a famous friend of ours named Ralph, "it's a *pig*" (Mozilla that is). Anyway, we agree with HeUnique, go ask Apple. KHTML made sense for them, why not us? Plus, with the latest episode of Microsoft vs. AOL where will Mozilla be headed anyway? As Damien said, "So much code, so little time!"
:-)
R&B
P.S. Internally, we are sticking with Voyager. BTW, iBrowse had 3% of the views on the last OSNews-day, Opera 5%.
-
Crap in what sense? I use it right now to type this message, and Apple uses it's engine for their Safari browser (with all engine modifications going back to the KDE community). Is Apple wrong about their decision do adopt KHTML instead of Mozilla/Gecko? I don't think so.
It's getting better - you don't need the QT library at all to make KHTML work, just like Apple don't use QT in their Safari browser, but you need some GUI library to display the pages ;)
I have shown the KDENOX (which is essentially KHTML + QT library) running on a Linux embedded with Motorola Coldfire processor - it runs pretty impressive.
And here's one point - by porting mozilla - you're porting a browser, and not much more (I can't really call the XUL think a good GUI, sorry), but with QT you can port the KDENOX and have a library which can be used to port other based apps to Amiga. Go do some checking how many apps are based on QT and how many apps are based on Mozilla's XUL engine, then come back ;)
ronybeck wrote:
Why Port it? Because it ####s on any browser the amiga has. It is fully featured and not just some cut down crap like what comes with KDE.
It is time to move out of the 90's guys. you can't expect Amiga developers to write software for 200Mhz machines for ever. Mozilla isn't that bad. It runs well on my girlfriends 700Mhz. althlon. So on a G3 it will be brilliant. 700mhz is considered ancient history now. You can't be serious with your 200Mhz machines.
For those asking, QT is a muliplatform GUI api. It is Kind of the OpenGL of GUI's :-). It would just mean that people could port stuff from other OS's easily. Linux uses it quiet a bit.
I hope no body takes this guy seriously and ports the half hearted Konquerer browser from KDE. It is a waiste of time and rates as poorly as the likes of iBrowse and Voyager.
-
Mozilla is slow, guys. Admit it. It takes ages to load, it takes ages to surf, and it takes ages to install. Everything about it is an exercise in patience. It even comes with a launcher so it loads quicker, and the expense of eating about 30MB of your memory on every boot, which slows your system down even more....arghhh!
And no doubt the 68k guys want Mozilla too, which will take the slowness of this app into extremes. They're bound to be disappointed if they ever get it.
-
So: are some of you recommending that IE be ported instead? ; }
-
@ KennyR
Mozilla is slow, guys. Admit it.
Looks pretty fast from where I'm sitting.
It takes ages to load,
Takes longer than I'd like, which is why I have it installed on recoverable ramdisk.
it takes ages to surf,
No it doesn't. Quicker than any other browser I've used. The exception is Firebird, which is based on Mozilla.
and it takes ages to install.
Now I'm wondering if you've even tried it. Takes ages to install? What planet are you from?
Everything about it is an exercise in patience.
If you're in the habit of counting nanoseconds with increasing tedium, I suppose so, but then life must be very slow and dreary to you.
It even comes with a launcher so it loads quicker,
I've never felt the need to use the launcher.
and the expense of eating about 30MB of your memory
Mozilla doesn't have a small memory footprint, it's true. But while I've got half a gig of RAM because Win2k doesn't exactly have a small memory footprint either, I'm not complaining.
Now what is the point in the constant Mozilla bashing? Does it achieve anything whatsoever?
-
Now what is the point in the constant Mozilla bashing? Does it achieve anything whatsoever?
Yes it does. It may achieve that time is never wasted in porting it to 68k or classic ppc.
Sure, if someone wants to do it, go ahead. I'll be laughing when its done :-)
I support 100% Zilla to be ported on current ppc systems. Still waiting a bit more to see what happens before I donate $20 to the pot.
-
Why port trolltech's QT library and not just port GTK?
if you really want widgets, that is....
in the end, that's not so important. I've said before you can run linux/m68k in a box. Just like you can run A/UX under fusion, you could do the same with linux.
Then you have mozilla running in a window under Amiga OS...dog friggin slow as it is...and they don't require mozilla, but you can choose from another gecko based browser...one that is a bit lighter, a little faster...still slow, of course.
Now...you get this box working as spiffily as possible and do some neat things, a-la Amithlon hiding the linux kernel...just make it a 'mozilla box'....make it as light as possible....and then write an accelerated graphics driver...thats the key point, of course, and the reason linux/m68 is so slow, is the graphics drivers are not planar.
anyway, this is a realistic way to get mozilla running under Amiga OS....running very slowly....
but running mozilla on Amiga hardware, ALREADY DONE.
running Unix in a box on Amiga OS, ALREADY DONE
speeding things up, cleaning it up, REASONABLE TASK
I like the fact, that you all are such naysayers....
-
btw
did I mention A/UX runs under fusion.
Amaya runs on Amiga already (has an A/UX port).
Now...amaya is buggy crap not worth the download.
nothing will make a 50MHz machine anything but
a 50MHz machine...but having a browser as good
as what other 50MHz machines once had, is still
a possibility, imho.
-
Pentium 233Mhz - all of them equipped with 64-96MB RAM, and Mozilla is WAY slower then Explorer - I could give you lots of examples. FUD again..!
You mean starting up mozilla right? Then your right, cause internet explorer is allways running! So it dosent take long time to open another browser window since its allready in memory... IE is so heavily integreated into the OS, so its allways running.....
-
and it takes ages to install.
haha yeah... IE is so much quicker when it comes to install ;-)
-
Looks pretty fast from where I'm sitting.
Try it on an 030/50.
Takes longer than I'd like, which is why I have it installed on recoverable ramdisk.
Which slows Windows by using up all its memory and forcing paging VM - AAAAAAARGHGHHHHHHHH!
Now I'm wondering if you've even tried it. Takes ages to install? What planet are you from?
A planet where things should install in under two minutes. Aren't you? Ah, I forgot - you come from a world of progress bars that fill up to 99% in 3 seconds and stay there for ten minutes. And of course, installing Windows in the first place was a matter of hours. I really don't know how you put up with this crud they misleadingly title an 'operating system'.
If you're in the habit of counting nanoseconds with increasing tedium, I suppose so, but then life must be very slow and dreary to you.
No, I count it in seconds, and this is why Mozilla is so slow to me. As a Windows user I guess you've made a life counting things in minutes, which is possibly why you can even consider Mozilla to be fast.
I've never felt the need to use the launcher.
No, you prefer to have your VM page the HD all the time using a ramdisk instead. What's the difference?
But while I've got half a gig of RAM because Win2k doesn't exactly have a small memory footprint either, I'm not complaining.
In case you hadn't noticed, the average mount of RAM for an Amiga is about 64MB, and for A1 or Pegasos about 256MB. And we are discussing Mozilla on these, right? Right?
Now what is the point in the constant Mozilla bashing? Does it achieve anything whatsoever?
Does bloated code acheive anything whatsoever? Apart from being annoying and selling new PCs?
-
Mozilla itself is quite slow, well depending on how you look at it.
But remember Mozilla is not just a browser, it is a whole environment, what we actually want/need is to port the GECKO engine, all the other stuff included in mozilla itself is not of any direct importance.
Believe me, Gecko itself is not that big and really a fast renderer.
Still, i'm tempted to port khtml myself more then porting the gecko engine though. (it has nothing to do with kde/qt, i don't even like that interface/toolkit)
-
Hi
Ok how I see the browsers for comercial platforms :
Fast & Small: Opera
Not so fast and bigger: IE
Slow and BigPig: Mozilla
Capabilities:
1. Mozilla
2.IE
3.Opera
1st and 2nd place depends upon what you need
(e.g I don't know if you can use Mozilla as a COM component in your Win app -i guess not- but you can use IE )
Nevertheles, the capabilities of all three browsers are far beyond capabilities of any Amiga browser.
That's why I prefer Opera on win (It rocks)
Mozilla on win is not an option (when it comes to rendering of 95% of pages, Gecko cannot challenge Opera at all )
Ups, Opera is comercial ;) (I mean closed source)
Why not set up a fund to pay Opera software to port their browser to AmiagOS ?
... Ups, lots of money (but a stable browser with support(?) )
Forgot the KHTML, hm, saw, never used... , but for sure it has substantial developer community behind (it means bigger power than current Amiga browsers have)
OK: My conclusion is a question:
Mozilla and KHTML are 'free to port'.
Was the Amizilla project started just "because we like Mozilla" ?
Because ,I guess, the evaluation of the man power needed to port KHTML vs Mozzilla could produce results better for KHTML. It is better to have something small, than possibly nothing ( i mean nothing maintainable)
- no meant as an offence of flamewar starter -
re
Treke
-
point 1. Edited by Argo: Personal Attack
point 2. Yes Mozilla would probably be too slow on 68k
point 3. wouldnt it be great to have a browser that supports the latest web standards
point 4. Opera is a LOT worse compatibility wise than Mozilla
-
Tomas wrote:
Pentium 233Mhz - all of them equipped with 64-96MB RAM, and Mozilla is WAY slower then Explorer - I could give you lots of examples. FUD again..!
You mean starting up mozilla right? Then your right, cause internet explorer is allways running! So it dosent take long time to open another browser window since its allready in memory... IE is so heavily integreated into the OS, so its allways running.....
But on Mac OS X (10.2.6) IE is still many many times faster at loading. Moz usually clutters up the whole system when starting up. Moz is a nicer browser than IE or Safari, that's the only reason I use it. Oh yeah and tabbed browsing.
As for the whole debate on porting, I'm all for only porting the parts we actually need like a rendering engine. I'm always dismayed when people go on and on about poting this system or this toolkit from *nix over to amigaOS. AmigaOS (and MorphOS) are special in that they are the most logical, intuitive and effecient systems available. For me tacking on everything from the world of *nix would ruin the Amiga.
-
Try it on an 030/50.
Are all applications supposed to run full speed on an 030/50?
Takes longer than I'd like, which is why I have it installed on recoverable ramdisk.
Which slows Windows by using up all its memory and forcing paging VM
Again, not from where I'm sitting. 399MB physical memory available.
Now I'm wondering if you've even tried it. Takes ages to install? What planet are you from?
A planet where things should install in under two minutes.
Mozilla takes less than a minute to install (and I'm not talking about installing it on my recoverable ramdisk (incidentally, that takes less than 30 seconds), but on hard disk). Unless we're going to talk about an 030/50 with PIO0 hard disks again...
I've never felt the need to use the launcher.
No, you prefer to have your VM page the HD all the time using a ramdisk instead. What's the difference?
9MB swap in use. 399MB physical RAM available. Hmmm. And that's with a number of other apps/services running.
Mozilla could run easily on a machine with 128MB RAM, even if it's running Windows. It's running with that config on my parents machine, and while it loads more slowly than it does on mine, it's not unacceptable slow to load. Once loaded, it's as responsive as it is on my system, pretty much.
From what I've read on the amigaone mailing list, virtually every A1 buyer is equipping their system with half a gig, a gig or more RAM "because it's so cheap".
Does bloated code acheive anything whatsoever? Apart from being annoying and selling new PCs?
If it achieved nothing, people wouldn't buy it, so don't be so naive.
I'm not advocating bloated code, and Mozilla, while it is hardly featherweight, it doesn't come close to the worst offenders. However, IMO, it is a kickarse web browser, the mailnews component is reasonable, and I like the optional Calendar component, even though that is still quite buggy, it fits my needs.
Mozilla isn't the fastest web browser to load, true. Once it's loaded, it reloads quickly (without the launcher). Once it's loaded, it is both responsive and fast, IMO. It's quite a safe browser to use, plus I help out in testing/bug reporting, and see decent results in the form of a better application in return.
Look - if the people who like Mozilla thought as you do, it's obvious that they wouldn't put up money to get it ported. However, as they're putting up money for it, it's obvious they disagree with you. So stop trolling. And get your facts right.
