Anyone know what their Javascript threading model will look like? I am both excited and scared.
I think they are referring to html5 web workers http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-workers/current-work/
Firefox 3.5 - dreaming about the future of the web.
11–20 of 21 posts
Re: Firefox 3.5 - dreaming about the future of the web.
#12I hope they implement WebSockets, that sole feature will change the way we know the web. The real-time web, the next "wave".
Hear, hear! The sooner we can ditch elaborate long-polling hacks, the happier I'll be. We've got a lot of features on the drawing board that would be enormously simplified by WebSockets.
Oh absolutely, I've been struggling with java, ajax, comet and flash sockets for a multiplayer game.
But imagine all the possibilities for IM, Email, web alerts, twitter, etc.
Re: Firefox 3.5 - dreaming about the future of the web.
#13I hope they implement WebSockets, that sole feature will change the way we know the web. The real-time web, the next "wave".
Hear, hear! The sooner we can ditch elaborate long-polling hacks, the happier I'll be. We've got a lot of features on the drawing board that would be enormously simplified by WebSockets.
Or uh, you could use Java or an easily installed desktop client.
Re: Firefox 3.5 - dreaming about the future of the web.
#14I have just two requests for Mozilla: please make Firefox faster on Linux, and troubleshoot its memory leak problem.
Even Firefox on my Virtualbox windows machine runs a lot more responsiver than on Linux host machine ...
Re: Firefox 3.5 - dreaming about the future of the web.
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hear, hear! The sooner we can ditch elaborate long-polling hacks, the happier I'll be. We've got a lot of features on the drawing board that would be enormously simplified by WebSockets.
Or uh, you could use Java or an easily installed desktop client.
Users are much less likely to use a service that requires a desktop client. There are a few exceptions to that rule of course; IM, twitter, and Skype come to mind. But I think it holds as a general rule. For example, if YouTube required a desktop client instead of working entirely through the browser, would you still use YouTube? I doubt that I would.
Re: Firefox 3.5 - dreaming about the future of the web.
#16A bit sad how Firefox is now chasing IE and Chrome for features and speed. Oh well, were it not for Firefox we'd all still be running IE6. The King is dead. Love live the King.
Glad to see I'm not the only that finds it ironic how Firefox only took 2 versions to abandon the original reasoning (lightweight, fast, better UI) that made them so much better than anything else. It's not like in the last few years people have suddenly wanted heavier, slower, harder.
I never thought they did such a great job of that anyway. For example, the early versions of Firefox were about twice as big as Opera (in download size) and had a fraction of the features.
Re: Firefox 3.5 - dreaming about the future of the web.
#17I have just two requests for Mozilla: please make Firefox faster on Linux, and troubleshoot its memory leak problem. Even Firefox on my Virtualbox windows machine runs a lot more responsiver than on Linux host machine ...
Firefox on Linux has never really compared to the Windows version. I hear that Chrome on Linux is working pretty well though.
Re: Firefox 3.5 - dreaming about the future of the web.
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or uh, you could use Java or an easily installed desktop client.
Users are much less likely to use a service that requires a desktop client. There are a few exceptions to that rule of course; IM, twitter, and Skype come to mind. But I think it holds as a general rule. For example, if YouTube required a desktop client instead of working entirely through the browser, would you still use YouTube? I doubt that I would.
Not that you are wrong (convenience always wins) but if a desktop client gave the only or the best experience I would imagine you'd pick it.
Re: Firefox 3.5 - dreaming about the future of the web.
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or uh, you could use Java or an easily installed desktop client.
Users are much less likely to use a service that requires a desktop client. There are a few exceptions to that rule of course; IM, twitter, and Skype come to mind. But I think it holds as a general rule. For example, if YouTube required a desktop client instead of working entirely through the browser, would you still use YouTube? I doubt that I would.
I have 4-5 different video players installed. I wish I could use just one of them to view videos instead of using Flash (which hiccups and crashes Firefox sometimes and doesn't even work properly on Linux for me).
Re: Firefox 3.5 - dreaming about the future of the web.
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Glad to see I'm not the only that finds it ironic how Firefox only took 2 versions to abandon the original reasoning (lightweight, fast, better UI) that made them so much better than anything else. It's not like in the last few years people have suddenly wanted heavier, slower, harder.
I never thought they did such a great job of that anyway. For example, the early versions of Firefox were about twice as big as Opera (in download size) and had a fraction of the features.
Yeah, they basically switched off a bunch of stuff in the full Mozilla suite (now Seamonkey) but it was only later (for certain things much later) that they actually removed unused code and focused on speed and memory.
So anyone who thinks that Firefox had "Features", "Speed" or "Lightweight" as original killer features is deluded.
They did on the other hand have a fairly stripped down and therefore non-threatening usable UI (now leapfrogged in that regard by Chrome and Safari), extensions, being both open source and free of cost (without being ad supported), faking native Windows UI reasonably well, and not being IE6 in their favor.