Classilla's future focus

[ClassicHasClass]

That's exactly my point.

But then I think WebKit will eat the web anyhow. We will damn it in the same tones we damned Internet Explorer, you mark my words.

 

[techknight]

I always hated internet explorer. IE6 came out, and i turned against it real quick. always called it shiternet explorer and i wont ever go back to it. lol.

 

[MidnightCommando]

Just a point of order:

Classilla isn't slow. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

3. Speed, but considering what it's running on, Id say its pretty fast as-is and cpu tailored builds will only help to accentuate that.

CPU-tailored builds may not actually be able to do much, I'm afraid. The issue isn't with Classilla's use of the CPU, it's actually pretty performant even on a 225MHz 603, and on a 400MHz G3 it screams. The problem is that it's Mozilla. As in, the whole of the Mozilla Application Suite. And all that functionality which doesn't really get used that much takes up a lot of RAM. Let's face it, Communicator's always been a pig, Mozilla didn't fix that shortcoming at all. If there's any real speed enhancement to be made, it's making Classilla light enough that it doesn't have to page VM all the time - if it could be stripped down to the browser alone Classilla would be a damn sight faster and snappier.

And Herr Kaiser, if I manage to teach myself Classic Mac OS Programming, you bet I'll try to penetrate the mysteries of the Mozilla codebase, you may very well have a new coder. Alas, probably not soon, for I am a bear of little brain.

 

[IPalindromeI]

...like Firefox, but for OS 9?

Firefox got very chubby nowadays; SeaMonkey is a lot nimbler.

 

[theos911]

I didn't mean that to sound as though it is slow. I meant, that considering the low end CPUs it is running on, it does very well at doing things that the rest of the world feels needs a 3GHz+ Multi Core cpu to do.

CPU-tailored builds may not actually be able to do much, I'm afraid.

I didn't say they'd make a big difference, but there should be a difference.

On the note of helping: I plan to step-up as a distiller once I get some real HTML/CSS/Javascript courses under my belt next year. Most of the stuff I currently know about those standards is likely basic enough that it wouldn't be causing problems.

 

[MidnightCommando]

...like Firefox, but for OS 9?

No, no. More like Netscape Navigator to Classilla's Netscape Communicator. But yes, for OS 8.6 and 9.

it does very well at doing things that the rest of the world feels needs a 3GHz+ Multi Core cpu to do.

Well, you see, I have this strong suspicion that the sort of people who make Web 2.0 sites and use AJAX and do things that need eleventy million megahertz to render properly tend to be the same sort of people whose sites suffer for want of stimulating content, so it's generally no skin off my back if any of my Power Macintoshes is incapable of rendering facebook

 

[bigmessowires]

I always hated internet explorer. IE6 came out, and i turned against it real quick. always called it shiternet explorer and i wont ever go back to it.

Heh, we called it Internet Exploder. Yuck yuck yuck!

 

[ChristTrekker]

Firefox got very chubby nowadays; SeaMonkey is a lot nimbler.

I always find this so ironic, since FF was developed to replace the slow, bloated Moz App Suite. "Just a browser!" everyone screamed, so they split out the browser. "Don't throw in the kitchen sink!" everyone shouted, so they developed add-on capabilities. But it's still huge.

 

[ClassicHasClass]

Actually, I'm pretty happy with Firefox nowadays. Doesn't help us much in OS 9, alas, but TenFourFox is (in my biased dictator opinion) a lot zippier than 3.6, and not all of that is the PPC-specific work.

Still, Mozilla 1.x is still pretty fat.

 

[ClassicHasClass]

Speaking of fat, posted to macos9. This is unlikely to affect, well, anybody, but if you are using these tools you are officially on notice.

This is unlikely to affect anyone, but just in case, 9.3.0 will probably notinclude viewer, RegXPCOM or PPEmbed -- no one uses them, I don't maintain them

and PPEmbed has some issues building now, and they simply add bulk to the

release. They are holdovers from an earlier age and it is time for them to go.

People who want to build from the source code can still get them, but they

will no longer be built by default nor included with future releases of

Classilla. If you are actually using these files for something, plead your

case in Classilla issue 179.

 

[ChristTrekker]

viewer, RegXPCOM or PPEmbed

What were these?

 

[ClassicHasClass]

PPEmbed was a base app to show how PowerPlant-based embedding of Gecko worked. To my knowledge, nothing ever actually exploited that, and as a standalone app in itself it was function-free. It really is just an example to builders.

viewer was for testing certain specific test cases (which we have always passed). Since viewer is gone, the test cases can also be removed.

RegXPCOM, as the name suggests, handled XPCOM component management.