And anyway, what the hell are you going to compare Mozilla against? Can any Amiga web browsers boast the same functionality, and standards compliancy? No. The only comparable contender I see to Mozilla is Opera. If you think you can produce a web browser that can do everything Mozilla can do, just faster and better, and can run on an 030/50, I think there's quite a few people that would like to know about it. Including me.
-
@ AxE
I generally agree with you, although you should try Opera 7x, I'd say it's pretty much on par with Mozilla for compatibility.
-
Hi mikeymike...the problem with Opera is that we and you have to pay for upgrades...
R&B :-)
-
And the other thing about this thread that really gets me is this - as soon as someone does something bold and original to get some decent software ported to AmigaOS, they get slated because they (in so obviously enlightened peoples' opinions) "picked the wrong software".
Have you thought that maybe once we get something like Mozilla ported, that it might encourage A: new users to come over to OS4 or later, and B: developers to port other applications to AmigaOS, and C: possibly encourage those developers to get involved in writing apps natively for AmigaOS?
I don't like Opera, but I still think it would be cool if the bounty had been put up for it to be ported, and at least I could be sure I could have a reasonable, up-to-date web browser which is ready for when I get myself an A1 with OS4.
Amiga development, both hardware and software, will go at a snail's pace if the Amiga community doesn't get new blood. That comes largely through ported software to provide the sure stepping stone between platforms. And no, I'm not advocating ported software over native software either.
This Mozilla bounty is the only truly interesting news I've heard on the Amiga front for a long time.
-
@ bbrv
As much as you have to for IBrowse, but anyway...
-
Like maybe people who don't liek the idea of Amizilla can't stop posting so much wasteness, and like port something small and specialized(as in like a Just web browser, not web browser, date book, code writer, IRC chat machine; mail reciever) for themselves that way all I need read here are progress reports on all the great things coming for Amiga instead of how its all going to be horrible because our hardware is old (about which you guys have done???)
-
I think it's important, because development begets development. Whether it is more sources available for our coders or inspiration, something new coming to the platform usually inspires more efforts. Having a reference for the KIND of project would make other ports of the same family easier.
-
jeffimix wrote:
Like maybe people who don't liek the idea of Amizilla can't stop posting so much wasteness
People who don't share your viewpoint have nothing useful to say? How charming.
I don't want Amizilla myself because Moz is slow and breaks too easily, even with a fast(ish) GUI like Gnome. Opera really is blindingly fast on the same machine (Aone G3XE running Debian and connecting via a proxy as well). Other people can put up the cash for Moz if they want, I won't stop them and I hope the result makes them happy.
There's far worse things they could spend money on.
-
One thing that people on here need to remember/know, is that Mozilla runs slower under LINUX than it does on its other variants.
This has been a big problem for the Mozilla development group, and a lot of work has been/is being done to address it.
Howeve,r please be aware that if you're using Linux speeds as your basis for comparison on speed, that there very well may not be that particular difficulty once it's on AmigaOS.
There is also the question of HOW you came by your binaries, did you go and get the executables? or did you compile the source code yourself under gcc. This can have drastic differences in your execution speeds also depending on a number of factors.
Mozilla is big, and it's also relatively slow, but I think it would be reassuring to computer users who would consider moving to an Amiga system to see at least one piece of software they can identify, and don't have to worry about one day going its own proprietary and incompatible route.
-
Also note that each version of Mozilla performs differently. I used v1.0, v1.1, and v1.2, and they were all horrible. I recently tried v1.4b, and it is MUCH better than it used to be. The Mozilla team especially cleaned up the menu rendering code, so I no longer have to hold down the mouse button to open a menu. I can actually click, now. ;)
Now that I'm using the significantly faster version, I've grown quite attached to it. I still think there's too much fluff in there (CSS really sucks, and is truly a plague upon the world).
Loading speed is a big problem, but I'm sure the total codebase for Mozilla is significantly less than IE.
When people talk about porting "Mozilla" to the AmigaOne, are they talking about the whole browser or just the rendering engine? As a browser, Mozilla's interface is a real mess, which is why I've created HTML link pages for my favorite sites, instead of using bookmarks. Again, too much fluff.
Off topic: I think browsers should implement vector rendered skins. All the skins I've seen for Mozilla are too damn small, even at 1280x1024! In fact, I'm very disappointed that Flash is the only real vector technology widely used on the Web these days. Flash rules. :-D
-
Which slows Windows by using up all its memory and forcing paging VM - AAAAAAARGHGHHHHHHHH!
With IE, you are forced to have it in memory... Actually mozilla eats up less memory than IE does... And dosent make the computer slow unless you sit there with a pc with 128MB or less.... When it is actually in mem, it starts up in less than a sec... And its much faster to browse with also, even on my k6 450....
And if you also take in mind that amigaOS is way less memory hog than windows, linux and such, it should fly even with as little as 64-128mb...
-
I agree with Mike.
So, If you got a better idea then port it. Can't code, start your own bounty.
Amiga's Most Wanted. Could be interesting?
-
bbrv wrote:
Hi mikeymike...the problem with Opera is that we and you have to pay for upgrades...
R&B :-)
Opera can we just forget, since its a closed source and they are not willing to port it to AmigaOS, MorphOS cause they dont see any profits in the small userbase...
-
Are all applications supposed to run full speed on an 030/50?
No, of course not. I am exaggerating wildly. A 060/50 would be a more representational CPU speed for the average Amiga user today. Mozilla will not run on this spec in anything more than a true crawl. Even less if you use PIO0 (which almost every Amiga uses). It will be unusable. And yet all the 68k Amiga users expect a port.
This is the real painful part of the whole Mozilla thing. They want something useless to them and are paying for it in droves. Sort of reminds me of Clickboom's Quake, somehow.
I have used Mozilla on two different PCs. Okay, my XP box lacks the memory to be fast in anything. When I installed Mozilla for my family I had to get rid of it again because none of them used it - IE loaded much quicker. And on my own PC, a P200, Mozilla was just a waste of time. It just was too slow. Even the scrolling and GUI resizing reminded me of my vanilla A1200 days.
