Re: Comparison: microB vs. Firefox Fennec
 

i like opera, i use it on my windows xp laptop and used it on my n97, altho iv never used a maemo device yet and by the looks of it micro-b really shines, so im sure there will be no need for opera.

Re: Comparison: microB vs. Firefox Fennec
 

I only need text wrapping at different zoom levels in MicroB then it would be perfect.

Re: Comparison: microB vs. Firefox Fennec
 

Opera Mini does still "turbo-proxying" i.e. tunnels all HTTP requests through a proxy server over on TCP/IP socket. This seriously improves loading performance.

Normally each HTTP request opens its own TCP/IP socket, each socket needs handshaking and there is serious latency issue with radio networks, pages load slow over 3G.

To have a special proxy server needs infrastructure, though. Opera is willing to invest, but I am not sure whether there exists any hackish solutions for open source community.

Re: Comparison: microB vs. Firefox Fennec
 

I agree! I find myself using large characters from options MicroB for some pages. In that case the page buildup isn't normal anymore. Gives bigger rendered text though...

Re: Comparison: microB vs. Firefox Fennec
 

Maybe a little OT but possibly relevant in future browser wars on our N9xx : I'm wondering what the future direction of Nokia will be on browser technology in further Fremantle and Hamattan releases as I seemed to have read somewhere that in QT 4.6 the webview component will be fully Webkit based.

Will there be 'space' to support and enhance the Gecko AND the Webkit engine on the same device ? As QT 4.6 is supposed to be the 'unifying' toolkit across platforms, will there not be a great push to use QT embedded webkit components ?
And maybe also deliver a full blow webkit browser, all in QT 4.6 technology ? Any ideas on this ? Or is this way too early, looking at the state of development of 4.6 to see a firm strategy developing ?

If the Webkit engine becomes so firmly embedded in the QT toolkit and QT is pushed hard enough by Nokia, given good feature, quality & speed (highly uncertain for now) then the Gecko based browsers might have a hard battle to fight ...

What about the upcoming WebRuntime technology, for 'easy' developments ? Will it use QT 4.6 underlying (and as such webkit) for it's web display needs ? Or will it be toolkit/browser agnostic ?

Feel free to label this too OT, I just tough it was appropriate in a browser comparison thread :)

Re: Comparison: microB vs. Firefox Fennec
 

Could one of you guys that has Fennec RC1 installed try stephenfry.com for me? MicroB cuts off the left of the page, and so did my N97's S60 browser.
Thanks.

Re: Comparison: microB vs. Firefox Fennec
 

One such page being talk.maemo.org :)

Re: Comparison: microB vs. Firefox Fennec
 

Qt is about WebKit and now you can already use WebKit component on N900.

However, I belive Nokia might want to position itself with Mozilla Foundation here. WebKit development is much controlled by Nokia's rivals Google and Apple and there might be a healthy reasons to have alternatives for WebKit when thinking about the future of web development.

Nokia also has shown that it is not very capable of creating good UI shell around the browser, no matter what the engine is.

But even without Nokia, Mozilla Foundation will pursuit developing Gecko engine as long as they have cash flowing in.

Re: Comparison: microB vs. Firefox Fennec
 

i cannot install fennec on my n900 for some unknown reason. has anyone else had any problems?

since it seems that the default browser is better anyway i am not too bothered yet. however, this is the first problem i have had and am curious to know what might be wrong.

thanks all