What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
All-time Low Fares for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up. Nifty all-airline calendar identifies absolute cheapest dates to fly.
59 Comments
- abbathdoom, on 03/16/2009, -4/+32Wow, is anyone else beginning to think maybe Firefox's Gecko renderer is gunna trail behind Webkit in the future?
- LiquidIse, on 03/16/2009, -6/+27In the future?
The Nitro engine in Safari 4b is the fastest javascript engine available today. (unless I am missing something, if so please let me know). Granted this is hardly all of rendering, it is a massive part, especially on sites like Digg.
Aside from that, webkit has been at or surpassing gecko with both standards compliance and speed for atleast 2 years now. - phogasmic, on 03/16/2009, -3/+18I forsee a day when all browsers use the Webkit Rendering engine. They are really pushing the envelope.
- KAMiKAZOW, on 03/16/2009, -1/+15I think the headline is misleading. At least I've got the impression that it works on the desktop, but it's just disabled. However when you take a look into the linked bug report on WebKit.org, there is a comment by one developer that says: "None of the 3d stuff is implemented on the desktop yet. It works only on the phone."
I think the reason is that Apple thought for a while that developing iPhone applications using HTML, CSS, and JavaScript is enough and only later changed their mind. Supporting 3D on the desktop also means that Apple needs to support Windows. It took MS until Vista to ship accelerated OpenGL by default, but only an early version (IIRC OpenGL 1.4, but 3.0 is the latest). That means that either a Direct 3D back-end has to be written or Safari has to rely that its Windows users download the graphics driver from the manufacturer manually to use a single OpenGL back-end. OTOT, CSS Transforms 3D is not an official W3C standard (yet). It's still a draft <a class="user" href="http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-3d-transforms/" rel="nofollow">http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-3d-transforms/</a& ... that's currently being worked on (latest revision is just 1 month old). So not supporting that one is not that bad.
Let's wait until that draft makes it into a final specification. - iMark, on 03/16/2009, -2/+11So far Apple have proven remarkably adept at keeping out of their own way during Webkit's development. I'm not just impressed with what they've accomplished, but extremely glad that there's another serious rendering engine in the web arena (and I say that as a web developer).
- waluigi14, on 03/16/2009, -1/+9Safari has adblock. I'm using it right now.
- celotil, on 03/16/2009, -0/+8Native support for VRML/X3D would be nice, but I doubt I'll see that happen now that CSS is getting "good enough" perspective-modifiable 2D, which I refuse to call 3D because 2D having it's perspective changed to look like it's 3D is definitely not the same as creating a 3D model and rendering it in real time.
If you want 3D, look at VRML/X3D. It's plain text, easy to read (although large models can get a bit complicated to follow without labels and includes), free for anyone to grab a renderer and start creating stuff, can be animated, and scriptable with Javascript.
It's been around for more than a decade and yet hardly anyone seems to have even looked at it, and no-one I've spoken to in person has ever heard of it. If computers hadn't been so slow at rendering it when it debuted maybe it would have taken off like HTML and CSS, but it didn't, and it makes me really ***** mad when tech like VRML is ignored for so long and then some complete ***** says,
"Oh, look! We're getting 3D on the web!"
We've HAD 3D on the web for a damn long time, everyone just ignored it.
And don't think that VRML is somehow lacking the ability to do certain 3D things and that's possibly why it never caught on. Parallel Graphics had some damn good examples of complex models on their site, including mirrored surfaces and ray tracing, but now they've gone so far commercial that it's purely a business for them - selling custom software built around VRML.
I even amused myself for an hour one day with a train set application a person had uploaded to the web. It was a 3D layout and train, the layout complete editable, and the train simply controlled with forwards and backyards, one speed. It was built with VRML, Javascript, and HTML.
CSS perspective-modifiable 2D is a good thing in itself I suppose, but it sure as ***** isn't 3D. We were given 3D on a silver platter and everyone said, "Oh, no thanks, that sucks." - Zippo, on 03/16/2009, -1/+8Gecko is already behind, unfortunalty :/
If there was a browser that looked, worked, and was expandable like Firefox, but used Webkit (and used a Cocoa API on OS X), I would cream my jeans.
Who knows, maybe Chrome for the Mac will be brilliant. - KAMiKAZOW, on 03/16/2009, -0/+7Rendering engines don't have Adblock. Neither WebKit, not Gecko.
You are confusing rendering engines with their front-ends (aka web browsers). - KAMiKAZOW, on 03/16/2009, -0/+6Flash sucks. Everywhere.
- drlha, on 03/16/2009, -5/+10Sadly you don't hold back on making ***** comments.
