Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux Won't Get Aura UI Stack Until Google Chrome 33

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Bloated

    Sounds like Chrome is getting really, big, bloated, complex and high maintenance.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
      That's never free. Using undocumented features is a time bomb for breakage. Anyway, I agree they could wait to bring Aura until such features cease to be available (and they are likely to, because undocumented also means there is no promise they will keep working).
      He said "sometimes" undocumented, and I don't think they are explicitly depending on undocumented features. What he meant was that apple's cocoa framework already utilizes a lot of hardware acceleration features, so they get that 'for free', and that not all of cocoa's use of hardware acceleration is documented (but I'm sure a lot of it is). Since cocoa already utilizes a lot of hardware acceleration, then aura is simply not advantageous on osx.

      On the linux side GTK doesn't really provide a whole lot of opengl hardware acceleration stuff, if any at all, same for win32 on the windows side, they pretty much just have basic 3d acceleration afaik. And they've already been working on aura for their chromeos, and now they are working on bringing aura over to windows and linux because it has the advantage of providing a lot more hardware acceleration than the native toolkits.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by bwat47 View Post
        He said "sometimes" undocumented, and I don't think they are explicitly depending on undocumented features. What he meant was that apple's cocoa framework already utilizes a lot of hardware acceleration features, so they get that 'for free', and that not all of cocoa's use of hardware acceleration is documented (but I'm sure a lot of it is). Since cocoa already utilizes a lot of hardware acceleration, then aura is simply not advantageous on osx.
        Maybe there's another quote about this somewhere, but the one quote here in these forums said nothing at all about performance or hardware acceleration in cocoa. He said that they want to provide a native look and feel on macs - which is a very common complaint about cross-platform apps there. Linux and Windows users are much more used to having applications that don't quite integrate as well into the native system, and you see such complaints much less often. It makes perfect sense that they'd consider using the native controls important on macs but not other platforms, and that has nothing to do with performance. It's all about the UX, as the quote itself said.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by uid313 View Post
          Sounds like Chrome is getting really, big, bloated, complex and high maintenance.
          Not really. They had already removed 8.8M lines of webKit code from blink and began to address the cpu usage high,startup time slower than previous version problems which were reported from users. At present,chrome is gradually changing from webkit to blink and testing new aura ui interface etc, it will need enough time for these new features to become mature, lightweight and stable to use.
          Last edited by hooluupog; 10-17-2013, 12:53 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by remenic View Post
            I'm sensing a lot of enthusiasm, but I don't get why. The Chrome UI already flies. It's cool for them developers to be able to share the same UI code between Windows, Linux and ChromeOS, but does it benefit me, as a user, as well?

            On my computer (i7 with HD4000), IE 10 is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay faster than Chrome, scrolling, swiping, and zooming is just... instant. But I really don't like IE (and I only have Linux on it as of now anyway) so I'd like it to be fully accelerated

            Comment


            • #21
              hmpf

              Originally posted by bwat47 View Post
              A lot of people like firefox do to mozilla's better respect of user-privacy, and/or because of its superior customization, but become dissatisfied with how slow firefox moves on features such as hardware acceleration. Chrome, safari, and IE currently wipe the floor with firefox when it comes to hardware acceleration :/.
              Yeah, but where do you really see that in your day-to-day use of a browser? Probably nowhere (except the new google maps). There are still some pretty good reasons for going with Firefox despite awesome (but basically moot) hardware acceleration. Try using Chrome in portrait mode on a Tegra 2 (or slower) android device and then try it on Firefox; the difference is butter smoothness (Firefox) to horrid choppiness (Chrome). And since I like using one browser across all my devices (given bookmark/history syncing), I'll be sticking to Firefox.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by doom_Oo7 View Post
                On my computer (i7 with HD4000), IE 10 is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay faster than Chrome, scrolling, swiping, and zooming is just... instant. But I really don't like IE (and I only have Linux on it as of now anyway) so I'd like it to be fully accelerated
                I find IE10 to be slower than firefox (which has had access to hardware acceleration in its UI since 2009) on my i7-3720qm (Ivybridge HD4000).

                Comment


                • #23
                  Chromium currently blacklists a lot of GPU acceleration on Linux at the moment, mainly due to many shipped distro drivers being buggy. Unfortunately it's not very fine grained, and even if you have recent or git snapshots with the bugs fixed you don't get to go full-speed unless you completely disable the GPU blacklist in "chrome://flags", but then it might enable a feature that really is broken on your set up...

