Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Browsers

adactio.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 316 posts

Re: Browsers

#241

Post by scarface74 »

WorldMaker wrote: post #239
scarface74 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not about market share. It’s about where the money is. Being equally facetious. No one cares about a bunch of poor people buying $40 Android phones running 4 year old operating systems... Look at the countries where iOS market share is above 30% and compare it to per capita GDP http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe

That feeds the point about market share though, at what point is iOS too much of a luxury brand that doesn't support the effort to get over that hump of "works in Chrome, ship it"? "I don't care if the Maserati owner can't buy these wiper blades, because look how many more GMs and Fords there are on the road every day. I bet the Maserati owner flogs themselves if they accidentally even drive in the rain, how often do…

No one is marketing “worldwide” with the same website. In the US, Europe, Japan, etc if you want to reach the middle class - you have to care about iOS.

You’re not talking about reaching people that can afford Maseratis versus Fords. More like the people who can afford a car vs people who can barely afford a bicycle.

If I was trying to reach poor people in developing countries the equation may be different.

Re: Browsers

#242

Post by pcwalton »

magicalist wrote: post #238
pcwalton wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I highly suspect that the issue is that Windows video playback can only use scanout compositing if there is nothing on top of the video. Scanout compositing is significantly more energy-efficient than standard framebuffer compositing because it avoids a memory copy each frame. This ultimately comes down to hardware limitations. GPUs are limited as to what they can compose during scanout, because of memory bandwidth l…

> You need heuristics of some kind to get good performance, and I can't blame Microsoft for using the DOM for that. which, again, that's fine, but mayyyyybe they were a little lax in checking performance on nearly any other popular video site on the web to see if that heuristic is a good one? Or maybe changing page layout in an extremely common way wasn't an effort to undermine a hyper specific benchmark?

How many sites put invisible DOM elements over the videos?

Remember, if you put visible DOM elements on top of the videos, then you lose scanout compositing no matter what.

Re: Browsers

#243

Post by scarface74 »

WorldMaker wrote: post #240
scarface74 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's to stop Chromebooks from attacking Windows for just being the junk drawer of old Win32 applications and games around a Chrome OS knockoff? That’s all Windows has been for years. There hasn’t been anything interesting happening nor any serious money invested in writing PC software for well over a decade. The only non game companies making any money selling desktop software are Microsoft and Adobe.

That perspective is indeed why I think Microsoft is leaving themselves extremely vulnerable here (and I worry as tiny, tiny little shareholder). I don't think it is entirely true, mostly because of the giant amount of "dark matter" PC development that remains in the enterprise and industrial worlds, but it definitely feels true at least in the consumer space.

There is nothing that Microsoft can do. Personal computers are big, bulky and not as a convenient for what most people do with their computers most of the time.

Even from a corporate standpoint, enterprise deployments of desktop apps are cumbersome. That’s the reason that even corporate LOB apps have moved to the web. Besides a web site is the ultimate cross platform app.

Re: Browsers

#244

Post by magicalist »

pcwalton wrote: post #242
magicalist wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You need heuristics of some kind to get good performance, and I can't blame Microsoft for using the DOM for that. which, again, that's fine, but mayyyyybe they were a little lax in checking performance on nearly any other popular video site on the web to see if that heuristic is a good one? Or maybe changing page layout in an extremely common way wasn't an effort to undermine a hyper specific benchmark?

How many sites put invisible DOM elements over the videos? Remember, if you put visible DOM elements on top of the videos, then you lose scanout compositing no matter what.

> How many sites put invisible DOM elements over the videos?

A lot of them? Vimeo, for instance, has a number of opacity: 0 and hidden divs over the video. Twitch has at least a couple of opacity: 0 divs on top.

Maybe we're interpreting the phrase

> hidden empty div over YouTube videos

differently? That's the structure I assume they were talking about.

Re: Browsers

#245

Post by DrPizza »

magicalist wrote: post #229
DrPizza wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, pretty easy how such a div might trigger a less efficient path; if the video is top in the z-order then it can probably bypass being composited by the browser (and who knows, maybe even bypass being composited by the OS) and avoid a whole mess of rendering to a texture, texturing some triangles, and so on and so forth.

ha, just saw your story over on ars. FWIW, I think you're a little credulous there; as I mentioned in my other comment[1], I can't find anything stating that Chrome starting beating Edge at the test (their videos actually claim the opposite) or anybody from Chrome boasting about it (articles from the time like yours[2] also say the opposite). > On the other hand, pretty easy how such a div might trigger a less effici…

I don't think the performance claiming is really the important part here; it's doing something that lacks any real reason but which hurts Edge.

