What does your browser look like?
Title says it all really:
What does your browser look like and why?
The browser is a nightly Firefox trunk build ("Minefield")
The layout is simply done by Showing only the menu bar with small icons.
Elements from left to right: Navigation, Reload, Stop, Menu, Location, Search, Bookmarks, Fullscreen.
The design is the default theme with the "Elegance" persona applied.
The Persona icon in the bottom left corner is the only icon added by extension.
Window design is Windows7 Aero with black and about 50% opacity.
Close button on tabs is moved via browser.tabs.closeButtons:3
P.S. The window is usually quite a bit wider so that the location bar expands.
Installed addons: Adblock+, APNG Edit, Base64 Encoder, Chatzilla, DOM Inspector, Firebug (only enabled when I need it, as it's prone to create conflicts), FlashGot, Full Screen Video, Greasemonkey, LiveHttpHeaders, PasswordExporter, Personas
What does your browser look like and why?
The browser is a nightly Firefox trunk build ("Minefield")
The layout is simply done by Showing only the menu bar with small icons.
Elements from left to right: Navigation, Reload, Stop, Menu, Location, Search, Bookmarks, Fullscreen.
The design is the default theme with the "Elegance" persona applied.
The Persona icon in the bottom left corner is the only icon added by extension.
Window design is Windows7 Aero with black and about 50% opacity.
Close button on tabs is moved via browser.tabs.closeButtons:3
P.S. The window is usually quite a bit wider so that the location bar expands.
Installed addons: Adblock+, APNG Edit, Base64 Encoder, Chatzilla, DOM Inspector, Firebug (only enabled when I need it, as it's prone to create conflicts), FlashGot, Full Screen Video, Greasemonkey, LiveHttpHeaders, PasswordExporter, Personas
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
Looks nice, but I would not like the small location bar. Since i limit the width of my browser it would still be too small then.
Mine looks quite different. It's basically form follows function.
I love to see the full URL and GET Parameters in the location bar since i care a lot about how web applications work. I don't mind spending some vertical space for that since I'm on 1920x1200.
I use the English version of Firefox, because i hate applications translated to German. Just makes menu entries longer and feels awkward to me.
I put the Bookmarks toolbar to the Right of the Menu and limited it to show only icons. That way i have 1 Click access to my most visited websites.
There's a lot going on in the status bar.
DownloadHelper - I don't really remember using it. It's for downloading flash movies
TextArea Cache - A lifesaving add-on, because it saves backups of what i type, so i can restore them if the browser crashed or i accidently navigated away.
AdBlock - Does just that
Spelling correction, changing automatically between English and German depending on what site i am on
FoxyProxy - Easy Access to Proxy configurations, which comes in handy when analyzing web applications with WebScarab
Greasemonkey - Enables me to write custom scripts to adapt web applications to my liking
JsView - Gives my quicker access to a web sites JavaScript and CSS files
Stylish - Lets me modify websites CSS
Torbutton - For Enabling/Disabling Tor
The location bar is the thing that resized when I make the window wider. I made it a lot more narrow for the screenshot, it's usually set to around 80% of my 1680px (external) / 1440px(internal) resolution, so I can see most parameters. And if I really want to see what's happening, I open LiveHttpHeaders in the sidebar.
I should probably add what addons I am using (even if I disable the icons):
Adblock+, APNG Edit, Base64 Encoder, Chatzilla, DOM Inspector, Firebug (only enabled when I need it, as it's prone to create conflicts), FlashGot, Full Screen Video, Greasemonkey, LiveHttpHeaders, PasswordExporter, Personas
Well, that depends on who you ask. Complex CSS selectors for example are very slow in Safari, but simple selectors are relatively slow in Firefox, because the overhead per function call is longer
Safari is generally more hacking and more benchmark oriented. For example when the system is very busy (as is usually the case during benchmarks) Safari will drastically reduce the number of events passed to the page.
Try it: Run some benchmark and try to select some text while it is running... notice anything?
But concerning raw Javascript speed, Safari4 currently really is faster. Firefox on the other hand is much more memory efficient.