                  (... I patch my chromium build to un-blacklist the features I know works on my systems, works well here :-) )

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by s_j_newbury View Post
                    Chromium currently blacklists a lot of GPU acceleration on Linux at the moment, mainly due to many shipped distro drivers being buggy. Unfortunately it's not very fine grained, and even if you have recent or git snapshots with the bugs fixed you don't get to go full-speed unless you completely disable the GPU blacklist in "chrome://flags", but then it might enable a feature that really is broken on your set up...

                    (... I patch my chromium build to un-blacklist the features I know works on my systems, works well here :-) )
                    What I've found, as a Mesa 9.2/Linux 3.11 user, is that Chrome simply tries to detect which card do I have, and then applies workarounds without caring about what driver do I have. That means: if I don't mess with chrome://flags, I get bogus workarounds designed for Catalyst and half of the possible hardware acceleration gets blocked.
                    Last edited by Alejandro Nova; 10-17-2013, 08:18 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by molecule-eye View Post
                      Yeah, but where do you really see that in your day-to-day use of a browser? Probably nowhere (except the new google maps). There are still some pretty good reasons for going with Firefox despite awesome (but basically moot) hardware acceleration. Try using Chrome in portrait mode on a Tegra 2 (or slower) android device and then try it on Firefox; the difference is butter smoothness (Firefox) to horrid choppiness (Chrome). And since I like using one browser across all my devices (given bookmark/history syncing), I'll be sticking to Firefox.
                      While I understand what you're getting at, you can't really compare Chrome and Firefox on mobile and the desktop. Besides, while Firefox might be smoother on Tegra 2 it is a little slower on my Galaxy Nexus than Chrome and much slower on my LG G2.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Someone asked why people use Firefox while Chrome is clearly superior in some aspects.
                        While it's true (no doubt) that Chrome is faster, more secure, robust, much more modern...
                        It lacks features.

                        Addons... is just one thing. Mozilla itself is killing the ecosystem of addons there, so it's not any better.
                        I wonder when will the newsletter arrive that Mozilla will abandon every former addon.

                        But, that's just ONE thing.
                        Other things I miss from Chrome:
                        - A proper URL bar. I know Mozilla made something new (not sure about that, Opera/IE is like this as well) with awesome bar, but damn. If I been somewhere, I can find it. Anytime. With Chrome, that's not gonna work.
                        It tries to guess, tries to search the web, does everything but finds me the page I look for.

                        - The UI. Why the hell did they dumb down the password, cookie and bookmark manager so damn much?
                        They are not even managers, just "viewers" if you can call them even that.
                        You can't sort your bookmarks for example, tidy up your stuff... it's a terrible, really overly dumb UI. (Gnome feel, lol.)

                        If they could fix those two...
                        (There was an awesome bar addon for chrome, but it was far from good. The dev did everything he could but it just felt way out of place.)

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                          Sounds like Chrome is getting really, big, bloated, complex and high maintenance.
                          nah it's not gecko

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Most tests in the last two years shows Firefox to be faster than Chrome. Fancy that

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Back in the days when Firefox lost all benchmarks, people cried out "but muh features...".
                              Now Firefox managed to hack together tools to win benchmarks, but it's still utterly slow: "but it won, right?".

                              In real world, Firefox sucks. Try Maps, or any 3D/GL/modern site. Heck, even simple sites.
                              It does not take a rocket scientist to clearly see the difference. Kinda like using a netbook and getting a powerful PC after that.

                              One more thing. If you have LOW amount of memory, use Firefox. Chrome truly eats up every bit of memory available.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Ruse View Post
                                Back in the days when Firefox lost all benchmarks, people cried out "but muh features...".
                                Now Firefox managed to hack together tools to win benchmarks, but it's still utterly slow: "but it won, right?".

                                In real world, Firefox sucks. Try Maps, or any 3D/GL/modern site. Heck, even simple sites.
                                It does not take a rocket scientist to clearly see the difference. Kinda like using a netbook and getting a powerful PC after that.

                                One more thing. If you have LOW amount of memory, use Firefox. Chrome truly eats up every bit of memory available.
                                I have no idea where you are coming from. And accusing Firefox of programming to win benchmarks? Lame

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X