Look - if the people who like Mozilla thought as you do, it's obvious that they wouldn't put up money to get it ported. However, as they're putting up money for it, it's obvious they disagree with you. So stop trolling. And get your facts right.
I apologise for trolling. I'm very hot and bothered at the moment. But I am certain that 68k is much too low a spec for Mozilla, except on an Amithlon box. If you don't agree, fine. But there are going to be a lot of angry and disappointed people when (if) Mozilla arrives. Angry people leave the Amiga. Ask AxE.
-
And for those who bitch about mozilla being slow, try downloading the newer versions.... It was true that the old versions was damn slow.... Try for example mozillafirebird..
Here its much faster than IE on both windows and linux.
-
How much can you trust such statistics when most of non-IE/Moz browsers spoof as them?
It's a funny circle - due to webduhsigners creating pages for IE, other browser have to spoof as IE, which again gives the webduhsigner the impression that only IE users are visiting, so webduhsigner do not have to care about others.
And then we have the browser developers, those suckers, who have to do all kinds of magic mumbojumbo to mimic the behaviour of IE, so that websmurfs can browse those sites that webduhsigners create for IE. And those websmurfs that actually use non-IE browsers also complain alot when their browser doesnt behave like IE does, Ofcourse they expect that the browser developers, those suckers, shall make their browsers behave like IE.
All in all - developing a web browser must be the ####tiest programming job around, trying to follow the "standards" of webduhsigners and IE/Moz, and at the same time satisfy the websmurfs.
W3C? Pardon? :-D
-
No, of course not. I am exaggerating wildly. A 060/50 would be a more representational CPU speed for the average Amiga user today.
How about the average application today? Applications and uses of computers have increased a huge amount since the 68060, why on earth should anything new be designed to run for such an old processor?
I'm not saying that's an excuse for sloppy coding, but to take an extreme example, if all applications still had to run on an A500, in particular its half a meg of RAM, how much would we be holding back the evolution of computers? The same goes for processing power and general architecture.
Most UNIXs will run better on older hardware than their predecessors, but if you want to do high-end stuff with them, you've got to supply with high-end hardware. A web browser on its own may not be a formidably complex piece of software, but what about all the supporting software underneath it? Face it. a 68060 is ancient. It may have been a nice processor in its time, and people may still be making do with it now, but they're not doing anything high-end (today's standards) with their systems. What am I doing with my PC right now? Watching a DVD (or playing an mp3 list), mail window open, net connection running, writing out a post about things that I'm surprised I have to explain to persons who claim to know anything about computers, and also running SMTP, WWW and an FTP server on my machine. How much of that could I do with an 060-based Amiga with say 64MB RAM with ease? Ok, surprisingly more than most PC users would think, but no, they don't even compare.
I'm sorry, but the m86k Amiga users shouldn't expect a port of any up-to-date software from other platforms. It's about time they upgraded. However, I seriously don't think it's them putting up bounty money for Mozilla. Why on earth would they be putting up such serious amounts of bounty money when they can't be arsed to upgrade? Not that many people are so stupid that they expect their hardware to be able to run everything forever.
-
I'm sorry, but the m86k Amiga users shouldn't expect a port of any up-to-date software from other platforms. It's about time they upgraded.
Ah, now we agree. I know 68k is too slow for Mozilla (or vice versa) and you know it. Problem is, there are 1000s of 68k users out there waiting for it who don't know it. We in #AZ get loads of requests to make ANR faster on slow CPUs like 030 and 040. Of course, we can't.
And I think it is just those people paying the cash for Mozilla. Who else would it be? OS4 can't get a port because dev materials aren't present yet. MOS people aren't going to pay because it wouldn't technically be 'Amiga' and a MOS port from this source is unlikely. Emulator people don't need a port because Mozilla runs on Windows. That only leaves one bunch of people.
-
Im not a fan of mozzila to slow and has not got the speed or the features of opera, i prefer ie to mozzila but your right in saying it would be better than any amiga browser.opera is the best browser for ebay .I have been using opera for a year now and have no problems with sites unlke when i used mozzila .
Not that many people are so stupid that they expect their hardware to be able to run everything forever.
why not there is ethernet and a web browser for a c64 and i have seen 3.5 ide hard drive and adaptor on a sinclair spectrum +3 not sure why though :-o :-o :-o :-)
-
why cant people port mozzila to mos if they want?
it might be difficult - thats just a challenge!
there might be other browsers - lets have as many as we can get!
it might be slow - well, people dont have to use it, do they?
i think its a great idea, and i wish anyone trying to do that success!! :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
-
Thats odd... i havent had a single problem with mozilla.. Except for when visiting a site which is designed for IE only.... Then none browsers except for IE will work properly..
-
by Tomas
And for those who bitch about mozilla being slow, try downloading the newer versions.... It was true that the old versions was damn slow.... Try for example mozillafirebird..
Here its much faster than IE on both windows and linux
my personal experience here concurs with ya Tomas, my moz1.4 and IE bout the same speedwise, but when I tried Opera 7.11, *that* was speedy.
(too bad I detest the opera interface)
-
yeah opera is great.. by far the fastest browser i have tried... but sadly its not open source, so there is no possibility to port it to AmigaOS :-(
-
I have at home a sub-notebook - a Pentium 300Mhz with 96 MB RAM, with 6GB hard drive. (It's not a powerful machine but should be enough to browse the web, don't you agree?), and unfortunately Mozilla Firebird (the "lite" version of Mozilla) running on Windows 98 (without anything else running, all tasks are killed) is DOG slow. I tried at the same machine using Redhat 7.2 + WindowMaker + Mozilla firebird - same result, although a bit faster, but still very slow.
Wow, i used a P2 233 desktop computer with 4gig hardrive, and that was more then enough for pheonix .5. I've had no problems with the mozilla apps (execept back in the day when mozilla was still operating under the milstone [M1,M2...M17 etc] release names)
And as you state, porting Qt will get us a lot fo apps, so will Mozilla. And, some of those apps will be portable across platforms. That is, you dont need to compile a lot of mozilla apps. Ie a lot of them use XUL Javascript and other web based technologies, which are interpretured.
