I start this topic, because approach of HTML5 on AmigaOne computers and clones is very close. Thus before all actions of adapting HTML5 to AmigaOne browsers I'd like to know how it is planned to port appropriate procedures. Are choke points to be PPC assembly parts? All this asking because if we won't plan the porting the code can be too slow. I think this can be avoided fairly easily by proper port planning.
If you mean the "simple" standard specification support from the W3C's recommendation then we can say that even current OWB (both versions) or NetSurf support it in an almost complete manner
But if you mean a mere <video> tag support (a specific part of the HTML5 specification) then no ... we can't play them yet on our current webbrowser (except Timberwolf)
So in short:
- HTML5 is more or less supported on current OWB 3.32, MUI-OWB 1.9, NetSurf 2.9 and Timberwolf 4.0.1 Beta (each one have its own proper support, worse or better it depends of the implementation)
- <video> tag are supported only on Timberwolf, but still slow and unusable in general ... i don't know NetSurf but adding a proper video support on OWB still possible (as the MorphOS version) however we need a good coder that can do the work implementing all the stuff into the browser
samo79 wrote: - <video> tag are supported only on Timberwolf, but still slow and unusable in general ... i don't know NetSurf
From NetSurf 2.9 changelog: * Added the beginnings of a gstreamer binding.
That's as far as video support goes. Patches welcome!
Officially NetSurf only supports HTML 4.01, although it has a HTML 5 compliant parser. I'm not sure how much difference there is between HTML 4.01 and HTML 5 though, besides the video and audio tags.
From NetSurf 2.9 changelog: * Added the beginnings of a gstreamer binding.
That's as far as video support goes. Patches welcome!
Yep now that you say i remember that You also ported a first version of GStreamer but still not very tested right ?
However i think NetSurf will have other priority first but sure having a working video tag soon would be fantastic
Quote:
Officially NetSurf only supports HTML 4.01, although it has a HTML 5 compliant parser. I'm not sure how much difference there is between HTML 4.01 and HTML 5 though, besides the video and audio tags.
Well HTML5 is a mixture of old and new standard with some integration here and there, it's even not consider finished yet, about new things for what i remember it add a <canvas> elements and also a sort of integration for SVG as well .. and surely many new important and less important tags
There is much more than video and audio to HTML5, and the difference between HTML4 and HTML5 is really quite big :
mathml canvas new elements many new form types drag'n'drop application cache iframe stuff geolocation webgl websockets xml http requests v2 file read/write apis session storage local storage indexeddb notifications workers and probably more..
Anyway, having video support without javascript is a bit pointless. Most sites don't use the plain video element as-is and they're almost always heavily scripted to have their own UI (like youtube, vimeo, dailymotion and so on).
It's however possible to extract direct links and display the video in a plain html5 video element, but for this, javascript is again the easiest way to go (i wrote some extension in OWB to do this when HTML5 mode is not available for some videos in YouTube, for instance).
samo79 wrote: You also ported a first version of GStreamer but still not very tested right ?
That's an overstatement; it's pretty much untested and needs glib which is only partially ported. Somebody needs to try and link a proper application to either/both of them and see if they do what they are supposed to.
Thanks for reply. My another question: Why OS4 dev are porting FireFox (one of latest version) instead of speeding up the existing browser: OWB or port some older browser like Netscape Navigator? OWB is working rather slow on my loaned Sam440ep.
Latest FireFox is very big and computer resource consuming application. Why are they porting such application instead of speeding up existing or port older version, which was designed for lesser systems?
Hyperion has nothing to do with the OWB port, so they have NO power on it
Current OWB, i mean the MUI version currently called "Odyssey Web Browser" in its latest form are developer by kas1e and Denill starting from the original Fab's source from MorphOS, they are 100% indipendent developers and of course even the browser project are completely indipendent and not releted to any "company" out there
Take it as any other Amiga program developed by third-part devs, so what power could have Hyperion on it ?
Timbewolf instead is developed (ported) by the Friedens bros, they decide to pick it long ago but still need to be finished so final speed and any other eventual future consideration must be see later ..
Different choices, expecially on the browser world are always better than a unique one, so why not ?
Quote:
or port some older browser like Netscape Navigator
Netscape is not opensource so it can't be ported on AmigaOS, also it's a dead project that was replaced by the Mozilla Suite first and then by the Firefox project (looong ago).
Instead Timberwolf (that use exactly the same core of the old Netscape even if more modern) is an opensource project, is much more advanced, faster and feature rich compared to the old but always glorious Netscape navigator
BTW if you want a fast browser you can try NetSurf:
Why OS4 dev are porting FireFox (one of latest version) instead of speeding up the existing browser: OWB or port some older browser like Netscape Navigator?
Porting an older browser is pretty much completely pointless. If you want old and fast, use IBrowse. NetSurf is also pretty fast but has support for a lot more modern stuff of course.
It's not the new browsers that are resource hungry - it is modern web pages that are resource hungry and very feature rich and therefore need new browsers to even work correctly. The complexity making newer browsers a bit slower is simply required by today's web pages.
Using older web browser might make old and simple web pages a bit faster but most newer web pages won't work.