- FredFredrickson, on 03/16/2009, -4/+9Hey, welcome back to 1995!
- KAMiKAZOW, on 03/16/2009, -0/+4"I know that similar technology exists on Mozilla (not iAnything exclusive) for years."
Firefox has a new JavaScript/ECMAScript engine in the upcoming Firefox 3.5. It's not available since years.
"It is a proposition in fact and nobody decided on a standard yet."
Wrong. ECMAScript is a standard.
"Opera has even a better one using direct3d because OpenGL drivers on Windows suck."
JavaScript/ECMAScript has absolutely nothing to do with OpenGL or Direct 3D. - ilgaz, on 03/16/2009, -2/+6Something becomes standard if all 3, IE, Firefox and Webkit adopts it all in the same time period.
Back in 1990s we saw some great technologies. What happened to them? I even remember a 3d streamer which streamed animation sources allowing you to watch a 3d cartoon over 56K modem.
Also speaking of 3d, a GAME COMPANY managed to make Quicktime VR work in amazing speed and quality, Pangea Games. If Apple was serious about 3d, they would at least enhance Quicktime VR based on that invention. Poor VR sits there along with all the unused Quicktime architecture and people of course question why Quicktime is so big and bulky. You haven't seen the real Quicktime, that is why. It is used as Flash these days, embed the mov and that is it. - superkendall, on 03/16/2009, -1/+5VRML - been there, done that, threw away the T-shirt.
- KAMiKAZOW, on 03/16/2009, -0/+3WTF did digg do to my comment? Second try: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-3d-transforms/
- Digitalicious, on 03/16/2009, -2/+5Just because Webkit passes Acid 3 doesn't mean their ***** don't stink. Introducing major proprietary standards into rendering engines is what caused all of the compatibility problems we have today. Maybe if the W3C would quit dragging their asses and push out some specs into recommendation, we could make some God damned progress.
- BrendanSheehan, on 03/16/2009, -0/+3Not flash.
- NeoTechni, on 03/16/2009, -4/+7Seems like flash
- superkendall, on 03/16/2009, -0/+2What happened was they were pointless and made for sucky user experiences, and so rightfully they died.
- nikki2300dk, on 03/16/2009, -0/+2Amen.
- GlitchEnzo, on 03/16/2009, -0/+2I'm still waiting for the day when a web browser provides access to the GPU, thus allowing developers to write shaders that run in the browser.
- Almightymole, on 03/16/2009, -1/+3We are still waiting for the most used browser to catch up with W3C...
- KAMiKAZOW, on 03/16/2009, -0/+2CSS 3D is a draft for a W3C standard and not intended to be proprietary: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-3d-transforms/
- SteveMax, on 03/16/2009, -1/+3Yeah, compare that with the absolutely open process involving Gecko... /s
Seriously, there are long-standing bugs in Seamonkey that can't be fixed because they are only Gecko bugs that are exposed only through Seamonkey, and they are marked WONTFIX (or WORKSFORME) by Mozilla because they aren't exposed by Firefox. - Ttech2, on 03/16/2009, -0/+1It means that apple would need to either support other operating systems or open the code up to the masses.
- emoment, on 03/17/2009, -0/+1Ah crap and im just starting to get confident with Ajax.
- celotil, on 03/17/2009, -0/+1It _is_ vaguely like writing crippled OpenGL for the web, but it is more powerful than it at first appears.
I still play with it, and it sometimes still baffles me, but once you get the hang of LOD, Fog, and how sensors really work compared to the onscreen perspective, it's a lot less annoying. - n00bian, on 03/17/2009, -0/+1maybe....just maybe he wasnt talking about javascript but the 3D css stuff? ...
- ilgaz, on 03/16/2009, -0/+1Opera Blog, back from 2006
http://my.opera.com/WebApplications/blog/show.dml/ ...
At this year's XTech conference, Opera's CTO Håkon Wium Lie did a demo of a hardware accelerated 3d canvas context, as illustrated by the screenshots from a 3d snake implementation done by our own Mathieu 'p01' HENRI - emoment, on 03/17/2009, -0/+1Defiantly not flash.
- eihwaz, on 03/16/2009, -0/+1I worked with vrml for a couple months, and it's been one of the worst experiences i've ever had.
- Innovator9, on 03/17/2009, -0/+1When it comes to playing flash video on my Tiger MacBook, it already has. I have to switch from Firefox to Safari for this because it stutters and doesn't detect mouse movement in fullscreen on anything using Gecko.