This is a great foundation for XML webservices too. KDE doesnt give you this in my opion, where as Mozilla does, and it also gives you a great foundation for binary applications.
When you port mozilla, you'll be able to port firebird a lot easier and thunderbird a lot easier and a lot of other apps.
If you want to know what the mozilla community is creating take a look at http://www.mozdev.org/ . Thats no the only place that hosts mozilla website either...
QT is a good idae, but i'd stick with mozilla,. Im taking a guess but i'd think i'd have far more support, commerical and volunteer. Its just better in my opinion. Has a greater user base then KTHTML etc...
-
As for Mozilla is fast as Explorer - I'm sorry, but I have 4 machines here near me - 3 of them are Pentium II 300 and one of them is Pentium 233Mhz - all of them equipped with 64-96MB RAM, and Mozilla is WAY slower then Explorer - I could give you lots of examples. FUD again..!
Yes but thats prolly loading time... Sure, its goign to be a lot slower than IE isnt it. Because all the libraries that IE users are already loaded when explorer (desktop) is loaded. Yes, thats right...
The difference? Mozilla is a platform, so it has to load the libraries and what ever else, the individual application (firebird) will use.
Example, the buttons, textboxes, comboboxes fonts and whatever else IE uses are already in memory before IE is even executed.
Whereas, mozilla has its own code to do that... Thats why it takes so long. But i dont think its that bad. Once mozilla is up and running, its a gem to use. i love it. I use windows at home, and i dotn use anything else but firebird. I recently having discovered the power of mozilla (XUL and javascript libraries) i think i may very well develop apps for teh mozilla platform in the future.
-
t's not going to alter the balance of the universe having Mozilla ported to the Amiga, nor is it going to upset anything else, so what the heck are you complaining about?
I dont think he's complaining, just telling his story, and letting people know how he feels...
-
ronybeck said:
Why Port it? Because it ####s on any browser the amiga has.
Then why not spend the money on development of native Amiga browsers? Call me a purist but, in my view, porting Moz/Firebird/whatever taints the Amiga platform.
-
i wouldnt mind working on a new amiga web browser
-
why not there is ethernet and a web browser for a c64 and i have seen 3.5 ide hard drive and adaptor on a sinclair spectrum +3 not sure why though
Ah, but that's not the original hardware, is it?
"Sure, you can run this software, but you'll have to buy a $200 IDE adapter! Or, just buy yourself a PC mobo and CPU with integrated IDE for the same price!"
Hum, 68K port of anything = *SNICKER*
All in all - developing a web browser must be the ####tiest programming job around, trying to follow the "standards" of webduhsigners and IE/Moz, and at the same time satisfy the websmurfs.
Indeed. The problem I have when designing web pages is that IE does some funky stuff with layout, like adding that shouldn't be there, especially when using FORMS within TABLES. It's really annoying.
Mozilla has problems, too. Try defining a button style with a border of 1 pixel, and Mozilla will make buttons with 2 pixel borders. In this case, IE does it properly, and Mozilla doesn't. There's a lot of text handling that Mozilla does horribly, actually.
I wish browsers were designed like page layout software and not word processors. HTML was originally designed only to layout text, and is a horrible, horrible graphics layout format. It's much like Windows. It just kind of evolved to fit the role. It was never designed for page design. People use it only because it is a standard. A really bad standard is better than nothing.
Writing a browser from scratch is no easy feat, and that's a combination of horrible computer science and serious design flaws in HTML. Macros are much more important than CSS support, for crying out loud, but browsers don't support that in raw HTML, now do they? It sickens me to see my Perl scripts throw up 75K of HTML because of all the repetition. That consumes a LOT of bandwidth, and there's no way for me to cut down on the size without clipping out all my FONT and COLOR tags, which makes my BBS layout practically unusable.
I haven't worked with XML, yet, but first impressions tell me it is just a modernized clone of HTML. More capable, but still, with the shorcomings of HTML. Plus, you need a browser with a codebase of, like, 10 megs just to show a stupid webpage. It's insane how badly this technology is running amok.
Blah blah blah...
Then why not spend the money on development of native Amiga browsers? Call me a purist but, in my view, porting Moz/Firebird/whatever taints the Amiga platform.
Well, we can spend gobs of cash trying to keep up with ever-changing and inconsistent PC standards (and failing miserably), or we can actually use their code and modify it to our needs. The whole point to having a central CVS is to ensure that all the ports can get updates and bug fixes frequently. Write a new, native browser from scratch, and you'll end up with another AWeb or IBrowse. Besides, Amizilla doens't have to be an exact clone of the PC version.
Of course, hardly anyone can agree with what makes the Amiga an "Amiga", so making Mozilla more "Amigish" will certainly start a war. If you want to deal with that, feel free to make your new, special Amiga browser. :-D
-
@HeUnique
I not only think your right about mozilla...but I think if we had Qt it would bring alot more then a good browser to the amiga... I think your right on all marks..... lord knows how its going to run on an 060... I can say one thing though... it will run with good compatability...thats about it... I dont know any other browser thats free that has nearly the compatability of Mozilla... although I'd take speed over perfect compatability any time... I'd love to see a Konqueror style browser for Amiga
I think the people putting up the money for the port/etc... are good people...they have heart...and their willing to put their money where their mouth is... but I surely hope MorphOS's default browser in a couple years is not mozilla... it would be a shame to have a browser bigger than the OS itself...
-
Just a bright and early added note....
Opera has a very good package. We had discussions with them three months ago. For what they wanted and for the recurring costs it would be easier to buy Amiga Inc. End of story. They are just another group of young guys who think they have re-invented the world and have not ridden the wave to the beach yet....;-)
On other fronts, we have been in discussions with Bill P. since he started his bounty program through "greenboy" of the Phoenix Developer Consortium. We are ready to significantly fund the effort, but there have to be certain professional development standards applied and it has to be done externally from Genesi. We are too busy and we do not want to distract our internal teams from doing what they have to do. BTW, remember we have Voyager and it needs some work to be in the mode...;-)
Just to repeat something indicated earlier....human beings do not do well with change. People like to do what they are used to doing. Change has to be driven by convenience/ease of use or at least familiarity (a smarter man once stated the converse: necessity is the mother of invention). Mozillia is familiar to the market we are attacking. If the browser looks and feels the same *and even works better* - how it does it becomes irrelevant. All these computer, OS, and application discussions are a means to an end and not an end in theirselves. OK, there are some fanatics who just like to look at their computers and mostly just talk about it, but this is not our focus. We want people to be able to DO things!