And while I agree that video overlays are common, I also think it's reasonable for such overlays to revert to a slightly less efficient path.

Re: Browsers

#246

Post by AsParallel »

ksec wrote: post #192
XCabbage wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The behaviour that your co-workers claim Google engaged in sounds pretty exactly like the AMD-Intel antitrust case where AMD alleged that Intel's C compiler was deliberately crippling performance on AMD processors to help Intel's processors compete. If true, Microsoft should sue Google over it - not just out of raw corporate self-interest, but because this sort of conduct is evil and should be stamped out. If this ca…

What will Microsoft gain if they Win? Nothing. Google has the upper hand in public image. Microsoft is still evil outside of Dev Circles. And IE did some ass moves as well in IE6 era, think about the PR mess this would lead. It is not the best time to strike now, once the timing is right, I am sure they will.

Well, to some degree I don't know that edge and IE aren't regarded with significant disdain within dev circles. They are certainly the source of 90% of the exceptional/poly/ponyfill/hotfix logic I end up shipping. Firefox, chrome, safari, opera all work the first time, IE is generally the odd duck.

Re: Browsers

#247

Post by austincheney »

wvenable wrote: post #202
austincheney wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a matter of opinion. I don't do that and I avoid code that does. In the days of IE7 I learned to write CSS code that was conformant to both box models. Now I just write to the standard box model. CSS isn't something that will ever be particularly challenging once you have gone through the extremes of edge case use cases.

It's not a matter of opinion, content-box is much more difficult to work with when using fluid layouts than border-box which is why all major CSS frameworks use border-box now. At the time, the CSS specification didn't make it clear which way to calculate widths so Microsoft, probably due to their experience building graphical layout software, chose border-box while all other rendering engines at the time went conten…

You claim it’s not a matter of opinion and due to personal opinion. Weird. Then you invent a history from which to draw imaginary conclusions. It is perfectly ok to have a personal opinion on CSS. You don’t have to justify it and you certainly don’t have to conjure a dillisional alternate reality.

Imagination aside, IE3 was the first browser to offer any CSS support.

Re: Browsers

#248

Post by ksec »

StudentStuff wrote: post #223
ksec wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought H.264 is free for Software Decode? Supported in Firefox as well. There is no reasons why Apple should support VP8 / 9 Which is a Google's Codec, even though it is free of charge.

H.264 isn't free, Cisco is footing the licensing bill for support in most software (including Firefox): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Implementatio... This is why Mozilla is pushing AV1 and VP8/VP9 so hard, being stuck with H.264 as the whole industry migrates to H.265 due to bandwidth savings is a major impediment, and the licensing body could easily extract usurious rent for H.265 if it becomes the…

Sorry I got mixed up, but it should be free for anyone which has H.264 hardware decode. Which is like 95%+ of All PC / Tablet / Smartphone sold in the last 5+ years.

And that article from Mozilla, I remember it, worst article from Mozilla for as long as I remember ( That is since Netscape Era ).

Re: Browsers

#249

Post by StudentStuff »

ksec wrote: post #248
StudentStuff wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

H.264 isn't free, Cisco is footing the licensing bill for support in most software (including Firefox): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Implementatio... This is why Mozilla is pushing AV1 and VP8/VP9 so hard, being stuck with H.264 as the whole industry migrates to H.265 due to bandwidth savings is a major impediment, and the licensing body could easily extract usurious rent for H.265 if it becomes the…

Sorry I got mixed up, but it should be free for anyone which has H.264 hardware decode. Which is like 95%+ of All PC / Tablet / Smartphone sold in the last 5+ years. And that article from Mozilla, I remember it, worst article from Mozilla for as long as I remember ( That is since Netscape Era ).

Rejecting VP8/VP9 due to Google's involvement is silly and pointless, they're free to use codecs that are much more efficient than H.264. Apple has made its choice to push H.264 & H.265 due to their vested interest in the licensing revenue they stand to gain via the MPEG LA.

Re: Browsers

#250

Post by [deleted] »

austincheney wrote: post #247
wvenable wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a matter of opinion, content-box is much more difficult to work with when using fluid layouts than border-box which is why all major CSS frameworks use border-box now. At the time, the CSS specification didn't make it clear which way to calculate widths so Microsoft, probably due to their experience building graphical layout software, chose border-box while all other rendering engines at the time went conten…

You claim it’s not a matter of opinion and due to personal opinion. Weird. Then you invent a history from which to draw imaginary conclusions. It is perfectly ok to have a personal opinion on CSS. You don’t have to justify it and you certainly don’t have to conjure a dillisional alternate reality. Imagination aside, IE3 was the first browser to offer any CSS support.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN