Firefox 3.5.3
Marty
Looks great! Even ogg-theora video is working. The OS/2 version is
working better than the version I run for my 64-bit Linux machine
(ogg-theora video just poops out there after a second or too).
Nice job to the OS/2 porters!
--
[Reverse the parts of the e-mail address to reply.]
tho...@antispam.ham
> Even ogg-theora video is working.
I've not encountered any videos in that format. You have a
favorite site with some samples?
Percival P. Cassidy
> Just noticed that Firefox 3.5.3 is out for OS/2. Grabbed and tried it.
> Looks great! Even ogg-theora video is working. The OS/2 version is
> working better than the version I run for my 64-bit Linux machine
> (ogg-theora video just poops out there after a second or too).
>
> Nice job to the OS/2 porters!
Are you able to view YouTube videos? Other Web sites that use Flash?
Which version of Flash do you use Or....?
Perce
Peter Brown
Dave Yeo
Wikipedia uses ogg as well
Dave
Marty
I was looking at some on the Mozilla web site, like this one:
http://en-us.www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/video/
Marty
I gave up on trying to use modern Flash on OS/2. I think the only
approach that could work would be an updated Odin (which we don't have).
Mentore
Flash 10 for eCS is a WIP, currently in very good beta status. There
are some issues though, but it's coming. And yes: this comes with a
renewed ODIN.
Mentore
Dave Yeo
> I gave up on trying to use modern Flash on OS/2. I think the only
> approach that could work would be an updated Odin (which we don't have).
Actually there is one in the svn repositry on netlabs. Unluckily it is
closed right now with the promise of being reopened when Flash 10 is stable.
Dave
Marty
Cheers to that! And best of luck to them. An updated Odin could give
us a lot of new life.
--
Reverse the parts of the e-mail address to reply by mail.
Marcel Müller
Marty wrote:
> Cheers to that! And best of luck to them. An updated Odin could give
> us a lot of new life.
I would not spend too much hope to Odin. If it is updated only for Flash
most likely no much other new applications will run with it.
There is far too much to do with odin. Running an VM is definitely more
efficient for most prposes.
Marcel
Marcel Müller
Marty wrote:
> I gave up on trying to use modern Flash on OS/2. I think the only
> approach that could work would be an updated Odin (which we don't have).
the flv-videos play with mplayer. However, you have to manage to
download them.
Marcel
Marty
How is it more efficient to virtualize an entire machine as opposed to
just translating executables and libraries and executing native code?
--
[Reverse the parts of the e-mail address to reply.]
Marcel Müller
Marty wrote:
>> I would not spend too much hope to Odin. If it is updated only for
>> Flash most likely no much other new applications will run with it.
>> There is far too much to do with odin. Running an VM is definitely
>> more efficient for most prposes.
>
> How is it more efficient to virtualize an entire machine as opposed to
> just translating executables and libraries and executing native code?
what is your definition of efficient?
With respect to CPU power the other way around is likely to be more
effective.
However, with respect to men power the VM is the easier approach. The
emulated hardware has by far smaller interfaces than the Win32 API.
And that's what its all about.
Marcel
tho...@antispam.ham
>> Marty wrote:
>>> Even ogg-theora video is working.
>> I've not encountered any videos in that format. You have a
>> favorite site with some samples?
> I've been using SeamonkeyV2 with this as my "test" site http://tinyvid.tv/
I tried some with the Firefox 3.7 pre-alpha, and some of them
worked. I encountered one that showed the video, but remained
silent throughout, even though there was clearly a person
talking in the video. And I encountered another that played
sound, but never showed any sort of video.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> Even ogg-theora video is working.
>> I've not encountered any videos in that format. You have a
>> favorite site with some samples?
> I was looking at some on the Mozilla web site, like this one:
> http://en-us.www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/video/
The biggest problem that I noticed with those videos is that
after clicking on one of them, I'd get a fraction of a second
of audio/video, then I'd get the "buffering" or "loading" icon,
and after a delay, the audio/video would continue. Why not just
wait until the content has been sufficiently buffered or loaded
before starting?