This branding discussion could bring us back to the whole Amiga/Atari issue, but we will save that for another thread.
Have a great day!
Raquel and Bill :-)
-
Whereas, mozilla has its own code to do that... Thats why it takes so long.
On my 850MHz Duron notebook, it takes just 10 seconds to start up Phoenix (now Firebird) and display my homepage (fetched from remote server via DSL). That's not too shabby, I'd say. Even with IE's being partly loaded already, it takes 9 seconds just to open and display an empty window on the same machine. (I don't use it enough to have a home page set.) And Phoenix's memory footprint is considerably smaller than Opera's, not that that should be a problem for anybody getting an AmigaOne or Pegasos. Like others have said, Firebird is much smaller than the full Mozilla and is quite fast.
-- gary_c
-
Yes, Bill Panagouleas and I have been talking about the project since the first mention of it in public. I brought my ideas about getting involved to Bill and Raquel's attention around the 19th of last month. We had a long discussion about it, as above, and talked about better funding and guidelines.
After presenting these guidelines to Bill P, which were to ensure that all the PPC OSes MorphOS, AROS, and AmigaOS would be targeted and in the hope that good project management and development stategies would begin to take shape, Bill agreed on the 22nd that should we participate those stipulations were indeed acceptable and desirable.
Now we are waiting to see a higher level of activity in what teams and individuals propose, with an eye on feasibility, research, non-partisanship, and with some semblance of being able to proceed with well-organized project management.
We think the availability of a recognized cross-OS, cross-platform browser has the benefit of familiarity for people from other communities as well as supplying essential browser features and higher website compatibility. It would also be nice to see people within the community sharing the effort and the potential benefits.
-
Konqueror It is far from quick. It has trouble with Bnaking websites ( www.westpac.com.au is a night mare and it works fine in mozilla and Internet Explorer ). It certainly doesn't have the user base that mozilla has.
It's getting better - you don't need the QT library at all to make KHTML work, just like Apple don't use QT in their Safari browser, but you need some GUI library to display the pages ;)
I never said it did.
Apple wrong about their decision do adopt KHTML instead of Mozilla/Gecko?
I don't use mac so I don't care. Beside, Apple has enough resources to make it work well. Amiga doesn't. Don't get disapointed if they ever do port itand it turns out to be crap.
(I can't really call the XUL think a good GUI, sorry)..............Go do some checking how many apps are based on QT and how many apps are based on Mozilla's XUL engine, then come back ;)
Again I don't care. I didn't argue anything about QT aside from what it's purpose is. Some one asked and I answered. How about you go look and find out or do what ever it is your on about. :-D
....by porting mozilla - you're porting a browser, and not much more......
Wrong! Mozilla comes with an email and chat client as well. You need to port the Gecko engine which could be used for much more than just a web browser. An email client might use it to deal with HTML content in emails for example. Perhaps you should now go and do some checking :-D
The Gecko engine has come a long way since the early days. It was exceptionally slow to begin with but it has been refinded a lot since then.
-
Stop spreading FUD
Qt is NOT FREE!!!!!!!
it's Source is NOT FREEE!!!!!
the only system's where it is available (for endusers) is where the Qt Programmers have ported it themselves!!!!!!
Apple went to all the trouble of removing Qt from KTHML, why? figure it out ####head.
as for you not getting mozilla fast it's no wonder you can't do that... you have the IQ of sewer rat, if you can't setup windows correctly, then DON'T USE IT!!!!!!!
####ing moron.
-
Well said bbrv
-
Ah, I see the respect for proper research is being firmly reinforced - and the cooperative team spirit most earnestly being explored here, as we speak! Truly serendipitous! And so reassuring: it becomes immediately apparent that an ambitious and taxing community project will indeed succeed ; }
-
@trgse
Stop spreading FUD
Qt is NOT FREE!!!!!!!
it's Source is NOT FREEE!!!!!
Then what is this (http://www.trolltech.com/download/qt/x11.html)?
Amazing how ignorant some people can be, and how insulting they are to those who don't share their ignorance.
The source for Qt/X11 is free under the GPL. Anybody, including Apple, can make a port of it to any platform starting from that basis, as long as the port is also released under the GPL.
@all: back on-topic
Actually, Mozilla is quite slow, and even Firebird (formerly Phoenix) doesn't exactly fly. However, I'd put it somewhere in the IE speed class unless you have seriously misconfigured something.
Browsers like Opera and Konqueror are actually faster, but not as complete. I still have to switch to Mozilla to properly view or access a number of sites because Konqueror and Opera can't do the job properly.
As for Amiga browsers? With all due respect to the developers who I am sure are both competent and hard-working, the fact remains that Amiga browsers are somewhere near the bottom of the pile, only worth using when there is no alternative.
Mozilla for Amiga? Well, if people want to do it, why not? Even for 68k, it should be able to run fine on emulated systems, be that MOS, AOS4, UAE or Amithlon, and porting it to PPC from there should be relatively easy.
As for the Qt/GTK/XUL debate, that's a different issue. Of course it would benefit any OS to have Qt and/or GTK+ ported to it, as that would open up the porting of many quality apps, but I don'tt see why this should be a major consideration in deciding which browser to port.
While Mozilla may be slowest of the options for porting, it also happens to be the most complete.
@bbrv
The Opera guys are not the naive big-headed teenagers you make them out to be. They simply play in a bigger league than you do, so things like MorphOS are too insignificant to register with them. If you don't like the price move on, but stop making derisory comments about anyone you can't do a deal with.
