3 ms·
There's a good reason they aren't targeting the high end: they can't. A significant proportion of the weight behind non-web based UI comes from the need to eff
by fidotron 12y ago
There's a good reason they aren't targeting the high end: they can't.
A significant proportion of the weight behind non-web based UI comes from the need to efficiently leverage the GPU. You can almost get away without this on low res screens, but at 720p and beyond you need it as the sheer number of pixels starts to kill you.
Google have thrown massive amounts of effort into making Chrome look like it's almost there, but the reality is the layout model doesn't map to well performing GPU primitives nearly as well as, say, Cocoa. Mozilla haven't been able to get even a fraction of a distance down this path.
For this reason they'd have been better off chasing something like e-readers, since there the update speed isn't a big deal. But don't let anything like reason, logic or technical competence get in the way of Mozilla's decision making.
- icebraining 12y agoYour argument goes against my experience with Firefox for Android on my higher-than-720p Nexus 7. If it's slower than Chrome, I can barely notice; it's definitively not "a fraction of a distance down the path".
- soapdog 12y agoIf you're enjoying Firefox for Android can I persuade you to try Firefox Aurora for Android. Even though I am using Nightly on my Android, I don't recommend going with the emotions of a nightly build. I am asking you to try Aurora because its a bit ahead of the normal release and IMHO performs even better. :-)
- icebraining 12y agoI will, thanks.