Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 9th Jun 2010 21:31 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones WebM support has been added to Firefox trunk. "Today I landed Firefox's WebM support on mozilla-central, our Firefox development branch. It should appear in nightly builds from tonight onwards. Firefox should build with WebM support without needing any extra changes to your build configuration, unless you're building on Win32, where you'll need to have MASM installed in order to compile libvpx's optimized assembly."
Thread beginning with comment 429413
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Umm yay?
by vodoomoth on Thu 10th Jun 2010 09:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Umm yay?"
vodoomoth
Member since:
2010-03-30

Yes, you're right. What Firefox calls the awesomebar has been in Opera for some time now. Maybe even since 9.60

People have always bashed Opera even more than Firefox these days, but I have seen more features Opera pioneered brought into Firefox (awesomebar, skins) and other browsers than the other way round. In fact, the only thing I saw copied from Firefox into Opera is the "do you want to save this password" ribbon that appears at the top of the page. On Opera, the Wand (recently renamed "password manager") used to display a popup dialog that was modal, and has been changed to non-modal so that the user sees the password has been accepted before storing it.

Yes, Opera is closed-source. But it's still the best browser in terms of speed, configuration and features available at hand combined. Personal opinion.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Umm yay?
by Neolander on Thu 10th Jun 2010 12:14 in reply to "RE[3]: Umm yay?"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Yes, Opera is closed-source. But it's still the best browser in terms of speed, configuration and features available at hand combined. Personal opinion.

DISCLAIMER : This post includes personal opinion, too

Speed : Uncertain about this one. It's noticeably faster than FF, sure, speed is a major area for improvement in the Gecko world. But is it faster than Chrome ? If I remember well, loading times for Opera 10 were much higher, and there was a noticeable delay when loading very small pages which doesn't exist in Chrome.

Configuration : ...but only if you're ready to look for it everywhere in the menus. Firefox and Safari understood that an user does not want to hunt settings and must have everything in one place, while the Opera for desktop guys still have to understand this basic fact before I start using their browser for more than 1 month...

Features available at hand : True, but since most people only use the "browse the web" and "bookmark" features (plus some extras like password management), it sounds sensible to make the rest add-ons in order to keep the browser interface clean (unlike opera's...)

No doubt that Opera is innovative, that's why every single other browser steals from them. But there's a difference between a good technological demo and a good web browser for everyday use, and in my opinion opera still fits in the first category and does not fit in the second category...

In my opinion again, guys like the Mozilla and the Chrome team know how to make software which is at the same time simple, sufficiently powerful, and a pleasure to use on a daily basis. Whereas guys like the IE team and the Opera team still have a lot to learn in that area...

Edited 2010-06-10 12:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Umm yay?
by Valhalla on Thu 10th Jun 2010 13:31 in reply to "RE[4]: Umm yay?"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Well here you can find some quite fresh benchmarks for the browsers:http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/firefox-chrome-opera,2558-3.htm...

It's quite interesting. Firefox comes off as quite slow, but their memory optimization when it comes to multiple pages pays off as it has the lowest memory usage when viewing multiple pages. Opera starts up fastest, Chrome is fastest in Javascript, Safari is fastest in HTML, CSS, Tables, etc

My personal choice is still Firefox, apart from it just being so familiar there's all the plugins and all the Greasemonkey scripts I've become addicted to.

Chrome is fast and polished and most likely the one I would switch to if I ever did.

But like Laurence said, each to his own. And in that respect it's great that we have such a wide array of browsers to choose from, all free.

edit: I spell like a cow

Edited 2010-06-10 13:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Umm yay?
by vodoomoth on Thu 10th Jun 2010 15:24 in reply to "RE[4]: Umm yay?"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30


Speed : Uncertain about this one. It's noticeably faster than FF, sure, speed is a major area for improvement in the Gecko world. But is it faster than Chrome ? If I remember well, loading times for Opera 10 were much higher, and there was a noticeable delay when loading very small pages which doesn't exist in Chrome.