-
but stop making derisory comments about anyone you can't do a deal with
Yes. It would be nice if we ALL could live with similar ideals intact. And never be thinking similar credos should only apply to OTHERS ; }
-
@ bhoggett
Could you be more precise when you say its slow? Are you refering to load time, render time, UI slowness?
Loading time is deffinatly an issue, but one that your not prolly not ever going to solve, as for the reason i have previously suggested.
I dont know any render slowness or UI slowness (appart from the earlier version of mozilla). Once Firebird is up and running, i think its great. I used pheonix on a P2 233 and i took maybe 20-30 seconds to load, but i love it so much that its worth a 20-30 second wait.
The only browsers your gunna get that load fast on an Amiga are those that use the intuition libraries and other amiga libraries needed to make a browser.
Opera will use its own libraries, but it will load fast because being the fastest browser is its main aim. That is, standards compliance is a second goal compared to speed.
Mozilla may be slow, but its Open Source, which means its going to be around for a long long time. Also, its only slow whilst loading the program, there after, i dont think it could be better.
And if you didnt want anything but a browser, just give the money to AWEB, but i dont believe giving them the money will get their product out the door any faster, so theres no advantage.
Basicaly, mozilla is a good choice, for those reasons, and for the other reason is your getting more than a browser, and i think that is really important.
Although if you had to do it without the extra mozilla stuff then you'd have to rip out gecko and use the Amiga libraries to interface with Gecko. That way, you get your standards compliant browser, but with the speed you want. Im my opinion, if your not going to go the whole mozzila hog, then thats your other best option!!!!
-
@Rodney
Could you be more precise when you say its slow? Are you refering to load time, render time, UI slowness?
Load time is the worst culprit, as you say. However, even the rendering time and UI fail to give a feeling of "zip".
Firebird does help somewhat with the loading time, as it's Mozilla minus the non-browser rubbish (e-mail and news client, HTML editor, etc). However, unless your system is at the lower end of the scale, actual performance when browsing is pretty much the same. (on lower end systems there will be a difference, as Firebird has a smaller resource footprint).
Note I'm not saying Gecko is a particularly slow performer, but it isn't the fastest either. Galeon performs similarly on my Linux installation to Mozilla or Firebird in actual browing.
By comparison, Opera absolutely flies and even Konqueror feels snappier.
I don't mean this as a slur on Mozilla. I still use it or Firebird by preference on my Windows system, and Galeon on Linux.
If you could match Mozilla's compatibility with Opera's performance, you'd be on to a winner! :-D
-
Right now i am running KDE+mozilla in remote window using Xmanager client.. The server is a amd k6/2 450mhz, 64MB of ram running debian 3.0 over a 100mbit network.. How come its still faster than IE here?? I am even using mozilla 1.0.0....
:-D :-P :-P
You people who complain about the speed, must have really poorly configured systems...
-
Hey Bill...
@bbrv
The Opera guys are not anyone you can't do a deal with.
What is your excuse? We spoke to them. Have you ever? What have you ever done by the way, Mr. Self-Righteous, self appointed seer of all things? Grumpy old man! Bah!
BTW, if we did not mention it iBrowse was the #1 Amiga Browser on the Slashdot/OSNews day.
R&B :-)
-
Not the sharpest tool in the box when it comes to legality, are you trgse?
-
On my 850MHz Duron notebook, it takes just 10 seconds to start up Phoenix (now Firebird) and display my homepage (fetched from remote server via DSL). That's not too shabby, I'd say. Even with IE's being partly loaded already, it takes 9 seconds just to open and display an empty window on the same machine.
Ten seconds is an age, especially when you're just clicking on something on IRC for general interest. My system boots faster than that. IMO a browser taken 10 seconds to load on a UDMA drive with a 850MHz CPU powering it is unforgivable for "just" a browser.
I guess my definition of slow is just different from all the Linux and Windows users in here. How you have the patience for it all I can't guess. Even my 040/25 felt a sharper machine to use.
-
KennyR,
Truth be told I'd rather see the fastest and most fully compliant browser available free and with a T-shirt too, for all these platforms - available last year.
...Failing that, I'd like to see progress and choice, and maybe spur the native browsers forward as well ; }
-
@bbrv
All I'm saying is that if you are incapable of showing respect to others then you shouldn't expect any yourself, and if you happen to represent a company and product too, then they will be tarred with the same brush you are.
Since you always threat anyone who doesn't agree with you as an ignorant moron, why should anyone show any respect to you, unless they feel indebted to you for your generosity?
Not everyone's principles are for sale, so if you act like a spoilt child I reserve the right to say so, no matter what level of superiority you think your "achievemnts" have earned you.
The Opera people make their money from advertising or selling registrations. This is how development for their product is supported. The number of MorphOS users is so tiny that neither advertising not registration would make it worth developing and supporting a port. If you don't like the price they quote you, go and write your own or buy someone elses. It's very simple, isn't it? Why do you have to deride everyone who doesn't do business with you?
:-(
-
KennyR wrote:
On my 850MHz Duron notebook, it takes just 10 seconds to start up Phoenix (now Firebird) and display my homepage (fetched from remote server via DSL). That's not too shabby, I'd say. Even with IE's being partly loaded already, it takes 9 seconds just to open and display an empty window on the same machine.
Ten seconds is an age, especially when you're just clicking on something on IRC for general interest. My system boots faster than that. IMO a browser taken 10 seconds to load on a UDMA drive with a 850MHz CPU powering it is unforgivable for "just" a browser.
I guess my definition of slow is just different from all the Linux and Windows users in here. How you have the patience for it all I can't guess. Even my 040/25 felt a sharper machine to use.
In my test X86 PC**, Mozila V1.3 takes about 1.5 seconds to load.
Such as system is powered by a Seagate 80Gb 7200 RPM (yields about ~55Mb/s from aHead’s NeoBurn5’s hard drive test) and Microsoft’s UDMA IDE drivers. The motherboard is ASUS nForce II 400 Ultra based (it’s faster on nVidia specific UDMA IDE drivers, but that’s another issue).
