Andrew Luecke
Downloads: 0
Posts: 3
Smile Score: 0
About Me
I am a Free member


Visit Stats
Last Visit: 6 years ago
Member Since: 08 Sep 2008
Profile Views: 271

Andrew Luecke's Posts
Average Rating from Andrew:

sort: smiles | time
burypromote
auzy83 commented on 08 Nov 2007
I really hate to shoot down a fellow developer, especially a newbie, but in this case, I'm afraid I have to point a few things out.. Everyone is right, its a cocoa interface to Webkit. And the only thing gained is 9MB of ram tops.

===================

So summary first:
- You saved 9MB of ram (nothing really) in very basic tests.
- Both browsers load the same speed because its Apple doing your rendering. Yes, its webkit, proof is below. No, its not standalone, webkit does all your heavy lifting.
- Safari is 10x more usable.
- Yours uses more ram when there are popups, and has no popup blocking.
- Yours stalls while downloading with a spinning beachball.
- You dont have more then 1 language.
- Without tabbing built in, its easy to say you dont use much ram, but yours is using 105MB now, while safari has dozens of pages open, and only is using 60 atm. I'm not convinced that yours is freeing memory properly..



Find me a single person who claims this runs faster on their computer, and I'll show them how an extra 64mb of ram on their pismo can make things seem so much faster, in fact equally faster in both browsers. Otherwise, show me proof of its superiority.

And yes, I agree with the others, posting pre-alpha code to MacUpdate is a bad idea. I also think u need some genuinely good ideas, before it will make it worth it. Maximum memory you can save is 25MB maybe, and your memory usage will only increase dramatically, and your speed decrease as you add features

Sorry dood, but for a training exercise, making a web-browser is a great idea. In the real world though, unless u work flat out on it or fork webkit, u will have trouble finding a userbase.

And I honestly don't mean to hurt your feelings or anything. (We were all newbies at some point of time).

====================

Proof 1:Check your user agent. It comes up as "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/523.10.3 (KHTML, like Gecko)".



Proof 2: Show package contents and look inside the binary using textedit. You will see /System/Library/Frameworks/Cocoa.framework/Versions/A/Cocoa
[Version 0.7]


2 Replies

burypromote
auzy83 replied on 08 Nov 2007
It looks like a lot was cut off.

And yes, you were banging on about how your browser was standalone, and how Webkit was compiled into your browser, while it was actually dynamically linked.


But like I said, any page with popups (especially since popups normally use flash) essentially use a significant more ram then with safari. And in fact, not adding popup blocking in a way is a security risk, and you run the risk of recursive popups that crash the browser and computer (and yes, I have seen it happen before).

And my point being is that when you start adding even basic stuff like threading to fix the download issues (and btw, I believe "Application not responding" while downloading says alot), uses more and more ram.

And you were saying it is really light, but once you add other languages, the file size will significantly increase the app size, like safari.



So, I'm saying in real world usage, you save a maximum of 9MB of ram, but are more likely to use a significant amount more overall. And when your browser actually becomes usable, you will start using more and more ram. One of my tests showed your browser using 100mb of ram, while safari was using 50mb (a bug I suspect)

I want you to prove.. POST PROOF of why you think your browser is a lot lighter then safari, or evidence of it!

Do you honestly believe that Apple's enormously massive team of safari programmers, do not know how to program a browser, considering they have been targetting safari for efficiency and speed.

Furthermore, have you even touched Dtrace for profiling your application? Because I guarantee, Apple has, and so you can pretty much guarentee that safari has barely any memory leaks (if any at all, in leopard ObjC 2.0 fixes that anyway), and they know how to keep memory usage minimal.


So answer this... Do you believe you are better then Apples programmers? And have you got any evidence with real world testing that your app is more efficient then 9MB.

Because my tests show otherwise.
burypromote
auzy83 replied on 09 Nov 2007
I'm not sure what the other guy was cracking on about.

I just replied to this thread because I know from experience... My first major project was a system called driver on demand (an auto driver downloader for linux). In fact, it even became part of an o'reilly article. Unfortunately, I had never properly researched it in its inital stage, and so it turned out systems by dell and others were doing a similar thing, so after spending 2 weeks on it continuously, I dropped the project at the end because nobody accepted it. There was only 1 distribution that even considered it

Which is why I suggested you severely look at the benefits, or the same thing will happen here. There are hundreds of webkit browsers out now, and it needs to have a real purpose to take off..

One suggestion to make it take off though, is add a bonjour type thing, so you can share bookmarks over the network or something. Apple wont do that on safari without .mac (because they make money from it). Its got to have 1 killer app feature, or it will turn out like my project. Even after all the arguments though with people, i never regretted doing it, even if I did get dissed a lot on slashdot.
There are currently no troubleshooting comments by this member.

Displaying 1-1 of 1
Please login or create a new
MacUpdate Member account
to use this feature


- -