There are pros and cons for any browser really (well, except Internet Explorer)
You can see it here - it's just almost always fully opened on my 2nd monitor letting me play games (and/or do my uni work) and browse the internet at the same time.
It's a custom Firefox Persona made with the cover of "Everything that Happens will Happen on this Tour" by David Byrne. Mozilla won't allow me to release it.
I have configured a lot of actions to it in a way that seems intuitive to me and use it all the time for switching between tabs, closing tabs, undo closing tabs, closing other tabs, going to top or bottom of the page, history back-/forward and following previous-/next link. All with just some short mouse movements.
Oh, sorry, I think I missed a "r"
How true. I can't believe that 60% of the computer users use that crap.
ANYWAY, consequently, my browser just looks like the plain old Internet Explorer 8.
NDA Stuff?
I was about to say the same thing.
Well, if you wipe the cache on both and measure the load time, then that's pretty much what you can expect (seeing as the server responses are the bottleneck here). Try to load some long files from HDD and see what happens, for example: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/
I'd love to point you to pages that make good use of the additional speed offered by Firefox/Safari/Opera, but unfortunately any that do just don't work with MSIE's crappy rendering engine and missing features (including my own).
On any other browser we can by now render realtime 3D animations, the only reason why we can't do it on the web is because MSIE would use up all your memory, then crash.
But, we can't because MSIE is holding us back. We can't make use of the speed other browsers are offering while MSIE still exists.
The other thing is that developing MSIE compatibility costs a lot of time & money. Money we don't get from Microsoft, so we have to charge the customers for it. That and it's really quite frustrating to develop a program for 2 hours, then spend 20 getting it to work in MSIE (no, I'm not exaggerating).
Anyway, now Microsoft aren't allowed to ship Internet Explorer with Windows in Europe, you'll probably be happy to hear that you might get your wish of people not using IE anymore.
We could also bring down your bandwidth usage quite a bit if we were allowed to use the more modern standards that everybody except MSIE supports. Heck, getting rid of animated GIFs and replacing them with APNG/lossless-h264 alone would probably reduce your bandwidth bill by 10%. Not having to download 10 different versions of each transparent image because MSIE doesn't handle transparency correctly would probably bring another 10%. And creating most standard effects dynamically (like reflections) instead of downloading prerendered images may even bring in 20%.
More processing power doesn't mean more data, it means less. You can ask Yare for more details on CPU-vs-filesize
Music visualization
Voxel island
Mario Kart
3D Model viewer
Dynamic texturing
Those are nice demo's but, it makes me wonder, would we really want those in a browser. I mean Music Visualisation can already been done well by media players such as WMP(Yeah, I still use that too along side video plugins, so sue me.) and you can also have a library of your songs in those programs, allowing you to choose what ever song you want to see the visualisation for. All games, like mario kart, work fine in an .exe, so why change it, you'd also be forced to go online if you had games in your browser. As for all of the modeling, the only thing I can see that to be good for would be for game developers wanting to show off their character models or world models or whatever, and I can already see that in screenshots.
I don't know much about the demos, because i still use firefox 3.0.x until some add ons have been ported and i see a need for change, but part of the Features are HTML5 Elements which could replace proprietary and therefore problematic plugins in some places such as Flash, Real Player and Quicktime.
That kind of progress is important, because the Web needs standards and not several different approaches for the same thing.
I am worried when I see the competition between JavaFX, Silverlight and Flash. Just more junk for the Browser to handle. Although I like Java, but that's not the point.
Who knows what people come up with when the possibilities exists. Just look at AJAX. The technology has been existing for years, and suddenly, several years later, someone comes up with a way of using it that is considered a revolution for web applications.
The demos are naturally just that: demos. They're not useful on their own, they just show what the technology is capable of so that when it is needed, people know that it can be done.
@DjNDB, You're right one day someone may find an ingenius way to incorporate those demo's into something revolutionary for webpages, but that day isn't today.
So, Firefox can do Mode 7 now?
If you want to see the current progress on the GL API, check out http://www.c3dl.org/ . You'll need Vlad's WebGL plugin ( https://people.mozilla.com/~vladimir/canvas3d/ ), which right now is only available for 3.5b4 though
*And* Blast Processing. Consider your mind blown.