I.E 6.0.2600 loads about similar time as with Mozila V1.3. This is on Windows XP Pro-SP1 with all display frills turned on. Hard drive’s throughput speed, IDE drivers and available physical RAM does play critical role.
Mozilla 1.3 is only ~25Mb. Ideally, with a 55Mb/s hard drive the system should be able to load Mozilla about ~0.5 of a second. My test machine load it at ~1.5 seconds due to overheads (e.g. Windows, seek times, network connection checking and 'etc'). A 10-seconds load time is ‘slow’ for an UDMA Hard disk.
At the moment, I don’t have access to KT133A/VIA 686B (MSI built) equipped PCs. Maybe later.... It can reach ~40Mb/s in a similar NeoBurn test hard disk speed conditions (using an older Seagate 7200 RPM 40Gb drive)).
I’ll probably test Mozilla’s load speed on a Pentium II 400Mhz with 3.2Gb hard disk and 192Mb RAM(loaded with WinXP) (Later, IF I have the time).
-
Hey Bill, where have you been?
Read around Hero!
Remember your email to us?
Just Bill
-
@bbrv
Remember your email to us?
Yes, what about it? It's content has nothing to do with this conversation, or indeed anything else. It was also written in reply to your sending me unsolicited e-mail, something I recall you doing on a number of occasions?
I wonder why you have this habit of bringing up what is supposed to be private e-mail in public? (not that there's anything incriminating or even inconsistent in the mail in question. Or even private at the end of the day.)
-
@ Hammer
Mozilla 1.3 is only ~25Mb. Ideally, with a 55Mb/s hard drive the system should be able to load Mozilla about ~0.5 of a second.
Very flawed assumption. IDE disks may be able to get a maximum throughput of say 55MB/sec, but for loading lots of little files you'll find the throughput drops to maybe a meg a second. The entirety of Mozilla's app install doesn't need to be loaded into memory however.
People complain about large libaries or executables, but it is far worse to have lots of tiny libraries that all have to be loaded in rather than one big one.
Apps like Firebird (formerly 'Phoenix) and Thunderbird are currently getting their libraries compacted into one for this reason primarily.
The only time you'll ever see your hard disk perform at anywhere near its maximum throughput is when copying internally between platters, and a disk benchmarking at 55MB/sec will probably manage a maximum of 40MB/sec when everything is taken into consideration, and that's when butterflies aren't flapping their wings around Mount Fuji, and when the very large files (over 200MB say) aren't at all fragmented, and neither is space allocated as their destination.
The most important statistic for a hard disk to have quoted would be latency on requests, which doesn't get officially stated, only in independent benchmarking. That's the statistic you want to pay attention to, if you want app and data files to be loaded in quickly.
-
trgse wrote:
Qt is NOT FREE!!!!!!!
Apple went to all the trouble of removing Qt from KTHML, why?
Well, Qt for Linux is available in a GPL version.
So, it is possible to port this to any other platform.
There is already a Qt port available for Mac OS X, but Apple would have to pay a lisence fee to Trolltech to use this in their programs.
Instead of doing this, they have created their own library implementing only the Qt classes used by KHTML. They have not really removed the Qt dependencies from khtml.
--
Glenn Hisdal
-
Very flawed assumption.
I have already out-lined some reasons why the load time was not .5 seconds. Refer to
"Mozilla 1.3 is only ~25Mb. Ideally, with a 55Mb/s hard drive the system should be able to load Mozilla about ~0.5 of a second. My test machine load it at ~1.5 seconds due to overheads (e.g. Windows, seek times, network connection checking and 'etc').
IDE disks may be able to get a maximum throughput of say 55MB/sec, but for loading lots of little files you'll find the throughput drops to maybe a meg a second.
That's too low for PAL TV resolution A/V work. All I can say it’s capable of doing full TV resolution (PAL) capturing without dropping a frame (e.g. AVI/DiVX/DVD/Mpeg2 via software encoding).
Have you installed a real time hard disk monitor? There are at least 41 objects within the Mozilla1.3 directory.
The entirety of Mozilla's app install doesn't need to be loaded into memory however.
What proportion in regards to "The entirety of Mozilla's app install doesn't need to be loaded into memory"?
From a free memory of 261Mb down to 244Mb (after loading Mozilla 1.3). I’ll say it’s close to the 25Mb file load. Defragging them into local placement will help with the load times (I haven't applied this yet).
The only time you'll ever see your hard disk perform at anywhere near its maximum throughput is when copying internally between platters, and a disk benchmarking at 55MB/sec will probably manage a maximum of 40MB/sec when everything is taken into consideration,
Who said that was HD's maximum throughput? Note that I haven't used the specific nForce IDE drivers yet.
The most important statistic for a hard disk to have quoted would be latency on requests, which doesn't get officially stated, only in independent benchmarking. That's the statistic you want to pay attention to, if you want app and data files to be loaded in quickly.
A practical 1MB/s second throughput would be a crawl e.g. 512MB 'hiberfil.sys' will take awhile to load (i.e. 512 seconds). My old system loads 512MB 'hiberfil.sys' around ~20~25 seconds .
-
KennyR wrote:
Ten seconds is an age, especially when you're just clicking on something on IRC for general interest. My system boots faster than that. IMO a browser taken 10 seconds to load on a UDMA drive with a 850MHz CPU powering it is unforgivable for "just" a browser.
Well, I guess maybe my perception has become skewed. I've been using mainly Windows for a couple of years now and in that context the load time seems pretty good. Other apps, like graphic editors, Dreamweaver, OpenOffice.org and even Eudora take quite a bit longer.But I generally just open them once and they're up all day, so load time isn't really that big an issue for me.
I guess my definition of slow is just different from all the Linux and Windows users in here. How you have the patience for it all I can't guess. Even my 040/25 felt a sharper machine to use.
When I was using BeOS almost all the time I would've had a different reaction, too. (BeOS doesn't even have a busy pointer.) Now, as soon as my ram arrives I'll get my Pegasos up and readjust my load time concepts. :-)
-- gary_c
-
i would like to see mozilla for the features, and support for different web sites
if you dont like the speed/size use another browser for everything else