News Firefox 3.7 gets Direct2D support

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 27 Nov 2009.

  1. CardJoe

    CardJoe Freelance Journalist

    Joined:
    3 Apr 2007
    Posts:
    11,343
    Likes Received:
    292
  2. NuTech

    NuTech New Member

    Joined:
    18 Mar 2002
    Posts:
    2,222
    Likes Received:
    96
    My first thought, "Why on earth is Firefox endorsing Direct2Drive???"
     
  3. stoff3r

    stoff3r New Member

    Joined:
    20 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    185
    Likes Received:
    0
    Title

    I have never liked scrolling on web-pages, it's allways choppy, so i had my hopes up for this one, however, things are not really different. The scrolling is mostly the same, text input is slow, switching fans takes like half a second up to one second some times. Firefox uses 20-30 % cpu all the time, so not really any improvements here. But Alpha yeah I get it :)

    No wonder they call this version "Minefield" by the way.
     
  4. dire_wolf

    dire_wolf Last Of The Dovakhiin

    Joined:
    24 Jul 2002
    Posts:
    2,433
    Likes Received:
    21
    Text input noticeabley slower but navigating and scolling much better/smoother, a few graphical glitches on forums (horizontal lines) but seems like an excellenrt idea
     
    Last edited: 28 Nov 2009
  5. Aracos

    Aracos New Member

    Joined:
    11 Feb 2009
    Posts:
    1,338
    Likes Received:
    47
    What about Linux? Does that mean they're gonna use openGL or something?
     
  6. Flibblebot

    Flibblebot Smile with me

    Joined:
    19 Apr 2005
    Posts:
    4,588
    Likes Received:
    134
    Is it really noticeable to such an extent? According to the graph, most sites render in software in 10-12 milliseconds and with the hardware rendering that figure is halved.

    But is it really possible to tell the difference between 10ms & 5ms - that is, between one hundredth and one two-hundredth of a second? Especially given that the real bottleneck is probably not in the rendering but the internet connection speed and then the parsing of the HTML and whatever else?

    I'm just wondering whether this isn't just marketing hype...:sigh:
     
  7. Joeymac

    Joeymac New Member

    Joined:
    3 Oct 2006
    Posts:
    243
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought that Vista didn't accelerate D2D? Windows 7 does, but Vista didn't, that's why drop down list boxes lag slower than even XP on Vista. Also when they updated Vista to DX11 they didn't include the new D2D->D3D virtualization...
     
  8. gavomatic57

    gavomatic57 New Member

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    5,088
    Likes Received:
    10
    No, Vista got Direct2D in a platform update that coincided with SP3's release.
    Clicky
     
  9. knuck

    knuck Hate your face

    Joined:
    25 Jan 2002
    Posts:
    7,668
    Likes Received:
    302
    I was about to ask if installing the alpha meant I had to uninstall my current version but then remembered it was already screwed up anyway so what the hell, I'll give it a shot
    edit: never mind, no installation required :D



    First observation : Text is slightly blurry at some places. Rendering is definitely different but it's hard to say if it's faster. I guess I'll have to test for more than 12.5seconds
     
    Last edited: 27 Nov 2009
  10. Shagbag

    Shagbag All glory to the Hypnotoad!

    Joined:
    9 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    320
    Likes Received:
    4
    Whichever OS has the dominant desktop market position, this will always be the case. At the moment and for the foreseeable short- to medium-term future, it's Windows.
     
  11. Redkachina

    Redkachina Califragilistsic Expialidocious

    Joined:
    2 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    37
    Likes Received:
    1
    No installation req'd.Its indeed faster than my chrome..I agreed with Ghys, slight blurred text..easily adjusted using Win 7 text tools..
     
  12. dec

    dec [blank space]

    Joined:
    10 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    314
    Likes Received:
    7
    using it right now. its about the same as firefox 3.5. i found the text "problems" already Does anyone else think calling it minefield sounds alot cooler than firefox?
     
  13. Redkachina

    Redkachina Califragilistsic Expialidocious

    Joined:
    2 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    37
    Likes Received:
    1
    Apparently,I found that the more tabs are opened, more GPU memory are consumed too.. (200MB Chrome 24 tabs vs 648MB Minefield FF 30 tabs), I wonder if this affects gaming..
     
  14. Vigilante

    Vigilante Member

    Joined:
    30 May 2008
    Posts:
    39
    Likes Received:
    2
    What I find amazing is that the browser is still leagues behind Chrome/Chromium in terms of performance, and it doesn't even use any of these kinds of technologies (yet).
     
  15. knuck

    knuck Hate your face

    Joined:
    25 Jan 2002
    Posts:
    7,668
    Likes Received:
    302
    leagues ? Chrome never impressed me at all...
     
  16. gavomatic57

    gavomatic57 New Member

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    5,088
    Likes Received:
    10
    Me neither. It doesn't have the add-ons that firefox has and no marginal speed improvements can fix that.
     
  17. Joeymac

    Joeymac New Member

    Joined:
    3 Oct 2006
    Posts:
    243
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've found Chrome to be much slower than firefox. Controversial I know! But I play a facebook game called hobowars and I can't use Chrome, it's way too slow. In the game you have to click through lots of pages to use up your "time" by begging or fighting other hobos. Take too long and some one else will kill you first. With Chrome you open a page and the mouse will change to it's busy animation and doesn't like to get interrupted if you want to click a link before the page has finished. Not only does Firefox instantly load the very light hobowars webpages. It also instantly responds to interrupts and doesn't waste CPU cycles by switching to a busy mouse animation.
     
  18. Vigilante

    Vigilante Member

    Joined:
    30 May 2008
    Posts:
    39
    Likes Received:
    2
    Whether it "impressed" you is not an issue here, some people simply don't like Chrome/chromium and I'm happy with that. But it doesn't change the facts that Chrome (And other webkit-based browsers like Safari) are the best performing web browser platforms available. I hate safari with a passion, but I am still level headed enough to admit that it's built on a solid foundation that's generally better than most other browsers - Internet explorer in particular. Not that I'm suggesting that is difficult to accomplish.

    Chromium has had addon support for 4+ months, and it will be officially supported when Chrome 4 is released to the public, which shouldn't be too long considering the pace of development on the browser so far. Chrome/Chromium and Internet Explorer are the only popular web browsers that have tab and plugin sandboxing, Chromium has the extremely efficient V8 javascript engine and it's built on the solid, open source underpinnings of the Webkit platform. Other than personal preference, which is obviously not at issue here, there is zero reason for anyone who doesn't have an emotional attachment to their web browser to actively choose Firefox over Chrome.
     
  19. gavomatic57

    gavomatic57 New Member

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    5,088
    Likes Received:
    10
    What other reason matters??
     
  20. knuck

    knuck Hate your face

    Joined:
    25 Jan 2002
    Posts:
    7,668
    Likes Received:
    302
    my thoughts exactly. Chrome works perfectly fine, it's just that it never lived up to the hype for me. It's just another browser
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page