Software developer for Amiga OS3 and OS4. Develops for OnyxSoft and the Amiga using E and C and occasionally C++
Latest FireFox is very big and computer resource consuming application. Why are they porting such application instead of speeding up existing or port older version, which was designed for lesser systems?
Because there was AmZilla bounty do this before, transferred to Amiga bounty, and they are only one that took the job. Timberwolf bounty
b) Because only way to promote and advance OS is to have a modern known app for it. Yes, if not much optimized it kinda pushes limit to SAM 460 and X1000. If several such apps appear (e.g AniCygnix and its apps are slowly usable on SAM440) G4 systems or SAM 460 will become a low end. Its not Amiga style, but is a progression.
However, OWB and MUI OWB, AWeb, Netsurf and IBrowse remain in development and are fairly faster and OWB is HTML5. Seems there is a choice for everyone.
It’s not browser that’s resource hungry it’s content on web page that that takes a lot of memory, there is also a lot new effects in HTML5 like rounded corner and transparency and video this are things that takes longer to process.
The slowness we see now is combination on how page is rendered and content that’s being displayed, now content of pages are mainly rendered by CPU, but it has become a trend to push most of that work over to GPU (hardware accelerated), the trick is move all graphics into the graphic card and let it deal whit rendering.
The problem we are having is that require a lot of RAM, and as graphic memory is shared between screens, icons, bitmap and windows, the graphic memory can easy be filled up. 32bit graphic is really expensive on Graphic memory, even tiny icons 50x50 takes big chunk when you have 1000 of this on your screen, that’s 10mb of icons only, 1620x1080 x 4 (32bit) = 6.9Mb x open screens, now load a few textures, open a few web pages whit 50 images and so on.
I think max video memory on AmigaOS4.1 was 128mb PCI cards, on PCIe cards it might be better.
Right now PCI66 bus is a major bottle neck, if you have a graphcard whit only 64mb, run into swaping quickly, any Amiga Computer whit a PCIe will have huge advantage like Sam460 or X1000.
As long as you don’t fill up graphic card memory any graphic card should be fine, so a Sam440 might have some life left, MicroA1 has bit of a problem because it can’t be expanded.
Edited by LiveForIt on 2012/6/16 11:50:46
(NutsAboutAmiga)
Basilisk II for AmigaOS4 AmigaInputAnywhere Excalibur and other tools and apps.
RNS-AMiGA-Club wrote: Thanks for reply. My another question: Why OS4 dev are porting FireFox (one of latest version) instead of speeding up the existing browser: OWB or port some older browser like Netscape Navigator? OWB is working rather slow on my loaned Sam440ep.
Latest FireFox is very big and computer resource consuming application. Why are they porting such application instead of speeding up existing or port older version, which was designed for lesser systems?
Beg your pardon, but you propose to port a closed-source program instead of an open-source modernized version?
As to why go for Firefox: I invite you to try this.
- Start Firefox on any computer. - Go to "Add-Ons". - Search for "AdBlock", "WOT", "Stylish", "All-in-One-Gestures" or any other set of addons that are available for Firefox (and therefore also work in Timberwolf).
Or Web Developer Tools. Or whatever else you need in terms of Addons. Firefox is a modern browser, and the scope goes beyond mere web browsing.
Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.
What I was going to notice is that less modern browsers like OWB works rather slow even on powerful machines (haven't tried MUI-OWB because can't update my system because it's loaned). And there is even more complex browser like Firefox ported. So natural thing is that it will be slower than even OWB unless drastically optimized.
I post this from latest Firefox 13.0.1 and the program got significally speed boost! The pages are scrolled much faster. So it is possible to optimize.
And why exactly do you think a webkit-based browser is less modern and complex than Firefox?
WebKit is more compliant than Firefox in about every HTML5 test out there, and it's also significantly faster.
As for the browser UI itself, OWB might not offer everything FireFox gives (though you should really better check twice), but unlike FireFox, OWB still comes by default with AdBlock, userscripts (same as greasemonkey), WebInspector (like FireBug) and several other things, and following amigaos standards and technologies.
This "Mozilla is a technology and is much more than a browser" argument is a bit empty to me... Where are all those XUL applications that will benefit AmigaOS, exactly?
Both browsers are good! All parties involved are doing a great job moving the browser options forward.
The cross-platform work being done on OWB is great! The work being done on Firefox is also great! It brings some interesting technology (yes, such as XUL) and a large third-party ecosystem.
The good news is we are close to parity with the "major" platforms out there. One less reason to need a PC/Mac.
Nice work to all involved. Let's not quibble too much and look at how far the browsing options have come. It is quite exciting! (I'm excited for web sockets).
News feed
OS4 Feedback forum
OS4Depot Feedback forum
Amigabounty forum
OpenAmiga forum
AmiCygnix forum
ABC shell forum
AmiKit forum
Cinnamon Writer forum
CodeBench forum
Digital Universe forum
Dopus 5 forum
E-UAE forum
Gnash forum
Ibrowse forum
JAmiga forum
Odyssey forum
OWB forum
Qt forum
SmartFileSystem forum
Timberwolf forum
TouchDevice forum
TuneNet forum
Unsatisfactory Software forum
Donate
