Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firefox 4 Will Be One Generation Ahead

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the that-sounds-a-bit-vague dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla's Chris Blizzard talks about the rising competition by Google Chrome, the evolution of the web platform and the prospects for WebM. He also promises that Firefox 4 will be 'one generation ahead' of other browsers in relation to Javascript speed."

19 of 341 comments (clear)

  1. ...And one generation behind on HTML5 by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Look, I *love* Firefox. I use it pretty much exclusively myself. Nothing can touch add-ons like NoScript, AdBlock, etc. (and most of my add-ons and their associated functionality can't be found on Chrome, Opera, etc.). But if they think that Google, who provides about 85% of Mozilla's total revenue, is going to sit back and let them take the technical lead over Chrome, they're nuts. And speed has always been one of Chrome's few positive qualities over Firefox.

    Not only that, but Mozilla can't afford to license h264. And that already puts them behind on HTML5. I am hoping that either html5 never catches on, the other browsers all agree to an open format (like WebM), or there is some kind of flash-player type add-on made for Firefox to support h264. But without one of those, Firefox is (sadly) already in a rough spot for the next gen.

    And I say all that as someone who hates the idea of giving up my Firefox and having to get my browser from an increasingly-evil Google, an already evil Microsoft, or a closed-off Opera. If I wanted evil and closed, I would have bought an iPad, not a netbook.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Insightful
      From the summary:

      He also promises that Firefox 4 will be "one generation ahead" of other browsers in relation to Javascript speed."

      The browser vendors' fetishistic obsession with Javascript speed is most irritating.

    2. Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      if they think that Google, who provides about 85% of Mozilla's total revenue, is going to sit back and let them take the technical lead over Chrome, they're nuts.

      Except that Google benefits from faster Javascript engines in any browser, not just Chrome. Firefox is a popular browser, and if Firefox can execute Javascript faster, that means that Google's web apps (which I am just going to guess account for more revenue than Chrome) will perform better. It also means that Google could potentially do more, i.e. have heavier Javascript programs, without worrying that people are going to get annoyed at how slow their applications are. How does Google lose here?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    3. Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 by Haedrian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's because most 'web applications' (such as google docs) or stuff like Facebook is chock full of Javascript.

      In ye olde days when java script was just used to pull up a popup or block your right clicks it wasn't so important, but nowadays most popular sites are full of it. Whenever you need 'dynamic' content on a web page - that's Javascript.

      Even /. by the way.

    4. Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 by Mr.+Spontaneous · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Show me where h264 is a requirement in the HTML5 spec.

      kthx.

      --
      Its all fun and games until someone loses an eye... then its just fun.
    5. Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      H.264 will be solved on Firefox with a plugin whether it's official or not.

      The real claim I have a problem with is is this "generation ahead" nonsense. How are they magically going to go from a generation behind to a generation ahead? Are they planning to milk a unicorn and pour the results into the codebase? So far each and every Firefox claim of improved javascript has fallen short of the competition.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't the extensions (at least the cross-platform ones) implement their functionality mostly in JavaScript? If so, then improving JavaScript speed would do very much to fulfil your wish.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    7. Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 by IANAAC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nowhere. But right now it's the most widely adopted and implemented

      For what? Actual video content? I don't think so. Would some of us like to see it more popular than, say, Flash to serve up video? Sure. But that's not the way it is now.

      To suggest it's the most adopted is wishful thinking.

    8. Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Show me where h264 is a requirement in the HTML5 spec.

      kthx.

      Show me where GIF, PNG, JPG, BMP and ICO are required for the IMG tag in the HTML 1/2/3/4/5 spec.

      Now tell me what you'd think about browsing without support for these in anything, but lynx.

      kthx.

    9. Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Who care.. moz just need to pass the video to the os/desktop(eg: gstreamer on gnome). Let the desktop handle the video plugin. It of no use for mozilla to fork every codec inside it tree. Same with images, all the image decoding should be linked dynamicly. Do you belive IE will bundle h264 anyway? They will loop the data thru directshow or what ever micro-soft marketing made up now. Same for Safari.

      The whole "firefox wont suport h264" fud is pure bullshit. Once html5 get fully suported you will just apt-get upgrade and all the dependency will be solved. It is already as no video faild to play on curent ubuntu.

    10. Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 by Fnkmaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, yes, and double yes! Firefox *IS* faster than most other browsers in every part of browser performance that matters *except* Javascript speed. But yeah, browser load time and overhead, as well as initial rendering and scroll-rendering speed are all critical to the browser experience for me.

      I have tried Chrome 3 times now and every time I give up on it - mostly because I find scrolling performance on complex HTML pages to be distractingly bad. Firefox does not have this problem - it is zippy and smooth, at least on modern Core 2 Duo or better hardware. I gather that for lower end hardware, Webkit seems to do better.

      I know that on the 10% of websites with intensive Javascript code, Chrome will blow the pants off of Firefox right now, but this is not the primary use case of the web for me.

    11. Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 by TeXMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. The main problem I have with Firefox is that by the time I've customized it to my liking, it's unusably slow.

      Maybe you should consider a browser that doesn't need to be bogged down to death to be useable. One of the reasons why I use Opera, for example, it's precisely that it does all the stuff I want it to do without me needing to scrape around the web to get extensions that kill it.

      --
      "I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
    12. Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 by beelsebob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I love that browser vendors are obsessed with javascript speed. The bottom line is that rich internet applications that don't use flash depend entirely on javascript being fast. The reason flash even got a foothold was because we had no alternative runtime because most implementations of javascript were abysmal. Javascript is important in html 5, deal with it.

    13. Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 by smash · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With the increasing prevelance of web-apps, I'd argue that Javascript performance is critical.

      I've not experienced any slow scrolling problems in chrome, used it on everything from a core2 1.8 duo mac mini, an old pentium D 930 win7 box, and a variety of Core2/i5/i7 laptops...

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    14. Re:...And one generation behind on HTML5 by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep. JavaScript :: Firefox as Lisp :: Emacs

      --
      My blog
  2. whoop-de-doo by PJ6 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Saying you're the fastest at running JavaScript is like celebrating that you came in 1st place in the Special Olympics. Sure you won, but you're still a retard. Using JavaScript and HTML for the UIs of real applications remains fundamentally flawed. It was never meant for what we're doing with it now. Millions of developer hours have been wasted in inefficiency and hair-pulling because we're still trying shove a square peg into a round hole. We need something better, and better is almost certainly not another weakly-typed, prototype-based scripting language. Seriously. Fuck JavaScript.

    1. Re:whoop-de-doo by multipartmixed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Saying you're the fastest at running JavaScript is like celebrating that you came in 1st place in the Special Olympics.

      No, it's more like saying you came in first in one event in a triathlon.

      Doesn't mean you won, doesn't even mean you finished mid-pack. But it does mean you're really good at at least one thing, meaning maybe you can concentrate a bit more on the others for the next event.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  3. Re:SQLite database vacuum by jameson71 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, but it would be nice if a *web browser* didn't require DBA level maintenance to keep it working right.

  4. Re:GPU Graphics Acceleration by Abcd1234 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If they use platform specific APIs to accelerate stuff, WHY THE HELL don't they use platform specific APIs for rendering video?

    Because they're ideological blowhards who are more interested in pushing an agenda than doing what the users actually want.