![]() |
2009-11-10
, 11:51
|
Posts: 183 |
Thanked: 18 times |
Joined on Jul 2009
@ italy
|
#31
|
![]() |
2009-11-10
, 14:03
|
|
Posts: 52 |
Thanked: 27 times |
Joined on Mar 2008
@ Berlin, Germany
|
#32
|
![]() |
2009-11-10
, 21:56
|
Posts: 183 |
Thanked: 18 times |
Joined on Jul 2009
@ italy
|
#33
|
![]() |
2009-11-11
, 03:49
|
|
Posts: 2,427 |
Thanked: 2,986 times |
Joined on Dec 2007
|
#34
|
![]() |
2009-11-11
, 05:21
|
Posts: 550 |
Thanked: 110 times |
Joined on Aug 2006
|
#35
|
![]() |
2009-11-11
, 05:53
|
Posts: 72 |
Thanked: 31 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Germany
|
#36
|
![]() |
2009-11-22
, 20:29
|
|
Posts: 600 |
Thanked: 742 times |
Joined on Sep 2008
@ England
|
#38
|
I really hope they get the speed soon to near the level of microb on n900.
![]() |
2009-11-27
, 02:04
|
Posts: 161 |
Thanked: 23 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#39
|
![]() |
2009-11-27
, 18:40
|
|
Posts: 698 |
Thanked: 129 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
@ CA
|
#40
|
Is that a realistic expectation?
They both use Mozilla code for the rendering engine, but (as I understand it) MicroB uses tight hand-coded C for the interface, while Mobile Firefox (Fennec) uses something more malleable (XUL and JavaScript) for its interface.
So isn't MicroB always going to be faster than Mobile Firefox?
Regards,
Roger