Marty
I usually see a pregnant pause before it starts here, and then it starts
up and continues smoothly. Perhaps it is estimating the amount of
buffering needed by the initial transfer rate? Many ISPs these days
provide really high initial throughput which drops off rather radically
a second or two later.
--
Reverse the parts of the e-mail address to reply by mail.
Marty
Understood and agreed. Manpower is the much more scarce commodity in
the OS/2 community. It is nice to be able to side-step Windows
licensing requirements though, which you can't (legally) do with a VM.
--
Reverse the parts of the e-mail address to reply by mail.
Marcel Müller
>> However, with respect to men power the VM is the easier approach. The
>> emulated hardware has by far smaller interfaces than the Win32 API.
>> And that's what its all about.
>
> Understood and agreed. Manpower is the much more scarce commodity in
> the OS/2 community. It is nice to be able to side-step Windows
> licensing requirements though, which you can't (legally) do with a VM.
Well, there are many Windows licenses around. Usually you can capture
one for the VM. For this purpose they could be quite old. W2k is
probably sufficient for most purposes in the VM since you are decoupled
from the need of recent drivers. Furthermore it uses much less memory
than XP and newer Win-Versions.
Marcel
Marty
> Marty wrote:
>>> However, with respect to men power the VM is the easier approach. The
>>> emulated hardware has by far smaller interfaces than the Win32 API.
>>> And that's what its all about.
>>
>> Understood and agreed. Manpower is the much more scarce commodity in
>> the OS/2 community. It is nice to be able to side-step Windows
>> licensing requirements though, which you can't (legally) do with a VM.
>
> Well, there are many Windows licenses around. Usually you can capture
> one for the VM.
Hehe... the way you phrased this actually gave rise to an interesting
idea in my twisted mind. What if a community of people got together and
bought a pool of Windows licenses that we shared on an as-needed basis?
We wouldn't all be using them all the time, since we're booting other
OSs. It would be hard to satisfy MS that we're on the up-and-up (not
multi-using a single license) but it's an interesting model I think.
> For this purpose they could be quite old. W2k is
> probably sufficient for most purposes in the VM since you are decoupled
> from the need of recent drivers. Furthermore it uses much less memory
> than XP and newer Win-Versions.
True to a point. Some of the more recent APIs rely on more recent
driver interfaces. The best example I can think of is DirectX. I don't
think there's any way to get even DX9 apps running on W2k reliably.
Whereas I'm able to run these in Wine today.
--
[Reverse the parts of the e-mail address to reply.]
Marcel Müller
> Marcel M�ller wrote:
>>> Understood and agreed. Manpower is the much more scarce commodity in
>>> the OS/2 community. It is nice to be able to side-step Windows
>>> licensing requirements though, which you can't (legally) do with a VM.
>>
>> Well, there are many Windows licenses around. Usually you can capture
>> one for the VM.
>
> Hehe... the way you phrased this actually gave rise to an interesting
> idea in my twisted mind. What if a community of people got together and
> bought a pool of Windows licenses that we shared on an as-needed basis?
MS will not grant you to do so.
But depending on the country where you live, MS may not restrict a
windows license to the first customer that bought it. So there is a
market with used licences. But in other countries this restriction is
permitted.
>> For this purpose they could be quite old. W2k is probably sufficient
>> for most purposes in the VM since you are decoupled from the need of
>> recent drivers. Furthermore it uses much less memory than XP and newer
>> Win-Versions.
>
> True to a point. Some of the more recent APIs rely on more recent
> driver interfaces. The best example I can think of is DirectX. I don't
> think there's any way to get even DX9 apps running on W2k reliably.
I think there is no DX9 application that runs in a VM reasonably. There
are only very few VMs that can virtualize 3D graphics hardware
reasonably using guest extensions. And since usually multiple VMs run at
the same host and you do not have an appropriate number of graphics
devices, it is almost useless anyway.
> Whereas I'm able to run these in Wine today.
Wine is an emulation layer, no VM.
Marcel