Re: Technical challenges to porting IE to Linux?
- From: "Jean-Christophe Vanhalle" <the.isz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 11:17:26 +0200
Hi,
Firefox (and thundebird and mozilla) don't use the os native widgets all the
time. Most of them are drawn using gecko (mozilla rendering engine). This
explains some of the symptoms.
Eventually firefox is a "xul application", meaning that the whole interface
is rendered using some kind of special htm dedicated to application
interface rendering. This is a verbose language that needs more power to run
(remember that sometimes it has to run on the fly, eg: code isn't
necessarily compiled) and more ram.
Now about page loading time.. well i think it deals more with the way gecko
renders things, eg: not in the same order as ie or opera would, not
"painting" any border unless a background has been defined, only rendering
text once every table has been drawn, etc.. (that's a guess based on
personal experience though). That would explain why one would feel
firefox/opera/konq/safari being different from other browsers.
If you wish to compare gecko with ie you can try various "dual display"
browsers or simply have a look at kameleon. Once there even was an option in
maxthon/myie2 to use gecko (this was experimental though).
"Lau Lei Cheong" <leu_lc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit dans le message de news:
uEySPeDVFHA.2540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Partly, but I think the major reason is that, because of the intergration
> of IE in Windows, Windows will not function normally unless the required
> part of IE is loaded at startup. (Just remember some rumors that Windows
> will drop some percents of performance if user removed IE from Win98, and
> believe that still hold true for newer Windows OSs) And that creates a
> difference.
>
> Think of some software that includes a startup icon that partial loads
> itself at startup. They really seems to take shorter loadtime than others
> don't.
>
> "theseer540" <theseer540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ¼¶¼g©ó¶l¥ó·s»D:DA20E5BD-2B70-4015-BCFD-98BE88631827@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>I understand how IE has been integrated into Windows, but I guess my point
>> is, then how did they port to Mac OS X ?
>>
>> On another note, one of the strengths of IE over firefox is that it loads
>> a
>> LOT faster than firefox on Windows. Why? Is this because because the
>> code is
>> heavily optimised for Windows, or because the Gecko rendering environment
>> is
>> inherently slower than IEs ?
>>
>> "Gary Smith" wrote:
>>
>>> theseer540 <theseer540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > I was just wondering whether there were any specific challenges to
>>> > porting IE
>>> > to Linux (Besides the political issues). IE was succesfully ported to
>>> > OS X,
>>> > and as it is on a BSD base, I imagine the port to linux would be
>>> > relatively
>>> > painless. I know that a lot of linux users don't like IE, but there
>>> > are
>>> > plenty of websites that REQUIRE it. Any ideas/comments?
>>>
>>> I would guess that the major challenge to porting IE to Linux is that
>>> Microsoft has no interest in doing so or in allowing anyone else to do
>>> so.
>>> The next greatest challenge would be the extreme integration of IE into
>>> Windows. Making it work independently of the operating system would be
>>> a
>>> big job.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Gary L. Smith gls432@xxxxxxxxx
>>> Columbus, Ohio
>>>
>
>
.
- References:
- Technical challenges to porting IE to Linux?
- From: theseer540
- Re: Technical challenges to porting IE to Linux?
- From: Gary Smith
- Re: Technical challenges to porting IE to Linux?
- From: theseer540
- Re: Technical challenges to porting IE to Linux?
- From: Lau Lei Cheong
- Technical challenges to porting IE to Linux?
- Prev by Date: Windows Opening Twice
- Next by Date: Re: Java Applet issues with XP SP2
- Previous by thread: Re: Technical challenges to porting IE to Linux?
- Next by thread: Re: Technical challenges to porting IE to Linux?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|