Yes, Opera is not the fastest (as it once used to be, which quite everybody agrees on, including die-hard fans of other browsers) but, unlike IE which has always been the turtle, the distance is not that large and Opera comes back amongst the top 1, 2 or 3 each time. The engines (especially for Javascript) are not the same as in 10.0 to the point that I praised them on their forum for how fast the current 10.53 is on Mac OS X (the change from 10.10 and the next version I used, 10.51, was truly a giant leap) and someone said on their forum that 10.50 should have been 11.0... But I wrote "it's still the best browser in terms of speed, configuration and features available at hand combined." Wrote that thinking of Mac OS, great OS but so not configurable.


Configuration : ...but only if you're ready to look for it everywhere in the menus. Firefox and Safari understood that an user does not want to hunt settings and must have everything in one place, while the Opera for desktop guys still have to understand this basic fact before I start using their browser for more than 1 month...

Ouch... you're harsh. There's the preference windows (cmd+comma on Mac), the appearance preferences window for skins, buttons and panels, and the opera:config for advanced tweaking, which FF also has at about:config.


Features available at hand : True, but since most people only use the "browse the web" and "bookmark" features (plus some extras like password management), it sounds sensible to make the rest add-ons in order to keep the browser interface clean (unlike opera's...)

True, but that's what I like. Want extensions? Try http://unite.opera.com/applications/
Although I understand that people may not need to start an new email with Ctrl+E, I don't see how that can be overwhelming to anyone since you need to setup an email account before the Mail panel is available. It makes sense when remembering that Thunderbird uses the layout engine in FF. No IRC account means no Chat panel. There's nothing in the default UI that hints the possibility of writing emails from the browser, using IRC or handling torrents. All you see is the title bar, the address bar, the page and the status bar. Just like about all browsers. You don't add the Mail panel, you won't see it. And all panels, including bookmarks, use the same position on the screen. That's clean. Which position you can toggle by striking F4 or clicking the close button on the panel bar.

I understand people being upset about having email, voice, irc, torrents, notes, streaming app, file sharing app, private IM app, private discussion forums, or whatever app is available on Unite instead of launching a browser, an email agent, and IRC client, a web server, etc. Using them is not mandatory and their presence does not impede your browsing experience. So what? It's like saying Linux can do raytracing, blueprints, 3D design when all I want is watch movies and listen to music so I won't use it (not speaking of Neolander here).


No doubt that Opera is innovative, that's why every single other browser steals from them. But there's a difference between a good technological demo and a good web browser for everyday use, and in my opinion opera still fits in the first category and does not fit in the second category...

In my opinion again, guys like the Mozilla and the Chrome team know how to make software which is at the same time simple, sufficiently powerful, and a pleasure to use on a daily basis. Whereas guys like the IE team and the Opera team still have a lot to learn in that area...

OK, fine. But what's missing in Opera that makes it unfit for everyday use? I often hear the comment but never the justifications. For instance, the thing (besides saved sessions) I've loved the most about Opera in those 10 years is this: I'm typing a text on a forum page and hitting accidentally the back button will preserve the text when I hit 'forward'. Which, in IE and Firefox, did clear the text! Thankfully, the same feature in now available in the FF 3.6.x currently installed on my Windows machine and it's a recent addition.

The Opera guys even changed some shortcuts to match FF's (view page source, open new tab, show download window, are the ones I can think of). I've changed some back to what they were. Can we change shortcuts in FF? I hope they won't go the Apple way of choosing and setting what's the best.

Opera is fine for me despite its 1%, 2% or 3% market share. What is it that it should do and doesn't: allow deletion of individual items from the cache; apart from that, I don't know. What is it that it should do better, I don't know either. I can state what I would like in Firefox.

In the end, all browsers have a place, including IE (wow, hurts my fingertips to write that), it's just a question of taste and suitability to each person. I guess that's where diversity is a great thing!

Reply Parent Score: 1