Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 6th Jan 2012 17:47 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes Ah yes, why not? The last time we did this, it was March 2011, so it's been almost a year since we offered a little insight into what kind of operating systems and browsers you, dear readers, are using. Nothing particularly earth-shattering going on here.
Thread beginning with comment 502575
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Flash usage
by Lennie on Mon 9th Jan 2012 11:38 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Flash usage"
Lennie
Member since:
2007-09-22

Because it makes it appear that Google Services work faster in Chrome.

TBH SPDY on its own isn't a problem, instant pages only works in Chrome.

SPDY is only one example of where they are doing it.


Sure instant pages only works in Chrome currently, AFAIK.

Interresting enough I do not see it being used in Google Search with Chrome currently (!)

There is nothing stopping other sites and browser vendors also implementing it.

As you can see it shows up in draft form on the W3C site before they announced it:

"2 June 2011"

"This is a First Public Working Draft of "Page Visibility"."

http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-page-visibility-20110602/

"June 14, 2011"

http://blog.chromium.org/2011/06/prerendering-in-chrome.html
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/knocking-down-barriers-to-kn...

There is a white paper which talks about it from a date I don't know:

http://code.google.com/chrome/whitepapers/prerender.html

Microsoft also wanted atleast the Page Visibility API, not sure what their angle was:

http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Performance/PageVisibility/Defaul...

Firefox 10 (currently beta) also supports it, here is a test page:

http://davidwalsh.name/dw-content/page-visibility.php

I honestly thought we got away from this "It works better in ", that is a relic of the 1990s. Now I have actually seen some pages that say "Works best in Chrome" ... brilliant ... Browser Wars II


Stupid people that build things which should work cross-browser but don't or make stupid claims are not something Google did. And people who work at browser vendors and on specifications moan about it on Twitter too so I don't think any of them encourage it.

A bigger problem is: having Apple create some CSS3/HTML5 demos on their site ( http://www.apple.com/html5/ ) and specifically blocking other browsers than Safari even though they support the specifications.

Obviously demos are not real sites and people have to be really clear about that.

It seems they have improved the site, now at specific parts of certain demos it says:

"Download Safari to view 3D transforms.

The 3D transforms in this demo are not yet supported by Firefox. If you’d like to experience these transitions, simply download Safari. It’s free for Mac and PC, and it only takes a few minutes."

or

"Enable GPU Accelerated Compositing in Chrome to view 3D transforms.
The 3D transforms in this demo are only supported by Chrome if you enable GPU Accelerated Compositing.

If you’d like to experience these transitions:

Open a new tab in Chrome with the URL “about:flags”
Click on Enable GPU Accelerated Compositing
Restart Chrome
Watch it again"

But it should never have happend.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Flash usage
by lucas_maximus on Mon 9th Jan 2012 13:06 in reply to "RE[6]: Flash usage"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

The thing is a couple of years ago, we were in the position where we could build nice XHTML apps. Now because of HTML 5 and because everyone is chasing the new "Shiny Shiny", we are in another state of Churn yet again.

The only really positive thing to come out of this are the Geolocation APIs, but they seem to work differently on pretty much every browser (BTW the way IE9's impletation works is how I think it should work, Mozilla does a best guess based on IP).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Flash usage
by Lennie on Mon 9th Jan 2012 13:23 in reply to "RE[7]: Flash usage"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

HTML5 actually creates specifications of things people were already doing. And HTML5 does it in a backwardcompatible way, with easy fallback to a JavaScript shim.

The churn is good, XHTML or an incompatible XHTML2 not so much. I would rather have HTML with the HTML5-parser specification as it is now. People will always create sloppy code or just mistakes in the syntax. It is good to specify how the browsers should all interpret those mistakes.

Pages should just be displayed. Unlike XML (XHTML) which found one problem and just trows it's hands up and says do it yourself.

The bad things are that HTML5 forms specifications and implementations are actually so disappointing: http://vimeo.com/33712504

It looked like it could have made life so much easier but they seemed to have messed it up. :-(

Reply Parent Score: 2