- pamuckraker, on 04/14/2009, -0/+1Skype is the type of product that doesn't jive with either Apple or AT&T's business plans of monopolization. Neither will talk about the alleged federal violations regarding Skype on AT&T's wireless network. For more information on this issue, here is an article to read: http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/Iphone-S ...
- VitriolAndAngst, on 03/16/2009, -0/+1Considering that Google adopted webkit for the G-Phone, it sure doesn't bode well for Gecko, that's for sure.
- MacParrot, on 03/16/2009, -0/+1If different browsers can also use OpenGL, couldn't they also create similar rendering engines? I'm not a programmer so forgive me if I'm not saying this right. The point is that there should be no single browser. It didn't work well with IE and it won't work well for the future with WebKit. Competition always brings new and better choices.
- inactive, on 03/18/2009, -0/+1I want a 3D desktop that resembles a real desk. If I want to throw something away, I should be able to touch the document and drag it into the trash. If I want to look at my documents, I should be able to open a filing cabinet. If I want to shut down, I should be able to turn off the office lights.
- ilgaz, on 03/17/2009, -0/+1The stuff I have seen had great user interfaces. Or... They just had play and stop buttons.
- EMGroup, on 03/16/2009, -0/+1Wow webpages in 3D, how great would that be!
- sybersnake, on 03/17/2009, -0/+1I don't know about you but I don't want to be developing 3d web-experiences using CSS and JavaScript. I'd rather move to Argentina and sell beer.
- BMcClure937, on 03/16/2009, -4/+4Totally agreed, could not have said it any better myself!
- Stan57, on 03/18/2009, -0/+0This isnt new,AOL has been using something alot better for advertising for a while now. it uses viewpoint. you can move clothing and alot of other diffrent objects around to see all the sides in 3d. again Apple getting credet for something someone else has done and done a whole lot better.
- DCstewieG, on 03/16/2009, -2/+2I really doubt Apple changed their mind on native applications. They just wanted to take their time to do it right. From the numbers, I think they were quite successful.
- angusm, on 03/16/2009, -3/+3Is it a failure of imagination on my part that when I look at the demo video I think "Oooh, shiny!", but I don't think "Whole new class of desktop applications"?
- empskhc, on 03/17/2009, -0/+0I'm excited about Apple doing something new. It's been awhile since they have been really exciting. Especially in the Mac community. Those of use who have owned Macs for many years and been along for the whole ride have been more and more disappointed in the lackluster development on Mac hardware and software. Lots of incremental improvements but this is an area that could get people excited and talking.
- trollick, on 03/16/2009, -2/+1This page would be so awesome in 3D.
/s - VitriolAndAngst, on 03/16/2009, -2/+1People commenting about all the other web browsers on desktop computers (like Explorer) being the standard misses the point; Safari/Webkit is very close to becoming a standard on the Phone.
There are going to be a lot of companies that develop for the iPhone first, and then some desktop second. So, it's important that Apple push the envelope first on the phone -- but ONLY add things that are stable. Sure they can implement 3D in the browser, but if it needs to many resources or crashes the phone, it is worse for their future market share than not having it. Apple has to spend time and resources on everything they support.
The iPhone is changing the way people interact, because it is becoming a general purpose hand-held computing device. I've never really used a cookbook on a computer -- mainly because it's away from the kitchen, and to use it I need to print something out. Every step reduces the utility. An iPhone or iTouch, allows me to pull up a free or $2 cookbook, and have the recipes sitting right in front of me. An enterprising programmer, might allow you to enter how many portions you want, and then figure out how many ounces of each ingredient you need. So, it is handier than the computer, and better than a book. A lot of our tasks that computers are not used for, are all about having the information and computing power right where you are working. Laptops are still too big for this use. Every week, there is a new handy app that I never thought of, that can change the way I get something done.
This complaint that Apple is HOLDING BACK 3d is unfounded. They probably want to make it work across the board, or with more stability, before they unleash the feature, and allow time for other competitors to copy a great idea that is poorly implemented. Apple shouldn't release something so fundamental, until they have it bulletproof. Because the iTouch/iPhone platform, is fundamentally different from the desktop one. Everything needs to work immediately without fiddling. - williepepper, on 03/16/2009, -4/+2Another square for Keynote Bingo.
- inactive, on 03/16/2009, -4/+1Apple holds back on everything because otherwise their little cash cow upgrade tax structure wouldnt work.
- DyceFreak, on 03/16/2009, -4/+1Apple is notorious at isolating themselves... and NOT being the most popular... that's the whole gig. Besides, since when in computers do multiple developers of the same thing NOT steal the other's ideas? Its like all of you have forgotten how the computer business works.
-
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is